Slashdot Mirror
Google's Shareholders Vote Against Human Rights
yo_cruyff notes a Computerworld article on Google's recent annual shareholder meeting, which was dominated by argument over the company's human rights policies. Google's shareholders, on advice from their board, have voted down two proposals on Thursday that would have compelled Google to change its policies. "Google [has been] coming under fire for operating a version of its search engine that complies with China's censorship rules. Google argues that it's better for it to have a presence in the country and to offer people some information, rather than for it not to be active in China at all... [S]hareholders and rights groups including Amnesty International... continue to push Google to improve its policies in countries known for human rights abuses and limits on freedom of speech... Sergey Brin, cofounder and president of technology for Google, abstained from voting on either of the proposals. 'I agreed with the spirit of these proposals,' Brin said. But he said he didn't fully support them as they were written, and so did not want to vote for them."
is a troll.
+5, Informative.
I'm the guy with the gun.
The problem isn't that Google hates human rights. It is just that nobody would believe the formula:
1. Support human rights
2. ???
3. Profit!
-1 search for Tiananmens Square.
News at 11.
It's hard to think objectively when you have "Google Votes Against Human Rights" as the headline. Did Google vote in favor of genocide or stoning dissidents? No. What they did do was to make a nuanced calculation that I think most reasonable people would agree with. I agree with Google that it is better to provide some information than none. Seriously, what is it going to harm the Chinese government if Google packed up. Google is in a far better position to do good now than if they were completely out of the country. Amnesty and the rest can't see the forest for the trees. Taking a stand in prinicple is just that, in principle with no effect on things in the real world. Pressure Google to use its position in China to lobby for more freedom, don't try and make them leave.
I got a catholic block.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
Google's shareholders did not "vote against human rights," they voted against a policy change that was proposed. Even the summary admits that Sergey abstained because he didn't agree with the way the proposals were written, not because he disagreed with the spirit.
Slow news day much?
What exactly does one expect from any for-profit organization? As much as Google might claim to do no evil, their primary motive (and rightly so) is to make money and moral considerations are only secondary.
Do know evil.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
If you're part of a system, then you're in some way supporting it. Examples of successfully changing a system from within are few and far between and are usually where someone couldn't voluntarily leave the system anyway. Systems are more usually replaced by a competing system. If Google want to change things, they should not submit to China's demands and walk away if need be. That would be a far stronger message and powerful effect than simply agreeing to their terms. I fail to see how they expect to change things through obedience.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Some funds in my 401k had issues with the crisis in Darfur. The board recommended that the fund do nothing about it. I voted that they should. Unfortunately, a no reply from other shareholders is counted as votes for the board's recommendation. Most shareholder's don't even open and read the proxies, let alone vote on them. I would sell the shares but it's my 401k and all of the available funds are managed by the same company.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Either that or they agree that a little information is better for the chinese people than none at all. I agree with that sentiment, too, yet I feel no burning desire to kill babies or repress people. The best way to change the system is to empower the people, and depriving them of your resources because you'd have to work with an evil government doesn't empower the people at all. Moral stands look good in the paper, but they don't help the people of China at all.
Shareholders and rights groups including Amnesty International... continue to push Google to improve its policies in countries known for human rights abuses and limits on freedom of speech.
The only way that Google can ever have any influence in opening China's information control policies is if Google is actually operating in China. Right now, that means that they must comply with the PRC minimum standards. If the China kicks Google out, then Google's sway in China is reduced to zero. If you really want to be concerned with censorship in China, then you should want Google to gain as much prominence there as possible, and for Google to always be pushing in the right direction. Not making some idealistic stand that alienates them, but being a valued part of China that moves the entire cultural body of China gently towards better human rights.
We are all just people.
n/b
you must wait a little bit before you may use this resource How long is "a little bit"?
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
I don't know whether you were swayed in your opinion at all by the irresponsibly biased headline, but it seems to me that this was (yet again) a choice between:
A) Censor parts of Google in China.
B) Censor all of Google in China.
Which one of those is more evil?
In a shareholder meeting, the only question being asked is "Does this raise or lower our income?"
If the answer is "lower," those proposing the idea have to come up with a darn good reason why, or the shareholders get angry, because their stock is going to be worth less than it could be.
China is a big market, and Google wants to expand aggressively into this, so it was a sensible business decision.
Was it a sensible decision in other areas, like ethics or law? The answer to that has to be asked of a higher entity, because it is the pressure of the shareholders' demands that makes Google unable to answer to those areas.
technical writing / development
Awful headline; Google had the insight to realize that you can't change the behavior of authoritarian regimes through boycott, but you can slyly allow the populace to see the outside world and let things 'brew' domestically. Liberalization occurs, it's inherently unstable, and likely leads to democratization.
