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!
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'?
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 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
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.
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.
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.
I agree in the shades of gray sense. If someones version of human rights in genocidal, or repressive, then I disagree. If the people don't have the right to change their lot, then I would disagree. Its very hard to ethically argue that non-representational governments are ethically fine.
BUT... As a culture with a standard of human rights, we must ACT accordingly, not matter who we are dealing with. This is not forcing it upon them, but not acting according to their policies that we disagree with. If we don't agree with the actions of Sudan, then we should not facilitate these actions. This isn't forcing them to stop anything, nor is it violating their rights, it is respecting our own.
China violates our standards, therefore it would not be unconscionable to NOT do business with them. We should act according to our principles at all times.
We can also argue thusly; By being ethically supporting governments that violate our prevelant conception of human rights, we are facilitating this, meaning we are acting AGAINST our own principles.
I also haven't swallowed the cultural relativism kool-aid. I can make an ethical stand against the actions of others still. I can say that country X is wrong, or behaving unethically. This isn't to say that my country is 100% correct, its just saying that I have standards (avoiding the nationalism trap). China does not support the right of the people to choose, or deny, their own government, therefore the rights of the people are forfeit. The rights any group of people choose for themselves are irrelevant, the ability to choose is all that matters.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey