Are Web Firms Giving in to China? 318
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Google and other Internet companies are sending executives to Capitol Hill for a hearing next week seeking to answer the question: Are U.S. companies giving in to China's censorship demands too easily? Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee that is holding the hearing, tells the Wall Street Journal, 'I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That's the wrong question. It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.' The WSJ notes an irony: Google is fighting for 'Internet freedom' in the U.S., by resisting the Justice Department's request for information on user searches."
a moral imperative (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they do, as much as any American company or person. But why should Google be singled out while 90% of my consumer goods come from China? Many of those manufacturers have willingly or unwittingly participated in things worse then censorship.
Just wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)
What the fuck? Can we start with the worst that US companies are doing first, please?
Re:money is money... (Score:5, Insightful)
hypocracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Zyklon B (Score:4, Insightful)
It's different with China (Score:3, Insightful)
Not much of an irony when you consider that by fighting in the U.S. they're not risking losing the entire market, whereas in China, trying to fight the government can get google banned from the entire market.
Nobody complains about censoring Nazis (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is nobody complaining about how Google is giving in to censors? Because the ability to do business in France hinges on obeying the laws of the country, which means that Google wouldn't be allowed in France at all if Google did block things that were illegal there.
Google's choice is either block what China says to block, or the Chinese get no Google at all. Should we blockade China all together like we do Cuba just because the government is repressive? Why don't we blockade France while we're at it? I doubt many Americans would object.
Google can still be used as a tool for the social good in China, regardless of whatever specific pages are blocked, just like it is in France and Germany.
dom
Our schools are. (Score:5, Insightful)
I just received a letter today from my daughters school (in the UK). Mandarin is going on the *mandatory* curriculum next year.
To quote the headmistress, "Students who speak both English and Chinese will be the future executives"
Although my industry, telecoms manufacturing, is being eroded by China, I'm in complete agreement with the move. If nothing else my daughter will experience a culture radically different to her own. In my day we learnt french, the langauge of a culture 30 miles away.
Interesting times ahead for the next generation.
Slightly off-topic but I thought I'd share it.
Re:money is money... (Score:2, Insightful)
Morality don't enter into it (Score:3, Insightful)
By law, corporations must consider only the shareholders. Nothing more. Any CEO who tells you his company is moral, cares about human rights, promotes democracy, or "does no evil", lies to you, because if his company's profits suffers even slightly from its moral stand, the shareholders can (and do) take actions against the execs to correct this.
Morality is a foreign concept to corporations, unless morality is good for the bottom line (like building up an image to sell more products to people who care). Period.
Re:Just wondering... (Score:2, Insightful)
Every corporate entity needs to be held more accountable not only to the law and the courts, but to the people. If corporations act in a dishonorable manner, then they should not be allowed to do business in the United States, the same way we impose economic sanctions on dishonorable countries.
Quite frankly, I think the American public can stand to lose some commodities to increase the overall dignity of commerce in general. If you want to do business with American citizens, you should be held completely accountable to our code of ethics wherever your company does business. If you do not pay fair wages and treat your workers humanely, do not bother our markets with your wares.
Re:money is money... (Score:5, Insightful)
As for our government, it's ironic that we sacrifice our troops for democracy on the one hand, then sell out democracy so cheaply on the other hand when the almighty buck speaks. We are running a $201,000,000,000 [sfgate.com] annual trade deficit with China. That means every year, any disparity in world influence between the two countries decreases by twice that amount, half a trillion within the next year or two. And we rationalize it all with the notion that we'll have our cake and eat it too, that buying $30 DVD players from China is the best way to assure international goodwill and freedom for their people. When in fact the Soviet Union was defeated with precisely the opposite approach.
Re:The law (Score:3, Insightful)
So, by your argument US law would have no bearing on foriegn companies doing business here? Hell it barely has a hold on US comapnaies operating domestically.
If China had a law saying that Google had to turn over anyone searching for info about the Tiananmen Square massacre, and that those people would be shot... Do you honestly think that Google has an obligation to do that!?
No they have no obligation, but then China has no obligation to let Google operate in their country if they don't comply. That just the game.
You are absolutely mad! An unjust rule is not one that should be followed, especially if the rule is in a country different than the company making the choice!
For the definition of unjust rule please see nearly every important legal or political decision in the US in the past 6 years. And if you want to flaunt the law of a country in which you are operating, be my guest. But do not be surprised when then deny you the right to operate there. AND I'm certain that you'll be doing all of that unjust-law-flaunting from the safety of your office here in the US, where there is no chance of you getting punished. Until of course you are sold out by a treaty from your loving government.
There is NO EXCUSE for the behaviour of these companies.
There is NO EXCUSE for MOST of the behavior of MOST companies or governments. Fixed that for you.
Re:hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.
Excuse me... It is possibly my extremely short and volatile memory... But wasn't United Fruit an American company? How many dictatorships in Latin America were planted and maintained in its name in the last century?
