Microsoft hates Freedom and Democracy!!!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
So does everyone else. The issue is whether MS should sell censoring software there.

The whole point is while I think China's government organization is unethical, I will still do business and not boycott the market.

It is interesting that Agathon is indirectly supporting the US embargo on Cuba, though.

[lord of the mark]

some corporations decide to establish corporate values statements. Now one could argue that their charter, and thus their legal obligations to there shareholders, entails maximizing ROI (really NPV, but lets not get into that here) subject to obeying the law of the country where they are chartered (a charter is a legal document, and clearly cannot obligate the corporation, as agent, to break the law) In which case corporate values statements are either bunkum, or illegal.

Now the usual counter is that a company, by keeping to its values, actually maximizes profits. The values embody certain broad principles that the company beleive must be followed in order to do so, one that must be inculcated in all managers and employees (the way, say, strategic goals need not be). Thus a commitment to a consumer service. A commitment to treating employees well. One may suspect that the values (to the extent that they are not merely pious items on paper) are not there only to maximize profits, but to also express the values of top management. This MIGHT present an agency-principle problem - but as long as there is an arguable connection to shareholder profit, I doubt much fuss is ever made.

Now its pretty easy to see why advocating for the free (as long as economically compensated) dissemination of information makes sense as a value for MS, and why that contributes to shareholder profits.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

The whole point is while I think China's government organization is unethical, I will still do business and not boycott the market.

It is interesting that Agathon is indirectly supporting the US embargo on Cuba, though.

Maybe you missed the point that by making this software and selling it, MS is censoring speech. They aren't just trading with nations who abuse human rights.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Maybe you missed the point that by making this software and selling it, MS is censoring speech. They aren't just trading with nations who abuse human rights.

Apolyton also censors speech, ban it as well.

MS is censoring speech on its private service under Chinese law...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
Apolyton also censors speech, ban it as well.

OMFG your so oppressed!

MS is censoring speech on its private service under Chinese law...

Legal oppression. ****ing A great buddy. As long as they profit.

[Kuciwalker]

If Microsoft stops what it's doing, the Chinese people won't have any more freedom of speech, so there's no reason it should.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
OMFG your so oppressed!

Legal oppression. ****ing A great buddy. As long as they profit.

Profit
Loss

Communist Censorship

Communists getting on MS' case as an evil corporation for following Crazy Chinese Communist Censorship Laws

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Why is that a good reason? Nazis should have free speech rights as well. And if people believe that to be a human rights infraction, shouldn't Yahoo get the same flack for doing business with the French?

Not in Germany. Not after what they did.

[Agathon]

I've said specifically that they should stop supplying tools that aid in genocide. This isn't a black/white case. Genocide clearly should not be aided, but that is not at all comparable to a corportation censoring the content on their private service under local law. You're essentially trying to make the argument that Microsoft is providing the duct tape to gag and rifles to shoot people who support democracy, when that's not the case at all.

That's what they're doing.

As for your argument about this being an academic matter. It isn't an academic matter any more than the repression of the Chinese government is an academic matter. In fact I bet that many people working within Microsoft are not too happy about this either.

You are a broken record. You have completely failed to deal with any of my arguments. Pretty funny actually.

[Kuciwalker]

Communists shouldn't have free speech in Russia. Not after what they did.

[General Ludd]

Americans shouldn't have free speech anywhere.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You are a broken record. You have completely failed to deal with any of my arguments. Pretty funny actually.

You're right, it is funny. Because your arguments are not related to the true issue of -- why should Microsoft do this?

Go answer my 5 questions I've asked. If you can do that, you can convince me.

Otherwise, you're arguing something completely academic. You need to realize Microsoft has to answer to shareholders, so that needs to factor into your decision.

This isn't academia where all of your pointless work exists in a vacuum, this is the real world where real people's jobs are at stake. You need to address this as a real world problem.

Shareholders and their demand for ROI factor extremely heavily into this situation, and you've ignored it completely in favor of intellectual masturbation philosophical ethical crap that means nothing outside of your fantasy world.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You're right, it is funny. Because your arguments are not related to the true issue of -- why should Microsoft do this?

Go answer my 5 questions I've asked. If you can do that, you can convince me.

I already did, by showing that they were not relevant/

Otherwise, you're arguing something completely academic. You need to realize Microsoft has to answer to shareholders, so that needs to factor into your decision.

You have a weird idea of how corporations work. Do you really think that being a CEO suddenly turns someone into a satanist? That sounds like puerile college leftism. Occasionally the capitalist system fails to ensure that human rights are respected. In those cases we rely on the human decency of the people running the companies (which is surprisingly robust) or, failing that, political action to compel them to behave.

This isn't academia where all of your pointless work exists in a vacuum, this is the real world where real people's jobs are at stake. You need to address this as a real world problem.

And in the real world, the rights of a billion Chinese are at stake. Corporate ethics is a real world problem. Enron was a real world problem. If people don't complain about it, how are legislators going to be pressured into doing something about it. It's just not credible that the world's largest software company would not have a major effect on the Chinese peoples' quest for human rights if they refused to profit from this outrageous and Orwellian scheme.

In the real world, public pressure often results in a climbdown. This is not an academic issue, it is a political issue. I don't think you'd get much academic debate on this, because the issue is so clear cut in favour of my position.

Shareholders and their demand for ROI factor extremely heavily into this situation, and you've ignored it completely in favor of intellectual masturbation philosophical ethical crap that means nothing outside of your fantasy world.

You overestimate the power of shareholders. One of the things that often gets brought up at shareholders' meetings is the ethical behaviour of the company. Jesus... even I can make the distinction between capitalism, the system that mandates such bad behaviour, and individual capitalists, who may not agree with what the system requires of them and may well wish to forgo profiting from unethical behaviour.

Your logic is the logic of the gas chambers. Forgive the decent people of the world if they don't agree with your appraisal of the situation.

[Asher]

I already did, by showing that they were not relevant/

You don't think that corporate interests are relevant in corportations making a decision to leave the future largest market?

That's one hell of an assertion.

The problem here is we're not on the same page. I'm sitting here thinking you'd need to justify your assertion that they should leave the Chinese market in a realistic way -- why should shareholders agree to this? That's what needs to be argued in the real world.

But on the other hand, you're off in some weird dimension when corporations don't need to answer to shareholders and don't need to worry about their share price. Off in some weird dimension where if Microsoft decides to leave the Chinese marketplace, suddenly they will reverse their position on censorship and all will be well...

Microsoft is clearly the evil here, isn't it? Not the corrupt communist party in power?

Focus your academic angst on something more interesting. You've sunk as far as to blast corporations for following communist laws, why don't you just attack your own beliefs instead.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher


You don't think that corporate interests are relevant in corportations making a decision to leave the future largest market?

That's one hell of an assertion.

They aren't the only thing that is relevant. Note that I have not said that Microsoft should withdraw from China, nor should it cease any other activities in China. Not allowing their blogging service to be used in China is a minor thing. Sometimes a spine is worth having.

The world would be in a lot worse situation than it is today if corporations were the morally blind entities you seem to think they are (Jeez.. I'm a communist... I'm the one that's supposed to think that corporations are always evil). Sometimes they do do the right thing. This is not one of those cases. Microsoft's actions and those of Yahoo are in every way shameful.