Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Rejects Anti-Censorship Proposal
Matthew Skala writes "The BBC reports that Yahoo! has rejected a shareholder proposal to adopt an anti-censorship policy, as well as one to set up a human rights committee to review the impact of Yahoo!'s operations in places like China. The interesting proposals are numbers 6 and 7 in the proxy statement available through EDGAR. This news comes on the heels of jailed Chinese reporter Shi Tao, suing Yahoo! for its involvement in his conviction, and Google's rejection of a similar proposal. The anti-censorship proposal was submitted by the same groups (several New York City pension funds) as the Google proposal. The proxy statement also includes the Board's recommendations — "strongly oppose[ing]" both proposals — with explanations of their reasoning."
Board of Directors Statement and Recommendation AGAINST Stockholder Proposal
Yahoo! shares the proponent's commitment to human rights, and as described in more detail in the board's statement in opposition to proposal no. 6 in this proxy statement, the Company's management team has already instituted practices and initiatives that are designed to assess the implications of the Company's activities and policies and to protect and advance essential freedoms, such as freedom of expression and privacy rights.
To further advance thinking and practices around the promotion of free expression and privacy, Yahoo! is actively engaged in a formal dialogue, co-facilitated by Business for Social Responsibility and the Center for Democracy & Technology, that includes industry counterparts, various human rights groups, academic institutions and socially responsible investors. This diverse group aims to produce a set of global principles and operating procedures on freedom of expression and privacy to guide company behavior when faced with laws, regulations and policies that interfere with human rights. The group's goals also include creating an implementation, accountability and governance framework, as well as a forum for sharing ideas.
These practices and initiatives have been developed by Yahoo! management based on its thorough and careful consideration of the inherent complexities associated with operating under the laws of multiple foreign countries. The board of directors believes that Yahoo!'s management team, with its day-to-day involvement in the Company's business operations and its detailed understanding of the legislative and regulatory landscape of the countries in which the Company operates, is in the best position to assess these matters and to make informed judgments as to what practices and policies are most likely to promote the interests of the Company and its stockholders and users.
China's proposal for anti-censorship against Google's said proposal is to propose a censorship proposal proposition. In response the proposal set by China, Google proposed to set a an anti-proposal toward Yahoo's proposal to create a proposal against the China anti-censorship proposal. These proposals were proposed as a proposition to anti-proposialism, not censorship.
"Please, shut up. Just when I think you can't say anything more stupid, you speak again." -Archie Bunker.
Here's what I don't understand, if Yahoo! stops complying with local laws, as these shareholders suggest, wouldn't it be purely and simply out of business in China? Could any company violate the Chinese laws and keep working in China, thus providing Chinese citizens a breach in the Great Firewall?
Because that's where it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe my analyse is a bit over-simplistic, if Yahoo! tries not to apply censorship laws, then it won't be able to operate in China and thus it wouldn't be any good for either Yahoo! or Chinese web-surfers, right? Or did I get something wrong?
You just got troll'd!
This is proof that communist power > capitalist power. Simply for the fact that US corporations always have to yield to money. The moment money can't fix a problem, they are stuck. Will google and yahoo be able to ever bribe the communist party enough? I doubt it. I feel bad for the Chinese citizens who are censored in the middle of all this.
Translation: Yahoo will give a brief second's thought to the plight of the common person in China before diving back into their Money Bin, Scrooge McDuck style.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Let's face it, these rejections are driven by China. No, the government of China is not leaning on Google, Yahoo!, et. al., but is making it quite clear that the continued right to operate in China via Chinese web connections requires some... alterations. And because China is seen as such a lucrative market given its population size, non of these companies is willing to put itself in a position to be banned by the Chinese, ceding dominance of the market to its competitors.
I'll be most impressed if one of them decides to stand up and say "enough is enough". The fact is, the population of China is large, but they only comprise 1.3 billion of the 6+ billion people on the planet. A significant fraction, but not enough to justify turning their back on principle.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Yahoo! is going to conduct business in as many countries as it can, and to do so, it is going to comply with such laws as that country has. No other major company does any differently... just as Google didn't. To think that a company should say "no we're not going to participate in this MASSIVE market because we don't like the [moral] limits they place on us, which don't impact our financials at all," is silly. We should just let in house Chinese search engines take over that market? I think not. I'd rather have some American presence there, even if somewhat restricted, than none.
