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."
money is money... (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't expect a company to take ethics over profits.
Re:money is money... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:money is money... (Score:2)
Re:money is money... (Score:2, Informative)
Unless the law explicitly forbids an activity, you cannot expect a publicly held corporation to be moral, merely legal. Private corporations can do what they want, but usually aren't as well funded and thus influential.
too bad that's not true (Score:2, Informative)
Re:money is money... (Score:2)
Re:money is money... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:money is money... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:money is money... (Score:2)
You're completely right. Not one of these loud mouthed politicians is concerned about the human rights situation in China (a "most favored nation" in trade, don't forget). They're just grandstanding to build up goodwill among their constituents and/or voters in future elections.
Re:money is money... (Score:2)
Really? A company can quack?
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.
Re:a moral imperative (Score:2)
As have their customers, of course.
(Nothing personal, I know for a fact some of the stuff I own was made in China, so I'm in there too)
There's a big difference ... (Score:2)
Re:There's a big difference ... (Score:2)
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.
"You need to respect the laws of my country!" (Score:2)
I'll also ask the better internet company around to use their top-notch technology and hardware to improve my censorship firewall, so I can reduce my costs, since I don't need to do it myself anymore, and improve my efficiency googol times.
They will do that, because they
Re:a moral imperative (Score:2)
Why not? Because someone else is doing it? Is that a good reason.
What's wrong with consumer goods that come from China? I don't see how that necessarily imprisons, oppresses or hurts anyone.
But dictators are so much easier to deal with.... (Score:3, Interesting)
THAT's a good one...
considering how many dictatorship the US has propped up in the last half centuries.
Hot from the headline today, Rumsfeld is visiting Algeria to considering selling weapons to them.
From the CIA World Fact book in Algeria:
"The army placed Abdelaziz BOUTEFLIKA in the presidency in 1999 in a fraudulent election but claimed neutrality in his 2004 landslide reelection victory."
I don't know enough to say whether Algeri
Re:a moral imperative (Score:2)
It's called politics
Just wondering... (Score:4, Insightful)
What the fuck? Can we start with the worst that US companies are doing first, please?
Starving (Score:4, Informative)
Excuse me? (Score:2)
I can't believe I'm actually going to argue this. So, the war torn countries like Vietnam, now impregnated with unexploded ordinance and lands rendered almost unfarmable by chemical warfare (agent orange, anyone?) should be considered lucky to have to work 14 hour days every day of the week for pennies on the hour?
And in countries where American produce and farming corporations took the land from the native people? Where are they supposed to get their food again?
Right, I fo
you just have no idea... (Score:2)
Also, agent orange breaks down over time. The risk to the healt of the people there now is virtually nil.
You're right about the working conditions, they're bad. It varies from plant to plant as to the actual danger, but they're all more dangerous than in the US. I don't know what to say about it other than the domestic employers don't treat their employees any better. Kinda sucks.
Re:Excuse me? (Score:2)
Re:Excuse me? (Score:2)
Most suitable farmland in countries where the governments allow sweatshops has been bought by large farming multinationals.
Most communities that retain their land, that of their ancestors, such as in the deep mountains of Central and South America, aren't exactly running from the hills to get a nice job at a dangerous plant.
I'm not sure how completely ignorant you have to be of the wo
Re:Excuse me? (Score:2)
You and I don't have to decide when working in a factory is better than farming; the potential workers do, and are.
What's your solution, anyway? Do you believe in the Magic Wage Fairy? Do you want the UN to go in, guns blazing, to force all the business out of developing areas, leaving them in squalor forever?
Re:Excuse me? (Score:2)
I'm not sure what crippling mental disease it is that spreads like wildfire through humanity that makes them incapable of seeing the world from an honorable and moral point of view, but I suppose it's nothing new.
And if these are such wonderful places
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 o
Re:Just wondering... (Score:2)
What the fuck? Can we start with the worst that US companies are doing first, please?
I'm not sure how this justifies Google's/Microsoft's/Yahoo's conduct.
Re:Just wondering... (Score:2)
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
Re:Just wondering... (Score:2)
What exactly is this "one one child policy" you speak of?
what is that link supposed to prove? (Score:2)
It's ridiculous to condemn the US based upon one woman's bald assertion and no actual evidence.
Do you have any evidence to add? Or were you there or something?
