Slashdot Mirror
Congressmen Condemn Companies for China Policies
koweja writes "Members of Congress have taken the step of criticizing various IT companies for their international policies. This includes Google and Microsoft, for what they call 'bowing to Beijing' and 'putting profits before American principles of free speech'. Most of the specific incidents have been covered on Slashdot already. Yahoo and MS countered by pointing out that event censored network access 'enabled far wider access to independent sources of information for hundreds of millions of individuals in China and elsewhere' than not entering China."
Obviously, there is a conflict of interest between these two ideals. On one hand, it's very American to be a capitalist. After all, what is the American dream? On the other hand, it's very American to cherish the freedoms that we are privileged to have. But is it American to push the ideals of Democracy on the rest of the world? Some people would say that it most certainly is, some people would wager to leave well enough alone.
Depending on how you want to look at it, Google and Microsoft are more American than Thomas Jefferson.
Because of the Cold War in the 80's, the worst thing you could call an American was a Communist. But Communism is only talking about the market--Socialism is how the government is run. So what do we value more as Americans, our market system or government? If you claim them to be inseparable, you're greatly mistaken.
And now, Google and Microsoft are trying to bring out beloved capitalism to China. But they aren't also enforcing Democracy in their wheeling and dealing. Is this so wrong? Probably not if you believe every country has a right to govern itself as it so chooses. To quote Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill K.G.: So I encourage you to think twice before faulting Microsoft and Google for their entrance into China. One of the most revered and holy things the American people have is a free and open market system. Granted it's not perfect, we still value it to a great extent. With our corporations extending into China, perhaps they will change to full blown Capitalism also. This is also capital exported from China to America which benefits our economy in some small way.
So remember, we elect our congressmen to represent us , not the people of China. I'd like to see them show more concern for the ebbing of Democracy in our own damn country before they start working on forcing the Chinese to accept our form of government. Perfect the system we have here and, as in the case of East and West Berlin, the people will vote with their feet.
My work here is dung.
on the Capitol steps when Toshiba sold advanced milling machines to the Soviets in the laet 80's.
Generally, when Congressmen resort to theatrics, its a sure sign the actually plan to do nothing.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Yahoo and MS countered by pointing out that event censored network access 'enabled far wider access to independent sources of information for hundreds of millions of individuals in China and elsewhere' than not entering China."
This is *literally* saying "Slavery is Freedom"
Thank God that Congress will never grant China "Most Favoured Nation" trade status...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
The US might have more creidibility if our record on civil rights wasn't so shoddy right now.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
'putting profits before American principles of free speech'
OMG.. No they didn't.. I can't believe they want to make money while sacrificing some American principles..
Meanwhile, lawmakers are getting paid how much by tobacco, big media, defense contractor, corrupt unions, questionnable interest groups, etc?
Maybe someone can help me out and post another few thousand ways Congress and the Senate are corrupt..
--- We need more Ron Paul!
'putting profits before American principles of free speech'
Well, a publicly traded company is supposed to put profits first. If your politicians want them to put some other principle over and above that, all they have to is change the law, making it mandatory.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We indirectly support the same Chinese Government that censors their internet with our huge international trade imports, but our Congress will criticize just the IT companies.
Seems a bit hypocritical, if you want to stop the perception of helping a censoring government, then stop all trade with China, not just IT.
I don't agree with the fact that these companies are helping censor the Chinese internet, but what about all the other companies that directly or indirectly help the same people profit through other means?
And what about human rights/worker rights/environmental protections? Is censorship a greater problem than these?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Does anyone else find it ironic that the US govt is yelling at companies about free speach, while illegally (yes, that's the correct word) conducting spying operations on its own citizens?
Maury
I understand the fact that these officials are unhappy that technology companies are aiding the oppressive Chinese government, but there's two things that need to be considered.
