http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/06/D8EV7CR00.html

Quote :

"Microsoft Corp. has shut down the Internet journal of a Chinese blogger</a> that discussed politically sensitive issues including a recent strike at a Beijing newspaper. The action came amid criticism by free-speech activists of foreign technology companies that help the communist government enforce censorship or silence dissent in order to be allowed into China's market."

Now, Microsoft has a perfectly good explanation for this:

Quote :

" "When we operate in markets around the world we have to ensure that our service complies with global laws as well as local laws and norms," Richardson said. ... Online bulletin boards and Web logs have given millions of Chinese an opportunity to express opinions in a public setting in a system where all media are government-controlled. But service providers are required to monitor Web logs and bulletin boards, erase banned content and report offenders. Foreign companies have adopted Chinese standards, saying they must obey local laws. "

Ok, fair enough. In order to do business in China, they must obey Chinese laws. That only makes sense. My question, however, speaks to a deeper topic. Why, if in doing business with these countries you will have to deny basic human rights to their citizens, do you still do business with them? It seems to me, that if you're working under any sort of framework that involves dignity and fairness, you'd say "well, China, either allow your people to exercise their right to free speech, or we won't help you." What would China do if Microsoft boycotted them? Surely they'd crumble; who else could do for them what Microsoft could? They might just decide to not have the technology they have now, but I highly doubt it.

But seriously, how is it justifiable to shut down bloggers for speaking out against the Chinese government than to tell the Chinese government to get with the program and start letting their citizens speak? How great of a move would that be on the part of Bill Gates, the richest man in the world, the supposed billionaire philanthropist?

Sure, Microsoft would lose money if China called their bluff, but not only do I question whether China would be able to handle a complete boycott by Microsoft and other such companies, but it isn't like Microsoft couldn't survive without China's business.

I'm disappointed in Microsoft and every other American company that actually allows this kind of hogwash. Do I actually think that an international mega-company would give up money for human rights? No, I sure don't. It would be great if people could come before profits every once in a while.

1/6/2006 2:06:48 PM

If the Chinese want free speech, they should demand it themselves. This isn't Microsoft's problem.

1/6/2006 2:16:07 PM

DG, I know you're a classic corporation-hater, but Microsoft didn't deny the guy's basic rights. China did. Microsoft was just a tool that it used.

Look at it this way...let's say all American companies boycott China, so we have no part in any of their oppression. But then a famine breaks out there, for example, or an epidemic. Should we not send food or medicine just because the government, in some convoluted and less obvious way, will use that as a tool?

Being economically involved with China is a good idea. Our trade relations have almost certainly kept them reigned in from declaring war on, say, Taiwan (or us). They also give our opinion the weight it needs with China to at least keep their rights violations in check.

You think that if we boycott, they'll cave in because they want money. And certainly some factions in the government would want to do that. But there are hardliners, especially in the military, and I think they would use the ensuing economic panic or collapse as an excuse.

1/6/2006 2:18:06 PM

shivan, no, it isn't microsoft's problem, but that doesn't mean they should HELP the chinese deny those rights

and grumpy, to call me a corporation hater is one of the silliest moves you could make. not only do I work for a large corporation, but I'm part owner of a software company. It's not corporations I hate, and I don't hate business either. I think they're great. What I hate is when corporations abuse their powers and allow profits to become more important than basic human rights.

as for your argument, it's flawed from the beginning.

Quote :

"but Microsoft didn't deny the guy's basic rights. China did. Microsoft was just a tool that it used. "

but microsoft DID deny the guy's basic rights.

from the article:

Quote :

"Microsoft Corp. has shut down the Internet journal of a Chinese blogger that discussed politically sensitive issues including a recent strike at a Beijing newspaper."

Microsoft shut down the blog. It's not like china used microsoft software to turn it off; microsoft itself shut down the blog in order to keep china's business. This is fundamentally different from your assertion that microsoft is just "being used as a tool." they're actively participating in the denial of these human rights.

Quote :

"You think that if we boycott, they'll cave in because they want money. And certainly some factions in the government would want to do that. But there are hardliners, especially in the military, and I think they would use the ensuing economic panic or collapse as an excuse."

i don't specifically think that I know what will happen corporations boycotted china and asked them to allow their citizens basic human rights. truthfully, I don't care. in fact, let me clarify one thing. I'm not saying we should not do business with them at all, I'm saying that american (and other) companies shouldn't be involved in these sorts of deals wherein they will have to take actions like these to keep doing business. it's absolutely shameful. I mean, sell them food, sure. It's not a matter of whether it's going to be effective, again, it's a matter of doing what's right or at least of NOT doing what's wrong. china's not our problem, and it's not our place to try to force them to do anything, but we certainly shouldn't HELP them squelch dissent.



[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2006 2:28:08 PM

Quote :

"not only do I work for a large corporation, but I'm part owner of a software company."

I have to admit, I'm trying to picture the Green Anarchist paradise, and I'm not really seeing where large corporations fit in.

Quote :

"Microsoft shut down the blog. It's not like china used microsoft software to turn it off; microsoft itself shut down the blog in order to keep china's business."

Would the Chinese not have done that on their own? Would they not have maybe just broke off all relations with Microsoft, thus denying people an outlet for what ideas they are allowed to share publicly?

Quote :

"This is fundamentally different from your assertion that microsoft is just "being used as a tool.""

No, it isn't. China manipulated Microsoft to do what China wanted. In all the important respects it's no different from me hammering a nail.

Quote :

"It's not a matter of whether it's going to be effective, again, it's a matter of doing what's right or at least of NOT doing what's wrong."

This is just silliness. If doing "what's right" doesn't actually help anyone, it might as well be morally irrelevant.

Yeah, shutting down the guy's blog was a shitty thing to do, but our interaction with China has, I think, represented more good than evil, at least in this regard. We pay the wages of countless Chinese workers, helping not only feed them but move them up to a place where maybe they can start to see the insanity of their government.

I say again...if "doing the right thing" involves plunging two countries (probably the entire world) into financial ruin so that some guy can get his website shut down by the Chinese instead of by Microsoft, I dont particularly want to do the right th ing.

Quote :

"it's not our place to try to force them to do anything"

O rly? But I thought...

Quote :

"...tell the Chinese government to get with the program and start letting their citizens speak? How great of a move would that be on the part of Bill Gates"

1/6/2006 2:43:50 PM

Quote :

"I think they're great. What I hate is when corporations abuse their powers and allow profits to become more important than basic human rights."

Why are you trying to pin the behavoir of a company on anyone (anything) other than the shareholders who are invested in them? If Microsoft failed to realize the profit in China, shareholders would hop off the bandwagon, and what company in their right mind would decide to cease to exist over some idealogical issue?

1/6/2006 2:55:19 PM

Quote :

"I have to admit, I'm trying to picture the Green Anarchist paradise, and I'm not really seeing where large corporations fit in."

I'm gathering funds and working from the inside in order to bring down civilization! muhahahahaha

actually, I just have to eat and have shelter. Also, as I've said plenty of times, my idea of what I'd like the world to be and what I actually think the world can be are different. I'm making sure that I can be prosperous in the latter and trying to make it as good as possible while wishing for the utopia. what can I say, much as you don't want to think I am, I'm realistic. I'm also human.

Quote :

"Would the Chinese not have done that on their own? Would they not have maybe just broke off all relations with Microsoft, thus denying people an outlet for what ideas they are allowed to share publicly?"

no idea. at least microsoft would be doing the right thing.

Quote :

"This is just silliness. If doing "what's right" doesn't actually help anyone, it might as well be morally irrelevant."

if that's what you believe, then it will be hard for me to have a serious conversation with you. doing what's right, even if it's not going to help anything isn't worth it, so we should just do the wrong thing and help ourselves? seriously?

Quote :

"it's not our place to try to force them to do anything"

and

Quote :

"tell the Chinese government to get with the program and start letting their citizens speak"

are mutually exclusive. you also took the later quote out of context.

Quote :

"how is it justifiable to shut down bloggers for speaking out against the Chinese government than to tell the Chinese government to get with the program and start letting their citizens speak?"

Quote :

"hy are you trying to pin the behavoir of a company on anyone (anything) other than the shareholders who are invested in them? If Microsoft failed to realize the profit in China, shareholders would hop off the bandwagon, and what company in their right mind would decide to cease to exist over some idealogical issue?"

I'm not, intentionally. The shareholders should be thinking of human rights as well. I'm not so naive as to think that a business will typically do that, but that doesn't stop me from wishing they would.

[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2006 3:17:32 PM

Quote :

"no idea. at least microsoft would be doing the right thing."

So even though the Chinese people would be even more oppressed, we should be happy because at least Microsoft doesn't have any oppression on its hands. Even though it really has even more oppression on its hands, because it's actions caused the Chinese move. Gotcha.

