Slashdot Mirror
Google Shareholders Reject Censorship Proposal
prostoalex writes "At the annual shareholder meeting, Google put forth for voting a proposal for the company not to engage in self-censorship, resist by all legal means the demands to censor information, inform the user in case their information was provided to the government, and generally not to store sensitive user data in the countries with below average free speech policies. As this proposal, if passed, would effectively mean the end of Google's China operations, the shareholders rejected the document at the recommendation of the Board of Directors."
Google lost the ability to "do no evil" the minute they became a publicly traded company.
If it ain't broke, it needs more features!
Money was at stake? The outcome was obvious!
This post has been censored by Slashdot for crimes against groupthink but is available for viewing in the google cache.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
The right to profit trumps the rights of others to live without government oppression or intervention.
Shouldn't the title read anti-censorship proposal?
Maybe it was the employees who tipped the vote, thereby exercising their latent evilness in the only free arena they have - stock options!
Meta will eat itself
No wonder the majority voted to reject it. Shareholders have invested their own money and are therefore rather interested in gaining money than following moral laws.
And China sure is a big market for an IT-company with cheap professionals and lots of potential users. I guess a shareholder wouldn't like to neglect such an opportunity.
Nice PR stunt.
There are plenty of good ways to resist censorship and try to bring about change. Refusing to do business in the country is one way, but working within the system is probably more effective. I don't see that Google is wrong here; some other company more willing to go along with the government would take their place if they pull out.
They rejected this, it's very telling that they're trying to spin it:
1. Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet-restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.
2. The company will not engage in pro-active censorship.
3. The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.
4. Users will be clearly informed when the company has acceded to legally binding government requests to filter or otherwise censor content that the user is trying to access.
5. Users should be informed about the company's data retention practices, and the ways in which their data is shared with third parties.
6. The company will document all cases where legally binding censorship requests have been complied with, and that information will be publicly available.
They simply don't miss something they never had. The vast majority of chinese people living in poverty simply won't get to know anything else but the status quo. The Chinese who have the money and influence to change something are satisfied enough with what they have, and don't want risk a live in jail or exil I guess..
some homegrown search engine will grab the lion's share of searches in china, google will try to buy them and be rebuffed, and, with a dwindling small user base, google will suddenly announce a change of heart and pull out for censorship reasons
not business reasons!
pfffft right
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
It would also effectively mean pulling out of France and Germany. And now, if we consider a governmental censorship done through the hands of private corporations to be governmental censorship anyway, they should pull out of the United States, too - what was the name of the American journalist fired for ideologically incorrect depiction of the recent Iraqi war? I don't even bother to mention Russia here.
Censorship is evil, but it is an inevitable evil. A government that doesn't control the media in its country loses control of the masses to those who does; that's why there is and will always be censorship in all countries, installed either by the local government or by the United States, which seem to have bought lots of media in countries weak and small.
Surely 'Google's shareholders have rejected a NON-censorship proposal'?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
From TFA:
"Pulling out of China, shutting down Google.cn, is just not the right thing to do at this point," he said. "But that's exactly what this proposal would do."
Am I just naive in thinking that this proposal would have no effect on their Chinese operations? Let's say the Chinese government says "hey Google, play ball" and they say "no". What can the Chinese government do exactly? I'd just like to see a company, any company that has some pull, say "what are you going to do about it?" to the Chinese. Only when people doing business grow a backbone will things change and others follow suit. But this could just be wishful thinking. I just think it would be cool if someone actually stood up to them.
How many words does it take to say "nothing happened"?
I fail to see how this would end their operations in china.
Or what did I miss?
c++;
"-1 Redneck"
You don't choose the Socio-Demographic conditions you happen to be born in, you just got lucky.
Another champion shown to be false.
.... sadly :(
Nothing else need be said
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
I will bear this in mind when you get taken for an extended waterboarding vacation in Gitmo.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
- stand by your principles, reject censorship, and kiss off about 1/4 of the world's population from using your service, or
- remember your bank account, your kids' college fund, your retirement fund, swallow hard, and knuckle under
Grown-ups only need reply.Hmmm, interesting.
