Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Asher]

You've been floundering the entire thread.

The basic, core issue is you want a corporation with obligations to its shareholders to do something with no effect in the real world other than the warm, fuzzy feeling that you thought you did the right thing.

That works in the halls of academia, and it gets you fired in the real world.

[aneeshm]

Come on Aggie , answer me . Have you ever used Google ?

[Agathon]

You've been floundering the entire thread.

No. Sorry. As GePap said, I've been toying with you for fun. You're all talk and no logic.

The basic, core issue is you want a corporation with obligations to its shareholders to do something with no effect in the real world other than the warm, fuzzy feeling that you thought you did the right thing.

You still haven't answered the ethical question. Pretending that it doesn't matter won't work, it will just expose you as the modern equivalent of a gas chamber attendant.

What I want is for a corporation not to profit from human rights violations. Either you think that the human rights of a billion Chinese are worth more than profit, or you don't. If you don't, then you are no better than the Chinese government.

But you persist with this silly "it will make no difference" argument. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

Again, if my friend tells me he will rape a woman if I don't, it will "make no difference" to the end result if he does it or I do it, but that does not mean it is suddenly all right for me to rape her.

Your "it will make no difference" argument commits a fallacy. You've been wrong this whole thread and are now trying to hide behind puerile attacks on philosophy and academia, as if this issue were confined to university debates.

That works in the halls of academia, and it gets you fired in the real world.

So logical argument has no place in business. As I said before, you have the wrong idea about business. Just because people are in business doesn't make them bastards. A short stand as a gofer at IBM and you think you know everything.

Come on Aggie , answer me . Have you ever used Google ?

Sure, I'm not best pleased with them either.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
No. Sorry. As GePap said, I've been toying with you for fun. You're all talk and no logic.

You're the one suggesting Microsoft withdraw from a market where it has no effect on anything outside of their profits.

You still haven't answered the ethical question.

What you still don't get is not all situations are created equally.

Microsoft isn't manufacturing gas chambers here. Your ethical argument is pointless in this case. I don't know how many times I've said this now -- it doesn't matter in the real world if you find it inconsistent that Microsoft agrees to censor blogs on their private service, while they would not agree to manufacture killing machines.

Your entire argument isn't centered on reality, and the only people you've got on your side agreeing with you are similarly academic/government employees.

So logical argument has no place in business

Logical argument is where it's at. Your arguments aren't logical, they're ethical. And ethics are in the eye of the beholder.

Logically, there's no reason for Microsoft not to continue offering MSN Spaces in China. They make money, and China's policies don't change either way.

As for being a gofer, nice try. I'm not a gofer, I think as a junior instructor teaching entry-level Plato is more comparable to a gofer than I am.

I'm tasked with duties that hold far more responsibility than teaching Plato to a bunch of drunken, uninterested freshmen.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You're the one suggesting Microsoft withdraw from a market where it has no effect on anything outside of their profits.

No. I have suggested that they don't offer blogging. They can do anything else that doesn't involve direct human rights violations. You are exaggerating... again.

What you still don't get is not all situations are created equally.

What does this mean? "Created equally"? Sounds like "created English" to me.

Microsoft isn't manufacturing gas chambers here. Your ethical argument is pointless in this case. I don't know how many times I've said this now -- it doesn't matter in the real world if you find it inconsistent that Microsoft agrees to censor blogs on their private service, while they would not agree to manufacture killing machines.

There is no difference, other than one of degree. Both killing machines and censorship software violate human rights. But they aren't just supplying the software, they are operating the service and profiting from it. Of course, censorship isn't as bad as murder, but it is still a violation of human rights, and in this case one straight out of the 1984 playbook.

Ethics is not pointless. It is in fact necessary to our way of life. The people who try to say it isn't are generally those who are trying to profit from breaking the rules. If you want to say that ethics has no place in business, then you ally yourself with the worst sort of scum, who will do anything for cash. If you want to say that might is right in business, then you have no argument when the company you work for starts firing queers or blacks or women, just because it's "business".

Note that Microsoft withdrew its anti-gay crap after people complained it was "unethical".

