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

[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

[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.

Censored post

[Timesprout]

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

anti?

[gadzook33]

Shouldn't the title read anti-censorship proposal?

Headline seems totally wrong

[jez9999]

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

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: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.