/. took the {less than symbol} out of the title (and this the text) ..... grrrr.
The subject should have been
"Do no evil {less than symbol} Make more money."
but
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Larry Page and Sergey Brin hold a majority stake in the company plus the structure of the share class prevents outside shareholders from really having a say in anything Google does.
This is the most ignorant comment I've heard in over three hours. By your logic Americans have the government they deserve. Do you appreciate being flipped the bird by a pinhead president who couldn't pronounce your username?
Go fascism!
668: Neighbour of the Beast
"I don't see that Google is wrong here; some other company more willing to go along with the government would take their place if they pull out."
"I don't see where I'm wrong here," the hitman said, "if I don't do it, some other hitman would take my place if I pull out".
The argument that doing something unethical becomes ethical (or less unethical) because others would do it if you don't, is nonsensical.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Its interesting how much this mirrors our own congress... when money is at stake, they vote against liberty and freedom.
Money is definitely the new god.
Lose no profits!
I'm failing how to see how this is evil.
Let's not kid ourselves. These proposals were aimed at doing the following:
I think the misguided idea here is that Google can single-handedly pressure the Chinese government into giving free speech to its citizens. The rationale, I suppose, is that China wants Google so badly that they will shed off oppression just to have it.
If you believe this, you're fooling yourself. There's not a damn thing that Google can do to give people in China the right to free speech. If this proposal passed, the Chinese government would simply block Google from all of China, and by the time the Chinese people do hopefully have free speech someday, they'll all be using Yahoo and MSN instead of Google.
If you don't like the fact that the Chinese people don't have free speech, be mad at the right people, the people who are actually responsible for it: The Chinese government. Stop being so indignant with companies who are doing what they can with the rules they have to play with.
I'm all for Google fighting the DMCA. However, I am not in favor of forcing them to, which is exactly what this proposal would do. They should have the right to choose the battles they wish to fight. If I start my own business and decide that I (and my shareholders) want to fight for the prevention of animal cruelty and dedicate some of my profits towards that goal, that's noble. If an outside group decides that I (and my shareholders) should fight for the prevention of animal cruelty, and then we get raked over the coals because we decide that there are more worthwhile causes to take up, well, I wouldn't care so much.
Is repealing the DMCA a priority of mine? Yes. Do I call people (or companies) "evil" for not making it a priority of theirs? No.
And is anyone thinking that this is a double standard? Even in the United States, Google engages in proactive censorship. I'm sure there has been at least a few cases of national security information the government didn't want to get out being taken down, and we know that copyrighted videos have been pulled. In the case of China, this proposal says that Google is supposed to say, "To hell with it, we're going to do it anyway." In the case of the United States, though, Google is supposed to say, "We'll use legal means to resist."
As for telling people when Google has to disclose information about them, I actually would be in favor of such a proposal. It sounds like they are trying to keep Google for doing something like getting someone arrested, and when you cross the line from censoring your own operations and ruining other people's lives, it's a different ballgame.
But keep in mind a couple of things. First of all, it's not like China is the only place this can happen. If I used Gmail to send out terrorist threats here in the U.S., our government would compel Google to turn over my personally identifiable information. Is that a bad thing? I don't know, but there's no practical way Google can say, "Okay, this is a harmless joke e-mail, so we'll wipe the user's data. This is Chinese free speech, so we'll wipe the user's data. Whoops, this is a terrorist threat, so we'll keep this around for a while." Even if they could, I'm not so sure that is such a good idea, either. Again, there's a double standard of impractically expecting Google to comply with U.S. law, but thumb its nose at international law.
Also, to my knowledge, Google hasn't turned over personally identifiable information to a government like China. Is there some reason to think that it has? Or that if it was ordered to, that Google wouldn't fight it as vigorously as possible? How do we know that it hasn't already happened, and unlike Yahoo, Google was successful? It seems to me that compared to other soulless bastard corporations, Google would be one of the most likely to actually care about stuff like that.
This is just grandstanding.
"Do no evil" my ass.
Democracy and the rights that are associated with it are all about self determination. As the name implies, self-determination is something you have to take for yourself - you cannot be given it. See Iraq. Hell, see the US. You took your country - you weren't given it, and it is now one of the strongest democracies on Earth.
