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."

Comments

And there you have it

[Deathbane27]

Google lost the ability to "do no evil" the minute they became a publicly traded company.

Re:And there you have it

[matt4077]

You might want to consider that this was actually proposed by one of their shareholders. That's a nice answer to all those "if a company forgoes profit for doing good, it's a crime against capitalism and shareholders" comments I regularly see on slashdot. However, this isn't really "doing evil" but rather "not committing do doing good". Google is still free to implement these measures, they are just not forced to do it. From a management perspective, it leaves more options on the table.

Re:And there you have it

[erroneous]

"Do No Evil" for Google now means saying "we don't like doing this" but then doing it anyway.

Re:And there you have it

[morgan_greywolf]

You might want to consider that this was actually proposed by one of their shareholders

Yeah. A small pension fund with a very few shares. They hardly represent the majority.

That's a nice answer to all those "if a company forgoes profit for doing good, it's a crime against capitalism and shareholders" comments I regularly see on slashdot.

Hmph. I usually see the opposite, but ...

However, this isn't really "doing evil" but rather "not committing do doing good". Google is still free to implement these measures, they are just not forced to do it. From a management perspective, it leaves more options on the table.

But Google won't implement these measures and we all know that. The bottom line is that China is too big a market for Google to ignore. Everyone has to remember that Google is nobody's hero. That's not the reason they exist -- they exist to make money. They reward creativity at Google because ultimately it's profitable to do so. They try to make themselves look less evil than other big companies (AOL, Microsoft, etc.) because they it's profitable to do so. I'm not saying that Google didn't start with admirable goals, but today they are a publicly-traded company and their raison d'etre is to create value for their shareholders. So everyone needs to stop putting companies -- particular Apple and Google -- on a pedestal and realize that your relationship with them as a consumer should be if you like their products, use them, if not, go elsewhere.

Re:And there you have it

[drgonzo59]

You might want to consider that this was actually proposed by one of their shareholder

But you missed the point, in the end it didn't happen!. It is like Serghey saying that making a deal with China wasn't very nice, but they still kept the deal. Don't you see this is all a publicity stunt. The whole "do no evil" might have worked when Goolge was just 10 people in a garage. But tt doesn't apply anymore.

Yes, there might have been one altruistic shareholder, but it was 1 againts what? 1000? You might as well ignore that one individual as a statistical 'fluke'.

One of my friends invests in a consumer products company that does animal research. Many rabbits and hamsters are maimed, disfigured and practically tortured, to figure out if the products are "safe". My friend is against animal research (I am not, though), but yet he will not sell his stock in that company. Unfortunately, as sad as it is, $$$$ does make the world go round.

No matter what moral slogans you hear from "Google" or other companies, they only serve one purpose -- to imporove the public image -- to make more $$$$$. When it comes to "make more $$$" vs. "adhering to a moral principle", then "make more $$$$" wins.

The way I see it, a good test of moral character for a company (and for a person, for that matter) is if they would be willing to stand by their moral convictions at the expense of a significant loss in profit. Google has failed to do that...

Re:And there you have it

[aussie_a]

No, but then I tend to think of businessmen as immoral. I wouldn't expect a rapist to turn him/herself in either.

Re:And there you have it

[aussie_a]

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. So either Google is evil or they're aiding and abetting evil. Yes, this was tongue in cheek, but I've seen the distinction "google isn't doing evil, they're just not doing good" to be rather silly myself.

Re:And there you have it

[maxume]

Google prior to being publicly traded likely would have behaved exactly the same. Larry, Sergei and Eric own enough class B shares between them to decide each and every shareholder vote.

Re:And there you have it

[drgonzo59]

Exactly. It was our mistake to regard Google as some kind of entity with 'feelings' and moral convictions. In reality corporations are dumb money making machines (as far as their goal state is concerned). They always try to maximize the "make more $$$" function. If that means saying "do no evil" -- alright. If it means putting someone in jail over the censorship -- sure!. If there is a conflict between "making more $" and "do no evil" the issue gets sent to the PR and finance department that calculates risks associated with each and picks the choice that would ... surprise... makes more $$$!

Censored post

[Timesprout]

This post has been censored by Slashdot for crimes against groupthink but is available for viewing in the google cache.

It's all about rights

[WrongSizeGlass]

The right to profit trumps the rights of others to live without government oppression or intervention.

anti?

[gadzook33]

Shouldn't the title read anti-censorship proposal?

Boycott isn't necessarily best

[tomhath]

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.

Headline seems totally wrong

[jez9999]

Surely 'Google's shareholders have rejected a NON-censorship proposal'?

I don't get it.

[Otis2222222]

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.

Re:I don't get it.

[flooey]

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?

First, they can revoke the google.cn name. Country code names are subject to the regulation of the country they're associated with.

Next, they can eliminate all of Google's operations in China. Google has employees and datacenters in China that are completely subject to Chinese law and can be shut down by order of the government.

Third, they can block resolution of google.com and any other Google-related name around the world. This already happens periodically to google.com, that's why they have google.cn, but they could do it completely.

