Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Defends Google's Censorship In China
worb writes "At the World Economic Forum today, Bill Gates defended Google's actions in China and told delegates that the internet 'is contributing to Chinese political engagement' as 'access to the outside world is preventing more censorship'. There was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China, he argued."
Googles actions were the same as his own, weren't they? So he defended himself aswell.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Do not forget that both Google and Gates speak from the position of a BUSINESSMAN! Not as a human rights activists, citizen or politician!
So "There was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China." does not mean that It was right" but it does mean "There was no better option to earn money"...
The Right Thing can be different when viewed from different angles.
Well, I've got to get back to work. When I stop rowing, the slave ship just goes in circles.
... why didn't you do the same for MSN?
Its much more difficult to fight a battle when your not in the ring.
I see no problem at present with the major corporations' collective stance.
99.9% of chinese folks don't even consider themselves repressed, so why make it difficult for them to use the web?
liqbase
The critics may decry this move, but would China be better off with no Google at all in your opinion?
The comments so far seem to reflect exactly what I saw coming the second I read the headline.
/.
If MS censors in China, MS is evil and money grubbing and should be stopped.
If Google censors in China they're actually improving freedom in China just by being there.
If MS defends Google censoring China, MS is evil, Google is Good.
Wecome to
Google hasn't done anything countless other companies have done. But because thits Google the press goes crazy with it. This is laughable to say the least. The more China gets exposed to influences from other countries, the better off they are. Google alone can't dictate policy in China. But once they are established, change can occur.
http://religiousfreaks.com/I'll get modded down for this but I don't really care what they do in China.
Well I do but I won't feel any more worse about it than I do about China in general.
It seems like it should be similar but I think of it as completely different than the US, or other wesertn countries.
Basically China can do whatever it wants.
Of course those are those who think that you should boycott anything that does business there. That would mean you have to leave the US and stop buying most products.
This applies to both Google and MS.
Now yes I do think censorship as bad but it isn't the same in other places.
I can't really explain it though.
P.S. I noticed that when someone mentions they will be modded down in a post it actually gets modded up.
I don't mind the karma loss I just like lots of replies.
Why don't you guys have friends or journals?
I think (but could be wrong) that his point is that the more information that is going into China from the outside, the harder it is to censor -everything-, so while the amount of censoring technically is increasing, so is the chance that relevant information will get by those censors.
This is a complex issue, and I don't claim to know the best way to encourage China to become a more open and free society. Heck, I don't even know how to encourage my own country to become more free, what with Dubya playing dictator and the so-called opposition party acting like lap dogs.
But the one thing I can say for sure in all this is that if I was a Chinese-American or a Chinese national who worked for Google, or Yahoo, or MS, I'd sure be feeling like an Uncle Tom right about now. Or is that an Uncle Wang? I'm not sure. But knowing that I was helping restrict the information access of some of my distant relatives, I'd sure feel like crapola.
But really, aren't all men supposed to be brothers? Aren't we all related, at some distant point in the far past? So to me, anyone who works for Google or one of the other companies helping to build the "Great Firewall" ought to be taking a hard look in the mirror and asking themselves... am I an Uncle Wang? Am I doing what I can to help my fellow man, or am I profiting from their oppression?
And the fact that Bill Gates says Google's actions are a good thing sure would not make me feel one iota better....
the pot calling the kettle white
Censorship leads to freedom.
Totalitarianism births democracy.
Benevolent societies are a natural byproduct following shareholder interests.
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
Which reminds me. If Democracy is supposed to be such a good thing - and any government defying its principles is deficient, if not questionably moral - then why does the same not hold true for corporations? Why are they run by charismatic autocrats, backed by semi-secretive cabals?
CEOs are just little Maoist dictators at heart. They share more with the reality of the Chinese rulers than they do with you, me or Thomas Paine.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Just because Google is an American company, it is not within reason for it to impose American ideology on another nation. While doing business within a market sponsored and regulated by another government, it is only fair that you play by their rules. Google is NOT a liberation army, they are not defenders of democracy or freedom; nor is it their right to assume such a role in a foreign land. Google is a business, a business with shareholders who demand results, results which include expanding into other markets via legal means. Google is in China to offer a product or service and, in a hybrid free-market/command-economy, you must yield to he who allows you to peddle your goods on his front yard. In the end, it all means that regardless of how we the people, the employees of Google, or some loud-mouthed Senators feel, if you want to play in China, you must obey Chinese law.
The point can also be made that Google did not have to enter the Chinese market, given those stipulations, but unfortunately, that is not the case. We need as much Chinese business as we can get to help with the ever-growing trade imbalances as we import much more than we export. I fail to see any semblance of a moral dilemma here.