Incidentally, as the article mentions China, there is an old saying that Mao was supposedly fond of:
Revolution can neither be imported nor exported He was talking about Communism, of course, but I think it applies well to any change in Government.
The parent is flamebait, huh? Not quite. If people aren't willing to help themselves, they certainly aren't worth the time for others to help. The power of the ruling class(es) means little when the numbers are against them. And this regurgitated "they don't know any better" is such a lame cop out. They may not know the exact extent of their oppression but I'm sure that more than enough of them feel that they are being oppressed.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Yes we ARE! He was elected twice. If people don't like it now then too bad, shouldn't have voted for him or wasted a vote on a green party candidate.
When Google went public only a small portion of outstanding shares were floated. Besides, don't they have a different share class structure. What I'm saying is that the IPO didn't cause this vote to turn out any different. The people who voted this resolution down are the same people who decided that their company would "do no evil". It is absolute bull shit for American companies to participate and aid China in their censorship efforts. There is absolutely no excuse.
Here you go, google's new slogan at it's clearest.
Right now times are tough at Google. Their profits aren't very high, and their position is so precarious they might go out of bussiness any day.
At this time they can't afford to refuse assisting the Chinese Communist Party with oppressing people. But one day, when they are doing better and profits are higher, then I'm absolutly positive they will stand up and Do No Evil.
If you want it to show up in text, use a character entity: <. You need to type < to get that to show up and < to get what I just typed to show up(and so on).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
>>Google lost the ability to "do no evil" the minute they became a publicly traded company.
Your statement is, in fact, utter nonsense.
Eric Schmidt, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin together possess 66% of the voting power in the company, which is more than enough to shoot down any proposal that the directors (i.e., they) disagree with.
The result of this vote was a decision by the founders, and NOT by random shareholders.
cp /dev/zero ~/signature.txt
I wonder how many of the people here complaining about this do personally refuse purchasing any "Made in China" goods. Because, you know, all Chinese companies are partially owned by the Chinese government itself, and an awful number of them employ slave (yes, slave) labor.
I myself am pretty much against what the Chinese government does to their citizens, but when faced with the question "How do I extend my paycheck to cover the whole month?" it's very difficult to say "No!" to Chinese products. Maybe not all, but surely many Google shareholders face similar questions.
The only solution for these dilemmas would be for Western governments as a whole to take action. Individuals like you, me and, yes, Google shareholders, simply don't have the power to make anything happen.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I don't think the parent poster should be modded down, he points out a seemingly obvious fact that SHOULD be said, so it can be responded to!
There was a fascinating interview on BBC a couple weeks ago, wish I could find it, with a reporter in China who visited a town where 20,000 people had revolted at a new transportation tax of sorts. The reporter made the comment that there are something along the lines of 100-200 revolts PER DAY going on anywhere in China...
It is simply hard to grasp how large a country like China is. 20,000 people may sound like a lot, but in a country of over 1,000,000,000 that is absolute peanuts.
There IS civil unrest in China, and lots of it. Maybe that is why the government is so afraid and clamps down so hard on the flow of information. It will simply take an extreme amount/miracle/unification for any sort of actual change to occur, if it ever does. China is a country of 50 ethnicities, hundreds of languages...
The whole "do no evil" / China thing is quickly becoming one of my pet peeves. There is no all-encompassing moral code.
If you go to another country, you abide by their rules or you face punishment. The belief that "our" way is better than China's way is the same kind of thinking that got the US in the Iraq war. (Oh, look how wretched they are! We most go liberate them!) All countries have PR campaigns that try to keep the populace going a certain way, China just goes further.
Yes, my stance is a slippery slope; so is the opposite way of thinking. The point is, YOU can't be sure that YOU are GOOD.
True, but, how many of those people will gain anything by a revolt. Most of them will be just as poor as they were before. Which is not to say there is nothing they can do, or that they should not do something, but that it is understandable why they would not.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
Actually, based on what a couple of my friends encountered when they visited China, it's worse than that. A large number of them follow the dogma that the Chinese government knows best, and rabidly support the propaganda they're fed. In other words, they DO care, but they are (duh) misinformed (to put it mildly). They don't see themselves as oppressed any more than overprotected religious children see themselves as sheltered -- and it's not their fault. The whole *point* of censorship, after all, is to keep people from seeing things about reality that would shake up the current power structure.
