Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Microsoft and Google Censor for China

Rate this topic


softwareNerd

Recommended Posts

David blogged about the recent news about Microsoft Censoring Chinese Blogs.

The Chinese government owns the Chinese ISPs. They exercise immense control over what their citizens browse on the net. In essense, they run a mega-Firewall.

A study by the "OpenNet Initiative" gives examples of all sorts of internet-related filtering in China. It covers web-searching, site-hosting, email, blogging.

In March 2004, the state closed three popular, domestic blog providers, reportedly because a blogger posted a controversial letter regarding the Tiananmen Square incident and the SARS outbreak. Subsequently, all three providers were allowed to re-open, but implemented filtering mechanisms to control content posted to their blogs.

For those who haven't yet read the Microsoft Chinese-blogging news stories, the facts are as follow:

1) Microsoft has a Blogging site (MSN Spaces)

2) The Chinese government will block it for China-based browsers unless Microsoft ensures that certain words ("democracy", "Freedom", etc.) are kept out of the titles of blogs (see study quote above)

3) Microsoft has chosen to implement a list of banned words and phrases rather than risk a being blocked by the firewall

For starters:

a ) Are any of the above facts in dispute?

b ) How should we judge Microsoft for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more points:

The restrictions only affect users of the China-based site.

The organization of Microsoft's foreign sites is more like a franchise than a branch – Microsoft contracts with local companies to run their foreign services using Microsoft's software and branding.

Yahoo, Google, and many other companies have complied with the same restrictions as Microsoft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was curious about this, so I downloaded a Chinese language pack and created a "msn space" using the Chinese language interface [id= [email protected], password=censorme]. (I had no idea what the words were, but I did have an English version in another window... so, it was easy enough to guess). It let me title it "Freedom and Democracy" (in English). I wonder if this only applies if access is from an Chinese IP (not a U.S. or Taiwanese or Singaporean IP).

Anyhow, on to the moral issue...

The underlying moral issue is whether or not one should trade with China (or Cuba, or North Korea, etc.). I think that could be a separate thread. In fact, this earlier thread (link) addresses the broader issue.

However, if we focus on the relative morality of this compared to other trade and cooperation with China, then this particular case is pretty average. The underlying choice for Microsoft is: do some amount of filtering, or be banned entirely.

A company setting up a factory in China might say that in the long run they will bring prosperity, and with it freedom. Similarly, Microsoft might argue that setting up some blogging rather than none will lead to more communication, less government control, and more freedom.

Again, my point in this thread is not to say trade with China is moral. Only that this case has got so much press coverage though it is very little different from much else that is happening in U.S. - China trade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • 6 months later...

In a recent interview, Jimmy Wales, of Wikipedia fame, revealed that the Chinese wanted the Wiki to do some censorship as well. The news article mentions an Amnesty International campaign against such censorship.

A possible approach would be for some of the bigger players in search and blogs -- Google, Microsoft, AOL, etc. to agree on a set of guidelines regarding what (if anything) they will and will not censor, and then sticking to their guns so that China (or whatever country) cannot block only one of them. Blocking all is not what China wants -- because they don't want their censorship to be too inconvenient to their citizens, and they want it to be as unobtrusive as possible (like the gun to Galt that nobody must see). The downside is that it may not work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters:

b ) How should we judge Microsoft for this?

Harshly...

I think there is a grave difference between doing business in China where China is forced to allow some sort of semblance of rights, and being complicit in the government's violation of rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

ComputerWorld (Aug 21,2006) reports (via IDG News Service), that the Chinese appear to have stopped blocking www.blogger.com. MSN "Live Spaces" and Six Apart's "Typeface" have been unblocked for a while.

Not sure if unblocking Blogger indicates that Blogger has agreed to do some censoring on their own; the news-article is silent, saying that Chinese officials rarely comment on blocking/unblocking.

The Beijing-based China Internet Network Information Center estimates that about 120 million Chinese are Internet users. They also estimate that about 24% of them read blogs "frequently".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harshly...