Shareholders care more about turning a buck than protecting human rights? Say it isn't so!
What Google has done is great, and I wish Google was allowed to interpret the censorship rules in the US the same way they do in China. What Google has UNIQUELY done (compared to every other search company as far as I know) is that they inform the user of when and why they are censored and the governmental department that has censored them. That is WAY better than what we have here where content is taken down and 'black bag' the content in such a way to make it appear that such information never existed, NOT that the government is trying to control your thoughts.
Hopefully Google will try to bring the same freedom to the US they have brought to China. Way to go shareholders for being informed voters and not paying attention to stupid articles like this one that trys to distort the facts for attention and ratings.
Amnesty International used to be more prudent about stuff like this. Shame on them.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
How can one be critical of Google's business practices in China?
Every time you or I make a decision to buy a product made in China we are voting against human rights.
Why do we support financially a country with such a track record? Because we are either making money doing it, or saving money doing it. Ultimately, we care more about our own pocketbook than the plight of humans elsewhere.
> Either that or they agree that a little information is better for the
> chinese people than none at all.
Your statement assumes that without Google, the people of China would have no
information. This is blatantly incorrect: Google ( 25% market share ) implements the same Government-mandated filters as Baidu ( 62% market share ).
Google's presence in China is simply about gaining a foothold in a potentially
lucrative market. ``Empowering the people'' has nothing to do corporate
strategy.
The Chinese people are responsible for pushing back against their government. It isn't Google's responsibility to stand up for the rights of the Chinese. There are over 1.2 billion people living in China - the Chinese government stands or falls at their pleasure. Apparently they are content with the government they have. When they decide otherwise then it is their responsibility and no one else's to change things.
Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
Even though I am constantly disappointed with what Google has become with regard to it's policies, in this case, I can't fault them.
It's correct that it would have made a stronger point for Google to say it's raw or nothing. It's also easy to sit back with wallet firmly secured and say that THEY should be making that point. I'll bet many of the people faulting Google still purchase products that are in some part made in China or some other country that has similar practices.
In all reality, it is ludicrous to think investors trying to make money , not a point, would vote for something that might keep their for profit corporation from capitalizing on access to an upcoming super power. It's possible, maybe even likely, that China will eventually become larger profit center for Google than the US.
It's not Google's fight. They are in to make money. Period. Do no evil? Please, don't be naive.
And for those of you who say "If you are part of the system, you support it" and criticize Google for not standing up against human right violations, well, then stop buying everything made in China and stand up yourself first! Stop buying Nike shoes, iPods, some GAP cloth, Notebooks, Blu-ray players, LCD TVs and many other gadgets you love so much...Suddenly China's human right violations doesn't sound too much evil when you have to change your consuming habits right?
It's not Google's shareholders, it's ALL of us who "Vote Against Human Rights". We vote with our [insert local currency here] everyday and everyday we vote for the best price/benefit (or any other formula) and care shit about human rights involved in the manufacturing of the product.
Even a restricted version of google could, in theory, offer backdoor searches to the crafty and brave Chinese user.
Although google may filter content from searches for 'free tibet' or 'tianaman square', I would imagine that the actual search engine still operates in the same fashion as it does in the 'free' world.
Thus, google would only be blocking requests in a semantic fashion, yes? From an information perspective, google should still be able to index and serve results for content which is against Chinese policy, but which has been obscured through linguistic tricks or something likewise.
Could there be an analogy drawn between the theorized creation of the Nunchaku from a farm tool?
Could not a 'censored' google still be wielded as effectively as the fully open google in the west?
Read my Very Short "Stories"
I think no access to google is against Chinese people. The China government doesn't care if there is a google at all, but if Chinese loose google, although lamed, they loose a lot. They won't gain any progress is human right and they will loose the best search engine on the internet.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
I don't think either is of much concern to China. In my experience, almost no one uses Google in China - really only foreigners such as myself. Chinese people generally use a Chinese equivalent.
Max.
I wonder what the computed value of an Ad-Click is in China? Most of the country is dirt poor. Exactly which segments of the Chinese population are being reached by Google?
Clearly the bottom line is the bottom line.
Invenio via vel creo
its impossible to asses either A or B will be more beneficial. at this state, what shareholders did is evil because of the immediate result of their actions.
Read radical news here
No but it does make a good buzzword to add some bling with.
at least they didn't use synergy.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Your statement assumes that the same results will come through Baidu and Google and that it's the only avenue of information from Google.
First, I don't know whether they have their book search in China yet or any of their other services, but those things could help the Chinese people in their own ways. Giving the Chinese people strong online services isn't a bad thing; I like almost everything that Google's done in the US, the Chinese people might as well.
