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."
Bill Gates wouldn't deny software licenses to The Mob, for example. Commerce should be free and open.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
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
...then Ballmer threw a chair at China.
My script don't crash! She crashes, you crashed her!
After learning Bill Gates was defending their actions, they've decided working in China with censorship is evil after all, and they won't be doing it. They'll be on Oprah Monday to discuss it.
I was ambivalent about whether Google's actions constituted "doing evil," but, after Gate's support, I'm sure it's evil, now.
For a second there I though Google might be a bad guy, but if Bill says they're still cool then they must still be cool.
"This is considered plagiarism."
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?
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.
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.
...you so you decide to go over there and see if he needs a hand with his new deck. Oh, and you also give him a nice new baseball bat that he says he needs for, uh, batting practice. After all, you have a far better chance of reforming him by rewarding him, right?
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
I work in a country where pornography is illegal, so whenever I set up a network I have to install a content filter as due diligence. Personally, I consider abuse of office resources to be a human resource issue, and I make it very clear to management that no filtering technology I can install will obviate the need for a clear Acceptable Use Policy and careful monitoring by staff and management.
I'm not entirely comfortable about blocking content on the Internet, as it's failure prone and IMO removes the responsibility from where I believe it should lie - squarely on the shoulders of the individual members of the organisation. I also find that the local attitude toward the human body extremely unhealthy and socially repressive. But because failure on my part to actively uphold the law of the land could result in my deportation and, more importantly, could harm the development organisation for whom I work, I hold my nose and install the filter anyway.
I still believe that the work I'm doing - bringing the Internet to places where it has never existed before - has more advantages than drawbacks. That's why I'm willing to compromise my principles and to go ahead with this.
That said, I am not working for the local government. Quite the contrary; I work for civil society organisations who spend a great deal of their time and energy keeping the government responsive to the needs of the people. I feel quite ambivalent about companies like Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google, who are in effect doing the government's work for it.
Gates' logic seems to run as follows:
I've tried to weigh the kind of compromises I'm willing to make in the course of trying to benefit society in the country where I work against the purported benefit that accrues to the people of China as a result of the presence of these tech corporations, and for reasons that I can't express very well, I still feel that avarice is leading Gates and co. to make rationalisations.
Anyway, this post is not really trying to prescribe so much as to suggest that the moral and ethical ground is not nearly as clear on either side as we might like. I emphatically disagree with the argument that corporations are amoral and should act only for profit, but at the same time, I have little patience for those who allow Platonic ideals to control their real world behaviour.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
So, what he's really saying is that Microsoft's censorship technology doesn't work properly - and therefore they misrepresented themselves in their agreement with the Chinese government. Shouldn't Microsoft be able to deliver on what they say they will? Why is their censorship software ineffective?
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
By undermining our trust, this re-opened the game for Microsoft.
Bill, if you want to win the Internet (at least in the western world) - just uncensor China - and you will have stolen the moral high ground from Google. I'd switch. Your search results are good enough; and if it weren't that I mistrust Microsoft so much today I probably wouldn't be using Google.
... these things are dangerous. Bill say's that Google does good things, ergo it must be evil, but Google is not evil.
... it may turn slashdot into a time-warp-black-hole-troll-flamewar-thingy sucking the entire universe in and ending all things.
Why is that dangerous
The end is near!!!
Google's Reply: "It commends Google for doing business in China. Put the lotion in the basket!"
Gates is many things, but stupid is definitely not one of them. I'd not be surprised if he honestly did endorse Google to hurt them. I mean, think about it... Google pulls move many see to be 'evil,' which is contrary to their mantra of "Do no evil." Gates runs what's considered one of the most 'evil' corporations on Earth, so his endorsement of Google's move affirms people's thinking that Google is turning 'evil,' and makes them more likely to stop using Google's products and services. They may not flock to MS's products and services, but the less Google has, the better for MS.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
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.
I think alot of people are missing the point.
Google is restricting some sites. Yes. But by having servers for the Google Search, the users in China will be able to access content much more quickly. Ie, instead of a slow and unreliable search page, they will now have a high speed and reliable search page.
The only issue is that terms will be censored, as the government determines words that need censoring.
By making information search faster and easier in China, this opens up the minds of people using the net and the people they talk to. It makes the idea of freedom of information more prevelant and better accepted.
By not choosing to enter China, the alternative was that people would stop using Google because it was unusable in China due to dropped connections, poor speeds, etc. People would need to then use state-controlled search engines which could be shutdown outright.
People are saying it's a blow to human rights. I see it as a step forward for human rights. A tiny step, but a step forward nonetheless. Companies and people carrying the idea of freedom of information needs to start making more in-roads into China, and by extension, the Chinese Government's mindset.
The best way to combat opressive governmental systems is to spread the idea of a better system.
