Yahoo Weighs in on Free Speech in China ( 1 Views )

no kitty!

The day after the mother of a Chinese reporter announced she was suing Yahoo, the company released a statement criticizing China for "punishment of any activity internationally recognized as free expression."

Quote:

The company has acknowledged sharing information about Shi with Chinese authorities. "Yahoo! is dismayed that citizens in China have been imprisoned for expressing their political views on the Internet," the company said in the statement faxed to The Associated Press, which asked Yahoo! to comment on Shi's lawsuit.

(Aybige, Denmark)

You know, I have a serious problem with any company (Google, Yahoo, etc.) that will pander to countries like China just so they can do business there. If you make a deal with China and hand over information about your users to that country, you are just as much to blame for that person being thrown in jail as China is.

Am I wrong?

(gamze, Sierra Leone)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 1031165535)

You know, I have a serious problem with any company (Google, Yahoo, etc.) that will pander to countries like China just so they can do business there. If you make a deal with China and hand over information about your users to that country, you are just as much to blame for that person being thrown in jail as China is.

Am I wrong?

Money always trounce morals.

(mahmut, Taiwan, Province of China)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve (Post 1031165514)

Yahoo pays lip service to people crying about morality, and in dark room deals, continues to give the Chinese government anything they want.

(semih, Malawi)

China doesn't even allow free speech in the USA. The Chinese soccer team was playing Salt Lake, and Chinese officials had American fans removed from the stadium for waving Tibet and Taiwan flags.

http://www.firejohnellinger.com/

http://bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=549103

(emin, Equatorial Guinea)

Damn. Over a billion peoples' worth of repressed expression. That's a big dent in the world's creative potential.

(asmin, Thailand)

With the things I do on the internet over here in Shanghai, I must be on China's most wanted list :rolleyes:

(mekansýz, British Indian Ocean Territory)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtg465x (Post 1031165915)

With the things I do on the internet over here in Shanghai, I must be on China's most wanted list :rolleyes:

hmmm if they take you in can i have your stereo?

why is china so strict on free expression? especially on the internet of all things. do they not like negativity?

(balým, Saint Pierre and Miquelon)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ockie (Post 1031165557)

Money always trounce morals.

Yep. Even in America, not just China.

(umut, Comoros)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boozer (Post 1031165946)

hmmm if they take you in can i have your stereo?

why is china so strict on free expression? especially on the internet of all things. do they not like negativity?

Because communist ideals are not synonymous with freedom of expression -- to understand their politics, you have to know what it takes to make the most of their politics. You guys can be all angry about freedom and human rights violations all you want in America, but leave China to do what it does in its own country. As a Chinese person that lives in Canada, I see China as not only a country I'm really proud of, but also as a highly necessary political experiment in the modern world.

(neslihan, Pitcairn)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix (Post 1031166111)

While I can't really bring myself to agree that it is a necessary experiment, I'll acknowledge that we are overly quick to criticize political systems other than our own. Its tough to do but if you think about it for a moment things like freedom and justice are all abstract terms that each culture gives its own definition to. I hate to say it but while I may not agree with China's policies I do agree in its right to self determination. Attempting to impose our own beliefs on a nation, especially one as large and diverse as China simply will not be as effective as letting them take their own course.

Secondly, I've heard mention that companies such as Yahoo and Google, etc should be made to stop doing business in these countries as I believe that doing so would be a grievous violation of our own values and beliefs. The current prohibition on American's traveling and dealing with Cuba for instance is in my opinion an example of state sanctioned repression of our basic rights and freedoms.

(nurcihan, Timor-Leste)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeoNemesis (Post 1031166212)

First of all, I'd like to thank you very much for not coming up and throwing insults at me in this thread. I figure my political stance will garner much hatred.

As for the Yahoo and Google issue, I think America has to let its people know which is more important: the capitalist-centric viewpoint (money and business), that has brought it much of the wealth and development that it has today, or the morality-centric viewpoint. It's easy to bash a company because they're not doing what you feel is right, but the question is, knowing that your society has foundations in the exchange of capital, would you (not necessarily you, as a poster, but everyone living in America) be willing to subsidize morality by paying an extra tax that goes directly to industries in any case where moral concerns come into place? There is a cost to everything, and while you can desire that every company does the right thing, I think you only have moral grounds to do so (in a capitalist society) when you are able to pay what profits they could've had, out of your own pocket.