Second, Baidu's search is different from Google's search unless they're using the same database and algorithms. If Google's indexing more foreign sites, that's probably a good thing. Also, since Google's not based in China, they could easily have more autonomy than Baidu.
Finally, whether it's a play for market share or not, it doesn't change the fact that staying out of China does the Chinese people absolutely no good; unless Google's presence is harming them (and I've seen no evidence even hinting that's the truth), they're doing at least as well as the alternative. Making money doesn't negate any benefits you do along the way.
I'm sure seeing the world as pure black and white and hating corporations for making money is very easy, but you've at least got to admit that there's an argument to be made for Google participating in China without being evil. The fact that they had the vote at all shows that they're considering the human rights side of the equation, and the fact that both of the owners refused to vote makes me think that they're conflicted on the issue.
A) Censor parts of Google in China.
B) Censor all of Google in China.
Which one of those is more evil?
Which is more evil:
Censoring part of the message:
"John McCain Kills Homeless man"
Or the Full Message:
"John McCain Kills Homeless man in self defense after being attacked."
There is no "partial censorship." It is either censored or not.Censorship is nothing more than a tool for propaganda. It is better to have them find reliable sources of information than to provided them with ones that are censored.
But they can't give the people anything other the China approved stories.
What happens when China wants Google to misrepresent information?
I say empower the people to get to your uncensored search engine.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Fixed
More likely this is the decision process.
1. We can pursue this avenue, and make NO money.
2. There is this other avenue we can puruse, and we make loads of money.
hmmm..tricky.
Nothing is gained by the investors or by the citizens of China by Google exiting the market while both are arguably hurt by doing so. So why do it???
Human Rights has different definition in different countries. Trying to force your version of human rights on to other people is by itself a violation of other people's human rights. For Chinese people, the rights to a better life, to be able to eat, to have a decent roof covering their family, those rights trump you typical American's human rights. Considering what condition China was in just 20 years ago, the Chinese government delivered, and the population by and large are having more and more freedom to voice different opinions. That is the reality in China, and your constant bashing of China do not help at all.
I vote against sensationalist headlines on Slashdot.
He or she is an fatuous, incorrigible, hysterical troll and needs to be let go. It's gotten to the point where I can spot one of her posts immediately without looking at the name. Kdawson, go back to your little teenage troll blog where you came from.
Regardless of whether this was a shady decision/vote or not, this reminds us why the "do no evil" mantra went out the window when Google went public. No matter how much the employees and management agree to "do no evil" it's really up to the shareholders/investors who don't give a shit what Google does as long as it makes them money.
Very nice headline, given the content. Yes, because shareholders voted to keep Google in China, they actively voted to slaughter people, imprison them, and force the remaining to work at below-minimum wage in a country ruled by communism (those darn commies! [audience laughter]). See how the logic works?
Tomorrow, we'll get wind that one of Google's stockholders living in New York went to a restaurant last night and ordered veal. Obviously, the kdawson headline will be "Google's stockholders eat babies and shit their remains all over New York".
Google is (last I checked) the only search engine that tells you if your search results have been censored.
It's a very small victory, but it's still something the people of China didn't have before.
I also point out that Google tried for years to get the ability to have uncensored searches, they fought, and lost, and while they may not have accomplished much, it wouldn't accomplish anything at all to pull out of China now.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
That's how it started. But you know what they say, "no religion remains pure for long".
By that logic, you personally are just as much supporting Chinas policies as Google. After all, by being a part of Slashdot, you are part of the system that gives Google any reason for existence, and gives them any kind power.
If China's not good enough to hold the Olympics, then they're definitely not good enough for Google! ...Oh wait.
For once Google is doing something right. It isn't corporations' place to override the laws of nations; if it were, what would be in the food you eat and the medicines you take?
If Google is disturbed by human rights violations in China, it has more than enough money to change things by contacting the people at large. Giving countries the middle finger and ignoring their laws would be appalling, no matter what we think of those laws.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Just curious, do all ANSYS products not have undo, or is the undo just not usable? Do you work for ANSYS or just use their products? I only ask because Ansoft just got bought by ANSYS and their products have undo, which we don't want to lose.
Thanks!
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
The reaction displayed to this story on Slashdot is so typical of people's biases here. Everybody is quick to defend Google, as they are still widely seen as a good company. I don't think it takes a genius to predict that the typical response would be very different if this story was about Microsoft. I think censorship is wrong whoever does it.
For the record I have no illusions that any for profit company would be acting any differently to Google in this situation, choosing to do business in China and ignoring the ethical implications. This is of course widely seen in the use of cheap Chinese labour to manufacture western consumer goods etc. I also have no illusions that the Chinese are somehow the only repressive govt around the world and that the focus on them by westerners is not more than a little hypocritical.
