MSN, Google and Yahoo! are striving to be the same, different and better than each other as they fight to create their space on the Web. This is great for consumers as it means that all three are working towards making their products better.
Having said that I've always been a wee bit concerned about how businesses pay the price for doing. . .business in countries like China. The businesses are doing what they can to keep the government happy which seems to be the admission charge to get into the game. I found this which summarizes a blog post about the feelings that a EU commissioner has towards what the three companies are doing to cooperate with the Chinese government.
To eliminate poverty and social exclusion is on my agenda for global political action. So is freedom and democracy. And I was very disappointed to learn that Microsoft has agreed to block Chinese blog entries that use words like “democracy“, “freedom“, “human rights“ and “demonstration.”
It seems like Microsoft is not alone in “bad company“. Google has agreed to exclude publications that the Chinese government finds objectionable. And Yahoo has even gone further. They collaborated with the Chinese government and gave up the name of a writer who sent an e-mail that commented on a party decision. Based on this information, the man received a ten-year prison sentence.
The question to all those angry moose out there is. . .is corporate responsibility global? or localized?
Excellent ethical debate.Excellent ethical debate. And it strkes me as not too far removed from superpowers (the US included) never really pushing China on human rights violations, while continuing to pump in investment. There always seems to be rhetoric to this end, but never much action. Maybe it's becuase we are addicted to buying, and China is an eager pusher.
Anyway, this kind of complicity on the part of web businesses is angering (I suspect it will make many angry meeses), but I can understand it from the business perspective also. The only thing that can be done is to take action individually--are you walking a thin line on the whole avoid-say the firing-hay thing by bringing this up?
$$$$ trumps ethics every day of the week. These folks are willing to do whatever it takes to get a piece of the Chinese market. The only irony is that the Web is supposed to be the great equalizer, not big brother. That said, I hear that FDI in China is falling. I hope they continue to prop up low US home mortgage rates. Is that selfish of me?
Here goesAs you know I'm currently working for and I have worked in the past for .coms including working right now for Yahoo! JAPAN that is a completely separate company from Yahoo! Inc (though Y! Inc owns 30+% of the company, 40+% is owned by Softbank).
Allowing for government censorship and giving up the name of a writer that wrote a certain email. . .the same kind of thing would probably be done by these companies at the request of the US Government or law enforcement or even if the same thing was requested in Japan. The difference being that China tends to be more heavy handed, and not really known for protecting human rights.
Is that right? Is. . .what these companies doing right since they are following the law of the country there are in?
If so, then if what we believe being done is wrong, should there be another movement like there was to protest apartheid in South Africa? That is, to boycott businesses that do business with South Africa. Or, are these completely different circumstances.
Certainly the power thatCertainly the power that individuals have to vote with their money is strong. But you are very right in pointing out that this same kind of scenario can (and probably has) taken place in the U.S under the Patriot Act. I don't tend to think of those things, but they're equally appalling. I suppose the difference being that we expect the U.S. to act "fairly" and "justly" in using the information it obtains, although that appears to have been thrown out the window recently also.