Google's Shareholders Vote Against Human Rights

yo_cruyff notes a Computerworld article on Google's recent annual shareholder meeting, which was dominated by argument over the company's human rights policies. Google's shareholders, on advice from their board, have voted down two proposals on Thursday that would have compelled Google to change its policies. "Google [has been] coming under fire for operating a version of its search engine that complies with China's censorship rules. Google argues that it's better for it to have a presence in the country and to offer people some information, rather than for it not to be active in China at all... [S]hareholders and rights groups including Amnesty International... continue to push Google to improve its policies in countries known for human rights abuses and limits on freedom of speech... Sergey Brin, cofounder and president of technology for Google, abstained from voting on either of the proposals. 'I agreed with the spirit of these proposals,' Brin said. But he said he didn't fully support them as they were written, and so did not want to vote for them."

kdawson

[by Anonymous Coward]

is a troll.

+5, Informative.

Re:kdawson

[by Anonymous Coward]

The parent is modded as flamebait but has a good point. There are sufficient complexities to this story that the choice of title by kdawson should be viewed as somewhat sensationalist.\

Re:kdawson

[Enderandrew (866215)]

I completely agree. I don't feel that Google's position is unquestionable, but it is certainly understandable. They either abide by the law in China, or pull out completely. China would likely prefer that Google pull out, as it would aid the Chinese economy and growth of Baidu. In that regard, I can certainly understand why Google feels it is better to create inroads.

Breaking Chinese law isn't much of an option for a mega-corporation.

Re:kdawson

[flyingsquid (813711)]

OK, let's say, just for arguments sake, that deciding to engage in business with China is "voting against human rights".

How many times a week do you, personally, engage in business with China, in the form of purchasing or using Chinese goods? If you're reading this on a MacBook, for instance, you're engaging in business with China (made in China). Listening to an iPod? Same deal. Shopped at Wal-Mart any time in the past year? Odds are you bought something made in China. An extraordinary amount of the consumer goods in the world- not just the United States, but even dirt-poor nations in Africa- are manufactured in China. I'm not saying that Google is entirely innocent here, but how many of us could be considered to be "voting against human rights" with our purchases?

Even assuming we could stop buying Chinese goods (I'm skeptical), however, would it do any good? Look at Cuba. We've largely isolated the Castro regime, but Castro was, I believe, the longest reigning leader of the past century, and the country remained virtually unaffected. The embargo failed to destabilize or change the Cuban regime, if anything it secured Castro's lock on power by insulating the country from outside forces, and allowed the regime to persist unaltered by the outside world. Engaging with a corrupt, repressive totalitarian state like China is distasteful, but it may do more to help the people of China than taking the moral high road and refusing to engage.

Re:kdawson

[DrgnDancer (137700)]

You know... I almost meta-moderated this post to try and get the "Troll" removed. The only thing that stopped me was the fact that he accused the editor, rather than the story. I don't know enough about the editor's history to support calling everything he does a troll. This particular story, on the other hand, is about as trolling and biased as I've seen. One could certainly argue that Google's share holders made the wrong decision here, but there's a pretty good argument the other way too. From the headline you'd think Google's board voted in favor of genoncide or something.

They had exactly two choices, both of them with potentially "evil" outcomes, and they chose what they considered the lesser evil. Disagree with them? Fine. That hardly qualifies them as heartlessly evil. Did profit come into the question? Probably... If I have exactly two choices, both with good and bad possible outcomes, but one is likely to make me a few bucks at least... Well, I know I'd probably choose that one.

Good? Bad?

[RandoX (828285)]

I'm the guy with the gun.

The Problem

[by Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that Google hates human rights. It is just that nobody would believe the formula:

1. Support human rights
2. ???
3. Profit!

Re:The Problem

[Serenissima (1210562)]

Yeah, it's actually quite a shock. Who would have ever guessed that Shareholders would be more concerned with their investments than with changing the domestic policy of a foreign government? That's a total surprise.

Re:The Problem

[Mr. Underbridge (666784)]

Or looked at less cynically, they may be realistic enough to see that Google pulling out of China won't change China's policy, but will give the Chinese people even less access to information. In other words, they figured out that maintaining the moral high ground at the expense of the Chinese citizens didn't do anyone any good.