So as far as historical precedent is concerned the answer is definitely and clearly NO. America promotes what is good for american business. In the 20th century it was "if it is necessary to promote a dictatorship so that there are no trade unions and fruit and oil prices are cheap than it shall be a dictatorship". Now it is "if it is necessary to promote a dictatorship so that there are no independent trade unions and toy, textile and electronics prices are cheap than it shall be a dictatorship".
Nothing has changed and nothing is going to change unless the fundamental nature of who pulls the strings on Capitol hill changes.
Not politically correct, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
China knows that their huge population is too big for any company to ignore. They're ideally positioned to take over the tech world anyway, guven the population and the central ocntrol they have over things like education. A central government can plow money into any problem; if they decide that every single new graduate of eveey university must be a scientist or engineer, that will happen. It certainly isn't happening here.
The US thinking that we have the right to tell other countries what to do led to the Iraq war, and the Vietnam war, and the Korean war before that. It doesn't matter that China has a lousy human rights record. That's their decision. If the people don't like it, they'll find a way to revolt. There are plenty of examples of _that_ in history as well.
Re:what about the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
You describe your question "Don't corporations have an obligation to obey the law in countries they operate in?" as an "interesting" one, when in fact it's rhetorical (which is quite the opposite). Now, for me it's an interesting question, because it brings up pointed questions about civil disobedience, the legitimacy of government, and the importance of the rule of law. For you, the question seems very settled: no.
The question isn't whether Google should be trying to break the law in foreign countries, but whether they should be willing to operate in countries where they have to do something morally repugnant (censoring) in order to stay on the fair side of that country's laws. I'm conflicted on the question. But there is the additional question of what sort of pressure these companies should be trying to put on the Chinese government. Should Google have held out for a better deal, or perhaps used their position to try and persuade the government that censorship is bad?
Like it or not, the government can and does dictate where its citizens do business. We can't trade with Cuba. We can't legally go to Thailand and have sex with eleven year old prostitutes. We have to pay tariffs on goods to and from many countries. The seventh grade civics version of this is that our Constitution empowers the government to decide how this country interacts with foreign countries. The only reason you can leave the country at all is because our government and the other governments of the world agreed on the rules.
Re:a moral imperative-Google's Stance (Score:3, Insightful)
Because Google promotes themselves as the Do no Evil company. Most other companies don't.
Now THIS is hypoctitical! (Score:3, Insightful)
Given the US support for dictatorships, monarchies and repressive regimes around the world for the last century - not to mention a repressive regime just installed in Iraq - this is hypocritical in the extreme.
The Net companies are in China to make money. Are they supposed to tell the Chinese government to fuck off if they asked to comply with the laws of that country? Are they supposed to write off millions, scores of millions, or hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in that country if the result of such a refusal is a yanking of their license to operate in that country?
"Morality" has nothing to do with it. Obviously any employee on the spot for such a situation has to make a personal decision as to whether he will comply with either the government's or management's request. That has nothing to do with the overall question of whether the company should accede to such requests.
At best, the only legitimate question is whether a company should decide to invest in such a country, given the possibility that some such situation could arise. And given that ANY company involved in China could face a similar situation, it's disingenuous to single out the Net companies.
I smell a rat. I smell an attempt to use the Net companies as a means of smearing China for the administration's own demonization purposes, irregardless of whatever China is responsible for.
I don't get it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nevermind the multitude of other companies operating in China taking advantage of lax labor laws and things like that. It would be interesting to see how many of our rightous leaders have fortunes built on portfolios that include companies that are taking advantage of cheap chinese labor.
This is getting stupid...if they really are concerned they need to sort out their own hypocritic objectives before doing anything else.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not politically correct, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
What right does the Chinese gov't have? Who gave it to them? They are essentially thugs with guns, imposing their will on the Chinese people.
We have no right? We have no responsibility for our fellow humans? Should we have ignored the situations in the USSR, Nazi germany, South Africa, Rwanda, Serbia, and many other places and just left millions people to be oppressed, suffer and die?
The US thinking that we have the right to tell other countries what to do led to the Iraq war, and the Vietnam war, and the Korean war before that.
I agree that there should be limits, and unfortunately there is no perfectly legitimate international power to decide when and how to intervene (the UN Security Council may be the closest) but that is not a reason to do nothing.
BTW, the Korean war was fought under UN auspices, though mostly by US and S Korean troops. I don't think the South Koreans wish they had been left to their fate, to live like their relatives in the North.
Re:Excuse me? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm the last to argue the American experience has been beneficial to the country - it's been disasterous and a stain on their history - but drawing them as the eternal boogyman makes no sense. From the CIA fact book regarding one aspect of Vietnam's challenges:
"logging and slash-and-burn agricultural practices contribute to deforestation and soil degradation; water pollution and overfishing threaten marine life populations; groundwater contamination limits potable water supply; growing urban industrialization and population migration are rapidly degrading environment in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City"
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos
this is capitalism, stop deluding yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM and Ford Motor Co., among many others, helped the Nazis. Today, Haliburton is involved in slave lavor and also trades with Iran, a known sponsor of state terrorism, and the U.S. Vice President has stock in the company. Who do you think armed the dictators of the world, socialist peace activists?