None of that excuses people aiding an authoritarian regime in censoring information. Clearly in order to appease the Chinese authorities Google now have smart people employed in figuring out how to better censor the internet. This advances the technology of censorship and is of detriment to freedom everywhere, not just in China, none of this occurs in a vacuum and the Chinese govt are not the only group prone to censorship.
I'm not saying boycott China or anything like that, simply that western corporations should be forced to adhere to the same ethical standards in China they would be forced to in the West.
So, while maybe it's hypocritical to single out Google for special criticism, I also think it's wrong to defend them and to pretend that "do no evil" will ever be more than clever marketing. There should be regulation to prevent this kind of thing in any country that even pretends to care about freedom of speech.
and let us know how it works out.
... beta.
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
Consider if we should be worried about the slippery slope Google may be on?
If Google helps the Chinese government how will they help the USA government get information about USA citizens? What's the difference to Google?
I'm used to hating corporations because of the constant movement away from things "Good" pushed by uninformed stockholders out for nothing but increasing their own profit.
This feels almost the opposite.
I have to go re-arrange my brain a little. ttyl
Is slashdot linking stories with accurate summaries anymore, or is it just en vogue to post legitimate news stories with a slashdot-biased, flamebait (and usually inaccurate) summary?
China's strategy of censorship is very hard to actually make work. You're pretty much trying to blacklist all of the internet that doesn't agree with you, and there's a lot of internet out there which cannot be all monitored and sorted. Not to mention it's growing all the time, and then there's that thing about it routing around such attempts.
In Google's position, I don't know what I'd do. It's definitely not the black and white issue the title implies. Still, a few things are certain: Google provides a very powerful way to look up information and ALL information cannot be censored completely. Therefore, it's at least making it easier for people to find stuff - even stuff the government doesn't want them to see.
When you have truly free elections, sometimes voters don't vote the way you want them to. That's how it works. I remember the Bush administration getting very upset at the results of a Palestinian election. Some people want democracy, but only when they agree with the outcome.
Shareholder proposals rarely pass. The failure rate is extraordinarily high. I'd love to see some stats, but I'd say you can probably count on one hand the number of shareholder proposals each year that pass in the entire NYSE or NASDAQ. The fact that this failed, whatever its value, is not surprising. The fact that somebody actually thought it had a chance of passing is surprising, but I guess that idealistic person does not know how annual shareholder meetings really work.
If I hadn't already posted in this thread, I'd give you mod points.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
It strikes me that every time I see the word China written somewhere, there is always people talking about freedom of speech and all the other issues... I agree that there is an problem with human rights there, but turning China into a democracy with freedom of speech is the only way? Why, and I wish for an answer, would the west system be applied everywhere? What tells you that democracy is for everyone? Is it the fact that seems more fair? In China if your company is not paying the taxes and you are the accountant, you get killed, so that is a violation of human rights: punishment for wrongdoing? Is softer punishments a symbol of democracy? I still dont understand why can someone try to force his own ideology to a completely different culture and people...
Clinton's 1994 Decision to Delink China's MFN Status and Human Rights
>
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA442614
>
http://www.wcit.org/resources/publications/issue_briefs/ib_china_mfn_status.htm
How about a disclaimer saying, "Some results may have been censored" at the top of every results page? That would give no clues as to which results were censored (it would be hard to talk the Chinese into it otherwise), but at least keeps the censorship out in the open.
I am pretty much tired of all the emo people looking for the next corporation to let their bleeding hearts drip all over just because the biggest corporations are the biggest targets.
To say that Google backing out of China wouldn't affect china is clearly a lie.
If nothing else, it would certainly mean a lot to America. There have been many cases of smaller companies boycotting governments to far greater effect. IMHO, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google could work together on this, and pull out before the Olympics, if they wanted. Totalitarian governments cannot stand being disrespected, as that is the only source of their power. Whereas in a democratic-republic like America, we don't respect our gov't much at all, and it is the most powerful gov't on Earth.
The key here is showing the world how legitimate we think China's doublespeak is on Tieneman Square and every other issue of note. Their press is full of lies, and now our search engines only return those lies. That's the definition of propping them up. No wonder they don't use America's search engines - they return nothing true or useful at all, and Wikipedia is mostly blocked.
-Ben
Slashdot hosts repetitive jokes. News at 11:00.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
If he supports the idea, why not rewrite it an introduce it himself?
"kdawson masterpiece"
The story headline and my headline are essentially equivalent. They're both ridiculous, inflammatory, mischaracterizations of what happened.
I'm sure we all love the election season political advertising that says foolish crap like "Bob Jackass voted NO to making our schools better!"
Well of course he did, because the particular bill in question said something like "50% tax on milk to improve school funding", and Bob thought there were some drawbacks to that approach.