-Daniel
Is it just me, or is this the clear limitation of "markets"? Markets are great for things like pushing down cost, creating diversity of products (through competition), and distributing wealth (if not manipulated).
But when it comes to profit vs. principle, it seems to hit a wall. Is this the reason markets can't stop human trafficing and a gov't has to step in. Any of you collije edumacated E-conomists want to correct me here?
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
Well, I disagree with you there... because if it wasn't for the power of capitalism, American companies like Google and Yahoo! wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be strong enough, to even be over in China competing with Chinese companies. How many Chinese companies do you see in the US? Those that there are, are operating on a capitalist system.... another power of the capitalist system - you can't export communism (not using the cold war "export democracy" definition here, but rather that to be communist, your country must BE communist - you can't have a piece of your country operate in another under a different system). Further, every time an American company goes over there, we break down the barriers just a little more.
-Daniel
So in the fight between freedom and money you side with money. Nice. Well, at least you're clear about it. Not like you have a motto of "do no evil". Maybe "Do a little evil if it's good money in it"?
If a country had a law that said any foreign business had to fuck a one-year old to get permission to operate locally, everyone would be outraged of they actually did it. 'Whaaat? But it's the law, we had too or we couldn't do business... the 1yo would be fucked by someone else if we didn't do it...'
However, when you fuck over billions with thin allusions to 'we bring freeeedom just by being there' then it's okay. It's not only okay, it upsets people when you point out that it might possibly be morally wrong.
At some point in China, the web is going to become much more important with regards to economic growth. If the major players like Google and Yahoo! did pull out of that market, it might eventually force China to rethink their 'great firewall' policy in order for them to compete on a level playing field with the more web-driven economies elsewhere - search and web driven advertising are pretty important to these economies.
Of course, Google et al are worried that pulling out would lead to competing technologies being developed in China free from their market presence, and they would quite like to hold on to their near-monopoly for obvious reasons.
Yahoo, Google, etc, should stay true and operate at 100%, and if they get banned, then they become martyrs. It is loosely analogous to the Iraq war, how people say that you can't impose revolution on the people, they need to decide it for themselves, etc. If the Chinese get p.o.'d enough at the govt banning things, they'll eventually revolt, which would potentially be a good thing (good in the long run, potentially catastrophic in the short run, but that's life). Money may or may not be the root of all evil, but at minimum, it is a strong catalyst. The Chinese govt is wrong. Anyone who goes along with it is a little bit wrong themselves. I see the point that having some presence is better than no presence, but I am still 60/40 in favor of my above stated position.
Because they are obviously using this phrase as their guiding principle:
"Is this Good for the Company?"
This way, when ever Yahoo has to make a decision about human rights or censorship, they ask themselves, "Is this Good for the Company?"
Oh, and remember: next Friday... is Hawaiian shirt day. So, you know, if you want to, go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt and jeans.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Most shareholders of large companies are institutional investors (e.g., mutual and hedge funds, banks, etc.) or executives/board members of the company. Any proposal that creates additional controversy or additional work for the company will generally be voted down by these shareholders, which explains why the anti-censorship proposal got only 15% voting in favor and the human rights committee proposal only got 4%.
Yes, I realize that censorship isn't a very controversial topic to you or me, but it is from the perspective of making money.
On a side note....
Hattie: I may only have one share of Planet Kajigger, but I get to vote same as anybody. And I'm voting against the cat hater!
See your business pages for examples. We no longer liberate people, we liberate markets. It's why the threat to oil in Iraq is met with guns and why almost 20 years after Tiananmen so many companies are moving into China. Lip service outrage is paid to things like harvesting Falun Gong prisoners organ because the market is safe for Wal-Mart and McDicks. Ditto that immolation of women is ignored in India (when they marry outside their caste etc) because it is a good market that can be moved into by companies. A few dissidents in China doing time or being executed is peanuts next to the profit to be made.
