Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Maybe you have only taken intro to micro economics where maximizing profit in the short run is the only concern. Business majors are concerned with the bigger picture these days with all the corruption in business.

Absolutely, and they would see that China is the growth market.

Something like 5 million people signed up for (censored) MSN Spaces in China within a couple weeks after it opened.

A business professor would have to be stupid to not recommend expanding popular, profitable products/services to China.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


My dad's a business professor. He disagrees with you.

A lot of professors at business schools have had some real-world business experience. The head of the communications department at the University of Alabama's business school was a major corporate communications head honcho before going there to teach.

I didn't mean they don't have real world experience. I meant they believe in doing business ethically.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I didn't mean they don't have real world experience. I meant they believe in doing business ethically.

Some consider doing business ethically to mean following local laws.

I don't consider it ethical to censor anything, yet parental controls are very popular these days...

[Asher]

As Aggie has said, it's all about the degree.

It would be unethical for Microsoft to, say, willingly produce software or products that would be used in genocide.

I don't consider it unethical for Microsoft to censor their own private service to comply with local laws.

The key here is it's a private service.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

Absolutely, and they would see that China is the growth market.

Something like 5 million people signed up for (censored) MSN Spaces in China within a couple weeks after it opened.

A business professor would have to be stupid to not recommend expanding popular, profitable products/services to China.

Maybe from a business prospective it's a bad idea but you are insisting that business has nothing to do with ethics which no business professor would agree with.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Maybe from a business prospective it's a bad idea but you are insisting that business has nothing to do with ethics which no business professor would agree with.

Holy Strawman, batman!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
Some consider doing business ethically to mean following local laws.

That goes without saying. Such people usually end up breaking laws if they think they can get away with it, and try to get a job with that attitude. No one wants people like that corrupting their corporate culture.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

Holy Strawman, batman!

That's not a strawman. The issue is whether the action is unethical or not. It is, and you are saying ethics has nothing to do with business.

[Agathon]

As Aggie has said, it's all about the degree.

That's not what I said. If you are going to misrepresent me, at least be clever about it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That's not a strawman. The issue is whether the action is unethical or not. It is, and you are saying ethics has nothing to do with business.

No, I never said that. Thus why that's a strawman.

I said it wasn't a consideration in this debate, it didn't matter in this debate. Whether you find it ethical or not, it has no impact whatsoever. Even then, it's censorship on a private service that should be the center of an ethics debate -- not this human rights nonsense. It would be a debate about human rights if MS was licensing a technology to systematically eliminate anyone who mentioned the word "freedom".

To argue ethically against this, you need to successfully argue that private services are not allowed to be censored for one (neither you nor Aggie has even attempted that one).

Then you need to explain, even if ethically they should not be allowed to censor their own, private service, why other private services are regularly censored. "But that's different!" doesn't count -- as Aggie said ( ), that's the same thing, but just a matter of degree!

At that point you need to explain why businesses -- who exist to generate profit for the shareholders -- should listen to your ethical argument and generate less profit, accordingly. The only person who attempted this was LOTM, who made some reasonable points, but I very much doubt they'd have any kind of real impact at all on the company...

[Agathon]

To argue ethically against it, you need to successfully argue that private services are not allowed to be censored for one (neither you nor Aggie has even attempted that one).

Yeah, I covered that one.

[Agathon]

Are you slowly going insane Asher, or are you just going to keep pretending I made the claim as you interpret it, despite making it clear that I was not. This is pretty low even for you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yeah, I covered that one.

I must of missed it.

Did you conclude that it is unethical for private companies to censor their own products, or that it was ethical?

If it's ethical, why is it a problem here?

If it's unethical, why do you not make a stink about censorship on Apolyton, on not allowing minors access to hardcore pornography, etc?

I await your "but! but! but!" argument, disguised with philosophical bull**** smoke and mirrors. Surprise me...

[MrFun]

I swear you and Asher should just get married the way you two argue all the time.

[Asher]

I said:

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.

You replied:

There is no difference, other than one of degree.

So if there is no difference between censoring blogs on a private service and manufacturing killing machines for China...why is there a difference between censoring blogs on a private service and censoring kids from seeing hardcore pornography, or censoring on a site like Apolyton?

It's the same argument, you just like to selectively apply it where it suits you.