It's not that Google shareholders are against human rights in China. At every public company, a few activist shareholders come up with proposals they want to be voted on that say things like "improve human rights in China" and invariably the board suggests voting against them. I don't think there's some widespread malign for human rights in China. I think there is a real concern that the particulars of the proposal damage or have the potential to damage the business in a way that doesn't offset the hypothetical progress made towards acheiving the aim.
The real story here is that todays proposal of the month got prioritized below some other shareholder objective. Not that Google hates the idea of chinese freedom.
Look at this from Google's perspective. It is in their best interest to make Chinese citizens info-addicts. Google wants to be in the business of making the CHinese people completely dependant on Google for finding out as much as possible. Giving them more possible choices and better filtering/searching technology to whittle the results down to what the PEOPLE want is what will endear google with more customers and a more lucrative eyeballs base to their advertising clients.
The special tricks and procedures Google has to put in place to operate in the Chinese market are a cost of doing business in China, one I'm sure they'd rather dispense with if they thought they could. Some blowhard activist popping up and saying "just don't play ball with the Chinese government" is unrealistic for a variety of reasons.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
In other words they have now changed their moto to "Do Evil." Another 5-10 and they'll be thought of in the same way as Microsoft.
For fuck's sake they won't let you search for an exact string. Broken.
I feel no burning desire to kill babies or repress people.
See? This is why you don't get invited to the best parties. You're a wet blanket.
Nothing is gained by the investors or by the citizens of China by Google exiting the market ?
Wrong: if the Chinese government had to recognize that it looses mutually benefitial business opportunities by oppressing human rights, it might change its human rights policies to the benefit (and freedom) of the citizens of China. Unfortunately the greed of Western investors and their preference for profit over people just teaches oppressive governments that they human rights violations don't do them any harm so that they can just continue oppressing their people... the filtered content might resemble reality better than the so called 'free speech' from corporate media and Bush administration. Pentagons disinformation machine is mighty strong these days.
If Microsoft (M$) did this there would be no end to the flaming.
I think it's safe to say a lot of you are hypocrits.
We're all sick of the war, Spanky. But hard as it may be for you to believe, there are still topics out there that have nothing to do with it whasoever.
If Google shareholders voted in such as way to give Google a competitive disadvantage in China, they would be allowing the competition (such as Baidu) to increase their marketshare. As a shareholder of Google, my goal is for google's stock price to go up. If I have a moral issue with a company (such as I do with tobacco companies) I don't invest in them.
Anybody here think that Iraq/Iran/Sudan/Dafur use Linux? Maybe we should tell the "linux community" to never distribute or allow downloads from people associated with these countries.
What if BinLaden used Firefox?
Although China is one of the less free countries, it is improving. Think about that it was like 25 or 50 years ago. Now it is rapidly industrializing and becoming richer. Increased freedom is a major cause of the increased wealth, and these newly richer people are better able to promote more freedom. Google's technology is helping this trend.
The sort of people who create this sort of stockholder initiative either have no interest in the success of Google or they're too blind to see that such silliness harms Google. Political posturing and power grabs make up the majority of the stockholder initiatives I've seen in the last decade.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Q: Should Slashdot concentrate all their efforts on making the site easy to understand for children under 5?
Talk about misleading headlines...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
This is a classic case of having the choose the lesser of two evils. Google had no perfect choice, and struck out with the most logical. I don't envy their position, but feel they made the best choice possible.
Don't be evil is not the same as do no wrong.
When you start with a bad situation, what's wrong with "do less evil, over time"?
Google's strategy is based on reducing the nature of the evil there, over time.
It takes time to travel along a "roadmap from evil". The duration of that trip is up to the people in China, not us.
History will show if Google's tactics are good.
The headline is complete bullshit.
tells you if your search results have been censored
I wonder what response rate you'd get with an option that said 'If you agree to our logging your IP would you like to see the uncensored search results'?
You mean the US elections actually allow people to have a choice? Since when? When two parties control who you can vote for you have no choice, only an illusion of choice.
As for harping on Google or China for that matter, just which Western country has people aren't just rolling over with every assault on their rights? I can't think of any. Hell in the US the action that is evident is exactly what you see here, people bitch about it then go on their way shrugging their shoulders "I can't do anything about it"
Congratulations, now we are the same as the Chinese people. Sure we have more freedom of the press but what is freedom of the press when it has no real bearing on what happens? We have free information but hardly anyone acts on it. Even if they did how do they get into government to change it? Run as libertarian? Ain't going to get them anywhere - see the first line in this reply.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Here's the full information: A son kills his father after years of abuse, in self defense when his dad was drunk again, beating him close to death's door.
Here's some information: A son kills his father.
Do you see the difference?