(samet, Myanmar)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix (Post 1031166111)

Without fanning any flames, can I ask why you live in Canada instead of China? If it's that great, and a source of such pride, what caused you to leave?

I'm not baiting, I'm truly curious. I have a lot of problems with the way America conducts itself on many levels, but I've never felt like living in another country would be better. (Except maybe New Zealand, I've never met anyone from there that wasn't made of awesome.)

(M.Emin, Lebanon)

If you do business in a country, you unquestionably should abide by its laws. However, any company, especilly those who are such a powerful position to manipulate information (such as Yahoo), have a duty to examine what thier efforts are supporting, especially in the face of a number of allegeded violations of human rights (I am talking physical abuse, not nessecarily free speech) of which company information was a major assisting factor. It seems that not everyone in China is happy with the way things are conducted. I think it is safe to say that a goverment that repects the people's wishes and needs IS a basic right, regardless of culture. If we don't believe that, then we should not be critiszing African civil wars, Iraqi toture, Noth Korean oppression. Cultural respect is important, but when serious violations of international rights are occuring, that must be re-examined. And to be fair, how can a country come to terms with problems if the people are not allowed to express themselves?

(selda , Belgium)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarbonBased (Post 1031166999)

Good question. My parents and I moved when I was 4 and a half, and I've been living here since for 15 years. There is no reason why I moved here other than the fact that I followed my parents out as a child. Now that I've been here for so long though, I think I've grown lazy (because education is far easier over here), and my desires have increased (instead of wanting just a happy life with a happy wife while working on the fields or at my local job, I have become quite materialistic). My quality of life is better than the quality of live I would've had in China, but I'm not a happier person because of it, since my expectations have also risen proportionally.

That said, I think the situation is the following: if you are always being told that there exists a good life elsewhere, you will desire that life. If you're being sheltered from certain information, you will better appreciate what you have, which I think is one of the key ideas in any totalitarian state. You can't just go around telling everyone, "hey look, there's something new and interesting around the corner", or everything is just going to fall apart due to greed and selfishness. What I see in China is the ability to maintain a certain level of control, whether it be through the military, through propaganda, etc. I don't care what kind of method they use, but know that any method has its consequences, but not only that -- I think China is able to maintain a certain level of happiness within the country despite the control they use. This, I think, is what sets it apart from many of the totalitarian regimes we often hear about, where there is war and violence everywhere (and a major source of pride for me). I don't see any of my relatives in China complaining about the government. They're not particularly rich or poor, but they're satisfied.

As such, I have no qualms with the way China is doing things right now -- rather, I think the way they do things is interesting and worthy of study in order to further political science in more than just a theoretical way.

(engin, Luxembourg)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix (Post 1031167542)

This, I think, is what sets it apart from many of the totalitarian regimes we often hear about, where there is war and violence everywhere (and a major source of pride for me).

Woops, should've read over my post -- I don't mean to say that war and violence is a major source or pride, but rather, the lack of it.

(burcu, Netherlands)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowwyvern (Post 1031167493)

It seems that not everyone in China is happy with the way things are conducted.

I'm certain that's the case for any government in any country, however, if you feel that people in China are especially unhappy, please provide links for reference.

Thanks.

(Cenk, Azerbaijan)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix (Post 1031167542)

I don't see any of my relatives in China complaining about the government. They're not particularly rich or poor, but they're satisfied.

As such, I have no qualms with the way China is doing things right now -- rather, I think the way they do things is interesting and worthy of study in order to further political science in more than just a theoretical way.

They don't complain because they can't, the firewall to the outside monitors anything. And they don't do so when I person because the habit has been trained into them. Think how there's no political online forums there.

