Slashdot Mirror
Business At The Price Of Freedom
An anonymous reader writes "The TechZone has an article on how much technology companies setting up shops in China have to kowtow to the Chinese government. All the major search engines have given in to Chinese demands to throttle liberty in exchange for access to the Chinese market and Microsoft has blocked users of its MSN site from using the terms 'freedom,' 'democracy' and other concepts China has designated as dangerous. From the article: 'Most disconcerting are recent reports that Yahoo!'s Hong Kong operation is turning over emails which helped convict a reporter. Journalist Shi Tao was jailed and sentenced to 10 years in prison for "illegally sending state secrets abroad." The secrets that he revealed were information his newspaper received from the state propaganda department about how they could cover the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. He was identified because he had used Yahoo!'s free email service for which Yahoo! turned over log files to authorities that were later tracked back to his computer.'"
If you don't like it, don't use them. You do have a choice, you know.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
The companies that are already in China know how to work with the government. They're not going to do anything stupid.
This seems like a warning message to companies like Google and Microsoft, who in recent events expressed interest in targeting China (in a marketing, not tactical, sense). Will these large corporations fall flat on their face when they move into China?
In America we don't kowtow to the government, we bend over and grab our ankles.
Yen is Japanese currency. You're looking for Yuan.
Your argument would be more effective if you displayed at least some knowledge about the region, rather than the hyperbole that keeps getting fed to you over the boob tube.
How about US corporations cooperating with CALEA (all wiretaps, all the time), broadcasters knuckling down on popular entertainment figures for fear of reprisals from the FCC, and ISPs who almost always say "we are cooperating fully with authorities," code for "we're not going to challenge the dodgy search warrant (or the fact that there's none at all), but will turn over subscriber records at the drop of a hat to avoid abusive regulators getting tough on us over other issues if we don't play ball. Other examples, anyone?
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
This is ridiculous. Surely the stockholders can't think highly of this incident.
What is so interesting is these businesses are operating in direct opposition to the position of the Presidend of the United States. His position is to forward democracy and democratic values. These businesses are supporting just the opposite. I wonder what the president will do about this.
This is the same ole shit. Just like when all these companies supported Apartheid in South Africa. And China supports oppresive regimes in Africa now.
Do we really want our debt financed by China? What type of barganing power does this give them over us while our economy is so fragile?
...and virtually a million ways to cloak sensitive data from You Personal Government's eyes. It's sad those who could have saved their liberty by using those, often did not do so, obviously :(
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
There was a recent article on the same topic in SF chronicle.
One of the compelling argument was "If the Chinese custom is to make children work or to kill women, you wouldn't do it," said Julien Pain, head of the Internet Freedom Desk at Reporters Without Borders.
I wonder where should the line be drawn.
95% of all sigs are made up.
If ever the US government took a sharp turn towards authoritarianism, we can assume that no large US corporation would take a stand against it. In fact, these will be the first organizations to tow the line, like the spineless Iraqi politicians who, while dissidents were being led out and shot by Hussein, responded by standing up and declaring their allegience.
IBM's role in the holocaust had nothing to do with a shared ideal with Nazism, and everything to do with the fact that dirty money spends just as well as anything.
And there's usually more of it.
Since when in this modern production age hasn't this been the case? China had almost always had "Most Favored Nation" trading status with us, even when their tank treads were rolling over protesting college students.
And while American corporations MAY want access to their markets now that they are growing as consumers, were that market not growing, corporations would be perfectly happy to only exploit the Chinese labor force to make cheaper widgets.
Once again showing that the US could give a RATS ASS about democracy. All ourt leaders care about is serving their corporate masters and opening foreign markets to exploitation.
Ignore Alien Orders
I would be worried if China even acted like a "free country", but they don't. They are pretty open with the idea that they are restricting speech on the Internet, they aren't hiding it.
Now, OTOH, my country claims to be free - and it isn't. Your examples show this fact. So, let's stop talking about China and start talking about something we might be able to change: America
Get your Unix fortune now!
Here's another similar take from Guo Guoting, an attorney
"Sometimes, I wonder if market economy can success in a totalitarian country. It would be a huge blow in face of economist's theories if this is the case."
