This is really interesting:
http://www.slate.com/id/2286432/

Interesting. I wonder if the corporate policies are also shaped by the nature of the core products that each company offers. Facebook may realize that it's a potential victim to the same forces that shape other social fads. On the other hand, Google (primarily an internet search company) and Twitter (a cell phone-based messaging service) are more likely to be around in ten years, so if they do something like oppose an oppressive regime they may benefit in the long run (when the oppressive regime is hopefully replaced by a less oppressive one who allows things like internet freedom.

For Facebook I can imagine it's all about the short term. Piss off a foreign government and you lose eyeballs in that country this month, not good. Things may change in a couple of years but Facebook may not be the powerhouse that it is today.

The article neglects to mention that before Google pulled out of China, they were assisting the government in suppressing search results.

I agree with the author about the Twittter exec's statement. Sometimes you can go too far in overstating the importance of these services.

Watch the Glenn Beck video about not using Google, very funny.

Woah!
Don't forget (okay, arguably in part due to the logistical difficulties)
being asked to do that is the very reason they pulled out.
Just as they were preparing to launch the Google-phone there as well.
(And the article DOES state this!)

I have a lot of respect for Google for doing that.
No idea how it played out for them in the end.

I would say the attempts at hacking into Gmail (eventually traced to Chinese government facilities) were the primary catalyst for Google withdrawing, but they cooperated with the government requests for censorship for four years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China

Google got a lot of pressure from American users about this, and they eventually got back to their "do no evil" policy, but it took a little while.

Ultimately they did the right thing, that's something that can't be said for most international corporations.
Say, for example, Shell or Coca Cola.

Well, the reason why Internet companies must respond right away—and with logic and tact—is they exist in the exact same medium that can kill them if folks backlash. The Internet is a medium that benefits from other Internet companies, but it can survive without it.

The deal with Shell or Coca Cola is folks often don't have a viable choice even if they seek out alternatives. Gas prices rule where one buys gas. Ditto with cheap soda. And in the case of Coca Cola, you don't even have to purchase their flagship product to buy something from them: They own more than a few juice sellers and such.

Heh, Coca Cola were "CocaCola-Cadbury-Schweppes" last time I looked,
which was about 20 yrs ago,
and maybe a third of the canned-drink vending machines in Japan belong to them now as well.

In an ideal world, I'd honestly like to see a complete boycott of China,
and outsourcing to places like India & Brazil instead.
In part because I think that, having paid for them, we deserve to see at least ONE nuke go off in our lifetimes.

"Cooperating with the government" sounds a lot better than "assisting" them though Roger.
If you'll concede that the g-mail hacks were the "last straw" rather than the "primary catalyst",
I'll let it go.

I still respect them.
They seem to at least try to do the right thing, as backtrack said.
Not like Zuckerberg.
That kid's got "c*nt" written all over his face.

(Inb4: "takes one to know one")