There's a major problem with this. Actions are what decide the values of an individual or a company. Nearly all horrible actions throughout history were certainly rationalized by at least one actor as reasonable and just, if not outright good. I've no doubt that your rationalization is likely similar to the rationalizations that the numerous US companies (IBM, Coke, Ford, Bayer, GM, Chase, etc) used when deciding to aid and support the Nazis.
Of course in hindsight you judge these companies not by their rationalizations, but by their actions. And this is how it should be. Rationalizations or Machiavellianism are ironically myopic. The means (or rationalizations) do not justify the ends. The ends are rarely predictable and often are far different than what we may ever expect. By contrast we live, each and every day, through the direct consequences of the means. Many people find China's actions morally dubious, and Google is now directly engaging in behavior that will, at the minimum, enhance the ability of Chinese authorities to track and 'handle' individuals who run afoul of state interests. These actions are what inform you of Google's values.
Of course in hindsight you judge these companies not by their rationalizations, but by their actions. And this is how it should be. Rationalizations or Machiavellianism are ironically myopic. The means (or rationalizations) do not justify the ends. The ends are rarely predictable and often are far different than what we may ever expect. By contrast we live, each and every day, through the direct consequences of the means. Many people find China's actions morally dubious, and Google is now directly engaging in behavior that will, at the minimum, enhance the ability of Chinese authorities to track and 'handle' individuals who run afoul of state interests. These actions are what inform you of Google's values.