What people don't understand is that Google's going into China was probably something which Google negotiated upon from a disadvantaged position. China doesn't care for Google being in China. To be able to be in China and serve search results is a big boon, even with the restrictions. A boon to Google, for sure, but a boon to the people who live in China and want to use Google to search for information and new ideas.
Microsoft isn't really defending Google in the article. They are defending the idea of doing business in China. They are defending the concept that there is significant business opportunity to be had for companies doing business in China. If investors decide to back away from China as a market, that impacts Microsoft, who wants to increase their business in China.
It isn't so much that they are helping Google so much as keeping their ability to invest in China open.
Groups and organizations with ideas which would be considered radical in comparison to opressive governments are often times taking an all or nothing philosophy to oppression. Ie, all access or none at all. Which do you think is better for the people being oppressed?
By forcing an all-or-nothing decision/approach, you back the governments into a corner or you tie the hands of businesses. Often times, to the point where there isn't so much a discussion as there is a shouting match.
Change comes gradually. Sometimes decades, if not centuries. Yes, oppression is wrong. No, it won't change over night. Yes, the filtering of Google isn't optimal. But Google's presence in China helps to increase the visibility of an outside company and still offers a better mechanism to access the web's information. It isn't a great big step, but it's a step forward.
People are so stuck in the mindset of: do what we want or we will sanction you. Except that can't be leveraged against China because they are the biggest buyers of US bonds. They are a major investor in the US government. So sanctions against them is highly unlikely.
Gotta find that middle ground that everyone can agree on at the moment and find a better one down the line.
Google isn't evil. Not from my point of view. They are trying to do the best they can given the restrictions presented to them. Microsoft is hardly cheering them. The last thing Microsoft wants is Google to have a strong footing in China. Microsoft is only defending the idea of doing business in China, not Google's doing business in China.
Winged Power Photography
.... 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.
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
I've been comparing some of the differences between the chinese version and the US one.
.cn: "Taiwanese Independence". Note that the Independence Party is completly gone from the results. Guess they are subversive.
Take a look at the Google US search for "Tiawanese Independence. Note that the first result is the Tiawanese Independence Party, and #2 describes how Bush Opposes it.
Now, let's take a look at the french site, to see if the results are similar - "Taiwanese Independence". Very similar results.
Let's try this on
Far more insidious than actually banning certain searches is manipulating the results themselves to tout the party line. Leave a few fringe sites up, so you don't appear to completly control things, but remove any site you consider to truly be a threat. After all, they are doubleplus ungood.
According to Wikipedia, there are 63 million card-carrying Communist Party members in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_C hina), out of the entire population of 1.3 billion. In other words, less than 5% of the population are lording over the other 95% in a country that the Constitution stipulates that only one party, namely Chinese Communist Party, can govern the nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_pa rties_in_China).
During the period of Apartheid in South Africa, American companies that did business with the white-minority government used similar rationale to justify their investments in South Africa. Their basic argument was that if they did not go into South Africa, poor black South Africans would suffer. Most people did not buy their argument then, and those few who did were in the camp of "look, business is business, there's nothing wrong in trying to make a buck". The only saving grace for Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergy Brin, et al, is that people do have short memories.
Sun and Fun
MSN and Yahoo! behave much worse, from a do-no-evil POV. Consider this writeup in the Economist:
Now don't get me wrong. I dislike Google; I think their products and services are in poor taste. But certainly, the company deserves better than the slamming it's getting here on Slashdot, and I don't doubt they're at least partially motivated by the hope that they're working to improve things in China. If it was purely about profit, after all, they'd have opened Gmail to Chinese citizens (or have they already, contrary to the article?).
Is Google supposed to do the opposite of Microsoft, even when Microsoft is right?
In this case, Google's choices were:
1: Self-censor as per the PRC's wishes
2: Let the PRC do the censoring much more crudely
3: Be banned from the Chinese market
Which is the best solution? It is obvious.
I disagree about the "lesser evil two evils". There is no evil here at all. Rather, it is a question of how much GOOD Google will do. Their choices are some, less, and none, as noted above. Yes, "lots" would be a great choice, but PRC won't allow that. Google should not take the blame for PRC's ignorance.
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?
As a Chinese, nobody cares about this topic. Don't be evil as Google motto said but don't be the God either. First, business is business. No need to reiterate. Second, don't want to raise to political level, but it seems everybody insists. Political right or not is standing point problem. If you think something is political wrong, that is probably right on your competitor's or even enemy's point of view. So you can argue but don't educate Chinese. Third, cultural and philosophy are entirely different from America in China. Personal short term interests have to oblige mass and long term interests. We can sacrifice personal rights if that can save others instead of cultural here to respect personal rights absolutely. Do something useful. Stop worrying about someone else issue where someone else never worry about it at all.
Breakfast served all day!
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.
Just that they are supporting China's oppression of political dissidents.
And your post seems to imply that they are doing it because it is more profitable than refusing.
