Asia, Politics, Security, Tech, World Affairs

Google’s China Ambitions Threaten U.S. National Security

A month before the 2024 elections the Chinese dictator issues an ultimatum to the U.S. president:

Abandon defense of Taiwan or Google will politically destroy you. If your navy does not immediately leave the Taiwan Strait, Google’s algorithms will send each American the news articles that would make them the most likely to vote against your party.

But why, you might ask, would Google ever help China blackmail the American president?  Google has probably discussed altering search results to influence U.S. elections. The tech giant is also probably willing to censor information in China as the price of admission to that country’s market. It doesn’t seem too great a leap forward to imagine Google biasing search results in the U.S. to appease the Chinese Communist Party. While today China might be satisfied putting spy chips on hardware used by American tech companies, in the future it could use its economic power to dictate what these businesses do during times of international crisis.

I don’t blame Google for being willing to bend its ethical standards to operate in authoritarian countries.  The Chinese Communist Party is going to censor its citizen’s Internet access regardless of what Google does, so Google won’t be the cause of Chinese citizens being denied full access to humanity’s online knowledge. Plus, Google needs China a lot more than the Chinese government needs Google.

The search market is dominated by what economists call “economies of scale” where the bigger you get the lower your costs per customer are.  The research costs of creating better search can be spread over all your customers, so the more customers you have the more such research you can finance. If Google only cared about continuing its command of the U.S. search market, it would still desperately want to be in China because if it couldn’t profit from selling Chinese eyeballs to advertisers while a competitor could, this competitor would have an economy of scale size advantage that might well allow it to beat Google in western markets. China’s real ultimatum to Google is not “do what we say or keep out” but “bend the knee or we will give your rivals a huge leg up on you in all markets.”

Economies of scale might prevent a market-based solution to Chinese interference in the U.S. information market. Let’s say that Google does give in to occasional Chinese demands, the public finds out, and most Americans disapprove.  Pretend that an American rival to Google proudly offers a search engine that ignores the dictates of China. Unfortunately, this rival’s limited worldwide market share means it invests less in research and development. Most of the time, and on most topics, therefore, Google search does do a better job of getting you the information that you want, and so even Americans who know and dislike how Google biases its search results end up sticking with Google.

Academia shows China’s willingness to leverage access to influence what Americans learn about.  Lots of American professors need to conduct research in China to work in their areas of expertise. As Isaac Stone Fish at the New Republic writes: “There is an epidemic of self-censorship at U.S. universities on the subject of China, one that limits debate and funnels students and academics away from topics likely to offend the Chinese Communist Party.” An American historian of China claims “I frequently hear graduate students and younger scholars—people with academic jobs but pre-tenure—being advised not to explore sensitive subjects in their research, so they can preserve visa access.”  If China is willing to bully graduate students away from writing mildly anti-Chinese academic articles that almost no one will read, do you doubt that China would do everything it could to push Google to act in a way vital to China’s perceived national security interests?

What can we do about China’s potential future ability to harm American politicians through influencing Internet companies that operate in both China and the United States?  Using antitrust laws to break up these businesses wouldn’t help because even if there was no single search giant, every American search company would still desperately want access to the Chinese market.  China can get what it wants from American scholars who must occasionally work in China, even though no one university has a large share of such researchers.

Regulating Google’s algorithms to prevent foreign interference also seems hopeless. Because search programs must be continually changed, no government agency would have the competence to judge whether they are being biased by Chinese pressure.

A drastic solution could be to forbid Google, or any company that wants to do business in the U.S. search market from also operating in a dictatorship. The Australian government has decided to ban a Chinese smartphone maker from access to its 5G wireless network over national security concerns.

Everyone expects that the Chinese government would be willing to use this firm to advance Chinese national security interests because all nations including (especially?) the United States force firms they have power over to serve their foreign policy ends. Perhaps the only way to protect the free world’s Internet is to wall it off from Chinese influence.

A less drastic solution would be to impose some general limits on tech giants’ ability to censor. Perhaps on their social media platforms they could lose the ability to ban speech that doesn’t violate U.S. law. This way, while China could push YouTube to not highlight videos criticizing human rights abuses in Tibet, it couldn’t compel Google to treat them like Alex Jones.

We have let China manufacture much of the world’s mobile phones and personal computers, and China appears to have used this opportunity to hide spy chips on hardware probably allowing it to gather data on numerous western companies.  China’s influence over Google, a key organizer of information for the free world, won’t go well for us especially if we don’t reduce Google’s ability to bias its information in favor of what the powers that be at Google desire.


