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?
The critics may decry this move, but would China be better off with no Google at all in your opinion?
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.
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
...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)