Gates knows that any business that wants to be part of the future, needs to be involved in China and India. That's 1/3rd of the worlds population. Bill Gates and the boys at Google aren't stupid.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Most of the comments here and the other articles on the subject follow the "everything or nothing" mentality.
This is typical when asking for opinions of people not directly affected by the matter. Most of you being outside China, it is easy to claim that you would rather not use Google at all instead of use a reliable service with certain "sensitive" pages filtered.
If you put yourself in the position of a Chinese Internet user, the situation quickly gets different.
Google is a powerful tool, the benefits of which reach far beyond looking up the human rights sites on the Internet (as important as that may be on its own). Depriving China of Google's services is far worse development for Chinese citizens than what Google chose to do.
Also don't forget that it's a lot easier to control a population with overall less reach to information sources. Even if Google filters certain pages, the rest of the information is still an important tool in the fight against censorship and human freedoms.
As China's population gets increasingly better informed and educated, it will be increasingly difficult to control them in the manners we see now or in the past.
So I applaud Bill Gates for taking stand on the matter, never mind if it is to defend Microsoft's own policy or out of principle.
.... at least try to use ones that hold some water.
IN the analogy you are using, you can refer the matter to an arbiting authority: the police.
In the case of Google, there is no referee, the referee is the client. And the judge, and everything.
If you wanna play in China (and if all your competition is alreading doing so, you must do so) then you are going to play under Chinese rules and brush up your Mandarin.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Google is right to change the results of South African searchers looking for images and information about the Sharpeville massacre because in the end it's better for Google to be in the South African apartheid market than out of it, and they'd be out if they let them see images like this. Giving them access to some information is better than none and little bits will slip through because you can't censor everything.
What about the ANC you say? Well the South African government considers them terrorists so it's only really obeying the laws of South Africa to change the results of a search for them.
I think it's clear Google shouldn't boycott the South African government because in the end what can Google really do? What would a boycott ever achieve?
Google is staying true to it's motto "Don't be evil" by making compromises that you absolutists simply don't understand.
I've seen many comments badmouthing Google or any other companies for complying to Chinese government's rules. I think it is time for me to have a say, I will probably be modded down for this, but at least you see a different perspective.
Look, not the whole world is the West. Many of you think that everyone in the world would want to be like Westerners; want freedom of speech, want freedom of this of that... but guess what? No! Some people actually do not need freedom of speech or freedom to watch pr0n on the net. Well not yet at least... Eastern countries have different cultures than the Wests'. Differences in social structures, values, religions etc. Openness is good for improvement I think, but it should not happen immidiately. Their societies work that way for ages, asserting foreign (Western) values in an instant may break those societies. Besides, some of Western cultures are bad btw. So if China wants to set their own rules, stop bickering. It is none of your business.
Say you have a very expensive carpet in your house and you want people to take their shoes off when entering. Google is taking its shoes off, but some crowd outside jeering, protesting Google because it respects your rules. WTF!
Really? Guess the $900 million he pledged just today to help fight TB was just play money? Look -- you can love or hate Bill, I really don't care, but maybe if you bothered to realize people are complex -- not all good, not all bad -- you MIGHT avoid such a ignorant, unsupported, knee-jerk remarks.
The guy has done some serious good in the world with his money, regardless of your hate for Microsoft or his approach to business;
$5 Billion to World Health Org
$100 million to help fight AIDS
$750 million to the Vaccine Fund
Though are REAL dollars, it's one helluva PR bill if that's all you think it is. According to Wikipedia, the Gates Foundation is the largest charitable organization in the world today -- with a trust set up to donate $1 BILLION anually. I'm guessing you probably haven't even given $50 to a single charity lately...
Criticize him for his monopolistic tendencies or business practices, but give credit where it's due.
'The unexamined life is not worth living' - Socrates
Which reminds me. If Democracy is supposed to be such a good thing - and any government defying its principles is deficient, if not questionably moral - then why does the same not hold true for corporations? Why are they run by charismatic autocrats, backed by semi-secretive cabals?
All publicly traded corporations are a democracy. They are reponsible to their shareholders, the same way a government is responsible to their voters. The only difference is that it isn't a simple matter of one shareholder, one vote. It's more like the system of electoral colleges in the US. One state can have a larger interest than another.
A private enterpreneurship is more like a dictatorship, where the leader is only responsible to themselves, and answeres to no one.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Everyone that has a problem with Google's choice needs to stop buying anything made in China. Must be nice to have double standards. Bad Google, oh this Vacuum is really nice for 19.99.
Give me a break.
I didn't use the preview button, so get over it!!!!
Mike
More like having a law in your city saying you can only give half a sandwich to the homeless beggars on the street. Since it's such an inhumane law, should you protest it by not giving half a sandwich to one of them as you drive by?