First of all, if there's anything that's truly international, it's the internet. People in china need access to blogs, search, and all the rest just like we do. Most people are not going to blog about democracy or political freedom, they're going to blog about what they did or didn't do that day. They'll blog about girls or boys they have crushes on. It won't make headlines, but they should still have an outlet for their musings, even if some political dissidents won't.
And secondly, from a strictly business standpoint, you'd have to be mad to exclude yourself from one of the fastest growing economies in the world that contains 1/6th of the world population, no matter how high your moral ground is.
As I heard, US domestic law and the Constitution must make suitable recognition of international treaties that the USA has signed with foreign governments and other bodies. Where such treaties include binding clauses upon the signatories, such "international law" does indeed become relevant in US courts.
However, to cite precedent from a country without relevance through a treaty is nonsense, more judicial "creativity" to support a particular justice's bias or personal opinion on a case.
Of course, recent events has shown that neither the Executive nor the Judiciary really give a damn about any laws, so it's all rather hypothetical anyway.
Microsoft and Google do business in another country. They follow that
countries laws, and that makes them the bad guy?
The law is the law. When doing business anywhere, you must obey the laws that
that land, not just the laws you agree with.
And moreover, if you want to put pressure on a foreign body to change their
laws.... wouldn't that be the job of politicians (talking to other
politicians) and not the job of some corporation?
This is probably one of the most hypocritical (to the point of laughter) thing congress has been saying for a long time. If you truly don't agree with the conditions in china you shouldn't have opened trade with them.
It's not like american and chinese manufacturers treat workers of sweatshops that well. Google's actions do zero harm to the chinese people. The government will only allow a censored google through the "great firewall." It's much better for the people to have a powerful search engine and index for most of the items they search for then nothing at all.
Hmmm... Pie...
US Government:
You are spying on your own citizens. Claiming a company is being un-american because they're abiding by other states' laws when you cannot follow your own is a little silly.
You won't allow half a dozen four letter words on TV, and heaven forbid any boobies. Decrying censorship is hypocritical.
Please explain why the government granted China " most favoured nation" trading status despite their repeated and unapologetic human rights abuses. How dare you betray the ideals of the American view of human rights?
When you can answer this question without using the words "we make more money," then you can criticise others for their actions in China.
More hypocrisy:
Has the U.S. officially recognized Taiwan as an independent country?
Has the U.S. officially recognized Tibet as an illegally occupied country?
Bitching about what Google or MSN are doing while sitting on those two questions... well, I'm inclined to ignore the bluster of our elected pompous asses.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
If everyone stood by their principles, no freedom-loving company would do business in China.
What happens if they stay out? Then China uses its massive population to develop equivalent services, thereby reinforcing their monoculture. Staying out is NOT going to bully the Chinese government into changing laws. They have no incentive to do so.
As long as there's SOME influence of foreign information services in China, there will be some leakage of outside ideas into China.
Yes, we all wish that China would wake up and embrace democracy and freedom for its people. But we also wish that Pakistani Muslims would stop hating Hindus for being "idol worshipers", but that isn't going to happen any time soon either.
I completely disagree with you on many of these issues. The US is not a democracy. Ostensibly it's a Republic or a Democratic Republic. But in actuality the US is a coporate state. The US is NOT a free market. The economic system practiced here is NOT capitalism. US corporations lobby to have laws passed which maximize their profits and increase their market share. If you don't have the funds to influence law, then your business will be at a disadvantage in the US economy.
China is a totalitarian state where a few individuals control all aspects of the economy and the law. In the US this system is essentially replicated with leaders of major corporations controlling US economy and law.
Google is censored in China to protect those in charge: totalitarian political leaders. GOOGLE IS CENSORED IN THE US to protect those in charge: our corporate totalitarian leaders. THE US WAS THE FIRST COUNTRY TO CENSOR GOOGLE! Just because it wasn't our "government" doing it doesn't make much difference. The "government" in the US is rich corporations.
I remember Brin of Google (or was it the other one?) on an NPR interview a couple of years ago. It went something like this:
NPR Host (Terry Gross): blah blah Brin of Google. Blah blah countries want to censor Google. Are there a lot of countries that want you to censor search results?
