Tech and despots: How should techies deal with despots? Vodafone suspended its Egyptian service after demands from the authorities. Google, on the other hand, chose to pull back in China in the face of pressure to censor search results. There are no easy answers as to how to deal with autocratic governments. But being transparent about a company's actions helps everybody.
There are obvious constraints. Companies must abide by the law. In autocratic regimes, of course, the rule of law is effectively whatever is decreed. Vodafone simply didn't have the option to keep its service running in Egypt: the government could have just pulled the plug and possibly stripped its license. In cases where the rule of law is backed by an independent judiciary, companies have a bit more leeway to stand up to bullying officials.
True, Vodafone could have exited Egypt altogether. But it's not obvious that Egyptians would have been any better off if the company gave the finger to authorities. Threatening to withdraw would scarcely have helped Vodafone continue operating.
There may be a perceived conflict between a principled stance and commercial reality. But that might not always be the case. Where a company faces state pressure to act in a way that threatens its values or damages its reputation, then exiting a market could well make sense on every level. In China, for example, Google had to deal with interference in ongoing business. That wasn't just repugnant to its executives. Censorship meant the company was explicitly presenting bad search results. That could have hurt the company's reputation, and ultimately its revenue, in developed markets, which are far larger.
Whether a company should obey or walk away will depend on the circumstances. But after the unrest in Tunisia and Egypt, telecoms and Internet firms should be prepared to make some difficult decisions. Other autocratic regimes may yet decide to clamp down on communications networks to try to nip any groundswell of resistance in the bud.
Companies' actions won't always be readily understood. Their decisions may risk a backlash among staff, customers and shareholders. Transparency around the reasons for staying or going will be critical.