Do all the experiment you like, but do it with something replaceable. We already have America to show us how things can get fucked up. And while their are at it get rid of the 700 missiles they are pointing at Taiwan

(hasan, Morocco)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix (Post 1031167542)

That said, I think the situation is the following: if you are always being told that there exists a good life elsewhere, you will desire that life. If you're being sheltered from certain information, you will better appreciate what you have, which I think is one of the key ideas in any totalitarian state. You can't just go around telling everyone, "hey look, there's something new and interesting around the corner", or everything is just going to fall apart due to greed and selfishness. What I see in China is the ability to maintain a certain level of control, whether it be through the military, through propaganda, etc. I don't care what kind of method they use, but know that any method has its consequences, but not only that -- I think China is able to maintain a certain level of happiness within the country despite the control they use. This, I think, is what sets it apart from many of the totalitarian regimes we often hear about, where there is war and violence everywhere (and a major source of pride for me). I don't see any of my relatives in China complaining about the government. They're not particularly rich or poor, but they're satisfied.

Here we have a fundamental difference of opinion. To me, that kind of information control (essentially: "Your life is good because we won't let you see what is better because it is bad for you"), is paramount to oppression. And to me, the idea of experimenting with the lives of billions of people is extremly wrong. Fundamentally, people want power, it is why totalitarian govrnments oppress, and why the oppressed rebel. This experiment has been conducted before, at the cost of 100s of millions of lives.

(aykut, Turkey)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hypernova (Post 1031167754)

Habit is good as it can make you a happy person, to be taught that something is good and to pursue it for the sake of your country. Happiness is in many ways not a logical concept. You can go tell those people that die for their country that they're unhappy. My guess: they're not. Now, I'm starting to sound like a person that's in favor of suicide bombing other countries, but in fact, I'm not in favor of it, and being Chinese myself, I don't believe Chinese people are raised with the idea that it's good to be suicide bombing other countries.

(esra, Monaco)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowwyvern (Post 1031167846)

Yes, I agree with you that we have a fundamental difference in opinion, but why not look at the brighter side: ignorance is bliss. If I had ten pencils and someone stole a pencil from me, but I never noticed, I'd be far happier than if that person was to come and tell me that he stole something from me. Then, I'd live with the consciousness that I've been stolen from and that I deserve to be reimbursed -- this makes me unhappy. On the other hand, if I weren't told, being the person that still has 9 pencils, I wouldn't lose out on much and would go my merry way.

(deniz, Benin)

F China. Nuff said.

(rabiþ, Guinea-Bissau)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix (Post 1031167994)

I'd rather take the red pill.

(burak, Lithuania)

No, of the major Communist regimes they are not that bad, but I still do not agree with the whole practice of thier government. We can sling examples around all day and it won't chnage anything. It is most interesting to find someone with an entirely different viewpoint. And, countering my whole "enforced ignorance" agrument, Cyrillix's (for clearity, sorry if is is a little cold) opinion was formed in Canada, whith full knowledge of how people can and do live.

(Ugur, Ireland)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowwyvern (Post 1031168066)

No, of the major Communist regimes they are not that bad, but I still do not agree with the whole practice of thier government. We can sling examples around all day and it won't chnage anything. It is most interesting to find someone with an entirely different viewpoint. And, countering my whole "enforced ignorance" agrument, Cyrillix's (for clearity, sorry if is is a little cold) opinion was formed in Canada, whith full knowledge of how people can and do live.

Which is concerning as he likes a government that harvests human organ by force and sells them to the highest bidder.

Like CarbonBased said, gimme that red pill.

(Salih, Senegal)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowwyvern (Post 1031168066)

Haha, yes, it is quite exciting to debate on these things, even though, it's rare that you come to a full resolution. My friends all think the opposite of what I think, so you guys are in the majority.

That said, about the original point, a comment I'd like to reinforce is that there is more at stake when we're talking about corporations dealing with countries that don't perform to the ethical standards of the country where the corporations reside. A part of the stake are the corporations themselves, which essentially embody all their workers. Telling them they can't do x or y in any given ethical situation has to be carefully weighed along with the losses that they would suffer from not doing so. Both investors and employees lose out, so while it may be more ethical (according to America) to not, as a side effect, promote censorship, there are other ethics involved.

