Meanwhile, a leading US Senator said he plans to introduce legislation punishing companies that cave in to censorship demands.
Illinois senator Richard Durbin said he plans to introduce a bill that would penalise Internet companies that violate customers' human rights at the demand of foreign governments. The Democrat made the announcement, but offered few specifics, beyond saying that civil or even criminal penalties might be involved.
This is a wonderful thing as US tech companies have a pretty sad record of protecting their overseas business at the expense of their customers' human rights. The bill appears to target search engine and social networking companies particularly.
"I recognise that the technology industry faces difficult challenges when they deal with repressive governments," Durbin said. "But we have a responsibility in the United States, and Congress shares in that responsibility, to ensure that American companies are not complicit in violating freedom of expression."
Durbin spoke at a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law. Several companies were invited to present during the hearing, including Twitter, Facebook, McAfee - as well as Apple, which was recently hit by a scandal involving reports that underage workers have been used to build the company's products.
Of those invited, only Google agreed to appear.
On the WTO front, the Obama Administration is reportedly considering whether to fight China in front of the World Trade Organization, where it would have to defend its actions publicly. The US would charge that China's censorship is a barrier to free trade.
If used, this novel approach would be similar to the way law enforcement sometimes battles criminal rackets using charges not directly related to the primary crime (think Al Capone or the RICO statute).
Taken together, these actions - both at the discussion stage right now - show that at least some in the US government want Internet companies to do a better job of representing American values in their overseas businesses.
The downside of this, of course, is the likelihood that some US companies might lose business to foreign competitors that are willing to heed the demands of repressive regimes.
There is also the idea, which Google has previously favoured, that remaining engaged with a repressive government is ultimately a better way to change its behaviour than pulling out would be.
Google's stance against China has seemed to soften lately, though a WTO action by the US government would put China is the position of looking bad on the global stage.
The threat of a WTO complaint might be enough to get China to work more cooperatively with Google, though that certainly must remain to be seen.