They may fully value human rights, but disagree on the best way to get there.

Re:The Problem

[hiryuu (125210)]

Depends on the investor. I voted in favor of the proposals on my proxy. I'd be curious to see the distribution of votes between individual and institutional shareholders.

Ditto on similar things I've recently seen pass through investment houses like Fidelity. I saw shareholder proposals relating to abstaining from investments that benefit regimes that contribute to genocide (specifically, the Darfur-China issue), and the board statement on the proxies of course said "The board recommends voting against this proposal." Do we "play to win," and damn the cost, or do we play to the best of our ability while having a conscience? I think I know the "business" answer to this.

Re:The Problem

[Klaus_1250 (987230)]

Evil in who's eyes? Robbing shareholders of profits can be seen as evil too. Robbing yourself of market-share in emerging markets can be seen as evil too. Not complying with authorities can even be seen as evil! Sometimes Good can come out of Evil (landing on the moon as a result of WWII) or Evil can come out of Good (bringing freedom and democracy to a country that isn't ready for it resulting in civil conflict).

What people also seem to miss about the whole "don't be evil" thing, is that not being evil does not imply being good. You can be neutral as well. Not evil, not good, just neutral.

Re:The Problem

[Maxo-Texas (864189)]

Robbing the shareholders is different than not maximizing profits.
I might be able to get maximal profits by killing you.

Google is helping to censor and erase the existence of chinese citizens. Yahoo is helping to imprison people for their speech.

Both are giving aid and comfort to an enemy government-- allowing it the benefits of a free society without having to pay the costs of being a free society. Personally, I hope at some point they get nationalized by China or somehow otherwise abused as most totalitarian governments who do not respect the rule of law do to their citizens and business people.

Mod parent waaaaay off topic!

[z80kid (711852)]

WTF does Iraq have to do with the article, the parent comment, or the parent's parent?

We're all sick of the war, Spanky. But hard as it may be for you to believe, there are still topics out there that have nothing to do with it whasoever.

Re:The Problem

[ORBAT (1050226)]

From what I can remember, all intelligence sources said that Saddam had no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The "OMG WMDS!" was simply White House spin to get support for the war.

Inflammatory headline

[explosivejared (1186049)]

It's hard to think objectively when you have "Google Votes Against Human Rights" as the headline. Did Google vote in favor of genocide or stoning dissidents? No. What they did do was to make a nuanced calculation that I think most reasonable people would agree with. I agree with Google that it is better to provide some information than none. Seriously, what is it going to harm the Chinese government if Google packed up. Google is in a far better position to do good now than if they were completely out of the country. Amnesty and the rest can't see the forest for the trees. Taking a stand in prinicple is just that, in principle with no effect on things in the real world. Pressure Google to use its position in China to lobby for more freedom, don't try and make them leave.

Re:

[Shadow Wrought (586631)]

Indeed. I'm sure the Chinese Government is in favor of more ignorance amongst the populace, not less. It is a tough call, but I would agree that giving some, is better than giving nothing at all.

Re:Inflammatory headline

[Brigadier (12956)]

google is a company, NOT a person. It's purpose is to survive and make profit. I hate it when people act as if corporations are suppose to save the world or something. Professional Ethics aside google's job is to make money and with half the world population being situated in Asia opening up market share there early is important. If people are so cought up with the censorship of the Chinese government then stop buying Chinese products.

Re:Inflammatory headline

[dwater (72834)]

What you say is true for Google, since it's a publicly traded company, but that's not true for all companies. Some exist purely 'to save the world or something'.
I'd also posit that, in this day and age, considering ethics in the way your company makes money is a sound long term profitable strategy.

Re:

[explosivejared (1186049)]

I dislike when people act as if you can solve all the world's problems by pressure with the pocketbook. There is something to be said for the maxim that the same reasoning that gets you into a problem can't get you out of one. Greed can't be fixed by more greed. Now I'm all for market freedoms, I support free trade and would like to get rid of farm subsidies because it is important for a business to be able to freely operate. However, their does come a time when ethics overturns profit even for a corporatio

Re:Inflammatory headline

[geekoid (135745)]

You can do both, and a Corporation is held to it's mission statement.
I have work for plenty of corporation that also spent money to help people.

