Google's Shareholders Vote Against Human Rights 376
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
+5, Informative.
Re:kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking Chinese law isn't much of an option for a mega-corporation.
Re:kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do. He's that bad. Any story that can either be published or be reworded to stick the boot into Microsoft or attract any other similar Slashdotter kneejerk reaction is accepted by this guy, and he insists on giving the raving lunatic Twitte
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Good? Bad? (Score:4, Funny)
The Problem (Score:5, Funny)
1. Support human rights
2. ???
3. Profit!
Re:The Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Problem (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
This operates under a ver
Re:The Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's examine this argument shall we?
Pre-Google (and here "Google" can be replaced without loss of generality for any Western internet company) China (which can again be replaced with any totalitarian regime) had less access to information than rest of the world. Fine. I think everyone will agree to that. You are argue by that Google by simply being available increases access to information. Let's, assume that's true for the sake of argument. Now assuming that access to Google increase
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As I see it, Google has two options. Comply with the government's censorship demands, or stop doing business in the country. Neither of these does the citizens of China any good. If they comply with the censorship demands, there is still a lot of information that can be deliv
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Now assuming that access to Google increases information, here's where your, and Google, and all the other Western Totalitarian Regime Apologists', argument breaks down: GOOGLE IS FUCKING CENSORED! There's no increase in access to information, because the information that China blocks the information.
Here's where your argument breaks down: NOT ALL THE SEARCHES ARE CENSORED. In fact, the vast majority aren't, because people search for all kinds of things that don't piss off the Commies. Like learning abo
Re:The Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China's government is not my favorite, but I do not call it an enemy government (anymore). In fact, I think very few governments will actually (dare to) call China's government an enemy in the open. But there is certainly room for improvement with regards to personal freedom and free speech. I can also pretty much understand why China is not pursuing that road (yet).
Mod parent waaaaay off topic! (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Google is evil... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well actually now it's 11:07 but I had to look up the "root of all evil". It appears that the right wingers (Godwin) are wrong, and that government is NOT in fact the root of all evil.
Google is? Ok, I guess. All its employees were babies once. Many slashdotters still are (but not you, dear reader)
Inflammatory headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Inflammatory headline (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Inflammatory headline (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
according to what? the fact that they're a listed public company doesn't (inherently) say anything about their purpose. their own statement of purpose:
as far as the company is officially concerned, stock price - and even profit! - are simply means to that end (although obviously profit is a pretty crucial one). investors buy the s
Re:Inflammatory headline (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you disagree with the statement "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?" [phrases.org.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
If Google took a public stance of refusing to provide censored searches, that would most certainly have an "effect on things in the real world". At least as much effect as the vague lobbying that you want them to do instead.
Re:Inflammatory headline (Score:4, Interesting)
Some information can be worse than none (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's some information: A son kills his father.
Do you see the difference?
Offering some information may give you not only no information, but skewed or twisted information. Which can indeed be worse than none.
The rest of the quote: (Score:5, Funny)
Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Slow news day much?
Re:Misleading Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're part of it... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
China doesn't *need* Google. Not even in the slightest. They have much more popular alternatives already.
Re: (Score:2)
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[...]
Really? I take it you're not counting lobbying, campaigning, running for office, demonstrating or striking - all part of the system, and all ways that have changed an awful lot of things. Women didn't get the vote because we were invaded. Tax changes aren't effected by an international committee. Abortion law isn't shaped by some guy deep in the wild west living off the grid. Being in the system gives you a platform, and a voice, and an audience. Standing outside the town hall just leaves you out of the m
Proxy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Proxy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
abstained votes cout (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
just thought I should clarify.
Re: (Score:2)
For the other items of business, you may vote "FOR," "AGAINST" or "ABSTAIN." If you elect to "ABSTAIN," the abstention has the same effect as a vote "AGAINST." If you provide specific instructions with regard to certain items, your shares will be voted as you instruct on such items. If no instructions are indicated, the shares will be voted as recommended by the board of directors.
Do Human Rights pay the bills? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not.
And you can't predict what would have happened.
And if shareholders don't like it, they can sell. If they feel it was done improperly, they can sue.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://finance.aol.com/company/google-inc/goog/nas [aol.com]
Better than in US (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From my experience they do. Sometimes you run across the "Chilling Effects" notice at the bottom of you result, with the text that says something to the effect of "someone forced us to remove something, here is all the info". A savvy searcher can read the Chilling Effects page, and see who called for the censorship, and have some idea that something is missing.
While this solution isn't optimal (opt
We all vote against human rights (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every time you or I make a decision to buy a product made in China we are voting against human rights.
Every time you buy a product from *anywhere*, including the USA, you vote against human rights. I might even say *particularly* the USA.
I might also note your use of 'track record' - your use of this term assumes that nothing has changed. Even someone who is reformed has a 'track record', but might be considered totally trustworthy. China is changing at an amazingly fast rate, and it *is* getting better - I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.
