If ever there was a reason to criticize Microsoft, this is it. This article applies to the MS blog offering, called “Spaces”.
Microsoft censors Chinese blogs
Weblog entries on some parts of Microsoft’s MSN site in China using words such as “freedom”, “democracy” and “demonstration” are being blocked. Chinese bloggers already face strict controls and must register their online journal with Chinese authorities. Microsoft said the company abided by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates. The censorship is thought to have been introduced as a concession to the Chinese government. Also being restricted on the free parts of the site are journal entries that mention “human rights” and “Taiwan independence”.
According to Reporters Without Borders, China is using a system called Night Crawler to patrol web journals and make sure that only registered blogs are published. Unregistered blogs will be shut down.
“Following Yahoo, here is a second American internet giant giving way to the Chinese authorities and agreeing to self-censorship”, said the group in a statement.
“The lack of ethics on the part of these companies is extremely worrying. Their management frequently justifies collaboration with Chinese censorship by saying that all they are doing is obeying local legislation.”
“We believe that this argument does not hold water and that these multinationals must respect certain basic ethical principles, in whatever country they are operating.”
19 Comments
Should the will of a company in the country of orgin take precedence over a foreign country’s idea of right and wrong and it’s sovereignty?
Why? What is the justification of one’s idea of what is right over another’s?
You seem to be suggesting that there is a right and wrong in this situation.
What “standard ” makes this unethical?
Are you elluding to a moral majority of opinion that demands action? It is okay for speech on the internet but not other acts deemed immoral by the most?
Isn’t this imposing our standard of freedom of speech on another? Just as China is assigning a value on speech and what they feel is right and wrong for them. There is no global constitution regarding rights of speech.
If there is something from the UN it would be interesting to read it. If we aren’t using the UN as an authority… then…it just becomes an opinion.
Again, no malice just discussion - I don’t like it but I live in the US, a free country, where free speech is, so far,a protected right.
I wrote the last post and not sure why it came out as Anon…
That one was a classic.
But in all seriousness, Dave, it sounds like you are arguing that one nation should not impose its values or sense of “freedom” on other nations. I’d be interested to hear how you reconcile that with some of your opinions on topics we’ve previously discussed regarding the U.S. foreign policy.
The misunderstanding you may be having is that this act is “self-censorship” on Microsoft’s part - they are doing the filtering for the government, and are therefore participating in the censoring of the Chinese people.
Sure, there is no “global” guarantee of free speech, but that doesn’t mean that M$ should submit to the will of countries who oppose free speech just for the sake of cashing in.
If they had the guts, they would just tell the government of China to filter their whole service if they don’t like free speech; or even better, MS could make it all or nothing for them (no MS products at all licensed to China). This might not make a big dent since a lot of overseas MS stuff is pirated anyway (even more than here in the US).
Sure, this would probably just result in China banning the service altogether, but so what? If they were really brave (although they would never do this) they would support free speech even more by building and distributing software that facilitates secure communication that cannot (easily) be filtered and/or spied on, and even actively support local infrastructure that would enable the Chinese to bypass such attempted restrictions.
I think that anything a company like MS can do to raise awareness of this kind of issue, and stand up against it, would be a good thing. It’s not like they would be hurting anyone, or doing anything violent to enforce their “sense of freedom” as in some other situations I could mention.
so much for unalienable rights, dave.
I am asking where does the Reporters without borders get their moral authority to impose their ideals on a country?
So that they can call it ” unethical “. Who are they?
I do feel that it is wrong to suppress speech but I am not discussing what I think. My whole comment was about this group’s statement.
I have a point about the group calling MS unethical. Humor me to get there. Or not.Thx.
I’m not sure what you mean by “where do they get their moral authority”; it’s their opinion on an issue that almost everyone would agree with them on - suppressing speech in this manner is wrong. I don’t get why you have a problem with it.
” wrong ” according to what they think is right and wrong, is that where they are coming up with their ” unethical “. - The chinese government have their own ideas of ” wrong “. So if this group Only has that to stand on then they have the same position as the chinese government. - One of Imposing their opinions and making a moral issue.
or ” majority ” … does that make it right?
They didn’t state it as opinion but fact. I will have more later.
Don’t bother.
You could just as easily question where anyone “gets their moral authority” to call anything “wrong”, including murder, etc. There is a wide variety of things that most people agree are wrong, and I don’t think many people would argue that China’s policies against free expression are anything but “wrong”.
This is an absolutely ridiculous argument, and I’m not going to participate in it any further.
who’s the hippy now, dave?
so your mind is closed to this discussion?, that’s fine with me.
N. I dont have a pony tail like you.
male pattern baldness.
No, my mind’s not closed, I just think you’re taking a devil’s advocate type position that I doubt you even believe in yourself, just for the sake of having an argument.
If I’m wrong, and you DO actually believe that the policies of the Chinese govt. on this matter are acceptable depending on your perspective, then I would be interested in hearing about it. It would certainly seem to contradict previous statements you’ve made about China, however.