(This isn't to say that Google has the power to change this; I don't think it can.)
Google is an American company and should uphold American ideals. Instead they are being subverted by foreign powers and greed to the detriment of this great country. I am personally sick of American companies that are so selfish they harm others in this world and actively work to degrade Americans and their beliefs. They now fall in with Haliburton, who has moved its headquarters to Dubai to avoid American laws and taxes, while still pretending to work for the good of America and people in general. These companies are working for their own good only and I am Greatly! disappointed in the situation.
Doug K.
Wouldn't that be a problem, since their primary headquarters is in the United States? They would have had to move a lot of servers to another country. That would cost a fortune.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
"Google is still free to implement these measures, they are just not forced to do it. "
Actually, they probably are not free to do so. Sure, they could attempt to do so, but as soon as it effects the bottom line, the board of directors would squeal and the stock holders would force them to give up the practice in favor of their legally obligated profit.
For get "Do No Evil", as soon as they became publicly traded their motto changed to "Share Holders' Bitch"
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
It would also mean pulling out of Germany, France, and a few other European countries that demand, and receive, anti-nazi censorship from Google.
Doesn't anyone remember when everyone was extolling Google for being SO pious by not giving information to the US government about users when asked? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/01/19/AR2006011903331.html
And even then it was only to do the research to develop a proper child/porn/censorship act. We wonder why lawmakers think the internet is "tubes" and vote treacherously on internet copyright issues and digital management etc. and then we deny them the kind of information that can be used to be effective at all.
So does anyone else find it ironic that Google has no problems bending to the will of the Chinese government's demands to censor itself, but the US government ASKS for some anonymous data and it's all "Don't tread on me!"
Wonder what the Borg's real agenda is.
I couldn't agree more. However when 10,000 of their most active members and leaders gather at around Tiananmen Square and get shot dead and run over by tanks it tends to discourage the rest. The few exchange students and workers from China around here are timid and compliant. They don't even admit they know anything about those events. They are completely into the consumer culture and fashion. There is no life in them. Its like with the today's Irish. Hundreds of years of British oppression and brutality made sure that the only ones that are left are the descendants of the cowards, the collaborators and the incompetent. I am reminded of this whenever I visit the shithole Dublin has become.
The Tamk Man was the last rebel...
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
Money wins over morals.
http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
They wrote code to protect Bush from "miserable failure" - China isn't the only place they censor results that are embarassing to the ruling regime.
Orignator of the Miserable Failure Googlebomb
The founders are still the majority shareholders. What the investors want doesn't mean squat.
The fact that Google is a public company makes no difference in whether or not they do business in China. If anything, shareholders now have more power to publicly call out Google when they do "evil." Affairs in a public company work much like politics; few things happen at once, but there are incremental changes in attitudes and policies as share holders defend thier interests.
Another example is the Berkshire meeting, where a resolution proposed divesting from PetroChina because some (okay, most) believe that they fund state-sponsored genocide by drilling in Sudan. The resolution didn't pass, but it got a a lot of press, and probably resulted in an incremental shift in attitudes. It also forced WEB to take a closer look at the issue before the meeting.
evil thecorporation greed money
You seem to think that the culture in which you live, in which you promote through your adherence to it, has nothing to do with you. Many companies now deal with China, widely regarded as being total bastards on the civil rights count. Let us look historically, back in time, to America's own struggle with this. Did most companies deal with southern states during it's period of segregation? Why, yes, they did. Did it make it right? No. And did boycotting work? Yes.
Times change, of course, and the means by which we can enact the changes we want to see also change. But it still holds that we have to *be* the changes we want to see; if we cannot take a stand on censorship, how can we possibly expect China to? Three hundred million people over here still have the ability to sway the opinion of three billion people over there; that is, we will if our way is better.