(1) Communism != totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a method of administering government, not economy. Here's a question for you: is it possible to have a communist economy with a democratic government?
(2) China does not have a purely communist economy; many reforms have occurred to foster (somewhat) free markets.
By accepted definition, capitalism cannot exist within communism -- they are two faces of a coin. Perhaps the subject of your post should have been, "Can capitalism exist under a totalitarian government?"
Or perhaps, "Can capitalism and communism co-exist in one political system?"
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Right, Americans are dying everyday, but no one asked them to come. It is the same in China. Believe it or not, but most Chinese stand behind the government in principle.
There will be a day when China is ready for democracy, but that is still ahead of us. When the day comes, the instruments (Google and other Internet tools) will be in place to facilitate the regime shift.
Today, our goal is to tie China as tightly as we can to the rest of the world, so as to make it inevitable that democracy is on the roadmap. That is why we want to see Beijing host the olympics. That is why we want China in the WTO. That is why we want Amurcan and other Western companies having a strong presence in China.
Nothing, of course. Just like no one did anything when U.S. corporations set up shop in the newly formed Soviet Union. You don't challenge corporations - it doesn't work.
Do we really want our debt financed by China? What type of barganing power does this give them over us while our economy is so fragile?
Our debt financed by China? It's worse than that. Did you know that during that housing boom we just had that the Chinese central banks sunk a lot of the national treasury into the American mortgage market? They sure don't believe in property rights in China, but over here it's another story.
http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm
Get your Unix fortune now!
I wonder how Google are operating in China. I think they'll have to change their slogan to, "Don't be Evil (may not apply in some jurisdictions)".
Who are we kidding. Private companies will gladly sell out and kowtow to anyone as long as it helps them rake in the cash. Companies don't care if China never becomes a democracy, in fact they probably prefer it the way things are.
Personally, I feel the Chinese model is so attractive to business that pretty soon people in western nations will begin to lose their rights as companies demand more and more harmonisation with the superior Chinese model.
It seems capitalism can achieve what the soviets could not.
May the Maths Be with you!
Chinese users just have to learn how to start searching for fr33dom and dem0cr@cy. After all, that's only one step beyond searching for p0rn.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
freedom comes from business?
slavery was a business. did you know that? have you heard of it? it was a major cashcow, too.
i don't think you've noticed this either: many, or even most, people who have jobs still can't afford to donate to political campaigns.
have you ever heard of child-labor? the so-called free market necessitates such things, from the perspective of THE BOTTOM LINE, the profit/greed motive.
maybe you're about to say "Everyone is Free to be Rich." unfortunately, "being rich" by definition means a CONCENTRATION of wealth, which by definition means other people aren't rich.
have you ever heard of colonialism? mercantilism? the subjugation of entire countries had "business", money, and resources as its goal.
have you heard of christopher columbus? his crews murdered many people for gold. they came to the so-called New World for money and resources. that's business.
and i'm sure you also haven't realized this: some of the most tyrannical regimes in modern history had "free markets." they even hunted down and imprisoned or executed communists (communists are people who oppose capitalism and say a lot of nasty things about "free markets). hitler and mussolini both gave entirely free reign to big business. (in your view, the bigger the business, the freer the people, right?)
you're telling me that when i denigrate those enterprises, i'm denigrating freedom?
if freedom only comes from business, then what did the "heros" you're talking about sacrifice to protect my freedom to live? you make no sense.
the idea that "freedom" only exists because of the free market is one of the most absurd things i've heard in recent times. maybe you were joking, maybe this doesn't need a response, but i can't say i'm very optimistic these days.
Freedom does NOT come from business. Business comes from freedom. At our countries founding, Big Business as we know it did not exist. The only big businesses there were at that time, were government sponsered oppressive colinization sceams like the East India Company which forced Indian's to do business with the English. Our country (the USA) was filled with small independant business people who grew their businesses by being able to freely and openly do business with anyone else that was able, without restrictions. You cannot do this without basic freedoms of speech, movement, and control of the government BY the people. NONE of which is availible to the Chinese people at this time. The only thing our businesses will do is help the Chinese government to oppress its own people, and force them to do business only with the companies that support their "evil empire". Its a sad state of affairs, but our Corporations seem to have reverted back to the old East India Company mode.