Offering some information may give you not only no information, but skewed or twisted information. Which can indeed be worse than none.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's not just Google - corporations generally and now people, too. The only goal of any corporation is to make as much money as possible, in huge part by cutting out as much human involvement from the business process as possible and keep human involvment as cheap as possible. This is abviously reducing the disposable income for people still involved in the business procedure, which creates further pressure to businesses to produce things even cheaper, since the employed people are actually the customers. Ford started mass production business process and started to pay higher salaries, so that their employees could become their customers. This has changed to the opposite direction, companies want to pay less and less and are trying to compensate lost income power with cheaper commodity prices. The increasing number of population and the decreasing need for human involvment in business process is clearly a trend on collision path.
It is a company and not a person, but its board members, its stockholders, and its employees all share responsibility for its actions and decisions. (From both a moral and a financial point of view.)
Very few of those people--at this I'm guessing, though I think reasonably--are for the kind of blanket censorship that China indulges in. But they also have to deal with the reality of how to get penetration into the Chinese marketplace. Add to that the fact that since it's a large group of people that shares this responsibility, they're working with diffusion of responsibility.
So there isn't one person who says "I'm personally responsible for my company's bad acts," which is unfortunate. Sometimes such a person has to look at himself in the mirror, which can lead to change.
So while I recognize--and I think we all do--that Google's not in a position to strongarm the Chinese government, I also think that professional ethics should not be put aside too easily. We need companies to be--at least a little bit--about building a better future.
Maybe that's just part of the professional ethics you put aside, but it does provoke a question: where do we draw the line? It's a slippery-slope question, of course, but it's also quite real. On the flip-side of the censorship question but still very much on the ethics question, should Google censor criminal sites?
Phishing sites are one obvious example, but how about pyramid schemes? They're illegal in most of the world, and even caused the Albanian economy to collapse a few years back. Or human-slavery: should they censor mail-order-bride sites that are selling human slaves?
Google is a company, and its general purpose is to survive and make profit, as you say. But we don't want profit at any cost: the losses and abuses of human lives (and human minds) are often discounted when they are abstractions, but we should remember--even when we want to thicken our bank accounts--that they are very real.
Thousands are enslaved every day. A River of In
The simple solution to that is to store logs offshore.
You're making a straw man, a better example would be.
"You searched for John McCain. These results have been censored, find out why."
OR...
"John McCain Kills Homeless Man in Self Defense, Film at 11"
Parts of Google are being censored, but you are informed of it, and Google is not altering the content of the items being censored in any way whatsoever. So if you manage to find a way to get through the censor, Google has no power to alter the content of the page. What, do you think someone at Google goes through the NYTimes and edits the editorial content there to be more palatable to Chinese concerns so that when its googled, the fake NYTimes pages come up? Get real. If anything, the NYTimes would oblige the Chinese government themselves sooner than that would happen.
"stop buying Chinese products" That is no longer possible in any practical way...You can't even live on the street without getting products from China.
Avoiding Chinese products is possible. The domination of our market was a lengthy process based on *our* decision to buy the cheapest goods regardless of consequence. The switch from Chinese products, if it occurs, will also be a lengthy process. The problem today is that US consumers generally look at nothing other than the price tag. If we start looking at where things come from we can change things, but things can not be changed overnight. We have to get over instant gratification to a degree, both in our consumption and in our solutions. Too often we look for an instant solution and chose a poor quick solution over a long term good solution, or sometimes in the absence of a quick solution we give up. Your post may not have been meant this way but it seems to be of the "give up" variety. We have to look long term and accept that this fix will take time.
Google are hypocrites. "Don't be Evil" was supposed to mean something altruistic. It doesn't. The only thing worse than hypocrisy are the sycophantic fanbois who continue to make excuses for the hypocrites.
You're making a straw man
Not really, perhaps the example was too subtle to be noticed, but getting only some portion of the facts, especially when the availability of the facts, not to mention the facts themselves, are intentionally being manipulated for an intended purpose is a form of propaganda.
The simple example of John McCain was used as an example of what can happen on a much much larger basis.
Do you actually believe that? Gimme a break. The only thing empowering the Chinese (or the few technically savvy ones) is proxies that allow them to get past the Great Firewall.