"Further, every time an American company goes over there, we break down the barriers just a little more.
A HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ; STOP IT! You're killing me.... :)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Foreign concerns have been doing business w/China for thousands of years, bud. Barriers down? Which ones...please tell me. England was here for hundreds of years - gold and silver came in by the ton and rice on English frigates...spices and porcelain want out the same way. Please point out any barrier you can that came down from that relationship - I'll wait.
China has all it needs in terms of material resources, for the foreseeable future - As an example, China is #4 trading partner for Russia...but Russia is #8 for China.
If you think 'we' are breaking down anything in China, I've got an Armani pure silk suit coat I just picked up in Shenzhen I know you're just gonna love!
gold and silver came in by the ton and rice on English
gold and silver came in by the ton on English frigates...rice, spices and porcelain want out the same way.
There is nothing other than private industry. Private industry is people, and influences other people.
i.e., "You are too stupid to make that kind of proposal. We know better than you." I'm not sure that sentence could be any more condescending.
Since Yahoo's current policy "recognizes" the role of private industry giving up the names of anonymous bloggers to totalitarian governments, apparently Yahoo believes that role is "appropriate."
I for one am fed up with this company. I've been holding some YHOO since '97 (should have sold it all back in '00). If this company refuses to provide us with any significant gains, refuses to listen to shareholders, and continues to sell-out human rights for market share in China, I will be all too pleased to see it purged from my portfolio.
I would really love to sell these shares for a penny each, if only to tank the stock as hard as possible. I know this is a pipe dream, but I'm angry, and I feel betrayed by a company I've supported since their beginning.
Riddle me this: why would anyone want this stock? Ethics aside, why is YHOO a smart investment? Am I missing something?
barack to the future?
By setting up a business in a country that commits human rights violations, and then participating in them (e.g. turning over the names of dissidents when you know how political prisoners are treated), surely you can't just use the excuse that you are complying with local laws.
I think many folks are missing one fundamental point. We don't have to change corporations from the inside. We have to make it illegal for US companies to do business with morally reprehensible countries. In fact, they shouldn't be allowed to business with businesses or countries that do business with countries that don't conform to our ideal of human rights. "So, Mr. China, I understand you want to sell us cheap shoes. We'd love to buy them, but we can't unless you pay our minimum wage and cut out all this anti-free speech crap."
We can't really expect individual companies to adopt these proposals. If these proposals have any real teeth, then they could cost the company money, and then the company will lose against competitors that don't adopt expensive do-gooder policies. Occasionally, such policies will be very high profile and the cost of the policy will be offset by the positive PR, but that is rare.
If it is really important for a company to do, or stop doing something, then perhaps the government should regulate it? I know that regulation is a bad word, but at least then it applies to all the companies evenly, so no company gets disadvantaged for its good behavior. Of course, they shouldn't create the regulation unless they plan to enforce it, otherwise we are back to the same place where the companies that ignore the regulation come out on top.
If someone/some organization developed an online search and webmail service that was truly not evil (ie- don't store IP addresses for anything, delete email permenantly, etc), then they would have a lot of people using their service. It's easy to say no to the FBI if you don't have anything to give them in the first place. On top of that, this company should stay the hell out of any country that tries to censor them.
;)
Why doesn't this exist? Or does it, and I just haven't heard of it.
Hmm... maybe it's time to start my own business.
Companies will only ever look out for #1 - and #1 is the company.
Whether it be "Do No Evil" Google, "Squash 'Em" Microsoft, or who-ever. No company can be trusted to look out for "you".
So stop being surprised when a company sells someone out. And be presently surprised when they don't.
-CF
I don't normally post to /. these days, but sometimes after reading a particularly disturbing news piece I feel as if I just want to yell out into the ether and see if anyone hears me.
After thinking about it, I really believe that a company like Yahoo or even MS could, as another poster put it, say "Enough is Enough" and draw a line in the sand regarding their involvement in with China's censorship. Make a huge deal of their announcement to stand up for human rights. Issue press releases and hold news conferences. Get Errol Morris to direct a whole series of commercials that air during primetime which specifically calls out google and any other search company as helping to further the oppression of people under the communist system in China. Yahoo could use U.S. national patriotism, pride and the overall desire of the average American to believe they are good and righteous, to completely obliterate Google in the domestic search market. Yahoo could come straight out with a campaign that bluntly says people using google for search or any of their other services, supports the oppression of people living in communist China.