Quote :

"doing what's right, even if it's not going to help anything isn't worth it, so we should just do the wrong thing and help ourselves? seriously? "

Well, for one, I haven't said anything in here about "helping ourselves." I've said that the Chinese are better off for the little evil we do than they would be if we weren't doing it.

But, since you pose the question, why not? We're presented with two courses of action, each of which harm someone else equally. One of them will help us and the other one will hurt us. So you're asking me if I'd rather have one person lose or two people lose, and I don't think the answer is so difficult.

It never ceases to amaze me that the people who most rabidly deny the existence of God, like MathFreak and yourself, have the most fanatical adherence to some moral imperative that comes from...nowhere in particular. And which, often times and in both your examples, does more harm than good.

Quote :

" are mutually exclusive."

I assume you were either sarcastic, or meant "aren't," because I don't think you were saying, "I am stupid."

And yes, they are mutually exclusive. How is threatening someone with ruin if they don't comply with you not forcing them to do so?

Quote :

"you also took the later quote out of context."

Not in any important way. You said it would be good and justifiable if Bill Gates told China to "get with the program." That is, if I understand that excuse for a sentence properly.

1/6/2006 3:30:56 PM

Quote :

" So even though the Chinese people would be even more oppressed, we should be happy because at least Microsoft doesn't have any oppression on its hands. Even though it really has even more oppression on its hands, because it's actions caused the Chinese move. Gotcha."

the "Chinese move" you are talking about is completely hypothetical. You're basing your argument on the assumption that had microsoft not shut down this dude's blog China would have broken off trade with Microsoft. At the very least Microsoft should have let the Chinese gov do the censorship instead of doing it themselves. At best, you would hope that Microsoft would try to encourage human rights in China through their business with them by providing economic incentive to respect human rights.

1/6/2006 3:58:49 PM

Quote :

"It never ceases to amaze me that the people who most rabidly deny the existence of God, like MathFreak and yourself, have the most fanatical adherence to some moral imperative that comes from...nowhere in particular."

a.) I've never denied the existence of god. i'm not an atheist, i'm an agnostic. I don't know if there's a god. all I know is the scientific facts that lead me to believe what YOU think of as god is not true, or that the person you know of as jesus didn't exist, etc. I'd never say there's no god, because I can't know. As for your statement, it never ceases to amaze ME that people who most rabidly believe in god think that you can't have morals just because you don't believe in him

1/6/2006 6:59:08 PM

its funny to see all these conservatives suddenly defending communist china

1/6/2006 7:06:04 PM

1/6/2006 7:19:01 PM

I think this thread could use Milton Friedman's "The Sole Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits" column.

Although I suppose it gets a bit trickier in the international context and when people's rights that are guranteed in the U.S. are not protected elsewhere.

[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 8:14 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2006 8:07:36 PM

Quote :

"it never ceases to amaze ME that people who most rabidly believe in god think that you can't have morals just because you don't believe in him"

I've never heard a decent counter to that argument. In fact, I've never heard anything in counter to it at all other than, "oh yes we can!!11"

And your bullshit agnosticism is irrelevant. You are still adhering to morals that, in your case, were not created by anything relevant. You can certainly have morals with your position; it's just that they don't mean anything.

It's especially entertaining in your case. Most people in your position will say that morals matter because helping people matters (though that argument is in itself worthless). You apparently don't even care whether your set of morals helps anyone.

Quote :

"its funny to see all these conservatives suddenly defending communist china"

Nobody's defending the Communists, we're defending our right to trade with the Communists.

[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 9:54 PM. Reason : ]

1/6/2006 9:50:58 PM

so you're itching to trade with cuba?

1/6/2006 9:53:29 PM

I don't see why not. The embargo isn't exactly a roaring success, and I like quality cigars.

1/6/2006 9:54:36 PM

just so long as you're consistent.

1/6/2006 9:56:14 PM

Quote :

"And your bullshit agnosticism is irrelevant. You are still adhering to morals that, in your case, were not created by anything relevant. You can certainly have morals with your position; it's just that they don't mean anything. It's especially entertaining in your case. Most people in your position will say that morals matter because helping people matters (though that argument is in itself worthless). You apparently don't even care whether your set of morals helps anyone."