Re:Just wondering... (Score:2)
Re:Just wondering... (Score:2)
Re:Just wondering... (Score:2)
Of course they are (Score:2, Informative)
hypocracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Zyklon B (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Zyklon B (Score:2)
That's why I don't trust conservatives waving flags: I know they'd be sucking up to their new masters in a heartbeat, while others are still fighting & dying.
(Oops, I said "Marx". Somebody alert the DHS!)
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.
Not quite right (Score:2)
China and the U.S. play by a different set of rules. What is okay in China is not okay in the U.S.
Bad joke of the post (Score:3, Funny)
It's Business-first (Score:2)
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
Re:Nobody complains about censoring Nazis (Score:2)
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.
The
YES. Of course! (Score:2)
1. Because China is an enormous emerging market, with lots and lots of money tied up in it. If you don't go along to get along, your competitors will. Or the Chinese will build their own solution and they won't need you ANYWAY. Of course, if THAT happens, the Chinese people will probably be even worse off (so going along to get along is actually the lesser of two evils).
2. Because if you don't cooperate, China *could* send scary people with guns to talk to you personally. I'm not saying they *would
Re:YES. Of course! (Score:2)
Re:YES. Of course! (Score:2)
Please be reasonable. Put yourself in their shoes. Think through all your possible actions and their possible consequences. And keep in mind that IF you were Google, you would have staff in
Unified Front Supporting the Sullivan Principles (Score:2, Troll)
Western companies like Google, Microsoft, and the like could present a unified front in dealing with Beijing. They could a
Re:Unified Front Supporting the Sullivan Principle (Score:3)
Ever heard of globalization? If western companies choose to stand up against the PRC (just suppose, it'll never happen, but just suppose), then thousands of companies from India, south-east Asia and Whereveristan, and even China's own, will fill the void in no time flat. That's why no western company
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:Morality don't enter into it (Score:3, Informative)
There certainly moral and ethical corporations. But corporate morality and ehticality ends up getting framed in terms of greed. If a corporation pays its employees a good wage, it's assumed to get better or more loyal employees from this.
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Eh. The goal is shareholder value. (Score:2)
The company's first job is to ensure shareholder value
Not quarterly profits, shareholder value
If taking a moral or ethical stance creates more shareholder value, then everybody wins. Sometimes shareholder value is hard to quantify. The value of a brand name is often hard to quantify, but having a strong brand name creates value for the shareholders.
Sorry for repeating it so many times, but the value of a company is often tangled up with intangibles.
Reality sucks (Score:2)
At current growth rates, which appear to be sustainable, China will soon be the largest economy in the world in every measure. As long as we allow China to market in the US, no US company will have a chance to survive without the mass of China's market. If China launched a Google competitor targetting 1 billion potential customers that Google can't reach + all of Google's customers, Google's advertising revenue would plummet because Google's advertisers can no more survive without China than Google itself
The law. (Score:3, Informative)
There are very strict and clear legal precedents about publicly traded companies. They are required by law to make all decisions in such a way that will maximize profit. I think people are forgetting that Google is not a private company, there is not one man making the business decisions.
They are responsible to millions of shareholders, a large board of directors, and many private investors.
If Google took actions (i.e. avoiding Chinese market) that significantly reduced profits, for no logical reason, they could easily be facing massive litigation from shareholders.
If i'm not horribly mistaken, I think the Dodge Car Company was started with money the Dodge brothers received from Ford Motor Company when they sued Ford for keeping their car prices low instead of maximizing profits. (Dodge brothers were investors in Ford). Maybe someone else can provide more detail about this.
Re:The law. (Score:2)
Not at the sacrifice of all. For example socially conscious companies.
Also, profit maximization is really at the discression of the management. "Yes we could have made more, but we didn't want to take the risk/bad publicity/focus of our core compentencies/short term capitial expenses/better profit max in other areas."
>They are responsible to millions of shareholders,
This does not apply to Google, since its voting
Re:The law. (Score:2)
When I watch a news economy show, or read an article from an investment paper, I see that those buying stock in the company think that the China situation was the correct decision. (And of course anything that makes money will be the correct decision for this crowd).