Finally, I'd like to say that regardless of offering censorship or not, offering more channels of information always goes to promote democracy, when compared to no channels at all. Even if the communication is blocked to other countries, being able to communicate efficiently from one place to another place, both in the country, is helpful towards promoting the standards of freedom that Americans expect. If Americans really want to convert China to a democratic capitalist state of their calibre, they cannot expect to do it instantly, or by overthrowing the government, or by placing unreasonable restrictions. China, to me, already seems to be a less strongly controlled state than before (I'm not so sure another 1989 could easily happen), and I think that as time passes, it will definitely have to change.

That is all.

(serhat, Wallis and Futuna)

Pretty sure when several of your neighbours are constantly spying and reporting everything you do to the authorities only because you refused to join the communist party ,yet you still support verbally that government you gotta be fucked in the head ,its that simple . Morons who were proud members of the communists parties have no right to spread their bullshit as they obviously supported everything the party did ,including political prisoners spending large amounts in jail for simply speaking out against the regime ,or being sent to Siberian labor camps. Thankfully some parents didn't raise their children to be complete morons ,to simply accept everything they feed you at school/work . Most did. Thats why some countries took longer to rid themselves of communism then others.
China's day is coming . Slowly but definetly.
Yahoo is being complete hypocrat in this issue . at least Google just takes the cash and doesn't pretend to be totally clueless of whats happening there.

(ibrahim, Samoa)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix (Post 1031167560)

I'm certain that's the case for any government in any country, however, if you feel that people in China are especially unhappy, please provide links for reference.

Thanks.

The problem is, the people who live in China are not able to get an answer to that question.

(billur, France)

The right humans have to self-determination trumps the right governments have to self-determination, and whenever anyone (government, human, corporation, etc.) does something that limits or suppresses someone else's right, they're overstepping theirs. Governments and corporations only have rights by virtue of representing human beings, and these freedoms that governments and corporations have are only valid if they're being used to protect (i.e. government) or exercise (i.e. corporations) the essential freedoms of those human beings.

By aiding and abetting China in violating the [completely universal and cross-cultural] human right of self-expression [without threat of imprisonment, torture, etc.], Yahoo! and Google are taking a part in oppressing people. Quite frankly, human rights > money. Corporations have the *goal* of making money at all costs, but that does not mean they have the right to - they only have the right to make money so far as they're not overstepping anyone else's rights. These companies would probably make a lot more money as well if they were slave trading in lawless areas of the world - should we reimburse them for the potential profits they have lost from slavery being illegal as well? Federal trade laws should include provisions that prohibit doing business in or with (yes, any and all trade) all nations that don't have appropriate human rights protections in place, regardless of culture. Just because a practice is part of someone's "culture" doesn't necessarily make it right - cultures can be flawed, and in many ways, our own culture is highly flawed as well. Even if I was incorrect in this statement and culture trumps all as some suggest, that nevertheless means that our *stated* cultural values should prevent us from doing business over there (the problem is that we don't practice what we preach - courtesy of another poster here in another thread, our government is "of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations," not "of the people, by the people, and for the people").

That said, Google's stance is FAR better than Yahoo!'s on this issue: Yahoo! has actually aided in the imprisonment of journalists, whereas as far as I know, Google has not; instead, they have only created a Chinese version of their site that censors certain search results.

By the way, Cyrilix, if you want an example of people being unhappy in China, look no further than the journalists who become imprisoned and all of the censored bloggers: Clearly, they're not happy - otherwise, they would not have said something that pissed off their authoritarian masters so much. Also, while this was a while ago, check it out in case you have forgotten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananm...otests_of_1989
I imagine that the students protesting on that day were not particularly "happy."

At the end of the day, human self determination >> governmental self determination.

(burak, Korea, Democratic People's Republic of)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini-Me (Post 1031171461)

By the way, Cyrilix, if you want an example of people being unhappy in China, look no further than the journalists who become imprisoned and all of the censored bloggers: Clearly, they're not happy - otherwise, they would not have said something that pissed off their authoritarian masters so much. Also, while this was a while ago, check it out in case you have forgotten:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananm...otests_of_1989
I imagine that the students protesting on that day were not particularly "happy."

