UK's Journalists Calling For Yahoo! Boycott

truthsearch writes "The UK's National Union of Journalists is calling for a boycott of Yahoo! because of its 'unethical behaviour' in China. Yahoo! has given details of at least three people to Chinese authorities who were subsequently imprisoned. 'The NUJ regards Yahoo!'s actions as a completely unacceptable endorsement of the Chinese authorities. As a result, the NUJ will be cancelling all Yahoo!-operated services and advising all members to boycott Yahoo! until the company changes its irresponsible and unethical policy.' Yahoo! sent a response to The Register."

Comments

boycott? You serious?

[mmThe1]

boycott: an agreement usually among a particular segment of the population to reduce or stop the use and purchase of certain products or activities. (from here)

Question 1: How can you reduce or stop something that's non-existent?

Question 2: Agreement? Among journalists? Yeah, right.

And yes, I Googled for that definition.

Long Time Coming

[TripMaster Monkey]

You can rail against the PROC-friendly attitude of Yahoo! (and others) all you like, but the company simply isn't going to care until you hit them where it hurts...in the pocketbook.

Kudos to the National Union of Journalists for putting their beliefs into action, but will this blow to the pocketbook be enough, or is Yahoo! even going to notice?

Yahoo said it themselves.

[Rob T Firefly]

From Yahoo's response to the Register:

Ultimately, U.S. companies in China face a choice: comply with Chinese law, or leave.

Most of my quick responses to this boil down to "Then LEAVE," but the money is so shiny, isn't it? In any case, the whole letter is interesting, and is worth reading TFA if you haven't yet.

Re:Yahoo said it themselves.

[Aadain2001]

But does leaving really make the situation better or worse for all parties involved? If Yahoo! left China it would be looked apon more favorably by other people in other countries... for about five minutes. But this would loose them money which would lead to the stock holders replacing the board and we would be right back into the issue of doing business in China.

Don't forget how this could affect the Chinese people. Not the government, but the actual people. Is it better to just leave them high and dry with no real access to information/eduction or to work at getting them educated to the point that they start asking their own questions? If all the US companies in China just left because of the human rights violations I guarenty you that it would get worse for the Chinese people, not better. Jobless, no access to the rest of the world, they would become the perfect down trodden people for the current government/military to rule over. No one would ask questions because they wouldn't know how or what questions to ask. By staying in the country and working with the people, we are slowly "infecting" them with Western ideas, such as Democracy, free will, individuals' rights, etc. Over time, this leads to a more informed and freedom seeking people.

Which do you want? To feel self righteous and morally superior, or get your hands a little dirty and actually cause some change for the better?

P.S.: Yahoo! said in the article that they don't even known the nature of the investigation when they get a request for data. It could be a journalist being investigated for publishing information the government doesn't want people to know, or it could be a homocidal maniac that likes to wear heads as hats. Either way, they don't know.

Re:Yahoo said it themselves.

[geoffspear]

Is it better for the Chinese people to have access to webservices that they think are run by a Western company that actually cares about its users' privacy, is run by capitalists who one would assume would be sympathetic to any anti-Communist sentiments they might express, and who won't sell them out to their government to make a buck, or for them to not be under that delusion? I'd say they're better off without Yahoo.

Yahoo's not providing change for the better in China by creating the illusion of free exchange of information and relatively secure communications. They're just making money. They can feel free to "tight" their profits all they want (that would be the opposite of "loosing" their profits, right?), but don't pretend that they're a force for democratization when they'll gladly help the government catch and imprison anyone who agitates for some actual democracy.

Not too say democracy is a bad thing...

[oahazmatt]

But Yahoo!, along with Google and MSN, are business, first and foremost. None of these are meant to be champions of the people. All of these business want to do business in China, and currently the only way for them to do so is to abide by the laws established in China. Are those laws necessarily fair to the people? No. Is it the responsibility of Yahoo!, Google or MSN to bring about a revolution in China? No. A business is supposed to make money.

However, there is some nudging to be made. Google alerts the user when results are being ommitted. Nothing peaks one's interest more than "There's something here they don't want you to see".

Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing...

[Otter]

However, there is some nudging to be made. Google alerts the user when results are being ommitted. Nothing peaks one's interest more than "There's something here they don't want you to see".

People keep saying this, but it is not (AFAICT) true: Google.cn inserts a boilerplate notice at the bottom of every page that results may be censored. It does not provide any specific information about the extent or details of censorship.

Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing...

[Pendersempai]

Since when does a profit motive exempt anyone, corporation or human, from morality? Would you say that there is no moral problem with what hit men do for a living?

Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing...

[truthsearch]

But Yahoo!, along with Google and MSN, are business, first and foremost.

They're groups of people, first and foremost. And each individual in that group lives by his/her own moral values. Being a group of people they also operate collectively by a set of moral values. They've chosen money as being more important than free Chinese citizens.

Companies are artificial entities. They only exist because of the people that run them. These are people choosing to not support freedom when they could actually make a public stand. We're not talking about a company choosing profits first because a company is not an entity which can make choices. We're talking about people choosing money over the rights of other human beings.

Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing...

[VoxCombo]

Ethics pervade every decision made by the modern corporation.

And honestly, if it's not Google Yahoo or MSN's responsibility to bring about revolution, then whose is it? It's nobody's DUTY, but there are many corporations who go out of their way to go beyond their ethical duties to do what's right even though they don't have to. That's called corporate responsibility, and every day ethical corporations make money-losing decisions in the pursuit of what's right; whereas unethical corporations do not. Let us not forget that corporations are still controlled by human beings...

