Now that I am thinking more about my Google post, I am thinking about Brin's regret. If that choice was "a net negative," why not change their own policy?

It seems Sergey Brin over at Google now regrets his company's involvement of censoring in China. The Guardian reports that the Google motto "Don't be evil" seems somewhat problematic regarding this situation. Brin is quoted as saying: "On a business level, that decision to censor… was a net negative."

So, censoring is negative for business, but it is still acceptable according to Google's Code of Conduct? This states (with the text in bold being my emphasis of their actual words):

Our informal corporate motto is "Don't be evil." We Googlers generally relate those words to the way we serve our users – as well we should. But being "a different kind of company" means more than the products we make and the business we're building; it means making sure that our core values inform our conduct in all aspects of our lives as Google employees.

The Google Code of Conduct is the code by which we put those values into practice. This document is meant for public consumption, but its most important audience is within our own walls. This code isn't merely a set of rules for specific circumstances but an intentionally expansive statement of principles meant to inform all our actions; we expect all our employees, temporary workers, consultants, contractors, officers and directors to study these principles and do their best to apply them to any and all circumstances which may arise.

The core message is simple: Being Googlers means striving toward the highest possible standard of ethical business conduct. This is a matter as much practical as ethical; we hire great people who work hard to build great products, but our most important asset by far is our reputation as a company that warrants our users' faith and trust. That trust is the foundation upon which our success and prosperity rests, and it must be re-earned every day, in every way, by every one of us.

So please do read this code, and then read it again, and remember that as our company evolves, The Google Code of Conduct will evolve as well. Our core principles won't change, but the specifics might, so a year from now, please read it a third time. And always bear in mind that each of us has a personal responsibility to do everything we can to incorporate these principles into our work, and our lives.

While business is business and revolves around increasing value for stockholders, I am still bothered by how they are interpreting this with their censorship. How is a statement of principles, even one which they rightly acknowledge evolves over time, aimed at one set of users (Chinese authorities) while the end-users (those who use the Google services themselves) are manipulated by finding changed results from the searches? 

Google claims, in Serving Our Users:

Google has always flourished by serving the interests of our users first and foremost. Our goal is to build products that organize the world's information and make it accessible to our users.

I suppose Google is selective in providing which information to which users. With Google dominating Web searches, at least in the US, I am increasingly concerned that Google will begin tampering with their censorship here as well for causes or sites or concerns or issues they want to promote. After all, their service is to use, so they do not technically owe end-users anything. They are free to organize "the world's information" in any way they choose. This has interesting implications for maintaining the power they now have, especially for those to whom they choose should benefit from it.

What is to stop them, as they now have a track record?