Most of the negative opinion of China comes from being brou
Re:We all vote against human rights (Score:4, Insightful)
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".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The interactions between China and the US both work to our mutual advantage. It represents a more optimal allocation of work vs resources. Consider the story of the Lawyer and the Typist. Suppose that a Lawyer can type 150wpm and a Typist can only type 100 wpm. The Lawyer can also do Lawyer
The Chinese People Are Responsible (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Chinese People Are Responsible (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
For Profit (Score:2, Insightful)
And for those of you who say "If you are part of the system, you support it" and criticize Google for not standing up against human right violations, well, then stop buying everything made in China and stand up yourself first! Stop buying Nike shoes, iPods, some GAP cloth, Notebooks, Blu-ray players, LCD TVs and many other gadgets you love so much...Suddenly China's human right violations doesn't sound too much ev
To Be or Not to Be... (Score:2)
Although google may filter content from searches for 'free tibet' or 'tianaman square', I would imagine that the actual search engine still operates in the same fashion as it does in the 'free' world.
Thus, google would only be blocking requests in a semantic fashion, yes? From an information perspective, google should still be able to index and serve results for content which is against Chines
No access to google is against China government? (Score:2)
Value of an Ad-Click in China? (Score:3, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Assisting censorship is good now? (Score:3, Interesting)
The reaction displayed to this story on Slashdot is so typical of people's biases here. Everybody is quick to defend Google, as they are still widely seen as a good company. I don't think it takes a genius to predict that the typical response would be very different if this story was about Microsoft. I think censorship is wrong whoever does it.
For the record I have no illusions that any for profit company would be acting any differently to Google in this situation, choosing to do business in China and ignoring the ethical implications. This is of course widely seen in the use of cheap Chinese labour to manufacture western consumer goods etc. I also have no illusions that the Chinese are somehow the only repressive govt around the world and that the focus on them by westerners is not more than a little hypocritical.
None of that excuses people aiding an authoritarian regime in censoring information. Clearly in order to appease the Chinese authorities Google now have smart people employed in figuring out how to better censor the internet. This advances the technology of censorship and is of detriment to freedom everywhere, not just in China, none of this occurs in a vacuum and the Chinese govt are not the only group prone to censorship.
I'm not saying boycott China or anything like that, simply that western corporations should be forced to adhere to the same ethical standards in China they would be forced to in the West.
So, while maybe it's hypocritical to single out Google for special criticism, I also think it's wrong to defend them and to pretend that "do no evil" will ever be more than clever marketing. There should be regulation to prevent this kind of thing in any country that even pretends to care about freedom of speech.
Republicans Hate Puppies! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Related issues (Score:3, Interesting)
Although China is one of the less free countries, it is improving. Think about that it was like 25 or 50 years ago. Now it is rapidly industrializing and becoming richer. Increased freedom is a major cause of the increased wealth, and these newly richer people are better able to promote more freedom. Google's technology is helping this trend.
The sort of people who create this sort of stockholder initiative either have no interest in the success of Google or they're too blind to see that such silliness harms Google. Political posturing and power grabs make up the majority of the stockholder initiatives I've seen in the last decade.
Re:Google may not be evil (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google may not be evil (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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 (Score:4, Funny)
at least they didn't use synergy.
Re:Google may not be evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
1. We can pursue this avenue, and make NO money.
2. There is this other avenue we can puruse, and we make loads of money.
hmmm..tricky.
Re:Google may not be evil (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder what response rate you'd get with an option that said 'If you agree to our logging your IP would you like to see the uncensored search results'?
Re:Google may not be evil (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when China wants Google to misrepresent information?
I say empower the people to get to your uncensored search engine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Google's position, I don't know what I'd do. It's definitely not the black and white issue the title implies. Still, a few things are certain: Google provides a ver
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree in the shades of gray sense. If someones version of human rights in genocidal, or repressive, then I disagree. If the people don't have the right to change their lot, then I would disagree. Its very hard to ethically argue that non-representational governments are ethically fine.
BUT... As a culture with a standard of
Re:Google may not be evil (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
B) Censor all of Google in China.
Which one of those is more evil?
Which is more evil:
Censoring part of the message:
"John McCain Kills Homeless man"
Or the Full Message:
"John McCain Kills Homeless man in self defense after being attacked."
There is no "partial censorship." It is either censored or not.Censorship is nothing more than a tool for propaganda. It is better to have them find reliable sources of information than to provided them with ones that are censored.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"You searched for John McCain. These results have been censored, find out why."
OR...
"John McCain Kills Homeless Man in Self Defense, Film at 11"
Parts of Google are being censored, but you are informed of it, and Google is not altering the content of the items being censored in any way whatsoever. So if you manage to find a way to get through the censor, Google has no power to alter the content of the page. What, do you think someone at Google goes through
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Google were living up to their "Do no evil" motto, there wouldn't have needed to be a vote in the first place.