The saddest part is you're probably naive or stupid enough to believe it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you are really against China's policies, STOP BUYING THEIR STUFF!!!!! You think Google leaving is going to do something? No... How about not buying their wares, That may do something
My read on the near future: In about 5 years from now Google will be the new MS here at Slashdot. As they continue towards neocon positions like: "Shareholder value no matter what" that necessarily conflict with their already incredible "do no evil" motto. While at the same time their cultish internal operation is increasingly pro original Googler's (that is shareholder employee's), not to say outright discriminatory (against new hires --mostly trying to get them to be just consultants), all this coupled, with outlandish hiring practices way beyond what the NSA does. I admit that MS flew me to Redmond, for a week with a condo, driver and excellent food. And that I also whent through 5 levels of interviews with Google. Finally botching the last interview when I asked a Sr. multi-millionaire Google engineer, if the stars at google were the engineers or the PMs. And got my head chopped off. These experiences helped me learn more about MS and Google and their similarities and finally learned about my own aversion to hidden control freak hierarchies. But of course, I am an IT guy with a JD from a top Mass. school (that actually agrees with critical legal studies (CLS) positions) and that plays guitar in a punk band. What was I thinking? Lol. Of course this is why I always get the interviews, but that is another story. I finally got my job in Europe, with much better pay (than Google,) less and laid back work hours. Paris is way cool.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Teh Googel is teh dunt be teh evel, so tehy is teh bettar tehn teh MiKKKro$$$loth!11!!!!
U no teh MiKKKro$$$loth iz teh evel, an is teh hleping teh Chinna 2 kill teh ppl in Thaibet. Free teh Thaibet!!!1111!!
Teh Thaibet shuld be teh free as in teh beers!!11!! Onse teh Lunix beets teh MiKKKro$$$loth, teh Thaibet will be teh free!!!11!!
An teh Googel, dey be teh dunt be teh evel!!!!111!
The primary concern for shareholders is profit within the boundries of the law. Read my comment here: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=541552&cid=23277984 Google provides jobs and privileged luxury such as supplemented healthcare - an important issue to Americans. Google cannot provide these economic opportunities and privileged luxuries to Americans if it cannot generate revenue from other countries.
Hey guess what, there was the second coming last week. But don't worry we nailed that fella up again.
But this time it wasn't as bad because we used Gewgull nails. You know the ones that have "do no evil" stamped on them. Better that than use "Bad Guy" (tm) nails. That would have been much bad because they have "Bad Guy nails are the greatest" stamped on them - that's so much worse.
And at least now Gewgull nails have an inroad into the crucifixion market.
Look we're really sorry but, please, won't you think of the shareholders ?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I'm now essentially blacklisting kdawson from my Slashdot experience. Too many sensationalistic, biased, or just plain stupid articles.
Ironically, the last person I did this to was Chris DiBona, who is now employed by Google...
Is this something that a company can protect against in its corporate charter? For instance, could the charter create an ombudsman or ethics committee that is not answerable to the shareholders, and provide a mechanism for the ombudsman to override the board/shareholders on particular decisions?
ok, i didn't read the article. sue me.
i'm a google fangirl, so anything i say is likely to be extremely biased, but surely it is better to have some google service in china than none at all? any attempt to give chinese google users access to stuff that they should really be allowed access to is bound to cause google to be put onto the great blacklist of china.
just my two generic low valued GCash coins.
Any time I read about Google, I remember how Larry and Sergey control the vast majority of voting shares at Google and that there is a "poison pill" designed to always give Larry and Sergey majority control.
So while Sergey abstained from this particular vote, it didn't really matter because Larry voted NO. The only shareholders that make a difference in voting at Google are Larry and Sergey. Everybody else is just propping up the share price.
The "shareholders" probably know this and left voting up to proxies, who also know this. Voting is futile unless Larry and Sergey both don't vote (and then is there a quorum?). The "shareholders" were probably only at the meeting for the free food.
Everyone says they care about these more worldly issues of human rights, health, quality of life... but in reality we dont care. We only care about money and the quality of life, health and rights, that it brings us, at the cost of others.
That is how it works sadly.
Just don't be so surprised when companies choose dollars over humanity because you would do it to, and you probably have on many occasions.
...that China is using torture, and illegal detainment. United States corporations should force China to comply with international human rights standards.
An AC here. There *are* a good number of socially responsible mutual funds and, interestingly enough, they do have a good track record. Shareholders who disagree with how their company behaves have a simple route: Sell the shares and buy those of other companies.
As for trading with China, I believe that, as China develops, it will both become more sensitive to outside comments (as it is now that it's hosting the Olympics), as well as raise the living standards of its people (which is indeed happening, through higher wages and demand for better skilled workers). This hopefully will result in more attention to the plight of others.
Really, when you're concerned where your next meal is coming from, what some board does doesn't become much of a priority.
Exactly. There are plenty of corporations more worthy of /.ers ire, and they get it on a regular basis. This story wouldn't be worth commenting on except for that "Do no evil" thing.
I see that the google entry for wikipedia says "unofficial slogan is \"don't be evil\"". I've got to confess to laughing out loud at the delicious conspiracy theories that fired off in my mind. Has someone from google, or a concerned shareholder already started retracting? Not only 'unofficial', not only 'slogan' (not policy, or even motto), but also some-evil-from-time-to-time-should-be-okay-on-balance.
