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."
But they do have a moral imperative and a duty not to promote dictatorship.
Sure they do, as much as any American company or person. But why should Google be singled out while 90% of my consumer goods come from China? Many of those manufacturers have willingly or unwittingly participated in things worse then censorship.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
What's the difference between Google and Microsoft censorship in China and the sweatshops established by almost every major industrial company in the U.S.? It's okay to force starving children to work for 13 cents an hour, but taking down some democratic journalist's blog in China is not?
What the fuck? Can we start with the worst that US companies are doing first, please?
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
True. But wouldn't it be nice if there was a little shift from caring solely about shareholder profits and a little ethics got thrown in?
Douglas P. Price
At the risk of invoking the Goodwin law, isn't this issue somewhat similar to the moral and ethical considerations of manufacturing Zyklon B, knowning full well how the chemical was being used. Yahoo recently provided information that resulted in the jailing of Chinese Journalist
Not much of an irony when you consider that by fighting in the U.S. they're not risking losing the entire market, whereas in China, trying to fight the government can get google banned from the entire market.
10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
I guess they can be called the not-so-firm web-firms
Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
As a Jew, I would like to be able to read Mein Kampf because I need to understand what hatred looks like before it comes knocking on my door. If I were in Germany or France it would be illegal, and Google would hide that information from me.
Why is nobody complaining about how Google is giving in to censors? Because the ability to do business in France hinges on obeying the laws of the country, which means that Google wouldn't be allowed in France at all if Google did block things that were illegal there.
Google's choice is either block what China says to block, or the Chinese get no Google at all. Should we blockade China all together like we do Cuba just because the government is repressive? Why don't we blockade France while we're at it? I doubt many Americans would object.
Google can still be used as a tool for the social good in China, regardless of whatever specific pages are blocked, just like it is in France and Germany.
dom
I just received a letter today from my daughters school (in the UK). Mandarin is going on the *mandatory* curriculum next year.
To quote the headmistress, "Students who speak both English and Chinese will be the future executives"
Although my industry, telecoms manufacturing, is being eroded by China, I'm in complete agreement with the move. If nothing else my daughter will experience a culture radically different to her own. In my day we learnt french, the langauge of a culture 30 miles away.
Interesting times ahead for the next generation.
Slightly off-topic but I thought I'd share it.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
It's that work, which is a reasonable wage there, which prevents people from starving.
As for our government, it's ironic that we sacrifice our troops for democracy on the one hand, then sell out democracy so cheaply on the other hand when the almighty buck speaks. We are running a $201,000,000,000 annual trade deficit with China. That means every year, any disparity in world influence between the two countries decreases by twice that amount, half a trillion within the next year or two. And we rationalize it all with the notion that we'll have our cake and eat it too, that buying $30 DVD players from China is the best way to assure international goodwill and freedom for their people. When in fact the Soviet Union was defeated with precisely the opposite approach.
Total non-sequitur red-herringed cop-out, with a bit of straw man thrown in to keep the crows off.
You describe your question "Don't corporations have an obligation to obey the law in countries they operate in?" as an "interesting" one, when in fact it's rhetorical (which is quite the opposite). Now, for me it's an interesting question, because it brings up pointed questions about civil disobedience, the legitimacy of government, and the importance of the rule of law. For you, the question seems very settled: no.
The question isn't whether Google should be trying to break the law in foreign countries, but whether they should be willing to operate in countries where they have to do something morally repugnant (censoring) in order to stay on the fair side of that country's laws. I'm conflicted on the question. But there is the additional question of what sort of pressure these companies should be trying to put on the Chinese government. Should Google have held out for a better deal, or perhaps used their position to try and persuade the government that censorship is bad?
Like it or not, the government can and does dictate where its citizens do business. We can't trade with Cuba. We can't legally go to Thailand and have sex with eleven year old prostitutes. We have to pay tariffs on goods to and from many countries. The seventh grade civics version of this is that our Constitution empowers the government to decide how this country interacts with foreign countries. The only reason you can leave the country at all is because our government and the other governments of the world agreed on the rules.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
No, the Soviet Union was defeated just by waiting for its massive internal corruption to catch up with it. Their poor industrial techniques meant that they simply had nothing good to offer the consumer markets of other countries, and therefore couldn't sit back and get rich in an export economy. Satter's Age of Delirium is a good look at how it was a dysfunctionality internal situation that brought the country down, not external pressure from the West.
You make it seem as if the USSR was trying to export quality materials and the US refused to import in the name of democracy, but the US really just didn't have much to do with it.
IBM and Ford Motor Co., among many others, helped the Nazis. Today, Haliburton is involved in slave lavor and also trades with Iran, a known sponsor of state terrorism, and the U.S. Vice President has stock in the company. Who do you think armed the dictators of the world, socialist peace activists?
Does this makes capitalism horrible? No, because it's only as good as we are. People like to do the right thing, and will do the right thing, when doing the wrong thing is no longer profitable or convenient. But when you work in a corporation where your job is to make profit for said corporation, and easy and convenient rationalizations abound for doing what you know would be wrong if you personally were doing it, you can still do it with a clean conscience, because it isn't you, it's the corporation.
It isn't as if there are evil people out there somewhere doing evil things, and if only we could stop them, the world would be okay. That counts for a relatively small percentage of the badness in the world. Most of it comes from normal, decent people rationalizing their asses off so they can do what is profitable and convenient.
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