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."
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".
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?
google is a company, NOT a person. It's purpose is to survive and make profit. I hate it when people act as if corporations are suppose to save the world or something. Professional Ethics aside google's job is to make money and with half the world population being situated in Asia opening up market share there early is important. If people are so cought up with the censorship of the Chinese government then stop buying Chinese products.
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.
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.
What you say is true for Google, since it's a publicly traded company, but that's not true for all companies. Some exist purely 'to save the world or something'.
I'd also posit that, in this day and age, considering ethics in the way your company makes money is a sound long term profitable strategy.
Max.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
I dislike when people act as if you can solve all the world's problems by pressure with the pocketbook. There is something to be said for the maxim that the same reasoning that gets you into a problem can't get you out of one. Greed can't be fixed by more greed. Now I'm all for market freedoms, I support free trade and would like to get rid of farm subsidies because it is important for a business to be able to freely operate. However, their does come a time when ethics overturns profit even for a corporation. It just happens that Google was in the right this time. Say if they were writing software that operated gas chambers for political dissidents, is that still acceptable just because they are a corporation? I think not. You can disdain such idealism, but brazen corporatism is just as bad. In the end, it takes a balance of both. Google in this case is in the right on both sides. Let's just hope that holds true in the future.
I got a catholic block.
You can do both, and a Corporation is held to it's mission statement.
I have work for plenty of corporation that also spent money to help people.
"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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I might also note your use of 'track record' - your use of this term assumes that nothing has changed. Even someone who is reformed has a 'track record', but might be considered totally trustworthy. China is changing at an amazingly fast rate, and it *is* getting better - I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.
Most of the negative opinion of China comes from being brought up in the cold war with the anti-communist propaganda spread throughout that era (A result of McCarthyism? I wish I'd done more history at school).
Having been brought up in 'the west', I find it in myself constantly. I encourage other westerners to look for it in themselves too and counter it. It's a form of fear and it only leads to conflict (IMO).
Max.
and it's "caught".
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
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.
Depends on the investor. I voted in favor of the proposals on my proxy. I'd be curious to see the distribution of votes between individual and institutional shareholders.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
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
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'?
If Google were living up to their "Do no evil" motto, there wouldn't have needed to be a vote in the first place.
That is all.
Let's examine this argument shall we?
Pre-Google (and here "Google" can be replaced without loss of generality for any Western internet company) China (which can again be replaced with any totalitarian regime) had less access to information than rest of the world. Fine. I think everyone will agree to that. You are argue by that Google by simply being available increases access to information. Let's, assume that's true for the sake of argument. Now assuming that access to Google increases information, here's where your, and Google, and all the other Western Totalitarian Regime Apologists', argument breaks down: GOOGLE IS FUCKING CENSORED! There's no increase in access to information, because the information that China blocks the information. That's it. Whatever supposed benefits that Google can bring by enabling access is lost, because the access isn't there! The citizens aren't benefiting here. The regime gets new technology to maintain control, and Sergi's and Larry's bottom line increases. Like the best transactions, everyone wins, excepts the users. They may fully value human rights, but disagree on the best way to get there. No. They just value the dollar more.
[...]and I wish Google was allowed to interpret the censorship rules in the US the same way they do in China.
From my experience they do. Sometimes you run across the "Chilling Effects" notice at the bottom of you result, with the text that says something to the effect of "someone forced us to remove something, here is all the info". A savvy searcher can read the Chilling Effects page, and see who called for the censorship, and have some idea that something is missing.
While this solution isn't optimal (optimal being no censorship at all), it is better than just removing information and not telling anyone. At least it makes the user aware that someone doesn't want them to know something.
This is a decent ethical middle ground. They don't have to do this, but do.
I don't know if the situation is the same in China though. Do they still have a blurb saying "we're not allowed to tell you about this because your government doesn't want you to know"?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I am not an economist but the way I see things, it's actually a pro-capitalism act to purchase goods made in China (or other emerging economies). It ultimately leads to better salaries, higher standards of living, better working conditions, etc. for the Chinese. Even, maybe human rights. Over time it will balance out and force the country to become more competitive through technology and other means, as it will not be able to rely only on the fact that labour is cheaper there or because they are not doing their ecological/environmental share.
Japan, South Korea are probably a examples of this type of successful transition.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
Now assuming that access to Google increases information, here's where your, and Google, and all the other Western Totalitarian Regime Apologists', argument breaks down: GOOGLE IS FUCKING CENSORED! There's no increase in access to information, because the information that China blocks the information.
Here's where your argument breaks down: NOT ALL THE SEARCHES ARE CENSORED. In fact, the vast majority aren't, because people search for all kinds of things that don't piss off the Commies. Like learning about math, physics, how to rebuild an engine, or whatever.
Also, I very much don't like totalitarian regimes, including China. But I'm not arrogant enough to put politics above learning.
In fact, I'll completely turn that argument. In the end, education will win over politics. I make the case that having access to the maximum amount of information (which is accomplished by Google just barely satisfying the Commie csnsors) will 1) make obvious what is being censored, so it is constantly brought to the citizens' attention, and 2) give them access to a lot of powerful knowledge that isn't censored but will ultimately erode the power of the totalitarian state.
Basically, if you live in China, do you want 99.999% of Google or no Google? I'm betting the average Chinese citizen doesn't care about the political sensitivities of Westerners.
No. They just value the dollar more.
You have absolutely no insight into the meeting, nor the motivation of the voters, so you have absolutely no basis for that statement beyond ignorance.