Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Defends Microsoft In China
An anonymous reader writes "Mr. Ballmer has recently posted on the official Microsoft blog discussing future business in China and defending Microsoft's stance of cooperating with the government even as other large IT companies have begun making public condemnations (Google and Twitter being the most prominent). Couple this with Bill Gate's speech on China's censorship being not all that bad (a speech very well received by Chinese media) and you've got people wondering: Is Microsoft aiming to take Google's place in China?"
you've got people wondering: Is Microsoft aiming to take Google's place in China?"
Of course they are! What a dumb question.
Free Martian Whores!
Of course. Microsoft wants to take Google's place everywhere.
In China specifically, Microsoft can't pack up and leave like Google did. China's already a big target for their anti-piracy efforts Their only option is to play nice with the government and get cooperation, no matter how bad it really is.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Well, that's true. After all, they're only obeying orders, and so they bear absolutely no personal or corporate responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That's how it works, isn't it? Right? Right?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Microsoft's business tactics and China's public policies have some overlap. Microsoft probably sees little wrong with how the Chinese government runs the country as shown by the Gates and Ballmer statements. They resemble each other.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Uhmm... no?
I wonder if this will have any impact Ubuntu's recent announcement that they are switching to use Yahoo (which is Microsoft Bing underneath) as the default search engine in their next release.
Yahoo already has a history of rolling over for the Chinese government. If Canonical doesn't mind associating with a company that helps oppressive regimes track down dissidents, I don't think Microsoft's announcement is going to make much difference.
that's just immoral. up to now i had mostly technical reasons i disliked microsoft. now, i have stonger ethical and moral reasons as well. i won't forget. that's just bordering on treason.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
After all, they're only obeying orders, and so they bear absolutely no personal or corporate responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That's how it works, isn't it? Right?
That's right son, just obey the orders. And get that vagonload of Jews to the gas chambers.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that Chinese by and large don't share the same mindset as Americans, that being that personal freedoms are more important than anything else. In fact, I don't think people in most Asian nations place value on personal freedoms to the extent Americans do. They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim. China is no longer the absolute disaster that it was under Mao and China in many was has more of a free market economy than the US does. But in general limits on social freedoms is very consistent with Chinese and asian culture.
There have been politicians in Hong Kong fighting increased Chinese control over the territory and several have resigned in protest. It makes sense since Hong Kong was exposed to the West so extensively for so long. That said, I'm curious to know if the average citizen even cares. Taiwan, which surveys have found to have among the most open-minded people in Asia, share many of these same beliefs. Certainly, exposure to Western culture is slowly eroding some of these long-held ideals.
I do find it ridiculous that Sergey Brin would somehow be touched by this cause considering that the situation in China is nothing at all like the situation was in the USSR. The Chinese government today is communist in name only. It makes me wonder if Google isn't making all this up to avoid discussion of the real reasons for their leaving China.
"nothing at all like the situation was in the USSR". Yeah, right. There is no similarity whatsoever between the USSR and the PRC in the restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of association. Not the tiniest bit of similarity. As different as night and day. Chinese censorship is not at all like Soviet censorship. Brin must be certifiably insane if he perceives a parallel between the two.
The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):
"If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"
Understand that, and you understand the essential conundrum between respecting local laws and living according to principles. How corporations behave when faced with this says a lot about them and the people who run them.
At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business, even if you are aware that some of your products are being used in an utterly despicable manner.
The question is not whether Microsoft should remain in business. It's whether it should do business with a government that will use your products in a repressive manner. A wagonmaker could probably sell his wagons to someone who does not kill its own citizens for their ethnicity and still remain in business. But here is the crux. It won't quite make as much money. And the pure lust for profit is what is objectionable here.
Currently hooked on AMP
Ballmer's favorite tool, his Herman Miller Aeron Graphite Chair (medium size, C, if you are curious) has a frame developed in China.
Ballmer specifically picked it out for its aerodynamic properties.
That makes no sense. The Wheel makers deal with the Wagon makers, not the despicable entity. It is the business that deals directly with the entity in terms of direct sales that should be under scrutiny, not the ore miners, metal welders, axle and wheel makers.
What about when the order comes in for a wagon specialy designed for the purpose? China demands that they change their product in a way that everyone in the company has to recognize is unethical, but everyone just goes along with it and claims they're just following orders.
Well. they have to go through the "Extend"-phase first, and that's sort of scary.
When will the Microsoft Re-education Suite hit the stores?
