Slashdot Mirror
Are Web Firms Giving in to China?
Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "Google and other Internet companies are sending executives to Capitol Hill for a hearing next week seeking to answer the question: Are U.S. companies giving in to China's censorship demands too easily? Chris Smith, New Jersey Republican and chairman of the House human-rights subcommittee that is holding the hearing, tells the Wall Street Journal, 'I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy? That's the wrong question. It would be great if they would promote democracy. But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.' The WSJ notes an irony: Google is fighting for 'Internet freedom' in the U.S., by resisting the Justice Department's request for information on user searches."
Where else in the world can capitalism legally exploit human rights for big time savings? Not only that, but all the manufacturing waste can be dumped in the river behind the factory - no EPA!! woohoo!!
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Something to keep in mind, that was mentioned last time we had an article like this:
There are very strict and clear legal precedents about publicly traded companies. They are required by law to make all decisions in such a way that will maximize profit. I think people are forgetting that Google is not a private company, there is not one man making the business decisions.
They are responsible to millions of shareholders, a large board of directors, and many private investors.
If Google took actions (i.e. avoiding Chinese market) that significantly reduced profits, for no logical reason, they could easily be facing massive litigation from shareholders.
If i'm not horribly mistaken, I think the Dodge Car Company was started with money the Dodge brothers received from Ford Motor Company when they sued Ford for keeping their car prices low instead of maximizing profits. (Dodge brothers were investors in Ford). Maybe someone else can provide more detail about this.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
It's that work, which is a reasonable wage there, which prevents people from starving.
Legally corporate executives are obligated to care about shareholder profits above all else, up to the limit of what the law allows. They either do so, or are replaced, and perhaps sued if it is profitable to do so (usually not).
Unless the law explicitly forbids an activity, you cannot expect a publicly held corporation to be moral, merely legal. Private corporations can do what they want, but usually aren't as well funded and thus influential.
For me the more interesting question is, don't corporations have an obligation to obey the law in countries they operate in? How can anyone seriously demand of Google (or any other company) to break the law in China? They have the right to do business there, same as in my country, and when they do, they have to do it in a law abiding way. We may not like the law and if it hurts their business elsewhere, a company may make the decision not to do business in a certain country... but that's a question of business ethics. I don't think any government should be allowed to dictate where a company can do business.
If a company includes ethical principles in its charter, it is legally allowed to consider things other than profits. This type of thing is rare, but it does happen.
There certainly moral and ethical corporations. But corporate morality and ehticality ends up getting framed in terms of greed. If a corporation pays its employees a good wage, it's assumed to get better or more loyal employees from this.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
They're obligated to work for shareholder benefit. This does not always mean maximising profits. Many companies have explicit ethical policies. Many Investors invest based on these concerns.
Historically, until recently, stockholder profits come SECONDARY to being of the public good, and was like that from the beginning. That's something the blood profits and no ethics at all corporate shills (and government regulators) always seem to forget about. You are ALLOWED a corporate charter not only for your stinking profits, but only so long as you and your pirate gang are OF THE PUBLIC GOOD. You have no "right" to just "incorporate" then be a jerk off to everyone around you just to make money. We need to return to that. Screw your blood profits and pain profits.
a rter%2C+history%2C+public+interest&start=0&start=0 &ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8r t=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
It just so happens there's a movie making a big splash in europe now, it's about Walmart -"Wal Mart: The High Cost of Low Price", but you can apply it to just about any western corporation "doing business" in the autocratic hellhole that goes by the name of the "Peoples Republic of China". Those fascist leaders there (they ARE fascist, the shoe fits) share a host of similarities with western fascist corporations and political and business "leaders", that's why they get along so good. Swine.
Further reference, take your pick. Learn some history you disgusting greed defenders.
http://www.google.com/search?q=corporations%2C+ch
http://www.google.com/search?q=Laogai&start=0&sta
"Mein Kampf" is not illegal in Germany and google isn't hiding it from you - see http://www.dhd24.com/extra/kaufen-verkaufen/Mein-K ampf.html where you can buy it.
google was hiding a certain version of "Mein Kampf" which was offered by canadian nazi Garry Lauck on his website. But the copyright is with the Bavarian State in Germany and Lauck was offering an "illegal reproduction". So the copyright owner went to court and google had to take this out of their search results. The bavarian government only allows reprints of "Mein Kampf" which are accompanied by critical annotations, at least in Germany. But historic editions from the 40s can be sold as any other books. so no censorship there.
America is not a pure democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic with democratic elections. A pure democracy would allow majorities to trample the rights of minorities, which is not a good idea.
And, yes, the founders wanted to protect property rights. That's an important part of individual freedom. In China, the communist government does not recognize property rights. Leave it to someone at slashdot to conflate the two.
I watch Brit Hume on Fox News
In addition, the factory will almost always provide a dormitory and three meals per day.
Chinese farms are poor, the working conditions are brutal and dangerous (even in the US farming is dangerous), and there is no opportunity for enhancement.
Prostitution is always an option for attractive girls, but just like in the US most prefer to find other work.
So yes, there is a huge difference between censoring the Internet and giving people jobs they are glad to have.