"Sorry sir, I couldn't tell you even if I knew."
If Kennedy can't find out why he's on the list they won't tell you either.
FaclonShould there be a Law?
To spell it out: democracy in prez-speak means freedom for corporations to make money. Democratic values is the value of being able to make money without being hampered too much. You see, those damn Arabs don't buy much of our stuff, so we need to bring democracy to them.
Okay, a bit over the top this, but the point is that from the US point of view, business comes first, democratic values come second. This has always been the case, and I don't see a change under the current administration. You don't think that the American benevolence towards Iraq has nothing to do with the fact that Iraq is important for business? Unlike, say Sudan?
Parent is not insightful at all. It's flamebait that the Slashdot audience agrees with, just like random anti-Microsoft bashing.
Not everyone wants the "freedom" that the American military is exporting. Look at Iraq now for example. The constitution that they came up with is certainly not at all what the Americans wanted. Pure and simple, Iraqis don't want the "freedom" the Americans have. They want to live by their Islamic law. So let them. If you force "freedom" on Iraq, it is becomes something far more sinister; imperialism. Saying that the Americans need to export "freedom," where freedom is their particular implementation of it that the rest of the world may not agree with, is equivalent to saying that the Americans are better than everyone else and needs to take care of them. Wait, we've heard this line of reasoning before; it's the classic "White Man's Burden" argument for Europeans to justify conquering Africa, and it's been discredited already. The situation in China is similar; American media reports on the matter are heavily skewed and are not to be relied upon.
Students in China did not "die for freedom" in Tian'an men Square. This is a Western myth. They were mere puppets, and their strings were being pulled by crime organizations and Western governments. Quite simply, the Western governments wished to topple the Chinese government, just like they did to the USSR. Look at what has happened to Russia. Obviously it's better for Americans that the USSR is not there anymore, but Russia has been in a shithole for the last 15 years, and is only beginning to climb out of it. Put another way, those students were traitors. And do your research; we gave them plenty of opportunities to stand down, and they refused. They weren't even unarmed; they had taken over a munitions truck that was supposed to protect the people inside Zhong Nan Hai (the government complex). The western coverage of the incident was so biased that it is totally unreliable.
It's been repeated over and over that one doesn't need to be clean to make money. There's no need to even make the opposite argument.
Nixon, facing down the Soviets, began a policy of economic entanglement with China. China was willing to move away from communism towards limited capitalism, but NOT towards democracy. Concerned by an arms race with China, wishing to put some ideological distance between the USSR and China, and in some part, driven by US corporate interests, Nixon launched us on a path which has lead to the consequences discussed in this article: when we do business with China, it is not unlike doing business with Nazi Germany. (Oh no, I invoked Godwin's law, but it is not out of order here.)
By tangling our economic system with China's, America received incredibly cheap labor, and the totalitarian elite in China received great wealth. America conveniently outsourced a lot of blue collar jobs to a country which didn't treat the worker as lavishly as we had to, which kicked organized labor in this country in the gnads, and was basically a similar exodus of jobs to what techies have experienced with India. We got (unethically) cheap labor, and the Chinese elite got rich. Some of this wealth trickled down, but you can be sure that in a non-democratic society, there have not been the mechanisms by which the poor could force some change in wealth distribution.
Nixon's, (and subsequent presidents'), not-so-secret policy towards China has been to hope that a wealthy middle-class would emerge and overthrow the wealthy elite. That has not happened. Look at the masacre in 1989 if you want an example of how easily totalitarian governments can keep control. Nothing has changed except the depth of corruption. In fact, China has actually GROWN in terms of the territory it administers, now able to command the lives of those in Hong Kong, for example. Nixon's policy has FAILED.
The average Chinese worker is a wage slave to American corporations. America exploits them. There is no other way to look at it, in my opinion. Democratic reform has not occured. The only real change has been that we are now dangerously dependent on the Chinese.