Your entire argument isn't centered on reality, and the only people you've got on your side agreeing with you are similarly academic/government employees.

Uh... like Reporters Without Borders?

And what does "centred on reality" mean? It's just a vague phrase you spat out because you know you are being whupped.

Logical argument is where it's at. Your arguments aren't logical, they're ethical. And ethics are in the eye of the beholder.

You really are floundering here. Logic is about the consistency of statements: it doesn't matter what sorts of statements they are (factual claims, ethical claims), they are still subject to laws of logical consistency. It is obviously illogical to believe that gay bashing is both right and wrong at the same time.

Whether ethics is in the eye of the beholder is a separate question. In fact, that's not the way that ethical words are used in our society, but it still doesn't follow that people are not subject to appraisals of logical consistency even if ethics is relative. Your position would make you consistent with Hitler, whom I'm sure you adore.

But in any case, you're trying to hide in relativism, which is always a sign of someone who's beat.

Logically, there's no reason for Microsoft not to continue offering MSN Spaces in China. They make money, and China's policies don't change either way.

Stop misusing the word "logically". Logic doesn't tell us what to do, it allows us to judge the consistency of statements and draw conclusions.

I've already pointed out to you on numerous occasions that it is unethical to do what Microsoft is doing. Your only response seems to be "ethics doesn't matter" since you abandoned your previous attempt at justifying their actions. Well, if ethics doesn't matter to you, I'll remind myself of this next time I read one of your gay whine threads. Of course, you'll be a hypocrite for posting one, but there's nothing wrong with hypocrisy if it benefits you, right?

This is the same tired old crap you always come up with, i.e. "ethics doesn't matter when I don't want it to... waaa waaa". Things don't work like that in the real world.

As for being a gofer, nice try. I'm not a gofer, I think as a junior instructor teaching entry-level Plato is more comparable to a gofer than I am.

I teach advanced Greek Philosophy. You're a gofer.

I'm tasked with duties that hold far more responsibility than teaching Plato to a bunch of drunken, uninterested freshmen.

Like making the tea?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
No. I have suggested that they don't offer blogging.

How is that not withdrawing from the blogging market in China?

They can do anything else that doesn't involve direct human rights violations. You are exaggerating... again.

So are you...

Is Apolyton guilty of human rights violations for censorship?

How about TV censorship?

There is no difference, other than one of degree. Both killing machines and censorship software violate human rights.

So you agree, flat-out, that all censorship is evil and a violation of human rights.

So why is it that you don't threaten to boycott Apolyton when I'm banned, or when the auto-censor kicks in?

Like making the tea?

Like being the face of IBM to customers with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of service contracts to IBM...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

How is that not withdrawing from the blogging market in China?

It isn't, but you left out words for rhetorical effect, which is about all you have left.

So are you...

Is Apolyton guilty of human rights violations for censorship?

How about TV censorship?

Apolyton does not censor words like "freedom and democracy". People who don't like Apolyton's policies are free to go elsewhere. The Chinese don't have that option – all their blogging services will be censored - and companies like Microsoft are colluding in this violation of human rights.

Stop trying to change the subject because you're losing.

So you agree, flat-out, that all censorship is evil and a violation of human rights.

Again, stop exaggerating and changing the subject. There are the obvious exceptions like wartime censorship, court reporting, etc. But none of those are relevant in this case.

So why is it that you don't threaten to boycott Apolyton when I'm banned, or when the auto-censor kicks in?

(1) Because Apolyton is so much nicer when you aren't here. (2) Because Apolyton's censorship polices have to do with swearing, no political views are censored here. Only people who bait mods and continually break the rules get banned.

Like being the face of IBM to customers with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of service contracts to IBM...

They should have found a better face.

[Agathon]

Are you going to come up with anything better?

Much as it is pleasant to slam you about, this is getting a bit boring.

[lord of the mark]

"Aggie, you haven't been answering me.

Situation 1: MS does what it's doing. Chinese people have a censored blogging service.

Situation 2: MS stops providing this service. Either someone else steps up and starts providing this service (in which case the Chinese people still have a censored blogging service) or no one does, in which case they have no blogging service."

