That's not what cultural relativism is and that's not why Google is thinking about taking this step.
They are thinking about taking this step because:
a) they are a business, China is a huge potential market they will lose if they don't try to compete for it, and
b) they believe their product does good in the world, and therefore they think a partial good (partial access to Google) is better than no good (no access to Google).
Whether b) is true or not is obviously in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think it's closer to a rationalization of a) than a sober evaluation of the objective truth.
For those wondering what cultural relativism actually is, it is a useful mental tool for thinking about the evolution of cultures other than your own. It is not moral relativism, nor is it a hatred of the west.
>they believe their product does good in the world
Perhaps, but good, for whom? It is useful to ask "What class of people benefits? Who is harmed?" and is the net change worse that if we did not meddle? Does it give power to some, at the expense of others?
They are thinking about taking this step because:
a) they are a business, China is a huge potential market they will lose if they don't try to compete for it, and
b) they believe their product does good in the world, and therefore they think a partial good (partial access to Google) is better than no good (no access to Google).
Whether b) is true or not is obviously in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think it's closer to a rationalization of a) than a sober evaluation of the objective truth.
For those wondering what cultural relativism actually is, it is a useful mental tool for thinking about the evolution of cultures other than your own. It is not moral relativism, nor is it a hatred of the west.