Brin: Oh yeah.
Gross: Like what countries?
Brin: Well, the United States.
Gross: Oh I'm sorry, I wanted to know which countries forced Google to censor their search results....
Brin: Yes, the United States.
Gross: I'm sorry?
Brin: US corporations force us, using political and legal pressure, to censor websites they claim are stealing their intellectual property. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act - bitch!
Here's the interview.
This intellectual property thing is BS, just so you peanut gallery people know. The church of Scientology has successfully used IP law to force Google to censor sites that criticize Scientology. I'm sure there is other stupid BS like that around too. Type "xenu" into Google and scroll to the bottom.
The US is no different than China. Google censors sites for the totalitarians of the US just as they do for China. I guess everyone wants to believe that the US is some bastion of "freedom" but give me a break! There is a ruling class in every country and these overlords do everything they can to maintain and increase their power. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and that's it. Welcome to the real world. Stop getting your panties in a bunch over this "freedom" propaganda.
Damn I hate Terry Gross.
Let me get this straight: These are the same people who restrict internet and television content on the basis of "community standards". Our religious conservatives can't see anything that might be pornographic ("we don't know what it is, but we know it when we see it") and then bully companies that are providing a service that consumers clearly seem to want.
If California can have different standards than Alabama, then China can have different standards than America.
With the amount of attacks against the free market in the form of intellectual monopoly 'property', that freedom of the market doesnt appear to be very revered or holy.
For whatever reason, some Slashdotters seem to believe that "free market" means "no regulation at all."
Events like the 1929 crash, Enron, and others have shown that capitalism can fail without a referree. In the case of Enron, the company had an agreement with the shareholders: you buy our shares, we give you dividends, voting power, and accurate information about the company. The Enron executives broke that agreement with accounting shenanigans. The lesson was that someone (the SEC) needs to better police what companies are reporting to the public.
Similarly, an economy based on financial incentive for intellectual work (whether it's software, music, movies or books) depends on an agreement between the author and the customer. The author sells access to the work to the customer, and the customer agrees not to distribute copies to other customers without permission. Because this agreement is so common, the government provides a standard called copyright so that we don't have to read and sign a lengthy legal agreement everytime we buy a copyrighted book or music CD. All we have to do is learn how copyright works once, and then we know that everything with "©" falls under that standard agreement.
You call copyright a "monopoly." In one sense, yes it's a monopoly; when you copyright your work, you can exclusive control over it. On the other hand, if I go buy a plot of land, you might also consider that a "monopoly" because I have gained exclusive control over it. If anything, the monopoly you get over land is worse than the monopoly of copyright; there is only so much land on the planet, while there's an essentially unlimited expanse of possible creative works you can create and copyright.
So yes, you gain a monopoly under copyright over *your own work*, just like when you buy physical property you gain a monopoly over it. But if I write a song and copyright it, that in no way prevents you from writing your own song. In a monopoly, the monopolist prevents competition by becoming the only significant seller in a market. By your logic, Ford is a monopolist because it is the only seller of Ford vehicles. That's a completely oversimplified and narrow view. Ford is not a monopolist because there are many competing auto manufacturers, all of which are the only sellers of their own cars.
So, the entire point of copyright is to let authors require customers to pay a fee as compensation for their work. Without copyright, authors would no longer be able to require these fees and would thus become dependent on donations for compensation.
I love open source, and I am in no way saying that proprietary software, music, etc. is necessarily the best way to create work. I'm also not saying that copyright hasn't been misused or that there are no problems with copyright law. But this claim that somehow the basic idea behind copyright is "anti-free market" is really silly. Copyright is nothing more than an economic agreement between two parties that has been standardized by the government because it's so ubiquitous. If copyright is anti-free market, so is any contract between two parties that prevents them from doing whatever they please. Free markets depend on such contracts, one of them being copyright.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.