Does this makes capitalism horrible? No, because it's only as good as we are. People like to do the right thing, and will do the right thing, when doing the wrong thing is no longer profitable or convenient. But when you work in a corporation where your job is to make profit for said corporation, and easy and convenient rationalizations abound for doing what you know would be wrong if you personally were doing it, you can still do it with a clean conscience, because it isn't you, it's the corporation.
It isn't as if there are evil people out there somewhere doing evil things, and if only we could stop them, the world would be okay. That counts for a relatively small percentage of the badness in the world. Most of it comes from normal, decent people rationalizing their asses off so they can do what is profitable and convenient.
Re:money is money... (Score:1, Insightful)
I think there is a little truth to each of your arguments.
If we start the communist clock with the overthrow if the Czar, then technically the Ruskies totally CREAMED the West. Despite a humble beginning among uneducated peasants, most of world was under Soviet influence (rather than the free world) by the time things fell apart.
However, I don't think the change was due to only the immense internal economic and rights presures. Under say a Stalin (utterly ruthless) dictatorships can thrive for decades/centuries under even worse conditions. In fact Stalin died firmly in power despite propaganda by politicians today that "we beat him". Utter feel good rubbish.
It really comes down to how much ruthlessness a totalitarian leader can stomoch and how far he gets trying to bully his neighbours-- until they fight back miliarily to crush him (i.e Hitler, Saddam, Napoleon, Kings, Caesars, Pharaohs, etc)
Gorbachev realized that he didn't have the stomach to kill his own people so the tanks didn't roll into Czechoslovakia and Hungary once again. Things followed their natural course afterwards because people don't enjoy being told what to do by some politician.
On the other hand though,
America was the only thing that prevented Stalin and co from taking over everything before that could happen. Socialist ideas aren't all bad. Some things are better left to the state than in the hands of individuals (think along the lines of the prisoners dilemma)
HOWEVER, when taken to the extreme of communism it clearly ends up in totalitarianism and everything falls apart because politicians are making decisions that individuals are far more qualified to make. This is exactly why mixed economies like America work. So if America didn't carry the torch of freedom for 60 years against the commies, Gorbachev would not have been able to see the difference to make the correct decision.
Therefore I'd say America is due much credit.
Moving into the post Soviet era.... there has been a radical shift to the right of late. Due to the collapse every lefty thought is out of vogue. Up to now a successful free society involved elements of both schools of thoughts though since America has always been a mixed economy. In fact it seems unlikely a state could even exist in a purely capitalistic state since none does or every has (unless you count an Wthiopia as "capitialistic" because there is no regulation.
For things to function we need to play the middle ground since the laws of economics seems to dictate that. Without some regulations/policing abuse of the system enivitably causes the system to collapse. Let's learn from our ideological extremist errors of the past and move forward.
I guess my fear is that many extreme right wingers are going a little crazy today and we're going to get caught in another one of these historical loops.
Some in our society argue "laissez faire capitalism works" when the truth is the closest we ever came to it failed spectacularily in depression. They also neglect to menton that there are no juristictions in the world that are case examples to offer as "proof" that it works.
Real Republicans are solid people that just want individuals to take responsibility for themselves-- and for the state to not stick it's nose in every one's business. The state should act as facilitators and arbitrators, not another form of divine moral authority. This is the ideals under which America was founded and are quite sound values.
Unfortunately it appears some key Republicans today are just flying flags of convenience. The Neocons are probably just Libertarians (seeing as Kristol ran the Weekly Standard that is owned by Rupert Murdock.) Basically they are a bunch
Re:Not politically correct, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were the one whose family the government jailed, or the one shat on by the powerful without any recourse, or the one imprisoned without a fair trial, or the one harmed for publishing dissenting views, I think you would think differently. It does matter that China has a lousy human rights record because we have a moral duty to help others who are being murdered or oppressed. Your reasoning is identical to IBM's before WWII or the people at numerous points in history who shrug off the atrocities as others as someone else's problem. When one person is oppressed, it is everybody's problem.
I hate that example... (Score:2, Insightful)
Witty press people love using the line about how can google justify self-censorship and resisting the American government at the same time. But while it looks like some sort of conflict they seem incredibly different to me. In one case the US government is asking for google to give information it considers both private and possibly revealing personal details about its users. In other words its a privacy concern. In the other case its about google offering reduced service due to local laws and customs.
Is anyone hurt by the first? potentially, both as individuals and because the data will be used in the formation of laws to control society. Is anyone hurt in the second? Not really, some google is better than no google as long as you know the service is restricted, and I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that the Chinese government is heavily into such control.
I don't see the two as remotely similar, and I think google can easily argue that "do as much good as you can" is compatible with their corporate quote.
Please explain... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's my understanding, and I hope somebody can show me where my thinking is wrong.
1) When a Chinese surfer searches on google.com (not google.cn) they get a list of 1,650,000 hits on "tiananmen square". However, the vast majority of them are blocked by the "great firewall of China".
2) When a Chinese surfer searches google.cn they get 16,300 hits - and all of them are reachable.
Isn't google.cn just removing the results that cannot be reached by Chinese users anyway?
What am I missing?
No. Really.