Cheers to the UK journalists for fighting the good fight.

Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing...

[Pendersempai]

There is no way, on balance, that more information - seen by more people - can be anything but good for an eventually more open society in China.

There absolutely is a way that more information can be worse than less: if the information is misinformation, either by systematic inaccuracy or by systematic bias. Information has been used to oppress the masses ever since the invention of writing. Every oppressive regime that I can think of in recent history has had some analogue of a biased, state-sponsored newspaper. If China can make the whole internet look biased in their favor, that's even worse, because it carries with it the apparent credibility of other nations' opinions.

I concede the possibility that the amount of information that Yahoo and Google make available to the Chinese on balance helps them -- but this is not at all clear, and certainly there is a level at which it is not true. I'm sure that Kim Il Jong's propaganda rag prints the weather report, but I think the citizens of North Korea would be a good deal better off without their government's deafening lies even if it meant that they didn't know whether to expect sun or rain that day. Publishing some legitimately useful information alongside the propaganda does not mean that the whole package is good for the citizenry.

And in any case, this argument that you're making is a far cry from your GP post: that Yahoo should be excused from violating people's fundamental human rights -- and this is not hyperbole; at least three brave souls are languishing in a gulag because of Yahoo's loose lips -- because they can make a lot of money by doing so. If denouncing such a short-sighted and frankly downright evil principle constitutes sophistry, then fuck it, I'll put "sophist" on my business card.

Stuck between a rock and a hard place

[Bogtha]

I totally agree that corporations should not be sharing private information with governments. But it would be a lot easier to take the boycotters seriously if they had a sensible suggestion as to what Yahoo could possibly do about it. Just withdraw from the country? Let their Chinese management get arrested for breaking the law by not sharing the data?

Are the boycotters also boycotting every other corporation that does business in China, or just the ones unlucky enough to have a high-profile demand made of them?

Totally foolish boycott

[Mycroft_514]

Yahoo acted under the letter of the law. They are not to blame for this, rather the government of China is. No matter what else, some of the data that the government of China does not want it's people to see is leakign past, so it si better for them to be there in the long run.

Another case of liberals going overboard. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Totally foolish boycott

[truthsearch]

Another case of liberals going overboard.

If by "liberals" you mean people, and by "going overboard" you mean caring... then yes, many of us are guilty as charged. Good job stereotyping and trying to negate an opinion based on your pointless classification!

Re:Totally foolish boycott

[advocate_one]

Yahoo acted under the letter of the law. They are not to blame for this, rather the government of China is.

ah yes, the "I was only following orders" defence... Yahoo! ARE to blam for meekly complying with the Chinese. They should have told the Chinese EXACTLY where to get off... but then again, in this day and age, it seems that money comes before principles

Whatever

[moe.ron]

At the end of the day the real problem here is China, not any of the US companies operating there. The letter from Yahoo! points out the obvious, if you're there you have comply with the local law, they had no choice at the time. As for whether or not any US company chooses to operate in china, what difference does it make with regards to human rights there in China? At the very least, a US company operating in China has the ability to pay a decent wage and give their Chinese employees good benefits but beyond that how could they possibly change China's human rights policies?

While I respect the views of NUJ, I also respectfully disagree with who they are choosing to boycott here. They disagree with China's politics so they boycott a US company? What exactly is that supposed to prove or accomplish? If you want to bring about any sort of change within China through a boycott, then for Christ's sake, boycott all of the crappy sweatshop goods that come out of China!

Yahoo is right

[egarland]

Yahoo doesn't get to choose to ignore laws they think are wrong. If the DOJ shows up at a library wanting to know who is reading about a certain topic they have to comply, even if they believe the order is wrong and evil, and/or unconstituional. If the DOJ shows up at Yahoo and demands the same thing, they must also comply. Why would Chinese laws would apply any less?

It's WILDLY hipocritcal for the US Congress to haul Yahoo in and chastize them for complying with the same kinds of immoral, illegal, intrusive orders that they themselves are allowing the US government to issue.

Glass houses, stones, pot, kettle... etc. etc. This is simply dog wagging.

Hit the Company by Hitting the Bottom Line

[reporter]

In a declaration in 2006 January, Reporters without Borders issued the following recommendation. No US company would be allowed to host e-mail servers within a repressive country*. So, if the authorities of a repressive country want personal information about the user of a US company's e-mail service, they would have to request it under a procedure supervised by US.

Yahoo has, thus far, refused to move its servers from China to the USA.

Both Microsoft and Google have, thus far, declined to locate their servers in China.

In other words, Yahoo has the power to make substantive changes to its business model (to protect human rights) without significantly injuring its position in China. Unfortunately, the entire management of Yahoo, up to Jerry Yang (who is Chief Yahoo and has strong affinity to Chinese values), supports catering to Beijing.

We, in the West, should hit Yahoo as hard as we can by hitting its bottom line. Until Yahoo rises to the decency of Google, which itself is no angel of goodness, we should financially pummel Yahoo by boycotting its services.

Fiduciary Responsibility

[cataclyst]

Um, am I the only one who will acknowledge that Yahoo has a legal duty to its shareholders, as a corporation, to maximize profits using any legal means necessary.

Don't get me wrong-- I don't have any loyalty to Yahoo ('specially that worthless search engine), but if Yahoo didn't take this opportunity on "moral grounds" you can be 100% certain that they would immediately be sued by their shareholders...

Just my $0.02, and btw IANAA (I am not an attorney), just spend too much time with a few that I know.