I think there is a grave difference between doing business in China where China is forced to allow some sort of semblance of rights, and being complicit in the government's violation of rights.

I disagree. While I think the fact that these companies are working in collusion with the Chinese government is immoral, I would not expect Microsoft to willingly give up market share for the sake of morals. Now before you get all upset let me explain. Microsoft has the moral obligation to expand its influence into other countries in as much as it enriches the share holders. If censoring the internet for a communist country is immoral then it is the obligation of our government to condemn such acts and make them illegal. A company should behave in a moral manner but in this case there is not “support” from the government. Were Google or Yahoo or Microsoft to decide to deny China’s request a competitor would swoop in to take over the market. My point is that your judgment should fall harshly on the US Government for allowing private companies to work in collusion with the Communist Chinese in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. While I think the fact that these companies are working in collusion with the Chinese government is immoral, I would not expect Microsoft to willingly give up market share for the sake of morals. Now before you get all upset let me explain. Microsoft has the moral obligation to expand its influence into other countries in as much as it enriches the share holders. If censoring the internet for a communist country is immoral then it is the obligation of our government to condemn such acts and make them illegal. A company should behave in a moral manner but in this case there is not “support” from the government. Were Google or Yahoo or Microsoft to decide to deny China’s request a competitor would swoop in to take over the market. My point is that your judgment should fall harshly on the US Government for allowing private companies to work in collusion with the Communist Chinese in the first place.

So you would favor government restrictions on private companies when it feels that the countries the companies deal with are behaving in an unsavory manner? This sounds more appealing to you than allowing the companies to police themselves (and expecting that they will)?

I'm not sure that I understand your assertion that Microsoft has a moral obligation to expand its influence "in as much as it enriches the share holders." In my opinion, the fact that a company's actions are based on the interests of share holders does not afford some morality to those actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft has the moral obligation to expand its influence into other countries in as much as it enriches the share holders. If censoring the internet for a communist country is immoral then it is the obligation of our government to condemn such acts and make them illegal.

a. What is the moral basis for Microsoft's need to enrich it's shareholders?

b. Is it really your position that our government is our moral arbiter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Microsoft has the moral obligation to expand its influence into other countries in as much as it enriches the share holders.
I'm not sure that it does. The shareholders may have voted in favor of some kind of "take the business anywhere, at any cost" rule, but I'm unaware of any such a rule (then again, who reads all of the junk they send). They might have equally well opted for a "do no business with bad people" rule. The supposed moral obligation of Microsoft to aid the Red Chinese government in their continued enslavement of the Chinese people could only arise from an actual shareholder decision to do business no matter what -- I bet you $5 that no such decision was made by the shareholders. Otherwise, this just represents the personal interests of higher management, who may, of course, refer to a mythical "interest of the shareholder" as an excuse for their decision. And, btw, if the (majority of the) shareholders knowingly sanction using MS as a tool of oppression, that would not make the decision moral, it would simply mean that there are a lot of immoral shareholders (or, a few immoral people with lots of shares).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a. What is the moral basis for Microsoft's need to enrich it's shareholders?

The purpose of a company (like Microsoft) is to make money. People invest in the company hoping to make money. Microsoft has an obligation to at least attempt to make money (after all that’s why anyone would invest in it.) If I were a shareholder, I would thoroughly expect Microsoft to try its hardest to trounce the competition as well as expand into new territories. It would be immoral for Microsoft to intentionally act to it’s own (and consequently my) detriment. There is a contract at work. I give Microsoft my money and allow them to manage it hoping to make more money. They may or may not deliver however they are expected to try.

So you would favor government restrictions on private companies when it feels that the countries the companies deal with are behaving in an unsavory manner? This sounds more appealing to you than allowing the companies to police themselves (and expecting that they will)?