When I look at googles dedicated following, I don't see man
Re:The law. (Score:3, Informative)
From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation [wikipedia.org] :
Profit Maximization. In Anglo-American jurisdictions, for-profit corporations are generally required to serve the best interests of the shareholders, a rule that courts have interpreted to mean the maximization of share value, and thus profits. Corporate directors are prohibited by corporate law from sacrificing profits to serve some other interest, including such areas as environmental pr
Definition of shareholder value (Score:2)
what about the law? (Score:3, Informative)
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:what about the law? (Score:2)
For me the more interesting question is; Why would a company operate in a countries which have laws that force them to do something that is unethical? (in this case, these laws would force Google to violate its own "Do no evil" principal.)
oh yes it damn well should!!! (Score:2)
things like "maximise profits" are REQUIRED.
maximising profits tends to conflict badly, as we have noted repeatedly, with things like "environmental impact" and stuff like that.
so oh yes governments damn well _do_ have a right to dictate what businesses can and can't do, because it is a system of checks-and-balances against the stupidity of "maximise profi
Re:what about the law? (Score:2)
No, sometimes ethics is more important: Let's say a government demanded Google to turn over information on a political dissident, in order to torture and kill them. Should Google turn over the info? Would you?
Democracy? (Score:3)
Remember this statement. It is very telling about current and future problems for the US. I think it explains a lot of the problems we are having in Iraq, and with Hamas.
To these politicians, democracy naturally means no censorship, and things such as freedom of the press. It will probably come as a great surprise to them when many of these democracies they helped promote elect very theocratic controlling governments that do things such as censor and control the press.
overthrowing despotism (Score:2)
Giving In? (Score:2)
$ wins over morals any day.
not black and white (Score:2)
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.
I think it's a much deeper philosophical question than that. It seems to me that Google has two choices: provide a censored search engine to China or provide no search engine at all. Now I can see arguments for both sides here, but I wouldn't say that
China doesn't need Google, (Score:2)
China doesn't need Yahoo. China's got Taobao (AliBaba, which bought Yahoo). Yahoo needs China, Yahoo needs AliBaba.
China doesn't need iTunes Music Store. China's got Aigo Digital Music. The **AA needs China, else they're fucked in the ass by one billion people. Actually, they are fucked anyway.
China doesn't need you. YOU need China.
Web firms who want to be democratic missionaries in China need to go with the system. This is a long proces
Google is Evil (Score:2)
Most favored nation? (Score:2)
Seems to me that if the U.S. government considers the Chinese government to be oppressive, to whom the export of normal civilian technologies should be restricted, then they should say so and stop talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Its hard to fault Google for treating with the Chinese government in precisely the way our official trade stance with the Chinese says
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
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:this is capitalism, stop deluding yourself (Score:3)
Forget about right and wrong but history is filled with people who did things that were neither profitable nor convenient. The assumption that the sole motivation behind people to do things is because it is profitable and/or convenient is wrong.
Look at the instituion of slavery which did not die out beca
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.
Re:The law (Score:2)
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:Our schools are. (Score:2)
Re:The law (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, what China would probably do is start loggi
Re:The law (Score:2)
Re:The law (Score:2)
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 i
Re:The law (Score:2)
No no no you've got it the wrong way around. Companies in the US are the ones who have got hold of the lawmakers...
Re:America is not a democracy itself (Score:2)
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Just food for thought.
Re:America is not a democracy itself (Score:2)
Re:America is not a democracy itself (Score:5, Informative)
And, yes, the founders wanted to protect property rights. That's an important part of individual freedom. In China, the communist government does not recognize property rights. Leave it to someone at slashdot to conflate the two.
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 promot
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right-wing campaign to change the subject (Score:2)
If you're talking about the Clinton Administration's use of physical searches without a warrant before the law was amended to prohibit it, the analogy to the Bush Administration's breaking a law already on the books (FISA) is pretty weak. You need to stop getting your information from Fox News. [mediamatters.org] Or, if you don't watch FNC, let me suggest that taking positions coincidentally aligned with debunked Republican talking points spouted by Rush Limbaugh
Pick Your Battles (Score:2)
Re:Pick Your Battles (Score:2)
So they took it on and surrendered. Is that supposed to be an improvement?
"If we don't do it our competitors will" is a nice slogan. I bet it looked good hanging over the entrance to the engineering firm that maintained the furnaces at Auschwitz.
TWW
Re:Pick Your Battles (Score:2)
NO NO NO NO NO! That will actually make China's human rights situation worse. Look at Cuba, for example. We had an embargo with them for over 40 years. Have that changed Cuba? No.
People should be able to trade with whomever t
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 res
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 imprison
Re:I hate people some times (Score:2)
Hear hear! Especially the US. Oh but you'll never convince the brain-washed "USA # 1" citizens that perhaps SOME countries are more peaceful, cultured and civilized than theirs.