This dependency is very real, and very dangerous today. Look at our situation with North Korea. It is obvious the Chinese are not exerting the pressure they could wield there. Remember that train that blew up as it was going to make its way out of NK into China? What do you think that train was associated with carrying? How do you think nuke secrets made it to NK from Pakistan? By boat in international waters? No way! Through China. The Chinese have secretly been encouraging nuclear proliferation because they would rather we got into a nuke war with some minor player, like Pakistan, NK, or Iran. They would rather some other country, by proxy, took the punches and dished it out on us. If we are hurt by a nuke, China will be helped, ESPECIALLY in relation to Taiwan.
The Chinese government is our true enemy, and the people of China need to be liberated.
As an American, I want to see our government disinvest as quickly as it can from China. We should shift that investment into India and other countries with functioning democracies.
We need to punish and isolate the Chinese now before it is too late.
There will be a day when China is ready for democracy, but that is still ahead of us. When the day comes, the instruments (Google and other Internet tools) will be in place to facilitate the regime shift.
The point about companies like Yahoo restricting content and reporting dissent is that at some point, the Internet *won't* be able to assist in facilitating a regime shift. The American revolution was brought about, among other things, by people distributing inflamitory pamphlets. Guess what? Despotic regimes now tightly control printed media. The newspapers won't be bringing China to revolution any time soon, and if you don't watch out, the Internet will lose that capability as well.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Sorry to break this to you, but Americans aren't the ones bringing freedom to the world. Oppressed peoples earn their own freedom through grassroot movements and popular revolutions. In many cases, the American military are the ones who are subverting the voice/will of the people.
Many young American men from lower-class families are lured into the armed services and sent overseas under the pretense of being benevolent liberators bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world. But they are merely pawns in a game of deception and ruthless amassment of wealth, manipulated to carry out the exploitation of developing nations by corporate America.
And it's this ignorant conceit, that Americans are the selfless and unappreciated vanguards of democracy and freedom, that allows these neo-colonialistic policies to be put into action. Open your eyes, the foreign policy of the U.S. has always been self-interested. The only thing Americans are dying(or killing) to bring to the rest of the world is free markets for American corporations to expand into. Capitalism != freedom and democracy.
If we were interested in bringing freedom and democracy to the rest of the world, we would not try to overthrow, assassinate, or otherwise depose democratically elected foreign leaders and popular governments in order to lift their protectionist national policies that are in the way of American corporations exploiting these foreign economies. All we're interested in is political and economic posturing to set-up one-way trade relationships with these developing nations.
I'm an American born Chinese whose parents are from Taiwan. I have friends who are Chinese from China who've moved here, and I'll be damned if all of them oppose the Chinese government.
Sure, you've got a large number of people in China who want democracy, who want elected officials and a say in government. But you've also got a large number of people that are either so caught up in nationalism to notice or sincerely don't believe it's that bad. For a change from totalitarianism to democracy to occur, the idea of change has to be internally ubiquitous.
When you've got a Chinese telling me that the Taiwanese form of government is worse than the Chinese form of government, we've got a problem here. Although the Taiwanese form of government may not be perfect, especially in its beginnings, at least officials are elected by the people, at least it's a multi-party system, and wow, there isn't this rampant totalitarian censorship and control exerted over the people.
When you've got people pointing to the Chinese legislature as a legitimate form of legislature, that's a problem. A one-party legislature is not legitimate, it's a pathetic excuse.
When you've got people saying that there should be a balance between control and freedom (which isn't false at all - for instance, you don't have the freedom to murder) and pointing to CHINA as an example of this, we have a problem. Especially when that same person cites the PATRIOT Act as a problem in the United States.
When you've got people failing to recognize that China is rampant with censorship and has a foreign policy that's worse as ours (Tibet, anyone?), that's a problem. They simply fail to recognize this as a human rights violation. Yet when we bomb Iraqi civilians, they're completely opposed to it, citing human rights. So when the United States kills people it's wrong but when China does it's not? Bullshit. Nationalism at it's peak.
These aren't conservative or totalitarianistic-thinking people either. In America's terms, they'd be considered liberal. It's just when it comes to the subject of China, they're automatically in support.
And it's so hard to show them how absurd this mode of thinking is.