When we are at war with a country I think it is a legitimate power of the government to forcibly restrict trade with our enemy. I also think it is proper for the government to restrict trade with nations that we are not at war with yet but constitute a threat to our security such as Iran. If the US would be morally justified in invading a country then it should be morally justified in restricting trade with that country. This of course begs the question, Is China enough of a slave state make an attempt to liberate its people morally justified? If you don’t think China is a slave state, who cares what companies do? Getting mad at Microsoft in China would be like getting mad at a foreign company who sells us oil specifically because it props of our own over-bearing government. If China is a slave state then it would be a legitimate roll of the government to attempt to weaken it through any number of ways including restrictions on US companies as far as their dealings with it.

I'm not sure that I understand your assertion that Microsoft has a moral obligation to expand its influence "in as much as it enriches the share holders." In my opinion, the fact that a company's actions are based on the interests of share holders does not afford some morality to those actions.

If assisting China in the oppression of it’s people is immoral then the government would be justified in making such an act illegal.

The supposed moral obligation of Microsoft to aid the Red Chinese government in their continued enslavement of the Chinese people could only arise from an actual shareholder decision to do business no matter what

What the shareholders actually agree to isn’t significant. The moral obligation is tied to Microsoft’s purpose of the company and the reason shareholders invest in the first place is to make money.

In conclusion I see this as either going two ways and both lead to no fault being placed on the company.

If China is kind of a slave state but still free enough that we would NOT be morally justified in attacking:

Who cares what Microsoft does. By paying taxes in this country Microsoft helps prop up our bloated government. Is that immoral? Most of the people on this board are guilty of the same crime. I pay taxes and the government takes away rights so I suppose I deserve a “harsh” judgment then?

If China is a slave state such that we WOULD be morally justified in attacking:

It should be illegal for companies to prop up such regimes. If a country is so restrictive it is the obligation of the federal government to recognize that fact and take steps to cause the regime to fall.

Edited by Drew1776
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of a company (like Microsoft) is to make money. People invest in the company hoping to make money. Microsoft has an obligation to at least attempt to make money (after all that’s why anyone would invest in it.) If I were a shareholder, I would thoroughly expect Microsoft to try its hardest to trounce the competition as well as expand into new territories. It would be immoral for Microsoft to intentionally act to it’s own (and consequently my) detriment. There is a contract at work. I give Microsoft my money and allow them to manage it hoping to make more money. They may or may not deliver however they are expected to try.

hmmm. Walk a few steps deeper with me Drew. If Microsoft's purpose is to make money, is it them moral for it to do this in any way whatsoever? Hardly. There is a moral basis for Microsofts right to make money, and it cannot morally violate that basis in an attempt to make money. That moral basis is capitalism, and more deeply individual rights. Making money by inherently violating its moral basis of making money would be immoral. This is why fraud, murder, etc are not proper ways to make money, and neither is colluding with a totalitarian government to censor. The concepts of "market" and "share" when talking about dealing directly with Red China are invalid don't you think?

Your justification on the grounds that our govt doesn't make it illegal is sort of a ethical "appeal to authority". Politics derives from ethics. Not the other way around.

Ironically, I was arguing the opposite side of this argument in another forum, in a slightly different context, which is why I qualified my first statement.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the shareholders actually agree to isn’t significant. The moral obligation is tied to Microsoft’s purpose of the company and the reason shareholders invest in the first place is to make money.
I'm saying that you are mistaken as to Microsoft's purpose for existing as a company and for the reason that shareholders invest in the first place. Their purpose as a company is to make money through moral means, and the reason why shareholders invest in the company is to receive a portion of profits which were achieved through moral means. That is an essential distinction, and the implicit contract that Microsoft has with me (as a shareholder) obligates them to only engage in moral activities to make money. For them to act otherwise would be a breach of contract.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm. Walk a few steps deeper with me Drew. If Microsoft's purpose is to make money, is it them moral for it to do this in any way whatsoever? Hardly. There is a moral basis for Microsoft’s right to make money, and it cannot morally violate that basis in an attempt to make money. That moral basis is capitalism, and more deeply individual rights. Making money by inherently violating its moral basis of making money would be immoral. This is why fraud, murder, etc are not proper ways to make money, and neither is colluding with a totalitarian government to censor.

I agree. Fraud, murder, and collusion with a totalitarian government are all immoral things. The government rightly declares fraud and murder to be immoral and illegal yet the same is not true, apparently, for collusion with a totalitarian government. Here's an example

Lets say forced labor is not illegal. A company decides to start enslaving it's work force, forcing them to work in the factory and not allowing them to leave. Also, aside from the workers, no one really cares. Naturally you'd be upset that the company is doing that but doesn't the real blame lie with the government for not protecting those people's liberties in the first place?

Their purpose as a company is to make money through moral means, and the reason why shareholders invest in the company is to receive a portion of profits which were achieved through moral means. That is an essential distinction, and the implicit contract that Microsoft has with me (as a shareholder) obligates them to only engage in moral activities to make money. For them to act otherwise would be a breach of contract.

I agree but what are moral means? I'm sure you and I would agree but what about Joe Schmo in NY. A company must listen to all of it's shareholders not just Objectivists. I'm willing to wager there are a lot more Joe Schmo's who could care less about morality and people in China. It is important for companies to behave in a moral manner. In a case like this however, I think it's the responsibility of the government to declare that assisting a totalitarian regime oppress it’s own people is immoral and consequently illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets say forced labor is not illegal. A company decides to start enslaving it's work force, forcing them to work in the factory and not allowing them to leave. Also, aside from the workers, no one really cares. Naturally you'd be upset that the company is doing that but doesn't the real blame lie with the government for not protecting those people's liberties in the first place?

No, the primary blame for crime is with the criminal, not the fact that the police don't care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the primary blame for crime is with the criminal, not the fact that the police don't care.

I'd agree if we were talking about an individual. But a company is made of many (even thousands of people.) You can tell me what is right and wrong you cannot tell "the company." A company best operates within the confines of law not by divining or being told what is right and what is wrong. As an individual I can take personal responsibility for choosing right and wrong. How can a company? A company can act in an Objectively moral way but it is the responsibility of the government to define, for the company, what actions are forbidden through passing legitimate objectively derived laws and force compliance across the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree if we were talking about an individual. But a company is made of many (even thousands of people.) You can tell me what is right and wrong you cannot tell "the company." A company best operates within the confines of law not by divining or being told what is right and what is wrong. As an individual I can take personal responsibility for choosing right and wrong. How can a company? A company can act in an Objectively moral way but it is the responsibility of the government to define, for the company, what actions are forbidden through passing legitimate objectively derived laws and force compliance across the board.

Following your logic... If a company doesn't have any moral capacity whatsoever, by virtue of the fact that it is a collection of individuals, then why does a government have a moral obligation? Is it not a collection of individuals as well?

If a govt hasn't passed a law making something illegal, who are we to blame the govt for it?

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Following your logic... If a company doesn't have any moral capacity whatsoever, by virtue of the fact that it is a collection of individuals, then why does a government have a moral obligation? Is it not a collection of individuals as well?

If a govt hasn't passed a law making something illegal, who are we to blame the govt for it?

A company can behave in a moral or immoral fashion but it is not the responsibility of the company to determine what is moral vs. what is immoral. It goes back to a company's purpose. The purpose of a company is to make money. Investors do not invest in companies so that company can form a committee and waste time and money discussing morality. That is not the purpose of a company. Companies are different from governments. A government’s purpose is to safeguard rights. To that end it is vital that the government determine right from wrong and put those principles into law. So I do blame the government for passing immoral laws and for not passing laws designed to protect private property rights. While I might take issue with a company’s actions I expect the government to tell them right from wrong. I do not expect the company to use investor’s money to divine philosophical principles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A company can behave in a moral or immoral fashion but it is not the responsibility of the company to determine what is moral vs. what is immoral. It goes back to a company's purpose.
Okay, let's take just that much. It therefore is the responsibility of a company to determine what is moral, because if we assume, arbitrarily, that the purpose of a particular company is to maximize profits for its shareholders no matter what, then it would be immoral for the company to engage in a guaranteed profit-thwarting activity. The company (really, the people who are charged with managing the company) must therefore both determine if that is indeed the purpose of the company, and must also determine what, in the context of their knowledge, will be the outcome of a particular business decision. To knowingly and freely act contrary to the purpose of one's existence is immoral.
The purpose of a company is to make money.
Nonsense.
Investors do not invest in companies so that company can form a committee and waste time and money discussing morality.
Nonsense.

You may very well feel that the only principle that matters to you is the accumulation of capital, regardless of any other consequences, and if that is the case, you should seek those companies that have the accumulation of wealth as their only value. And thus you should carefully read the prospectus of any company which you are thinking of investing in, to be sure that they would not introduce any obscene non-profit related notions such as "the rights of man" into their calculations. On the other hand, you might have a different set of values, which would lead you to actively avoid companies that depend on Red Chinese slave labor, for example, as the driving force behind their profitability. It's a tough choice, I admit, and perhaps I might be a richer man if I had said "I don't care if you invest my money in the Red Chinese slave market". And yet, I did clearly articulate a "no slavery" rule to the guy managing my investments. Life is not just about having the biggest pile of cash that you can amass (if that point is unclear to you, especially from the Objectivist perspective, we could discuss that in a separate thread). I have determined that I cannot live off of the slavery of others. Et tu, Brute?

No committee or time-wasting is required: the company should simply follow a moral path, and ignore any noises from people advocating immorality for a few extra bucks.

I do not expect the company to use investor’s money to divine philosophical principles.
Horse-cart inversion fallacy, big-time!! Investors should chose to invest in a company because of the company's philosophy, and companies should remain faithful to that philosophy. The principles of moral business conduct do not require any divine intervention: they are plain to see, and accessible to any rational man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, perhaps you can enlighten me to what the purpose of a company might be other than to make money?

You may very well feel that the only principle that matters to you is the accumulation of capital, regardless of any other consequences, and if that is the case, you should seek those companies that have the accumulation of wealth as their only value. And thus you should carefully read the prospectus of any company which you are thinking of investing in, to be sure that they would not introduce any obscene non-profit related notions such as "the rights of man" into their calculations. On the other hand, you might have a different set of values, which would lead you to actively avoid companies that depend on Red Chinese slave labor, for example, as the driving force behind their profitability. It's a tough choice, I admit, and perhaps I might be a richer man if I had said "I don't care if you invest my money in the Red Chinese slave market". And yet, I did clearly articulate a "no slavery" rule to the guy managing my investments. Life is not just about having the biggest pile of cash that you can amass (if that point is unclear to you, especially from the Objectivist perspective, we could discuss that in a separate thread). I have determined that I cannot live off of the slavery of others. Et tu, Brute?

Everything you have said is correct. I agree that it would be immoral for an individual to invest in a company which supports a "slave market." Companies should operate within the bounds of a moral philosophy the question I take issue with is how?

No committee or time-wasting is required: the company should simply follow a moral path, and ignore any noises from people advocating immorality for a few extra bucks.

The principles of moral business conduct do not require any divine intervention: they are plain to see, and accessible to any rational man.

This is where I disagree. I do not think that the principles of moral business conduct are "plain to see." If those principles are so plain to see why does a bulk of the population not care/disagree? You or I can debate issues of morality. How can a company? What cause do managers have to institute your philosophical code over someone else’s? You would have to convince them of that fact. Managers are there to run the company not have exhaustive philosophical discussion with Objectivists or anyone else for that matter. It is the government’s responsibility to let the company know, in no uncertain terms, (through law) what is moral and what is not.

Investors should chose to invest in a company because of the company's philosophy, and companies should remain faithful to that philosophy.

I agree. I don't think in this case however. I don’t think any of these companies had corporate philosophies which barred aiding Red China. If they did and broke those the act would be immoral because they broke with a promulgated philosophy without seeking the input of all stake-holders not because they aided the Red Chinese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...