How about Microsoft Planned Economy? Now you only need one spreadsheet!
But if you want to work in any of these environments, you have to go by laws
Well, there are two problems here. The first is that the Chinese government and his state corporations don't obey Chinese law. Isn't it forbidden to hack into other peoples computers in China?
The second is the key difference between Microsoft and Google:
Microsoft is directed by your standard issue marketing drone, Ballmer, and the result is what you usually get from western corporations: mindless search for profits. He may as well be operating a arms dealership.
On the other hand, Google (and many of the internet startups) is directed by people that at least gives some thought to morals and let it "interfere" with business. For them there are some laws that one cannot obey.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Well, you could just, like, not go there, you know? It's not like you're being forced to.
The problem here is that not only Mr. and Mrs. Microsoft are going there but they're saying that they're pretty happy with the local laws. So it makes one wonder which is worse:
1. They really believe that, or
2. They don't believe it but they say it anyway just to get even more dirty money.
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
And where do you draw the line? A country (or state) that still has the death penalty for crimes that don't carry the death penalty in your country (or state)? A country that invades other countries and kills their citizens with no legal warrant? With questionable legal warrant? A country that supplies any of the above with funding or equipment? A country in which individuals supply any of the above with funding or equipment? A country in which some groups are seriously repressed but not killed? A company with a diversity policy not quite as encompassing as yours?
Realistically, if you're making the gas chambers then you have decided your moral position by the business you are in. If you are making the actual tools of killing then there's a case that you have a moral duty to take care over how they will be used. But the further you get from that then the more your moral responsibility is diluted, to the point where it's lost in the noise.
Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):
"If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"
For what it's worth, when answering a conditional question like that you have to take the "if" part to be true even if you don't consider it to be. So the interesting bits of that question are whether the Founding Fathers broke any laws whilst actually under the jurisdiction of those laws, and if all laws are just does that mean that all laws should have universal jurisdiction. I don't know enough American history to answer the first part, but I reckon I could make a strong case for an answer of "No" to the second.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I'm no fan of Microsoft but whatever your ideology or beliefs, commercial realities remain and China is, and will continue to be, big business. Kudos to Google perhaps, but if I were a Microsoft shareholder I would want Microsoft to be wanting to make inroads in to this market. Morals do not pay the bills. As an individual would you (not the parent) be happy to content to contribute half your income for the rest of your life if it meant China was truly free and democratic? I doubt many would.
Is that, the Communist Revolution in China is essentially lawless. The whole idea of a corporation requires that laws actually exist and be consistently enforced. You have to have property rights, speech rights, indeed, human rights for corporations to happen, otherwise, they too can be randomly jailed and seized - witness what's going on in Venezuela. So, really, Microsoft and Walmart and other China collaborators are really just hoping that the current personalities in China will be consistent, and they are foolish if they think those hopes are anything more than risky hopes.
This is my sig.
What corporate responsibility? Because it seems to me there's a lot of talk about corporate responsibility, but when it comes to it, the powers that be don't really care what a corporation does so long as they don't screw the shareholders/government. Otherwise, when a corporation comes into violation with the law (and assuming the defendants can afford to holdout for the duration of the trial), the most they'll get is some nominal fine that sounds big to the average person, but is really no more than a slap on the wrist.
All this justification crap is just fluff. Here's the real reason Microsoft is in China: Microsoft wants to make money. China has money to spend. Therefore, Microsoft will cooperate with China so it can get some of it's money.
That's it. Surprising, I know. Honestly, Microsoft could go on about how it'd give every Chinese person a fucking ice-cream shitting unicorn and it'd come to the same effect. So long as the shareholders are happy, it doesn't really matter what they say to the public.
I am sure IBM didn't see anything wrong with Nazi Germany either.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?
I can't speak for the entire community, but personally, I don't modify the system to order for censorship nor do I sell a support contract for that use.
I said "a government that uses your products in a repressive manner." If you know your widgets will be used repressively, then try to avoid making that possible. Linux/GNU software is free and openly available, so there is nothing that CAN be done by definition to prevent China from using it, unless you have suggestion. They don't profit from it. Profiting from evil is taking blood money. By the way, I'm not suggesting no Chinese should be able to buy Windows. I'm suggesting that the Chinese government should not be sold technology that they will use to repress their people. Why is this so hard to understand? If MS is not doing so, then fine.