I’ll be shorter - I can see that you say you are for free speech, me too, and that you are down on MS.
How does all this square with a socialistic philosophy?
Loss of most freedoms is characteristic of socialistic governments.
Freedom of speech and the press is one of the first things that got knocked out in Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea etc..
RE: MS or any other company doing business in these countries.
How can they help the chinese people get economic freedom if they dont comply with the government?
Local people are able to provide jobs and help the population because MS is there as well as others.
I think the postive economic change is what is bringing more freedom and democracy.
People are calling for a lifting of the cuban embargo. Companies that are doing and will do business with cuba will have to comply with certain restrictions. In hopes of helping the people and then bringing change through economics. Despite these restrictions the people will be lifted from hopefully very much so from their poverty.
You have an incorrect notion of what socialism is if you think it involves the loss of non-economic freedoms such as this. I would recommend you research what socialism is actually about, rather than just pointing to corrupt governments who at best implement a very distorted version of socialist/communist ideals.
As for Microsoft, I’m not necessarily “down” on them, just saying that they have the ability to make a statement here, and possibly help to facilitate a change, either openly or covertly.
By self-censoring themselves to avoid conflict with the Chinese government so that they can offer this product to the Chinese people, they are doing absolutely nothing to help the Chinese economy. The only possible source of jobs this would create in China would be if they run the servers for the Chinese service there locally (which would be very unlikely), and even that would only create less than 20 jobs total.
As for lifting sanctions, I’m all for that. I’m not necessarily on board with the idea that positive economic change is the foundation of freedom and democracy (although to a degree it may help, or it could be the other way around - a byproduct of such increased freedoms).
If anything, democracy is better served by economic systems which serve the lower/middle class well, as opposed to strict capitalism which inevitably favors the rich, leading to their increasing accumulation of power and a decrease in the practical application of “democracy”. There are many countries in the world where the elite few hold the majority of the wealth unchecked, and I don’t think anyone would consider them pillars of democracy.
Socialism discussions will be for another day. Some very intelligent people did their best to make socialism work and it is inherently a self destructive, bankrupt, proven inoperable system anywhere outside of a poly-sci class.
I would suggest you study true history not what the state of Kalifornia feeds young minds in hs.
It’s interesting to me that only those who live in free non- socialistic society are pro-socialism.
I can cite chapter and verse about those under retarded socialistic systems that risked death to escape.
Democracy isn’t perfect but it is way better than anyother failed system that has come along.
The best government is a Theocracy and God will again set that up.
MS allows for the chinese business community to function in an online world which in turn is very profitable for millions of chinese.
The ” elite ” are in control of non-freedom countries under whatever guise is available.
The US has so many stories of the poor rising due hard work. I am reminded of what Jackie read about the generous - they dont see and are free of the notion that “having” is a zero sum game - one does better so that means one does poorer.
If I have I can give. If I am alloted my daily rice or mush ( in russia ) than I dont.
I would say that socialism is not a generous system, but one of control as history has proven over and over and over. No more need die for these ideas.
I’m done on this here.
Dave, did you read the link I posted? Socialism is not the opposite of democracy; maybe you’ve never heard of democratic socialism? From your comments, I can only assume that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what “socialism” is, and you associate it with an oppressive government structure, and continue to compare it to “democracy”, even though they are not opposites.
Also, you can have a system which tries to incorporate the best of both worlds (socialist and capitalist ideals), which is in practice what most respectable governments (including the US) do, with varying degrees of success. We have some degree of “socialism” in our infrastructure, I would just argue that there could be a little more, not that we need to completely denounce any speck of capitalism.
Sweden is one country that is considered to be pretty “socialist” in many ways, and they are doing pretty well. Just because there aren’t a lot of perfect examples of an ideal system in action doesn’t mean it’s not good.
I have yet to meet a “perfect” Christian - one who strictly lives and adheres to the principles in which they claim believe. In fact, most that I know continue to repeat the same patterns of behavior that they were “saved” from. Does this mean that the principles of Christianity themselves are flawed? No, just that the people who are implementing them are imperfect.
California (as far as I know) doesn’t teach too much about alternative economic systems in its schools, or at least it didn’t when I went there.
As for MS, this article is not referring to commerce sites, and has nothing to do with MS assisting the business community. It is a purely personal service (basically blog hosting).
As for the poor rising due to hard work, that’s certainly true that there are stories out there in which that happens, and it’s great. My point was that if (as in pure capitalism) you allow the wealthy to gain as much wealth as they can without restrictions, you will eventually end up with a system that is diametrically opposed to democracy because of the huge amount of influence the wealthy elite will eventually wield. There are countries all over the world that are in this kind of situation now. It took them a long time to get there (longer than the US has been around), but it is inevitable unless safeguards are put in place to prevent it.
To say that socialism is not a “generous” system is not necessarily accurate. You would certainly be justified in saying that most implementations of “socialism” or “communism” have turned out to not be generous, but that is because of the same flaw again: human greed. An ideal implementation of communism is far more “generous” than an ideal implementation of capitalism.
You might even say that the two ends of the spectrum (capitalism and communism) share the same weakness: the failings of human nature. Often in both cases, greed takes over and the wealthy elite end up ruling over the lower classes, and stifling democracy. The main difference I see is that this is essentially the inevitable result of a strict/pure implementation of capitalism, whereas it is only the result of a failed/impure implementation of socialism.
It’s not that it( socialism ) wasn’t IMPLEMENTED correctly it’s the SYSTEM ITSELF that ALLOWS it to happen!
No checks - No balances except they kill off opponenets who don’t agree.
Socialism fails for many reasons and one of the biggest is -
they dont “check” the failed human nature.
And EVERY ( I can’t italize so I capitalized ) socialistic experiment which has in EVERY case led to the power grab and corruption at the top and laziness in the population left without incentives.
Not to mention - free markets, that must be free for prices to float, it has Never worked in One example where a man or group setting prices have not resulted in scarcity problems.
You would have to change the constitution and FORCE millions to adopt priorities of …
whom?? those enlightened few who know the way???? do you see where this goes???
Hillary might be on that list as her healthcare ideas main core concept was to control and assign doctors to different geographic area whether they liked it or not. Russia 1917, repeat.
Your idea of socialistic democracy is not working outside of the poly-sci class or sweden.- see here - http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/ineas-aes.nsf/en/ra01788e.html
Your example proves what I have talking about.
They will be changing their government soon —-WHY? It ain’t working and it will take the next generation, who is getting wise to the Bull of it, to dump it.
I believe that much of this points out that the US Constitution is one of the most Brillant documents of all time.
It allows for freedoms and takes into account Failed human nature through a system of checks and balances.
Modern example of puesdo-socialists:
Europe is right Now wondering how they are going to pay for their socialistic programs like their free healthcare. Taxes are not doing it and they are losing businesses. Anyone with a brain and money in England has set up in a less taxing country to shelter their income. I cant remember the name of it but it has a special name and you become a dual citizen in monaco or some place like that.
Socialistic experiments:
The Russians, even the inventor Marx was right there guiding them, thought ‘ oh yeah we can do this ‘, the chinese thought ‘ oh yeah we see the mistakes we’ll do it better’, Castro, the older kim in korea ditto, all failed resulting in misery, death and destruction of Generations.
And now some americans/euros living behind their ‘ plush curtain’ gen x people know how to implement it correcly? (Not specially you.)
That is patently ridiculous.
Socialism has to restrict freedom because you have to get everyone on board doing their equal share to make it work and can’t allow for dissenting opinion, everyone has to work at their assigned place. It’s bs it doesn’t happen, so they start killing and reprogramming.
RE: Sweden
From a recent article-
“EXCESSIVE EQUALITY MAY THUS BE A PROBLEM. Studies of Sweden’s current dramatic economic problems show clearly that high taxes and job security HAVE REDUCED WORKER PRODUCTIVITY.
High personal taxes also kept the pay of skilled workers low and so increased the demand for skilled workers. BUT THE SAME LOW WAGES DISCOURAGED THE NEXT GENERATION FROM ACQUIRING SKILLS. Sweden’s productivity is low, its skill shortage serious and its economy faltering.
RE: poor rising - The Forbes top 400 Richest a scathing majority got their money from working for it NOT inherting it.
That doesn’t happen anyway else, couldn’t happen, hasn’t happened.
Greed will go out of fashion as the Kwave winter comes on stronger.
This is a huge event and is coming to our economy soon. The rise in prices of commodities, the bottoming of interest rates, the huge debt servicing taking place right now will result in a cave in. Then we will recover.
Socialism and religions will rise and capitalism will be blamed. Hard work will be praised.
Until the next interest rate cycle.
for real the last comment on this:
( I have been getting too anxious/excited thinking too much about the political debate online, it often comes down to you and I getting intense here, and that is not worth my time to ” argue ” and I would rather not have that type of relationship with you or anyone at the bridge).
Interesting how you often end your comments with something to the effect of “this is all I will say on this subject”. I’m guessing it’s because you don’t want to be questioned and that’s fine, especially if you’re not really going to consider anything that I’ve written before. I’m not getting intense / personal, but if it feels that way for you, maybe it is best if you don’t get into this type of discussion. I’ll be sure to tag my posts well so that you know which ones to avoid.
To be honest, I don’t think this will go much farther from my side either. If you read (and understood) my previous comment maybe we could have an intelligent conversation, instead of talking about how applying socialist principles (not replacing the whole structure of government, as you are apparently thinking) would involve changing the constitution or killing people who dissent.
—— Note: stop reading here if you are done with this conversation ——
The fact is that you pay taxes now, some of which go towards “community” services that everyone benefits from, and some go to programs that don’t benefit you directly at all. All but the strictest conservatives accept this as generally a good thing, and going more in that direction is all I’m talking about.
For going off so much about opposing oppressive governments (which you apparently believe socialist principles require - I disagree), your quote above is even more confusing: