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."

Comments

Defends _Googles_ actions?

[Bromskloss]

Googles actions were the same as his own, weren't they? So he defended himself aswell.

Right is not Right

[Elixon]

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.

Re:Right is not Right

[jlarocco]

Just because you're a businessman shouldn't mean that you are excempt from morality.

This has nothing to do with being a business man. The fact of the matter is, nobody in the U.S. cares about human rights in China. That new Dell monitor? Made in China. The mouse and keyboard? Made in China. Half the components in your computer? Made in China. Those shoes? Made in China. That cheap pair of jeans? China.

Instead of whining on slashdot about how "OMG, Google's doing business in China!!1!! They must be evil!!", how about you get off your ass, make a stand, and discontinue doing business with China yourself?

Look at it this way, Google, Microsoft, and all the other companies doing business in China sell out their morality for hundreds of millions of dollars. The average U.S. citizen does it for 75 cents off a mouse and cheaper shoes. Maybe you're criticizing the wrong group?

Still wondering

[Too many errors, bai]

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

Re:Still wondering

[MrWa]

Chinese citizens are probably better off with a censored Google rather than no Google at all. That is true.

The "critics", such as they are, are mainly those people that love to point out hypocrisy in others. Google brought this on themselves, though, by obviously juxtopositioning themselves against Microsoft with the corporate philosophy of "Do no evil." Remember your SAT keywords; Google themselves said "no evil" - not "Do the lesser of two evils."

Censorship in the support of a repressive government is considered by most people to fall under the umbrella of things evil. Justifying that action based on the corporate benefits or saying that, hey, atleast they know the results are being censored - as though millions of Chinese people are really that ignorant - does not change the fact that Google is helping to restrict the information available. That is why the critics are so vocal: it is about Google violating thier own philosophy and breaking netizen trust more than the specific benefit/harm tradeoff that filtering the results entails.

Re:Still wondering

[saikatguha266]

> Chinese citizens are probably better off with a censored Google rather than no Google at all.

Sensoring is one thing. Sugar-coating and biasing is another.

If Google were to censor all occurences of 'Tiananmen' and say that the search returned '0' results because of censoring, I'd be likely to agree with you. After all, '0' results doesn't say whether Tiananmen happened or didn't happen.

But Google is hiding the content that speaks negatively of it, and not what speaks positively of it. Compare:
World -- http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen
China -- http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen

When all the serce results say Tianenmen didn't happen, and none say it did ... thats when Google spreads biased misinformation. This is what is evil.

Re:Exactly

[Philip K Dickhead]

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.

Re:Exactly

[TubeSteak]

At the very end of TFA, they leave us with these words from Mr. Gates

Software piracy is a problem that will likely be solved over time, because as Chinese-made technology evolves, the country's respect for intellectual property rights will improve, he added.

"We are always upset that they aren't paying us for our products, but we're not going to pick up and go home," Mr Gates said.

So... Gates can't really deny the Chinese software licenses... they aren't asking.

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.

Re:So much for all that "charity" work

[Morpeth]

"This demonstrates so clearly that Gates' supposedly charitable work is nothing but a PR exercise."

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.

It's not Google/MS/Yahoo's fight...

[richdun]

...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.

Re:Exactly

[John Nowak]

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...