Who is being punished by this humanitarian perspective? The government that sets up the unfair laws, or the people who already have to suffer under them?
So, before you start lecturing people on fixing their "racist culture", why don't you try and not lump all Americans together as if there was one homogenous culture here?
...it's the Chinese people's fight. If Google goes in and strongarms the Chinese into accepting freedom of speech, it'll be an American company forcing an American right. If the Chinese people, instead, are given the a glimpse of freedom, but have to fight themselves to get the whole thing, it'll be Chinese people forcing an inalienable Chinese right. You can't force a people to be free if they don't understand what oppression is. If the Chinese people have to fight, fight against their own government, their own rules, their own culture, to be free, it'll stick.
That's not really true. If I want electricity, I have no choice. If I want hot water, I have no choice in either case as to which corporation I must give money to. I need to pick a corporation for health insurance. I need to pick one for car insurance. If they all suck (and they do), I have to deal with it.
Also, oftne you cannot escape the effects of a corporation. I cannot escape tons of mindless advertisements. I cannot escape the influence of companies like Haliburton. I cannot avoid getting screwed by an Enron-like company. I cannot help but breath the polution put out by companies with a greater interest in profit than protecting the environment. I cannot help but have my voice heard less because I can't throw thousands of dollars to dozens of politicans every year. Etc etc...
I won't claim to be a political scientist nor a historian, but didn't Apartheid get abolished shortly (in historical terms) after western influence crept in?
Lets say that western investment was 'bad' for south africa. Why then is it no longer the way it was?
Just an honest question.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
where Peter annexes his next door neighbors pool and he gets letters of praise from Serbia, Iran, Iraq, etc.
I wonder if we'll see anyone resigning at Google in protest...
Someone should tell that to the republicans.
"It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
You're obviously not in touch with the real world.
3 &ObjectID=10363958
I'll tell you the reason that the United States cannot disengage from China, why the U.S. cannot let that country go into the shitter.
It's because China is the number 2 owner of U.S. public debt. Ontop of the ~500 billion dollars they own in Treasury Bonds, China also has their currency pegged to the U.S.'s, which means they buy up dollars at a furious pace.
BTW - Japan happens to be the #1 holder of U.S. Public debt.
If anything happened to the Japanese or Chinese economies, they could very easily take the United States down with them.
China just recently indicated that they're considering diversifying their currency holdings away from dollars, which could obviously cause inflation.
get a subscription to the economist, or business week
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=
Don't blame Google, blame your government. China is the US's "Most Favored" trading partner. The US gov't validated China's behavior a long time ago.
Ditto for the Middle East. The US doesn't care about democracy over there, they just want countries that will play nicely & not be a threat. Saudia Arabia is just as bad as China (at least they don't cut off hands in China) and our President is great friends with King Saud.
Your ignorance is showing.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Not trying to be a dick, but surely it was the western influence that started apartheid in the first place?!?
The real economic influence that helped tear down Apartheid was in the form of economic //sanctions// imposed by other countries, probably including //prohibitions// against investing in South African industry. This is quite the opposite of what you're saying.
Wikipedia on Apartheid
Oh shut the fuck up, I don't even own a TV. It was just an example. Your assumptions prove only your self-righteousness and idiocy. You have no idea what I do and don't do.
Which is why natural monopolies like that should be state-owned.
I am trolling
It was brought down by embargoing, banning them from sporting events, etc. - the precise opposite of what we're doing with China here.
I am trolling
If you don't live in the People's Republic of China and your ISP isn't in the effective jurisdiction of the PRC, you probably will see uncensored search results, especially if *google.cn is not actually hosted in the PRC.
Just how zealous is Google about this? Do they censor search results requested by residents of Taiwan?
--E
You have a point, and i agree with your logic, my point was, China is not inside the USA, and if google wants to sell their products in China, they must agree with local laws. People in China knows about the censorship, and if they want to search for political news, they surely won't look in google. Anyway, google is still there for lots of other topics, that's my point.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
So, what's the deal here? Some of you feel that Google, being an American company, should just ignore Chinese law for the servers they have sitting on Chinese soil?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Yet, you whine and moan when China ignores the laws of other countries to produce those shiny region-free DVD players for $39 (which you go out and buy anyways).
Oh, and just for the record... Google is a corporation, not a government. As such, they have the right to do whatever they want with the data they collected, subject to contracts signed by the folks they collected it from. I trust you have a signed contract that says they aren't allowed to filter the contents of your web server? No? Ok then.
Of course he defended Google, he's in the same spot as them. If you were a POW, would you say POW's suck? Or would you say that about an individual next to you when you know everybody else hates you?
Good luck, if your answer is 'yes' to at least one of the above.
I'm pretty sure that Apartheid was actually instituted by 'westerners'.