I don't believe I have forgotten as stated in this sentence:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix

China, to me, already seems to be a less strongly controlled state than before (I'm not so sure another 1989 could easily happen), and I think that as time passes, it will definitely have to change.

That said, 1989 was a long time ago (by my standards), and there is no reason to believe that revolutions or crises happen on a daily basis. The kind of example of unhappiness I want is from the general population, and quite frankly, I just don't see it. The general population in China does not blog about America. You are talking about very specific cases, sort of like how in [H], we take for granted our knowledge of computers and think that it must the norm among the population when in reality, it's not.

(sinan, Germany)

I should perhaps clarify a few of my philosophical stances:

Out of the two ideas: utilitarianism vs. the ethics of respect for persons, I believe in the former, rather than the latter.

Out of the forms of government that would be most likely to bring utopia to the world and perfection of the human race, I believe in a meritocracy with strongly enforced principles of control.

In this sense, China may not fully agree with my ideals in every possible way, but they come sort of close. I also think a significant portion of people in America very strongly value freedom and rights, but as for fundamental rights, I only believe in one fundamental concept: the right to life and a second chance. If you were to commit an action that was deemed to be harmful to the country and the government were to kill you on the spot without warning you first, that would be wrong (that is my second chance belief). You should think about what you're doing and ask for clarification on why you should stop, but by all means, you should stop.

I hope this gives people a bit of insight into my rationale and the potential benefits/fallacies that govern my opinions.

(GENÇ_19, United Kingdom)

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowwyvern (Post 1031167493)

If you do business in a country, you unquestionably should abide by its laws.

Good point...

HOWEVER! (ya knew that was coming! ;))... I believe the internet really needs to be thought of transcending country boundaries, and in fact that is one of it's greatest strength.. (the other is availability of porn! :D). Yahoo exists as an entity on the net which provides a service, they really aren't "located" in any country (ok they have a headquarters in the US but big whoop), they're literally an IP address amongst billions, if China as a country doesn't want it's citizens accessing that then they should literally require all their local providers to block yahoo out, Yahoo should not have to change it's rules depending upon which country asks.

(serkan, Slovakia)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix (Post 1031171942)

I should perhaps clarify a few of my philosophical stances:

Out of the two ideas: utilitarianism vs. the ethics of respect for persons, I believe in the former, rather than the latter.

Out of the forms of government that would be most likely to bring utopia to the world and perfection of the human race, I believe in a meritocracy with strongly enforced principles of control.

The problem here is "strongly enforced principles of control." Whoever enforces this system of control is by definition not under its control and somehow "above" everyone else. Who honestly deserves this privileged position? Who truly has the requisite wisdom to fairly "control" the population? Anyone who claims to is truly arrogant beyond words. Look at Mao Zedong - except for taking power, pretty much everything he ever did was a complete catastrophe. The Great Leap Forward caused one of the worst famines of all time (if not the worst), the "Sent Down Youth" of the Cultural Revolution were completely out of place in the countryside, etc. etc. Whenever he decided he wanted suggestions for his government, he opened up free speech and promised, just like last time, "This time there won't be any retribution!" After convincing people to speak up (Hundred Flowers Campaign, etc.), he always immediately followed up with a horrific crackdown like the Anti-Rightist Campaign (in which his claim that "10% of the population is rightist" was taken so literally that people treated it like a *quota* for the number of people to arbitrarily turn in). For another example, look at Kim Jong-Il of North Korea - his people are poor, suffering, and cut off from the rest of the world, while he sits on top drinking Hennessy Cognac and watching thousands of movies that he has deemed inappropriate for his own people. When it comes to authoritarian governments, these guys are not really exceptions: they are the rule. This is the fundamental problem with authoritarian governments: Who watches the watchers? Government officials are flawed people just like anyone else, and they are no better than ordinary citizens. Genally speaking, human history has even shown that as a whole, they are among the most selfish and undeserving people in the first place. Even if you had supposedly perfect rulers like the legendary Yao, Shun, and Yu, there will not be a perpetual succession of good rulers. Bottom line: No real human being exists who even remotely deserves the privileged positions that government officials enjoy in authoritarian societies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyrilix (Post 1031171942)