Right now, I have little confidence in the Chinese people to change their government. I also have little confidence in foreign nations to have the ability to change the Chinese government. Not only that, I oppose any attempt by any nation other than China itself to change the Chinese government. Change must come from within. And it doesn't seem like it's coming anytime soon. Tienmen Square shut dissenters up pretty damn good.
You can't blame Yahoo or Google for complying with the Chinese government. If they don't comply, guess what? They're going to be blocked from China. Lot of good that'll do then, right? All those websites about democracy are going to do the Chinese real good if they can't even get there. At least with search query censorship, a clever search may yield good results. When blocking the entire search engine, that whole mode of finding information is lost.
Students in China did not "die for freedom" in Tian'an men Square. This is a Western myth. They were mere puppets, and their strings were being pulled by crime organizations and Western governments.
I see we have a Maoist in the audience. Is any movement against authoritarian government simply a tool of Western imperialists? Is wanting other people to enjoy the same rights under a liberal democracy that we in the USA have cultural chauvinism? Do you not believe in the concept of universal human rights? While we're on this subject, what's your opinion on the case discussed in the article?
I'm frankly sick and tired of hearing this moral relativism applied to human rights. Islamic law as currently practiced in, say, Iran, allows the government to execute you for consensual adult sex. China just threw someone in jail for exposing government propaganda and routinely tortures religious minorities. I don't think it's bigoted or imperialist of me to say that these actions are awful and immoral. I don't think we should invade them, but I will do everything I can to promote alternatives, and that includes boycotting any company that supports such totalitarianism.
Look at what has happened to Russia. Obviously it's better for Americans that the USSR is not there anymore, but Russia has been in a shithole for the last 15 years, and is only beginning to climb out of it.
Seventy years of communism followed by fifteen years of rampant corruption will do that to a nation. If the US hadn't won the Cold War the way it did Russia would have collapsed on its own anyway thanks to their ridiculous economic system and intellectually bankrupt leadership. (Of course, Bush may do the same for us.)
Put another way, those students were traitors. And do your research; we gave them plenty of opportunities to stand down, and they refused.
Since we have freedom of assembly and speech in our country, the idea that a mass demonstration against the government constitutes treason is a little hard to swallow. In fact, our constitution states that the government is responsible to the people, not the other way around. I know there are plenty of people here who'd like to see antiwar demonstrators rounded up and shot, but we have laws against that, unlike China. What's your excuse for the persecution of the Falun Gong and Christians in China? Are they traitors too?
Given that China's trade surplus with the US is a relatively significant percentage of their GDP, wouldn't anything that hurts the US hurt them too?
That's a great question, and it hits at the heart the policy's assumptions.
You have to define who the "them" is that would be hurt by something happening to the U.S. In China, there are two "thems". There are (1) the people in government, the unelected "party". (2) The wealthy businessmen who are outside of government, but certainly connected to it. And (3) "everyone else", from the farmers, the factory workers, to the university students who are not "connected."
Let's say L.A. gets nuked. Suddenly there are a couple hundred thousand less consumers in America. Groups #2 and #3 suffer slightly. Group #1 is going to take whatever it wants anyways, because it is the king, and it is good to be king. Group #2 is going to suffer less than group #3, because the workers aren't calling the shots. They are lucky to have the work. Group #2 will simply pass the buck on the economic downturn on group #3.
But what happens if LA or NYC is nuked by NK or Iran? America will lose its belly for defending Taiwan. Suddenly we know, all to real, what it means to have a city nuked. The Chinese are counting on this. They want us to lose our belly for defending Taiwan, and most likely Japan. You see, group #1 still adheres to ideology: they want Taiwan, and they want revenge on Japan. Once we lose our belly for limited nuclear war (which is what it would be with China), China can do as it damn well pleases.
Now China takes Taiwan, and we waffle. Now groups #1 and #2 win! Group #3, powerless, is going to hurt, because there are now more workers to compete with. Workers who are westernized. Workers like the folks in Hong Kong.
Anyways, I know there are assumptions here in how the US would react to a limited nuclear strike (1 or 2 cities), but to think of China as a single entity which loves American dollars is blind: the government in charge is still very much based on an ideology, and the Chinese capitalists and their wage slaves are still very much their pawns.