Any wikipedia archaeologists know of a long-lost period when the "do no evil" thing was in the article?
Corporations act in a world where the rules vary from place to place. Principles aside, all they have to do is follow the local law. I'm in favour of corporations (and people, come to think of it) being bound to follow both their home and local (to their action) laws. So Google would have to divulge data and perform deletions at the request of a foreign government, but they would also be liable to some sort of invasion of privacy, reckless endangerment type legal action at home. That might make their business in China less tenable, which is surely a bad thing for them, and for anybody else who thinks Google being in China is good-on-balance. On the other hand, perhaps the countries who buy gazillions of credits worth of products that turn out to be hazardous, from countries whose laws we might wish were more respectable and more rigorously enforced, maybe those countries could launch legal actions that result in fines. The fines would doubtless never be paid. But when the countries come with their bank statements asking for the trade deficit to be paid, they could be met by the list of unpaid fines. I'm just saying...
of this assuming that generating shareholder value necessarily implies taking value away from society.
it's supposed to work the other way around: people who utilise a service see value in it and, in turn, compensate the service provider (thus passing on value to shareholders through the business). when a company makes money, the idea is that it is *creating* value for society...that's why people give them money.
the residents and citizens of China obviously see value in the local Google service, despite the limitations imposed by the government. you might disagree with the government's policies, but i don't see how anyone can fault Google for making an attempt to provide a service within the laws of the government that people obviously see value in.
It's up to the US government to decide what countries it regards as enemies. Currently the US treats China as a friend. Therefore it is unfair and unrealistic to expect any US company to abstain from business with China on moral grounds. In fact, the US could very well forbid such boycotts, as it has done with Israel in the past.
It seems your real complaint should be with the US government. If China is a national enemy, we should ban trade with them on a national level. Such a radical step obviously raises many questions.
Dear US, we hear you. Our response is but two lines:
- waterboarding
- Guantanamo Bay
Kind regards, China.
I really hope whoever becomes the new president will restore the rule of law for all (aka a democracy).
Insert
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
What's the matter, loser? Can't deal with the fact that you've been called out as the liar you are?
Go on, slink away with your tail between your legs, pretending you never read your responses.
Even though we both know you did, and have nothing to back yourself up.
Coward.
Google isn't "against" human rights by complying with chinese censorship laws.
If chinese "orwellian police" are out in full force, what can google do about it?
If google turns their back on china (and in the process leaves billions of chinese citizens without another search alternative), then someone else with *purely* a profit motive would step in anyway.
At least this way, google is providing competition in the area and not letting other search engines (or worse, a state run search engine) have a possible monopoly.
Google had 3 choices here
1. Stay out and let the state-strangled chinese market fend for itself
2. Go in handcuffed and brown-nosed and give the people SOME freedom
3. Go in full blast and get arrested and expropriated by a very pissed off chinese government.
Choice 1 is bad. Choice 3 is also bad because it would eventually lead to case 1, plus some collateral damage against google. Choice 2 is the best of the worst.
Bottom line, we are better off WITH google in china than we are WITHOUT.
As a case in point wrt. google's "goodness", I checked the adsense TOS and a clause there permits google to give unclaimed revenue to charity. Since "fine print" usually includes clauses that favor the company, I find this to be, well, noteworthy.
You seem to be confused about who's in the position to pull out of whom.
Once you've lubed your asshole and accepted someone's dick in it, your autonomy is meaningless.
Interestingly, to the western world, China is a "repressive totalitarian" state. Yet, to the 1.3 billion Chinese living there, China is great. The power of the western propaganda is so huge that I don't know how long it will take for the west to know that the Chinese government is probably one of the best in the world. People living in China actually enjoy MORE freedom than any other country. I know, because I am an American citizen living now in China, and I ain't going back.
First of all, China is NEVER a totalitarian state. It cannot be. Except in major cities, the central government actually has very limited power over local officials. That is why many of the corruptions in small rural areas can not be stamped out, no matter how hard the government tried. They just don't have the power to do so.
Second of all, China is NEVER repressive. Everyone is free to express what they want, as long as you don't make a big fuss about it. The reason is because the government always try to promote "harmony" instead of "confrontation". The government knows that people in general can be easily manipulated. If they are not careful in stopping any kind of action that can stir up people's emotion, they will have a big problem in their hand. This is not about suppressing people, but rather in controlling the situation. And it is not about for or against the government. Even patriotic demonstrations are NOT encouraged for the fear of social disturbance.
If people wants to know more about China, go and live there for a while and draw your own conclusion. Do not believe anything you read in western medias. They are simply WRONG.