"stop buying Chinese products"
That is no longer possible in any practical way...You can't even live on the street without getting products from China.

Re:Inflammatory headline

[Opportunist (166417)]

Corporations are intelligence without morals. But that's exactly what runs wrong. Corporations hold sizable power in our world. They control the markets, money and to some degree governments and even people.

So yes, according to the market theory, their mission is just to make their shareholders rich. But I think this should change soon if we don't want to end up with a lot of power in the hands of an immoral, intelligent beast.

Re:Inflammatory headline

[anothy (83176)]

i agree with you (and google) about the right course of action here, and that folks like Amnesty are missing the big picture or long view, but i think you're off base on one point:

Taking a stand in prinicple is just that, in principle with no effect on things in the real world.

principled stands can and do often have an effect on the real world. in this particular case, having Google make a hard-line principled stance would have no effect on China because Google has lots of competitors that aren't likely to make the same decision. similar debates have come up in the US federal government, and it's a very different question there. there's no logical inconsistency between voting against this Google-specific measure (because it'd have no positive effect, and arguably a negative one by removing the best information service and replacing it with an inferior one) and voting for government mandated restrictions (because getting Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft aligned could be powerful enough to make a difference in China's policy), even though both represent hard-line principled stands.

The rest of the quote:

[urcreepyneighbor (1171755)]

'I agreed with the spirit of these proposals,' Brin said.

Brin quickly added, "but I love money too much!"

Misleading Headline

[Hyppy (74366)]

Google's shareholders did not "vote against human rights," they voted against a policy change that was proposed. Even the summary admits that Sergey abstained because he didn't agree with the way the proposals were written, not because he disagreed with the spirit.

Slow news day much?

Re:Misleading Headline

[mcmonkey (96054)]

Even the summary admits that Sergey abstained because he didn't agree with the way the proposals were written, not because he disagreed with the spirit.

I don't think that reflects well on Sergey. To me it reads like, he thought the vote would go the way it did so he didn't need to vote against it, but wasn't 100% sure so he didn't risk voting for it.

Sounds like weasely plausible deniability. "I have to run by this policy because that's how the shareholders voted. But it's not my fault--I didn't vote."

To the folks saying, how is this news? Because it's Google. When your corporate policy is, "do whatever we can get away with to make a profit," and you do just that, it's not noteworthy.

When your policy is, "do no evil," but what you actually end up doing is "whatever we can get away with to make a profit," I think it's worth noting the contrast between word and deed.

Google

[MrKaos (858439)]

Do know evil.

If you're part of it...

[h4rm0ny (722443)]

If you're part of a system, then you're in some way supporting it. Examples of successfully changing a system from within are few and far between and are usually where someone couldn't voluntarily leave the system anyway. Systems are more usually replaced by a competing system. If Google want to change things, they should not submit to China's demands and walk away if need be. That would be a far stronger message and powerful effect than simply agreeing to their terms. I fail to see how they expect to change things through obedience.

Re:

[dwater (72834)]

Absolutely not. Such a move would likely not even be noticed by much of the population. I expect it might get a news item of some sort, but would receive the usual 'stupid ignorant Americans' reaction from much of the populous; and rightly so, IMO.

China doesn't *need* Google. Not even in the slightest. They have much more popular alternatives already.

Proxy

[Thelasko (1196535)]

Some funds in my 401k had issues with the crisis in Darfur. The board recommended that the fund do nothing about it. I voted that they should. Unfortunately, a no reply from other shareholders is counted as votes for the board's recommendation. Most shareholder's don't even open and read the proxies, let alone vote on them. I would sell the shares but it's my 401k and all of the available funds are managed by the same company.

Re:Proxy

[Stradivarius (7490)]

So you're saying that money is more important to you too?

I think he's saying that his 401k doesn't have options that let him easily vote with his dollars. His only option would be to withdraw his funds completely from the 401k, thus taking a financial penalty and possibly endangering his ability to support himself when he's old.