1. Its embarrasing to China when theyre called this. Lots of negative publicity. Should be real fun for all involved when they solicit the replacement, as well. ("so, YOU are the company that went it after MS pulled out in defense of freedom")
2. China bears costs during the transition.
3. Presumably the replacement is an inferior service. Isnt MS the best???


As for MS profit motives
1. Employee morale - hey, microserfs! the firm youre working for opposes freedom (even while denouncing any interference with its affairs by antitrust types, often on libertarian grounds0 How does that make you feel today? Less productive, maybe?
2. Consumer image - hey, if you've never thought of looking at an alternatve to MS, and you care about rights in China, maybe today is the day to CONSIDER alternatives?
3. Political interests - Mr. Congressman, I would like to talk to you about intellectual property. Uh, youre from MS? That is against freedom in China? Ive got enough Falun Gongers calling me every day. You want me to listen on IP, you'll need to do MORE to gain "access" than usual. My campaign treasurer is down the block.


all things that potentially impact the bottom line.

And the more we make a fuss about them, here and elsewhere, they more they do so.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Apolyton does not censor words like "freedom and democracy".

"There is no difference, other than one of degree." ?

People who don't like Apolyton's policies are free to go elsewhere.

People who don't like Microsoft's policies are free to go elsehwere.

People who don't like China's policies are SOL, but that's communism for you!

Again, stop exaggerating and changing the subject. There are the obvious exceptions like wartime censorship, court reporting, etc. But none of those are relevant in this case.

Don't be so dense.

You just told me there's no difference between censorship of a few keywords and mass murder, except of degree. I make an even simpler comparison of censorship, just different words, and suddenly they're not comparable?

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
As for MS profit motives
1. Employee morale - hey, microserfs! the firm youre working for opposes freedom (even while denouncing any interference with its affairs by antitrust types, often on libertarian grounds0 How does that make you feel today? Less productive, maybe?
2. Consumer image - hey, if you've never thought of looking at an alternatve to MS, and you care about rights in China, maybe today is the day to CONSIDER alternatives?
3. Political interests - Mr. Congressman, I would like to talk to you about intellectual property. Uh, youre from MS? That is against freedom in China? Ive got enough Falun Gongers calling me every day. You want me to listen on IP, you'll need to do MORE to gain "access" than usual. My campaign treasurer is down the block.


all things that potentially impact the bottom line.

The only people I've seen harping about how evil this is have been Apple and Linux (Slashdot crowd) people.

These same people ignored the issue when other high-profile companies did the same thing before Microsoft.

It's clear they just have an axe to grind. It's that much more obvious by the pathetically weak arguments they give here, and the desire to escape the real world and argue in the vacuum of an academic, ethical argument.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
"Aggie, you haven't been answering me.

I apologize. Dealing with Asher's crap wastes valuable time.

Situation 1: MS does what it's doing. Chinese people have a censored blogging service.

OK. I think this is straighforwardly unethical. If you want to argue that corporations are not bound by any sort of ethics, I would dispute that too, but that is a separate issue.

Situation 2: MS stops providing this service. Either someone else steps up and starts providing this service (in which case the Chinese people still have a censored blogging service) or no one does, in which case they have no blogging service."

1. Its embarrasing to China when theyre called this. Lots of negative publicity. Should be real fun for all involved when they solicit the replacement, as well. ("so, YOU are the company that went it after MS pulled out in defense of freedom")

I'd agree. Shaming Microsoft for doing this is a start, but China would be shamed much more if MS and the others refused to play along with this Orwellian scheme.

2. China bears costs during the transition.

?

3. Presumably the replacement is an inferior service. Isnt MS the best???

I don't know. I'm guessing that Yahoo, Google and Microsoft are being offered the opportunity precisely because their solutions are better or more efficient than local solutions.

As for MS profit motives
1. Employee morale - hey, microserfs! the firm youre working for opposes freedom (even while denouncing any interference with its affairs by antitrust types, often on libertarian grounds0 How does that make you feel today? Less productive, maybe?