GRUMPY, you're losing quickly here. i'm adhering to morals that were created by ME. by my beliefs, by my heart, by my mind. I don't need anything else. You're saying that morals don't mean anything if you don't believe an entity of some sort is watching your every move judging you? shit, no wonder the world's so insane.

helping people does matter, but what I'm saying is that if you're trying to help people, even if you know you'll probably fail, at least you tried. I don't see how that's entertaining, but I'm glad that I can relieve some of the tension

[Edited on January 6, 2006 at 9:59 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2006 9:58:49 PM

Quote :

"GRUMPY, you're losing quickly here. i'm adhering to morals that were created by ME. by my beliefs, by my heart, by my mind."

Pfft...hahahahahaha

Nice.

Letting everyone come up with their own morals, that sounds like a plan that could not ever fail.

Quote :

"You're saying that morals don't mean anything if you don't believe an entity of some sort is watching your every move judging you?"

The judgment isn't what makes morals matter. The fact that they were created by a self-evidently important, larger-than-humanity entity does.

Quote :

"but what I'm saying is that if you're trying to help people, even if you know you'll probably fail, at least you tried."

Right, but that's not what you're suggesting. We're doing what has historically already worked to do a little good. You're talking about throwing that away in favor of a plan that will almost certainly fail, probably catastrophically, for no apparent reason other than your own desire not to feel guilty.

1/6/2006 10:08:46 PM

Quote :

"Letting everyone come up with their own morals, that sounds like a plan that could not ever fail."

glad we agree

and it's not about MY not wanting to feel guilty. i'm not microsoft. I'm saying what they shoudl do so that they don't ruin more lives

1/7/2006 2:57:31 PM

You can come up with all the morals you want. Of course, that means I get to as well...

1/7/2006 10:47:53 PM

So was it ok for companies to profit by helping the Nazis persicute the Jews? They don't have any responsibility to uphold the standards of their society?

1/7/2006 11:54:44 PM

Quote :

"glad we agree"

Alright, as long as we're on the same page. And by that I mean, "Your thoughts on the matter are laugh-out-loud hillarious." But yeah.

I can kind of understand total amorality, and I can understand most moral points of view. But this absolute relativism shit (much like agnosticism, incidentally) still makes me crumple on the floor in front of my computer with convulsions of laughter.

Quote :

"and it's not about MY not wanting to feel guilty."

Keep telling yourself that at night, hoss.

1/8/2006 2:54:39 AM

laugh all you like, but you pick and choose what you want to believe in the bible just like I pick and choose what I want to believe generally, so I don't see the problem

why would I feel guilty for microsoft's actions? I don't see any reason I would. disappointed? yes. embarassed? no.

and lonesnark, I don't know what would make you think that I'm against right to carry laws

[Edited on January 8, 2006 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/8/2006 10:19:24 AM

Quote :

"What would China do if Microsoft boycotted them? Surely they'd crumble; who else could do for them what Microsoft could?"

Well, that's a legitimate question -- but really, Microsoft's pulling out would just hurt the Chinese consumers (and future consumers) more than the government. After all, at the end of the day, Windows and Office are tools that enable businesses and individuals to function.

So I would imagine Microsoft is weighing the value of their presence there, with the nasty steps they have to take sometimes to be involved.

Plus, I would argue there is competition -- the Chinese government could certainly force Linux on people, and pour some money into it. Microsoft doesn't have as much leverage as you might think.

1/8/2006 1:26:12 PM

I didn't say you were, I was merely pointing out that we have the legal right to defend what we believe is morally right.

1/8/2006 1:30:26 PM

wholeheartedly agree.

1/9/2006 7:31:16 AM

Quote :

"Online search engine leader Google Inc. has agreed to censor its results in China, adhering to the country's free-speech restrictions in return for better access in the Internet's fastest growing market."

whatever happened to human rights? shit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060125/ap_on_hi_te/google_china

1/25/2006 8:51:21 AM

Whatever happened to changing your government without the help of foreign companies?

1/25/2006 10:13:12 AM

Quote :

"Why, if in doing business with these countries you will have to deny basic human rights to their citizens, do you still do business with them? It seems to me, that if you're working under any sort of framework that involves dignity and fairness, you'd say "well, China, either allow your people to exercise their right to free speech, or we won't help you.""

same reason drug dealers sell cocaine to people with kids to feed. money. no business works under a framework that involves dignity and fairness. except maybe one thats never ever ever gonna go international. but you knew that. lets talk about it on tww!

1/26/2006 6:03:47 AM