James D. Miller is a professor of economics at Smith College and the host of the Future Strategist podcast.  He is @JimDMiller on Twitter.


  1. Greg H says

    China is not Google’s biggest market, nor is it even close. This is an instance where the libertarian argument that companies will police themselves to protect their future earnings is glaring. These concerns – that China could influence the Us via direct pressure on Google – are misplaced.

    Further, much of Google’s most cutting edge AI is open source (Tensorflow). These technologies are available, and the best thing for Google and the US is to gain influence in the regions we don’t fully trust.

    • Google execs and the Chinese communist Party are ideologically aligned. Google wants to work with china to learn authoritarian ways that later they can use to implement their cultural Marxist utopia enforcement here in the US.

  2. Chip says

    What is lurking under articles like this is something long considered un-possible.

    Namely, that repressive dictatorships can out produce free nations, and use their wealth to impose their own order on the world.

    China, Russia, the Saudi Kingdom among others, have long found ways to bribe or bully free nations into silence or submission.
    Sometimes it is overt, but often is is more subtle, like establishing well funded institutions that promote their idea and image, hiring lobbyists to curry favor with the government.

    It can even be merely establishing themselves as an indispensable partner and forcing us to make resistance painful and expensive for us..

    • Jamie says

      @Chip in the field of AI and ML, where you need data to train, the lack of privacy in authoritarian regimes provides a massive advantage over the privacy-obsessed west. All the more reason we need our companies in China, and better technologies to anonymize data for Western consumers, enabling Western companies to learn more.

    • TarsTarkas says

      Show me where a repressive dictatorship has outproduced a free nation, and I will show you falsified or unverifiable statistics. Totalitarian nations by their very nature are both secretive and heavily compartmentalized; that and the dog-eat-dog nature of continuous ongoing power struggles within the apparatus of government curb the free flow of ideas that might spur innovation and thus economic growth. This is why China has for decades now resorted to intellectual theft and transshipments of raw materials and half-finished goods to bypass tariffs to keep the economy going. If China attacks Taiwan, it will be out of desperation to rally the people, not a triumph of the new hegemon of the world over the world.

    • Heike says

      Blame our elites who let China into the WTO. It was a horrible, horrible decision and it proves we cannot trust their judgment. It’s right up there with their decision to invade Iraq.

    • (I’m the author.) I think this has the most potential to be true with genetic engineering. What if China mandates genetic engineering for intelligence while the west restricts or heavy regulates it, and it turns out that such genetic engineering is extremely useful in producing productive citizens?

    • China found ways to extract wealth from the US using IPO-theft, trade/tariff imbalance and currency manipulation. The Saudis have oil that was discovered and extracted by the British back then.
      Both of these would fell into miserable poverty without the ability to extract wealth from the west.

  3. If you are so worried, 1) Stop using google and help competitors. The idea that you can support a company that goes against your ideals suggests hypocrisy, or perhaps the notion that you don’t feel google is misbehaving. 2) Use AI (or old fashioned people/researchers) to compare results from different search engines looking for bias and report it. Being caught doing evil will produce useful results compared to “what ifs.”

  4. Cluebat says

    Google should be considered a strategic national asset, and regulated as such.

    • Morgan says

      How well has that worked for established media (i.e., TV networks, newspapers)?

  5. Cluebat says

    Clinton gave China the keys to the kingdom when he enabled them to steal the secrets that they needed in order to build an effective SLBM program. Trump should prevent the same from happening with AI.

  6. Circuses and Bread says

    Another example of the extremes we’ll go to to protect a failed pro-politics paradigm.

    How about a new and different idea: depoliticizing public life so if the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians, or any other regime will have less raw material to play with.

    There is an old saw that goes like this: don’t put all your eggs in one basket. When we put a political spin on damn near everything, we’re making damn near everything subject to the risks of politics. At what point do we question whether politics is a way to achieve beneficial ends in a society in the first place?

  7. Filius Roma says

    Oh boy. Hyperbole and fearmongering coming from a crusty old white dude. Colour me surprised. I like what China is doing. Somebody has to challenge the anglocentric world order.

  8. Pingback: Google censors at every level—it’s just what they do « Jack Yan: the Persuader Blog

  9. Glen Raphael says

    Bloomberg’s claim that China “hid spy chips” is almost certainly false. If those chips existed somebody should have been able to independently verify it, we’d have *actual* pictures rather than “this is what it might look like” mockups, and Apple and Amazon would have been less confident in their statements disagreeing. Bloomberg got played; somebody must have been fed a story that seemed too good or too difficult to check.

Comments are closed.