Google may not qualify for sainthood - a brilliant search engine only counts for one miracle. But they do have a choice to take a moral high ground or not. And given the size and public nature of their company, they have the ability to sway what other companies consider to be good or bad practices. This effect may not, in and of itself, be world-altering, but it is a stand, and it is a moral one to take. If they choose against it for the sake of China's market - for profit or whatever reason - then that is a choice about who they want to be.
And as citizens, we have a right to say what we want our companies to be like. We are free to express it in many ways. Congress is not the end-all to our ability to speak. We can say, "Google, you done be doin' wrong." Indeed, if we think it, we should say it. We should say it to every individual, government body and company that supports a culture we do not agree with. Only in this way does sufficient support arise for the better path to be followed. The point is that every front needs to be addressed; not only those fronts that are considered 'socially acceptable'. If we have a problem with corporations in America supporting 'evil' deeds overseas; then we should address them, as much as we should address the legislature. The problem with only coloring within the lines is when those lines don't actually create the picture you want to see.
[Ego]out
Google already has huge competition with baidu.com & sohu.com. Baidu is very similar to google, and sohu is closer to a yahoo-ish portal with games, search, real estate, maps, media, etc.
It seems particularly relevant that Google recently bowed to pressure from the Thai government to remove criticism of their monarch due to lese majeste laws. It's a shame...
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I'm sure someone else is wondering, too, so I'll ask...
What comment did you hear three hours ago?
Google should just pull out of China and, in secret, play cupid between Microsoft and China. Microsoft is dying to get in on Google's market, and China requires a company with very little scruples to do its bidding. Red China and Redmond. I'm thinking match made in heaven. I'm sure Vista Live would be more than happy to implement China's new online game playtime restrictions at the kernel level. Even the Zune is probably an amazing little gadget to people who have lived in abject poverty for all of their lives. China can certainly spread venemous propaganda against the already uncooperative Google and thwart any future web-based office solutions in the country, a coup for MS Office. While Microsoft continues to spiral into the dumper with stale hubris here in the states, they could eventually relocate operations completely to China. Then in WWIII when we duke it out with China, we can all feel better knowing we're going after true evil, like the good old days in WWII instead of all this bullying in the desert of late. Imagine an enemy waving big red flags with the windows logo displayed fearsomely across its face. True terror. But now that China has moved all of it's important military software to Windows, a concerted effort from script kiddies around the world should be able to crash their whole system within days. If we are victorious, we bring down an oppressive government and a software monopoly in one fell swoop.
Or Google could just stay in China and bank off of over a billion people too docile and controlled to change their world. Business as usual.
Oh, and even if I were a paid astroturfer, at least that's a hell of a lot better than the bitter ugliness that is you. Nice attempt at trolling, though, and let me just say that it's an honor to make your "freaks" list.
...it was "don't be evil" (my emphasis). There's a difference.
They can argue that until they reach a level of 50% evil they have not yet reached a tipping point over into actually being evil.
"Do no evil" is much more absolute - it doesn't allow even one instance of evil. But that's not what they promised.
Of course, some of us would say that once they acquired Doubleclick they reached that 50% point anyway...
Directors in many companies cast about 95% of the votes. Either individual shareholders don't bother to vote, or the fine print lets Directors vote unvoted shares, or any number of other dodges. As someone who owns some stock, I've watched these machinations for decades.
The title was also very misleading. It should have been: Google shareholders reject ANTI-censorship proposal.
The plain language version of what happened is that the Board of Directors wants to keep operating in profitable China. Since they effectively control the voting process, they've said they'll use as much censorship as it takes to do that.
Oh I just happened across a radical conservative hate mongering blog calling the ACLU (of which I am a proud, card carrying member) an agent of evil working to ruin the country. Things have to change. How much longer can we tolerate this blind stupidity of political awareness and drooling tolerance of a feeble-minded, empty suit of a president?
Score 3: Insightful? I think not. The numbers are always in controlling the media and grassroots modes of communication, and massive unilateral, fascict military mobilization --- does a certain Square come to mind?
How are a billion chinese poor going to facilitate the revolotion when the government controls every mode they might use to communicate, cencors all internet content, has all the tanks and machine guns and spyplanes and clean, dry socks? Don't be a typical ugly American.