I guarantee that such a move by Yahoo would decimate googles usage by Americans. Google would no longer be cool and people would rally behind Yahoo because to do so would make the average Yahoo user feel better about themselves.
Seriously, its a bold move but I think it would work.
Even if google came out and proclaimed they would no longer do business in China, the damage would be done to their image within days. You can not underestimate the power that such a move would have to resonate with middle america. It would be the PR move to own all other PR moves.
It's just a thought. I think that instead of being so concerned with the China market, Yahoo should look at their failing position in the U.S. market and think of some interesting ways to knock google off its pedestal. And what a fall it would be.
What do you guys think?
Cheers.
These kind of corps are simply not going to put ethics before a profit in a potential multi-billion dollar emerging market. Not until they are placed under a massive amount of pressure by their existing userbase anyway. It would be good idea for Yahoo, Google, etc to sign a defence pact of zero tolerance to foreign liberty abuses, and if they are so concerned about the liabilities for overseas staff, simply not invest in these geographies. If China cuts off Google et al then so be it; but it is the prerogative of the Chinese people to respond to that (or not) and western companies will have a clean conscience. It will only happen if we force it to happen, though.
If you're against censorship and propaganda, at least have the decency not to perform it yourself by twisting the words.
parasight.de
Wouldn't you agree that China is more open in general than pre-1840 era? People (especially those in the cities) are a lot more open-minded? And in fact, the people do have a lot more freedom in speech, marriage, choosing jobs and doing business, than before (in the PRC era or before). I'm not saying the barriers are eradicated, they are not; but they are for sure lowered quite a lot over time and I would attribute these progress to nothing but open trades and heightening of living standards. I would be surprise if you had actually visited Shenzhen and still made the above comment.
Because shareholders are human beings with thoughts, ideals and hopefully some conscience. The very idea that shareholders ONLY care about the end-result profitability of a company is and always has been a ridiculous assertion.
It's also possible that the shareholders recognize that people like me will boycott Yahoo! over this issue and that's bad for profits. The ethicality is sometimes about which issues you chose to make a stink about.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
A lot of nasty things have happened in the United States in the last 7 years. But guess what. Ya know all that bullshit the criminals in the Bush administration try to hide? They get found out. And there's a huge debate about it. And now their house of cards is starting to implode.
What the bastards running the Bush administration have to try and do in secret to protect themselves from the law, countries like Iran and China do openly. You think the SS will be mean if you make a stupid crack about assassinating Bush? The Chinese Gestapo will imprison, torture, and murder you for saying "I want to be free." You want to know why the CIA did "extraordinary rendition?" Because not even they could get away with the depraved crimes routinely committed in places like Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Want to find out what morally reprehensible countries are actually like? Go to Saudi Arabia and send a letter to the government talking shit about Mohammed. Go to China and openly declare what their lying bastard government did at Tiannanmen Square. If you're lucky enough to escape with your life, come back and wonder at how you can defame, slander, and rant against the US government and it's evil all day with nothing to fear.
If you truly think the USA is morally reprehensible, I suggest you have your moral center's connection for "standard of what evil is" checked out, because I think it's loose and the input is floating high.
.... fell appart with collaborationist German companies in WWII.
There is a point when your profits no longer take precedence in the presence of clear moral evil.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You forget about the role of German (and other countries') companies in WWII.
Outrageous things have been asked of corporations. Compliance was not the right answer.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That has a name, it is collaborationism.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So there is little difference in presenting things either way.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
As an active flickr participant I can testify that Yahoo is very willingt o engage in Censorship on behalf of any country if it's bottom line is threatened by not censoring. And no it doesn't have to be that way Zoomr for example has a clear and unabiguious anti censorship principle and I'd move there in a second if I didn't have hundreds of photos with over 10,000 views, didn't admin 3 groups one with over a thousand members and over 10,000 photos, sigh. Fuck censorship!
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?