In this sense, China may not fully agree with my ideals in every possible way, but they come sort of close. I also think a significant portion of people in America very strongly value freedom and rights, but as for fundamental rights, I only believe in one fundamental concept: the right to life and a second chance. If you were to commit an action that was deemed to be harmful to the country and the government were to kill you on the spot without warning you first, that would be wrong (that is my second chance belief). You should think about what you're doing and ask for clarification on why you should stop, but by all means, you should stop.

I hope this gives people a bit of insight into my rationale and the potential benefits/fallacies that govern my opinions.

Okay, so we're in agreement that it would be wrong if the government killed you on the spot. What if they left you alive but burned your eyes out with hot pokers and made a snarling guard dog rip off your balls? Is that okay?

(ali, Estonia)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini-Me (Post 1031172573)

I agree with you there -- if it's only one person. My idea of perfection would be an educated committee of thinkers from various professions that can both debate eloquently and utilize rational ideas that are not just talk, but also substance -- an elite technical committee, if you will. I don't see a future in the democracy we have today as our democracy is a rule of the masses. As you often hear and see in the news, the masses are often retarded in many different areas (I am a retard in many things that I do not care about such as gardening, farming, medicine, business management, etc.). As such, I have a naturally cautious attitude when it comes to saying that what we have in the west is the right way to do things, and what other countries do is not. I simply disagree that you can have a world ruled by the ignorance of people. Back to my ideology, the question is how you'd get to that point, how would you nominate these people. Unfortunately, I don't have a solution for that, but I do have hope that this would be possible.

Quote:

(sevim, Algeria)

Woops, forgot to respond to the second line I quoted.

Well, if they did that, it wouldn't be giving you much of a second chance, would it? I don't think "giving a reasonable second chance" is of such variability, that we cannot come to an agreement on what would be reasonable.

(efnansudemmm, Saudi Arabia)

I agree that the masses are idiots, but I think it's a mistake to assume that the elites aren't. Non-academic elites are elites for a reason, and it usually has more to do with ruthlessness than intelligence.

(hasan, Comoros)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mini-Me (Post 1031172676)

I agree that the masses are idiots, but I think it's a mistake to assume that the elites aren't. Non-academic elites are elites for a reason, and it usually has more to do with ruthlessness than intelligence.

Well, you've made me think a bit, so regardless of how the debate ends up, I'm glad to have heard your arguments. :)

I think I'll stop now, before this thread goes off a tangent, and surrender the point to you. My idea is not yet ready for the real world... yet.

(özge, Anguilla)

Hahah...yeah, this has been a good thread :) I should point out that I'm not absolutely opposed to your idea of a "panel of specialists and elites" calling the shots instead of elected politicians (although I obviously have strong reservations). I'm all for experimentation with exactly who comprises the government, so long as there are strict limits in place to curtail governmental power and authority (and within those limits, the "elites" would be free to experiement with other policies, such as the economic system, trade and foreign policy, etc.). I'm mainly concerned about unfettered governmental power and control over the population (censorship, no due process, etc.). Censorship is a sign of insecurity and weakness - it's an indication that the government is unable to really stand up to criticism on its own merits, and that it has to resort to brute force for its viewpoints to prevail.

(ömer, Malaysia)

Yeah, I can't believe they actually try to censor the internet over here. That is quite an impossible task if you ask me. Knowledge will travel; it cannot be prevented forever.

On a side note, there are many ways around the Great Firewall. For example, I can look at Wiki by using answers.com. I'm kind of curious how many Chinese people know what happened at Tiananmen. I should ask some locals about it, in the name of science!

(mehmet, Macao)

Ha. The Great Firewall of China. Awesome.

(Eyup, Bangladesh)

Yahoo Weighs in on Free Speech in China ( 1 Views )

Related Topics ... (or search in 1.720.883 topics !)