Unless you're living on the street, you and your kids are eating a bare minimum subsistence diet, you're saving nothing for retirement or for their education, all because you've given every bit of money you have to support the crisis in Darfur or oppose censorship in China... unless you've done all that, you're in the same glass house as the rest of us.

Give the guilt-trip a rest. In the real world, people have to make trade-offs between conflicting but deeply-held principles. Choosing to feed your kids doesn't mean you don't care greatly about the hungry in Africa, or censorship in China. When you have limited resources you have to choose. There's nothing wrong or hypocritical about that.

Change from within

[Original Replica (908688)]

Shareholders and rights groups including Amnesty International... continue to push Google to improve its policies in countries known for human rights abuses and limits on freedom of speech.

The only way that Google can ever have any influence in opening China's information control policies is if Google is actually operating in China. Right now, that means that they must comply with the PRC minimum standards. If the China kicks Google out, then Google's sway in China is reduced to zero. If you really want to be concerned with censorship in China, then you should want Google to gain as much prominence there as possible, and for Google to always be pushing in the right direction. Not making some idealistic stand that alienates them, but being a valued part of China that moves the entire cultural body of China gently towards better human rights.

Do Human Rights pay the bills?

[athloi (1075845)]

In a shareholder meeting, the only question being asked is "Does this raise or lower our income?"

If the answer is "lower," those proposing the idea have to come up with a darn good reason why, or the shareholders get angry, because their stock is going to be worth less than it could be.

China is a big market, and Google wants to expand aggressively into this, so it was a sensible business decision.

Was it a sensible decision in other areas, like ethics or law? The answer to that has to be asked of a higher entity, because it is the pressure of the shareholders' demands that makes Google unable to answer to those areas.

Re:Do Human Rights pay the bills?

[anothy (83176)]

In a shareholder meeting, the only question being asked is "Does this raise or lower our income?"

while this is certainly true the vast majority of the time in practice, there's no particular reason it has to be. lots of people are interested in things other than making money, and shareholder's meetings are a way of expressing to the board all the shareholder's interests. this is why many corporations keep much of the stock off the market, so they can be sure to dictate at least some substantial portion of those interests.

Better than in US

[thtrgremlin (1158085)]

What Google has done is great, and I wish Google was allowed to interpret the censorship rules in the US the same way they do in China. What Google has UNIQUELY done (compared to every other search company as far as I know) is that they inform the user of when and why they are censored and the governmental department that has censored them. That is WAY better than what we have here where content is taken down and 'black bag' the content in such a way to make it appear that such information never existed, NOT that the government is trying to control your thoughts.

Hopefully Google will try to bring the same freedom to the US they have brought to China. Way to go shareholders for being informed voters and not paying attention to stupid articles like this one that trys to distort the facts for attention and ratings.

Amnesty International used to be more prudent about stuff like this. Shame on them.

We all vote against human rights

[DaveWick79 (939388)]

How can one be critical of Google's business practices in China?

Every time you or I make a decision to buy a product made in China we are voting against human rights.
Why do we support financially a country with such a track record? Because we are either making money doing it, or saving money doing it. Ultimately, we care more about our own pocketbook than the plight of humans elsewhere.

Re:We all vote against human rights

[bmajik (96670)]

Nonsense.

Everytime we buy a product from China we infuse money into that economy. We give someone the choice (and it IS their choice) to put down their shovel and give up the agrarian lifestyle that their ancestors have had for the last _6000 years_ (it's China, remember), and do something different.

For every poverty stricken child that ends up working in a factory making shoes, we can say two things about that child
- they are more likely to be able to eat than if they had no other source of income
- they are less likely to be forced into child prostitution, which is a serious concern in many developing economies in Asia

It is understandable to think "we enjoy certain labor and lifestyle conditions in the west; everyone should have them". But it's irrational and erroneous. Sectors of the Chinese economy and populace have gone from agrarian to industrial to information based in a fraction of the time it took Europe and the US to do so.

Look at South Korea, which essentially got its start in 1950. For a long time there was a command economy and a suppression of democracy and personal wealth. Yet in fewer than 50 years South Koreas standard of living and material wealth has grown such that in many ways it outpaces the US. Democracy has arrived.

It makes no sense to talk about "working conditions in china" as some sort of single faceted problem. China is a country where rural poor still die from flooding every year on one end, and Hong Kong on the other, which has the worlds highest-per-capita Rolls Royce ownership (despite draconian anti-car rules).

Money is freedom, because freedom in its most abstract sense is choice, and nothing facilitates the execution of personal choice better than having money. The more money we infuse into the Chinese economy, not via government action, but into the leaf nodes -- the people making shoes or any of the other things westerners are calling "slave labor", the more freedom we inject into the most critical portions of the Chinese populace.

I'm no happier about kids working in factories than Americans were at the time of the US industrial revolution. But what I am happy about is that everywhere the American system (which is really the British system) has taken root, the total length of time taken to transition from "agrarian poverty" to "modern economy with full human rights, individual liberty, and high standard of living for the majority" become shorter and shorter, every time.

Now to be fair, "we" are infusing all of this money into China because we think it is in our best interest, not because of some altrusitic paternalism. However -- and this is the "invisible hand" theory showing up -- the Chinese are working for us because _they_ beleive it is in _their_ best interest. The result of our profit-driven desire is that a ton of money is infused into the Chinese economy, which DOES have real benefits to real humans in China.

Suggesting that we cut off that money is somehow altruistic or responsible or any other number of things is simply assinine in the face of a real analysis. You're essentially telling a 10 year old girl who works in a factory "for your own good, we're not going to let you work at all. Good luck finding food or taking care of your sick parents".

The Chinese People Are Responsible

[Dreadneck (982170)]

The Chinese people are responsible for pushing back against their government. It isn't Google's responsibility to stand up for the rights of the Chinese. There are over 1.2 billion people living in China - the Chinese government stands or falls at their pleasure. Apparently they are content with the government they have. When they decide otherwise then it is their responsibility and no one else's to change things.

Re:The Chinese People Are Responsible

[dwater (72834)]

Right. They think that the government have done wonders for their country, and I find little evidence with which to argue.

I'm with Ron Paul on this issue - I don't agree with his negative opinion of China, but I agree with his 'attitude'. I don't agree with his 'desire' to see the government 'collapse' so much as see it change for the better.
If you want to influence another country's future, you need to work from a place of cooperation, not by attempting to bully them.

"Free trade cannot be enforced through threats or by resorting to international protectionist organizations such as the WTO. Even if the Chinese are recalcitrant in opening up their markets, it is not the role of the United States government to lecture the Chinese government on what it should or should not do in its own economy."

As much as I don't like some things Google

[Prisoner's Dilemma (1268306)]

Even though I am constantly disappointed with what Google has become with regard to it's policies, in this case, I can't fault them.

It's correct that it would have made a stronger point for Google to say it's raw or nothing. It's also easy to sit back with wallet firmly secured and say that THEY should be making that point. I'll bet many of the people faulting Google still purchase products that are in some part made in China or some other country that has similar practices.

In all reality, it is ludicrous to think investors trying to make money , not a point, would vote for something that might keep their for profit corporation from capitalizing on access to an upcoming super power. It's possible, maybe even likely, that China will eventually become larger profit center for Google than the US.

   

Value of an Ad-Click in China?

[FurtiveGlancer (1274746)]

I wonder what the computed value of an Ad-Click is in China? Most of the country is dirt poor. Exactly which segments of the Chinese population are being reached by Google?

Clearly the bottom line is the bottom line.

Re:Value of an Ad-Click in China?

[adepali (749748)]

China has millions, of rich people, by western standards. It even has 345,000 millionaires according to this [google.com] report. I was in Beijing last summer and the prices at the high-class shops are higher than in New York. You can bet that it's those people who mostly own a PC and an internet connection...

Republicans Hate Puppies!

[bmajik (96670)]

The story headline and my headline are essentially equivalent. They're both ridiculous, inflammatory, mischaracterizations of what happened.

I'm sure we all love the election season political advertising that says foolish crap like "Bob Jackass voted NO to making our schools better!"

Well of course he did, because the particular bill in question said something like "50% tax on milk to improve school funding", and Bob thought there were some drawbacks to that approach.