When was this vote again?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Apparently you're under 12 years old and missed the russian revolution of the 90's.
Here's a little thought experiment that I do with people to open their eyes. To each question, answer whether "all" (>90%) of shareholders want the company to do this, "none" (<10%), or "some" (>10% and <90%) want the company to do this:
- Switch entirely to hybrid vehicles for the corporate fleet
- Stop using foreign labor
- Stop giving money to Republicans
- Stop giving money to Democrats
- Stop dealing with countries with questionable human-rights policies.
- Make the stock price go up.
I expect that the only thing you answered "all" to is "Make the stock price go up". The fact that the shareholders have all put their money into your company usually means that they each are looking to make their money grow. So, the one thing that they can all agree on (and, hence, what usually trumps everything else) is that they want to see the money coming in.
I'm not sure what the solution is. Maybe the voting needs to be extended not just to shareholders, but to stakeholders... like residents of the areas where the company operates. Dunno. But, if you keep the voting exclusively to the people who have bet on that horse, I think you're going to get a predictable result every time.
Google has no impact whatsoever on whether or not the Chinese government censors its citizens
Not true. Patently untrue. Google does business with and in China. Their impact may not be large, but withdrawing from the market would be noticed by them. But that's not the point. If Google withdraws from China on account of China's censorship, and other American companies do the same, you form a block of economy that China is not getting access to - but other people are. The larger that block gets, the more economic incentive China has. Ironically, this is exact same concept that governs the idea of why American companies are willing to put up with the censorship; they want access to the market.
I suspect, though, that you're not pausing to think about the greater implications individual companies - large or small - can have on the world. You think I was talking about boycotting Google? Far from it. But the shareholders of Google very clearly put forth the idea of not doing business with - boycotting - China. This is not a meaningless strategy. It has worked, and can work no matter how many bold letters you use to say it won't. I'm simply talking from a historical perspective here.
Beyond that, I find it offensive that you've put words into my mouth and said on what standard I judge an evil company. I specifically did not cite what I thought an evil company was because I don't think there are Good Companies and Evil Companies, like life was Star Wars. There are companies with a history of moral actions and ones with a history of amoral or immoral actions. Google has ticked off an amoral action here, putting it at risk of taking immoral ones. Should people hound Google because of this? Absolutely. And to suggest that only Google gets this treatment is absurd. Look at the boycotts of clothing manufacturers that used slave labor in southeast Asia; people absolutely spoke out against them, and absolutely succeeded in cleaning up the industry. People speak out against diamonds, against fur, against clear cutting, against polluters of all sorts, against civil rights violators of all sorts, and against just plain greedy people.
You seem to espouse a basic belief that if you do not have sufficient power to change something than you have no power to effect change. This is erroneous. How power is pooled and applied has everything to do with changes occurring. Railing against sentiments building towards taking a progressive action is to be railing against progressive action. Whether that actually helps or not is debatable; sometimes arguments like yours, thin and built on straw men, do more for a movement than any amount of rational arguments for the issue at hand. But the world is not a binary place. It is vastly interconnected, and I think what you're failing to grok is that by speaking out against the parts of it that are twisted and wrong - be it's China's civil rights or the war in Iraq or the torture of foreign nationals - you help to suppress those bad parts. By arguing for silence on these matters, you're supporting it. I will make no bones about the fact that the quality of my life is built on the blood of innocents. I don't really have a choice in that - it is history. But I do have a choice about how to move forward, and you will not convince me that the simple choice of saying, "Google has made a wrong decision in this matter." is an erroneous one. The decision was not the decision I would want to see a company make - any company. It may be that my small voice - such a small boat in such a large ocean - will ultimately not matter, or it may turn the tide, but your declaration in this matter will not help no matter what.
[Ego]out
I'm 30, IQ 138 --- the revolution of the nineties? The greatest minds of Generation X selling out and committing suicide? Do you live on Pluto?
What a load of crap. Do you know how many people were killed in that incident, 10,000? 1,000? 100?
Do you know that the vast majority of those student leaders are successful businessmen/businesswomen in CHINA TODAY? Don't believe me? Look it up.
Of course your CNN/FOX will NEVER EVER mention that.
'nuff said.