That's true. I'd thought about that, and there is certainly a good case for it (given Microsoft's recent climbdown over the gay rights thing).

2. Consumer image - hey, if you've never thought of looking at an alternatve to MS, and you care about rights in China, maybe today is the day to CONSIDER alternatives?

That's also true, but I tend to oppose consumer boycotts for other reasons.

3. Political interests - Mr. Congressman, I would like to talk to you about intellectual property. Uh, youre from MS? That is against freedom in China? Ive got enough Falun Gongers calling me every day. You want me to listen on IP, you'll need to do MORE to gain "access" than usual. My campaign treasurer is down the block.

Yes. I agree.

all things that potentially impact the bottom line

That's also true. I just don't want to make it all about the bottom line. Despite what people say, corporations often don't either.

And the more we make a fuss about them, here and elsewhere, they more they do so.

Yes, but Asher doesn't want us to make a fuss about it. The Chinese should just accept it so that Western companies can make money from their misery. I disagree. Making the case that it is unethical is the starting point for political pressure.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, but Asher doesn't want us to make a fuss about it. The Chinese should just accept it so that Western companies can make money from their misery. I disagree. Making the case that it is unethical is the starting point for political pressure.

You honestly think if Western companies didn't provide their blogging services to China, it would apply political pressure to the Communists to change their censorship policies?

Get real...

Regarding morale, do you think Microsoft employees would be more inline with my thinking, or with yours?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

"There is no difference, other than one of degree." ?

Nice try, but no sale.

Banning swear words from a private internet gaming site is not a violation of human rights. I think it is still technically illegal to swear in public in New Zealand. People do, but the police have the discretion to prosecute people who are making a nuisance of themselves.

People who don't like Microsoft's policies are free to go elsehwere.

People who don't like China's policies are SOL, but that's communism for you!

Thank you for agreeing with me. There is a difference.

Don't be so dense.

You just told me there's no difference between censorship of a few keywords and mass murder, except of degree. I make an even simpler comparison of censorship, just different words, and suddenly they're not comparable?

It seems that you lack the logical subtlety that you would gain from a liberal arts education.

There's a difference in kind between deleting spam and violating human rights. Ming deleting your whine threads is not a violation of your human rights. It's an attempt to make the forum a better place for those of us who come here. But none of us have to come here, we can go to Counterglow or Eventis to post poo jokes.

There's a big difference between being part of a national effort to prevent political speech in an attempt to prevent people freely expressing their political views and criticizing the government, and stopping people from calling Ming rude names when he deletes their threads. The difference is in the aim and context of the censorship.

Even if Apolyton banned specific topics (like the Paradox forums do) it would still be different. Paradox is not trying to prevent people exercising their human rights – they are free to go elsewhere on the net and post about this stuff if they want to. Paradox is not arresting people for disagreeing with their policy. Paradox's policy is aimed at preventing their forums descending into partisan lunacy, which detracts from the attractiveness of their site to their customers. That's no different from a gardening forum deleting topics that don't relate to gardening, or someone in the Civ II forum deleting spam. Paradox is not colluding with an attempt to prevent anyone anywhere discussing the issue, because that isn't their aim. If no forums allowed anyone to discuss these issues, and for some reason there was no possibility of the market stepping in, then the state would be justified in providing an alternative outlet (this is the same rationale as that behind public broadcasting).

Microsoft and China are not doing that. They don't give a crap about what their customers want in this case – they are simply seeking to directly prevent people from exercising their human rights – no matter what the service. It is part of a scheme to eliminate free political speech completely, not to enable people to have more meaningful conversations by cutting out trolls, dross, and spam.

By your logic, the US government preventing anyone from speaking about gay rights would only different in degree from Ming deleting spam threads. That ignores the whole aim and context of the censorship. Poor logic, Asher.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You honestly think if Western companies didn't provide their blogging services to China, it would apply political pressure to the Communists to change their censorship policies?

Get real...

Regarding morale, do you think Microsoft employees would be more inline with my thinking, or with yours?

Mine. They're probably not psychopathic. Enough of them were pissed off about the gay rights thing.