That's one hell of an informative link right there, but it raises a few questions :
a) will your typical Chinese internet user know to do that
b) does this mean that google.com ( as opposed to google.cn ) is blocked from inside China? Must be, huh ?
c) how tough would that be to tunnel around? Possible to doable for the average curious person? What's the likelihood of being caught somehow ?
And no, I don't work for the Chinese government. ;-) :-(.
Unlike Google ( and MSN and Yahoo and every other business ), I'm not that evil
Yea, sorry Google, I understand the business motives and all, but "do no evil" would mean setting up and publishing information about ways to circumvent censorship, not abiding by it... although maybe there's a line between "do no evil" and "do good no matter what the cost", I suppose... but such censorship as is imposed by the Chinese government, to the point where you can't Google the Dali Lama ? Yea, sorry. It's evil no matter how I look at it. I'm trying here. Google may just have to lose that motto.
Of course, as U.S. politics constantly reminds us, we all have different standards for what is 'evil'. Plenty of folks question the non-evil nature of gathering so much data on users that you'd interest the federal government in the results... and non-expiring browser cookies, for that matter. Of course, businesses are in business to make money, anyone under illusions to the contrary should probably wake up now...
I have to agree...
If your so opposed to google setting up their business and trying to comply with local laws, as they do the world over, then you should stop supporting the chinese goverment by buying their products.
Of course would anyone actually stop?
Lets face it we've become dependant on their cheep breakable junk.
Its sad in a way, theirs no more quality or longjevity in things these days.
Oh and mod the parent up, or atleast insightfull.
I think we should back up and consider this differently. While I support the national (and personal) sovereignty of all nations (and individuals), we should compare two asian countries: China and Myanmar (or Burma).
Both countries have proven track records of jailing political dissidents, allowing child labor, preventing unions from forming,
However, Myanmar is an international pariah both politically and economically. But China? They are the darlings of every businessman and diplomat lately.
The question I'm posing is: should Google (MS, Yahoo, etc...) do business with Myanmar? or stop doing business with China?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The problem with relativism is that there's no where to draw the line on anything. The Holocaust becomes justifiable since it is an expression of "differences in social structures, values, religions, etc." ANYTHING is justifiable on those terms. Which is why relativism always falls apart.
I think human rights are universally valid; just because they violate some nations particular cultural habits doesn't invalidate them, and just because they've "Western" doesn't invalidate them either. Individual liberty, government by the consent of the governed, equality under the law, and many others -- these are critical values, that when infringed, repress individuals and create tyrany.
China is a tyranical state -- it represses it's people politically, socially, economically. China violates basic human rights. Supporting the Chinese government and political system means supporting tyrany.
The least Google could do would be to disclose what they're censoring; I think if the world knew the things that the Chinese censored specifically, it would be more damaging to the government than not censoring Google at all.
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...
I was in China in October, and indeed, when going to google.com, the results would default to Chinese language results.
mahlen
Don't want to pay your electric company? Invest in solar panels, a diesel or lp gas generator, thermocouples or whatever it takes.
I escape pretty much literally thousands of tv ads every day - I don't watch stations that air commercials.
You, by not erecting off grid energy sources for yourself and watching tv every day are contributing to that pollution that so bothers you. So turn off the bloody tv and save that energy. Use that time you used to waste being a couch potato lobbying your representatives.
You are addicted to a culture you despise and blaming the culture for reflecting the values you support. That's not culture's problem, and culture cannot fix itself.
Gee, I wonder why he is for Google's censorship in China? Oh, yeah thats right. More traffic for MSN.
Nice try, Bill, but China is not stupid. That kind of talk will ban Google AND MSN.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
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?
If Democracy is supposed to be such a good thing
Democracy isn't necessarily a good thing at all times, as it can actually inhibit freedom if it is not counter-balanced. "Tyranny of the majority", for example.
and any government defying its principles is deficient, if not questionably moral
This is way too stringent. Firstly, what princpals are you refering to? There are many, not completely compatible, views on what a democracy really is.
Secondly, democracy doesn't necessarily product good or moral decisions. A democratic & free organization of humans can decide to do some horrendous things, such as kill other people they don't like.
then why does the same not hold true for corporations?
A managed organization (it's largely irrelevant if it's a corporation) is a pluralist entity within society; each has a certain role in society. Businesses, for example, exist to create markets and to increase the productive wealth of society through those markets (i.e. generate a profit).
Since democracy doesn't necessarily make "good" decisions (i.e. create products or services people need, or do so profitably), it doesn't make sense for the organization of a business to be democratic.
The problem with business, unfortunately, is that lots of bad theories and flawed laws about shareholder value and profit motive have led many businesspeople to forget that, basically, they're leaders in social institutions. And while they're not responsible for the "common good" per se, they at least must be responsible for their impacts, particularly on communities and the environment.
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.
The above statement has no basis in the reality of a modern large business, nor do modern large businesses have any reasonable resemblance to Mao Zedong's principles or tactics.
-Stu