It's not that Google shareholders are against human rights in China. At every public company, a few activist shareholders come up with proposals they want to be voted on that say things like "improve human rights in China" and invariably the board suggests voting against them. I don't think there's some widespread malign for human rights in China. I think there is a real concern that the particulars of the proposal damage or have the potential to damage the business in a way that doesn't offset the hypothetical progress made towards acheiving the aim.

The real story here is that todays proposal of the month got prioritized below some other shareholder objective. Not that Google hates the idea of chinese freedom.

Look at this from Google's perspective. It is in their best interest to make Chinese citizens info-addicts. Google wants to be in the business of making the CHinese people completely dependant on Google for finding out as much as possible. Giving them more possible choices and better filtering/searching technology to whittle the results down to what the PEOPLE want is what will endear google with more customers and a more lucrative eyeballs base to their advertising clients.

The special tricks and procedures Google has to put in place to operate in the Chinese market are a cost of doing business in China, one I'm sure they'd rather dispense with if they thought they could. Some blowhard activist popping up and saying "just don't play ball with the Chinese government" is unrealistic for a variety of reasons.

Re:Google may not be evil

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

Either that or they agree that a little information is better for the chinese people than none at all. I agree with that sentiment, too, yet I feel no burning desire to kill babies or repress people. The best way to change the system is to empower the people, and depriving them of your resources because you'd have to work with an evil government doesn't empower the people at all. Moral stands look good in the paper, but they don't help the people of China at all.

Re:Google may not be evil

[Lincolnshire Poacher (1205798)]

> Either that or they agree that a little information is better for the
> chinese people than none at all.

Your statement assumes that without Google, the people of China would have no
information. This is blatantly incorrect: Google ( 25% market share ) implements the same Government-mandated filters as Baidu ( 62% market share ).

Google's presence in China is simply about gaining a foothold in a potentially
lucrative market. ``Empowering the people'' has nothing to do corporate
strategy.

Re:Google may not be evil

[peragrin (659227)]

No but it does make a good buzzword to add some bling with.

at least they didn't use synergy.

Re:Google may not be evil

[moderatorrater (1095745)]

Your statement assumes that the same results will come through Baidu and Google and that it's the only avenue of information from Google.

First, I don't know whether they have their book search in China yet or any of their other services, but those things could help the Chinese people in their own ways. Giving the Chinese people strong online services isn't a bad thing; I like almost everything that Google's done in the US, the Chinese people might as well.

Second, Baidu's search is different from Google's search unless they're using the same database and algorithms. If Google's indexing more foreign sites, that's probably a good thing. Also, since Google's not based in China, they could easily have more autonomy than Baidu.

Finally, whether it's a play for market share or not, it doesn't change the fact that staying out of China does the Chinese people absolutely no good; unless Google's presence is harming them (and I've seen no evidence even hinting that's the truth), they're doing at least as well as the alternative. Making money doesn't negate any benefits you do along the way.

I'm sure seeing the world as pure black and white and hating corporations for making money is very easy, but you've at least got to admit that there's an argument to be made for Google participating in China without being evil. The fact that they had the vote at all shows that they're considering the human rights side of the equation, and the fact that both of the owners refused to vote makes me think that they're conflicted on the issue.

Re:Google may not be evil

[Repossessed (1117929)]

Google is (last I checked) the only search engine that tells you if your search results have been censored.

It's a very small victory, but it's still something the people of China didn't have before.

I also point out that Google tried for years to get the ability to have uncensored searches, they fought, and lost, and while they may not have accomplished much, it wouldn't accomplish anything at all to pull out of China now.

Re:Google may not be evil

[geekoid (135745)]

But they can't give the people anything other the China approved stories.
What happens when China wants Google to misrepresent information?

I say empower the people to get to your uncensored search engine.

Re:Google may not be evil

[ivan256 (17499)]

I don't know whether you were swayed in your opinion at all by the irresponsibly biased headline, but it seems to me that this was (yet again) a choice between:

A) Censor parts of Google in China.
B) Censor all of Google in China.

Which one of those is more evil?

Re:Google may not be evil

[dwater (72834)]

I don't think either is of much concern to China. In my experience, almost no one uses Google in China - really only foreigners such as myself. Chinese people generally use a Chinese equivalent.