Currently hooked on AMP
Thanks for making it so clear that there is no hope for self-regulation at all. The only hope to keep companies behaving even the slightest therefor must come from government control. Nothing like a honest capitalist to make clear the need for government interference.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
MS is NOT selling its soul in China for revenue. You cannot sell what you do not have. Ballmer and Gates have no morals. Oh, they are not evil, that takes a commitment. They just have absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. Look at how Bill Gates does his charity work, always with an angle to somehow better MS. It is the way he thinks.
And before you defend him, remember that is a LOT easier to have morals if you are rich. If MS pulled out of China what would happen to these two guys? Absolutely nothing. They ain't doing this to survive, they are doing it for yet another billion whose difference they will never ever notice.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Google did the right thing, eventually. At the end of the day we are more than employees. We are citizens that benefit from freedoms hard earned. It is the utmost height of hypocrisy to then turn around and pretend there is nothing wrong with assisting the repression of people in foreign countries. One day, China may very well be the powerhouse of the world, western corporations' eagerness at supplying tools to assist Chinese repression will then come back to haunt us. Our failure to stand up against this hypocrisy will then have transformed into a failure to fight for our democratic rights.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Microsoft has a history of repressing the competition and its customers, and even of buying out members of standards committees to grab / keep marketshare. As a company, Microsoft shows no real ethics. Why would it start now?
And where do you draw the line?
This is ever the problem, but how is that an excuse for not drawing it? More to the point, whatever you may think of the actions of the US, it is clear that China killing dissidents for advocating democracy will be on the wrong side of the line no matter where you draw it.
Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?
There is little the community can do to stop a foreign government from using their software short of not distributing it. But there is a difference between supplying the public at large with general purpose tools that someone nefarious could use for something evil, and actively consorting with the evildoers to adapt the tools to their needs.
Realistically, if you're making the gas chambers then you have decided your moral position by the business you are in. If you are making the actual tools of killing then there's a case that you have a moral duty to take care over how they will be used. But the further you get from that then the more your moral responsibility is diluted, to the point where it's lost in the noise.
And that's exactly the issue, here. Most people likely wouldn't care if China was somehow using existing Microsoft services to send disinformation and propaganda to their citizens. It's the fact that China is saying, "Please modify your existing software so that it sends disinformation and propaganda to our citizens," and Microsoft is saying, "Ok, sure. What kind of censorship would you like us to make for you?"
Regarding the wagonmakers analogy -- it's upsetting, but not a big deal if Nazis are using a wagonmaker's wagons to transport Jews to a fiery death. That's not the wagonmaker's fault, necessarily. What Microsoft is doing, though, is making a Jew-transporting wagon that is engineered for the purpose of sending Jews to their fiery death.
And where do you draw the line?
This is ever the problem, but how is that an excuse for not drawing it?
Not at all, but it means that you shouldn't think that where you draw it is the only morally valid place to draw it.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
It's whether it should do business with a government that will use your products in a repressive manner. A wagonmaker could probably sell his wagons to someone who does not kill its own citizens for their ethnicity and still remain in business. But here is the crux. It won't quite make as much money. And the pure lust for profit is what is objectionable here.
This is a slippery slope. China has human rights violations, but then again so does the US. There are over a million people of color in America in PRISON because of the so-called "War on Drugs" which is executed with a discriminatory bias, where white people (and people of the upper class) get off scot-free, or never even get harassed in the first place. Should MS and other companies pull out of doing business in the US until it gives up the war on drugs?
*** once i really listened, the noise just went away. -liz phair
You have hit the nail on the head. The Chinese idea of law is entirely alien to westerners. My favorite quote is from (as I remember it) Thomas Friedman at the NYTimes. Asking too many questions the official finally went to failsafe mode: "China is a country of law." This is true, but you must understand the crucial difference. Laws in China are not based on cases brought before a judge and/or jury. Laws in China are decided by rich plutocrats who control the legislative (communist party) the executive (communist party) and the judicial (communist party) branches of the government. In the old days (10 years ago) every company or any other organization had a president, who was any old figurehead. The second in command, the vice-president, had a seedy little office down the hall. That person was the Communist Party member. Their job was two-fold. First, they controlled the money. No money came in or went out without their consent. Second they controlled the "stamp". The stamp was the mark of an official decision. Similar to the signature of a president or CEO it makes things legal decisions. Nowadays even that flimsy excuse for a veil is gone. The party membership owns everything, decides everything and controls everything. They are the law and they are powerful and frightened. Read the news with these things in mind and you will understand China much better.
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.