Countries are more than able to control what does and doesn't go on within their borders. China could easily make Google completely inaccessible to its residents.

No need to get out of China

[pipatron]

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

I fail to see how this would end their operations in china.

• It's not self-censorship if they are forced by law to do it.
• They can resist by all legal means to censor information, but if it's illegal to display a certain type of information, they are complying with the law.
• As far as I know (I may be wrong here), Google need not submit any user information to the Chinese government.
• ...nor do they need to store user data in China in order to operate there, at least no more than a temporary cache couldn't solve (where temporary means a couple of minutes for each user)

Or what did I miss?

Re:Screw the Chinese

[Timesprout]

I will bear this in mind when you get taken for an extended waterboarding vacation in Gitmo.

That's the spirit! (sort of)

[N3wsByt3]

"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.

This is not evil

[KingSkippus]

I'm failing how to see how this is evil.

Let's not kid ourselves. These proposals were aimed at doing the following:

• Getting Google to stop serving China.

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.

• Force Google to fight things like the DMCA here in the United States

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."

• Compel Google to break international laws.

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.

Re:This is not evil

[KingSkippus]

what it can do is pressure the Western search engine businesses to stop dealing with China

Get a clue. China doesn't care. The top search engine in China is Baidu, not Google. I don't think you understand that if Google and every other Western search engine simply went away in China, there would be no riots in the streets, no calls to action, nothing at all. China would simply keep censoring its citizens. There is nothing to be gained here. Nothing.

how terrible would Yahoo look if it continued to aid the Chinese government in locking its citizenry away when Google had pulled out of the market

Here's a little experiment: Go out on the street and ask ten people at random what they know about Yahoo's participation in Chinese censorship. I guarantee you that 9.9 out of those 10 people will say that they don't know anything at all. (That last person only counts as 0.1 because they're lying just to try to look smart.) So the real answer is, Yahoo wouldn't look terrible at all. People aren't going to feel better or worse about Yahoo because of something that Google does.

Then it could raise cultural awareness in America to progress to other business sectors who would then pull out and move their factories back to America... [blah, blah, blah]

You're dreaming, right? Don't you think that Americans already know that the government in China is oppressive? I mean, we tend to hide under rocks, but please, go out and ask ten more random people whether they think the Chinese government is oppressive. I guarantee you that 10 out of 10 of them will say, "Yes, I do." And to say that other businesses will care how people feel towards Google or Yahoo to the point of shutting themselves off to the largest market in the world... I change my mind, you're not dreaming. You're clearly on drugs.

And the government does this with no help from companies, right? Google never helps the government in censoring its people, right? Google offers uncensored search engine results, right?

Now you're just being silly. Yes, the Chinese government would do this with no help from companies. Google doesn't "help" the government do anything, that implies that it's in collusion with the government. Google simply abides by the laws it has to in order to provide service. Google does exactly the same thing here in the United States, where there are also laws on what it can and can't show.

I'll say it once again since you don't seem to get it, and I'll put it in obnoxious bold letters so maybe it will start to sink in: Google does not censor the Chinese people. The Chinese government censors the Chinese people.

Can you point out the relevant quote please?

Sure, here it is: "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." If a government requests for Google not to disclose that they've ordered it to turn over personally identifiable information, what is Google to do? On the one hand, they have a company policy that says they must. On the other, they have a legal obligation that says they can't. If they follow their company policy (as you would have them do), they've broken international law. If they don't, they look twice as bad for not only giving up personal information and not telling the person whose information it was, but they broke their own company policy, a policy expressly created to keep that from happening, in doing so. There's no way to win with such a policy.

Of course, there's also a technical problem that's been completely overlooked here. Let's say that the Chinese government orders Google to turn over the IP addres

Re:This is not evil

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

There is nothing to be gained here. Nothing.

You're wrong. There might be nothing material to be gained. Indeed, it would probably lead to a loss. But for some of us, at least, moral stature is another thing to be valued. Google would gain because it would cease odious practices -- they would be better.

The cynicism that none of this matters would be shocking if it weren't so prevalent. Shareholder-led business activism can lead to real and positive change. We knows this because it already has.

Re:Screw the Chinese

[morari]

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.

only 10% or less of shares floated

[cslarson]

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.

What are you talking about?

[REggert]

>>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.

Made in China

[alexgieg]

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.

Re:Good for Google.

[gilroy]

Oh, BS. This wasn't a proposal that Google hire gun-runners and try to overthrow the Chinese. It was a proposal that Google refrain from odious practices. Yes, it would cost them money. No, it wouldn't cause the Chinese Communists to wake up and say, "Oh, wait, we should allow free speech".

It would have been a principled stand. It would have been an example. And once Google was on board, attention could be turned to other companies that conduct odious operations in collusion with the Chinese government.

Don't think organized business activism can make a real difference in the world? Think that "someone else" will always just make up the difference and the system will not change? I'd suggest you talk to someone from South Africa...

Re:Screw the Chinese

[bananaendian]

People get the government they deserve. If 1,000,000,000 chinese aren't concerned about their own basic civil liberties why should I?

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...