PJ Media has a very interesting piece featuring Rep. Tom Lantos (D-San Mateo), who managed, under threat of subpoena, to bring representatives from Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Cisco to testify before a select committee of the House Committee on International Relations about their cooperation with the repressive policies of the Chinese government.
The video contains clips from the hearing—as well as an exclusive interview with Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor serving in Congress. Well worth a watch, particularly for those of you interested in the inevitable intersection of global free markets and vestigial ideologies whose governmental manifestations are hostile to the free flow of information.
In fact, it occurs to me that the dilemma for businesses wishing to tap certain markets—should they show a willingness to compromise certain fundamental western ideals in order to follow a pragmatic business philosophy that, in dealing with the Other, is at times at odds with those ideals—is not different in kind from the question of whether or not our mainsream press should print those Mohammed cartoons.
At any rate, the thought experiment that the two scenarios generate is in interesting one to ponder. For me at least. But then, I once spent an entire day pondering John Gibson’s hair.
Why China will not surpass America.
Why stop with tech? Bring in the Waltons, Murdochs and Nikes of the world.
At least one difference here may be that this is pressure from a government to keep information from its citizens, counter to the wishes of its citizens. I would imagine that refusal to broadcast mohammed cartoons has more popular support in the arab world than refusal to discuss democracy and human rights has in china.
Maybe I’m not paying attention, but I never got too worked up about the Google thing because I imagined that the block could be easily circumvented with the use of a proxy server. I mean, the Chinese have been dodging their government’s ham-fisted attempts to control information all their lives. And there are fresh proxy lists all over the internet.
I guess you could argue that it’s the principle of the thing, but you know me and my “___ is as ___ does” routine.
:peter
China has freedom of information problems? Are we talking about the same place that I can get DVD copies of movies that haven’t even hit theaters yet? For what amounts to pennies on the dollar?
I gotta go with Peter on this one. Freedom of info hasn’t seemed to stop much of anything from getting to the Chinese public at large.
This seems like a non-issue. Why should businesses care about “compromis[ing] certain fundamental western ideals”? Their primary function is to maximize shareholder value (which is itself a “fundamental western ideal), not to spread Enlightenment values.
But, see, there is no dilemna because Google is run by a couple of young, hip, edgy dudes, and Microsoft gives to charity, you know, like Oprah!
Which is a good indicator of the power of human curiosity, because the Chinese public at large is committing a crime when they do this. Which, as you can probably imagine is a dicier prospect in what amounts to a totalitarian country. Now, if you consider that some of the companies listed have been tied to helping the government of china figure out who the lawbreakers are, and you start to see some wisdom to the idea of at least dragging these company CEO’s before Congress.
You’re talking about movies representing views and perspectives contrary to those the Chinese government wishes are aired? It should go without saying, there are large differences between the suppression of free speech and the respect of Western intellectual property rights.
You only spent a day pondering John Gibson’s hair? But, but … it defies gravity! It remains perfectly coifed throughout his entire segment! It looks poofy and soft, but can repel bullets and leap tall buildings – while remaining smooth and silky! How can you seriously contend you have pondered John Gibson’s hair if you’ve only spent one lousy day on it?
I’m really disappointed, Jeff. I come here for the long-and-luxurious kind of thinking, not that bald, shiny-pate stuff. Especially on issues as critical as Gibson’s hair.
TW:least, as in At least you got the Chinese/Islam censorship parallels right.
That deals are being made with the Chinese government, rather than with Chinese businesses, shows that this has nothing to do with capitalism. So defending Google et al on the “profit” level is plain dumb. They’re not doing business; they’re doing governmentâ€â€Chinese government. Uncool.
Listen… Some lefties aren’t completely wrong about everything. Really.
There’s a tiny accidental overlap between the fashion-statement anti-corporatism of the WTO riots (“ironically,” a scotomized anti-populist assertion of upper-class “tastefulness” vs. the anarchic vulgarity of market choice) and the libertarian(-ish) critique of corporationsâ€â€which latter goes something like this:
The displacement of owner-controlled private business by the illiberal institution of the corporation, a whole-cloth creation of and ersatz instantiation of government, is fundamentally antithetical, and ultimately will prove destructive, to Enlightenment/freedom/capitalism/[more good things]â€â€as intended by [insert government here], because Enlightenment/[etc] is government’s worst enemy.
We don’t have to pretend that’s not being proven true by Google et al just to avoid appearing to agree with the Affluenza jerks. They can be our “useful idiots” for once.
Persuading anyone that this distinction matters is at all relevant requires an argument rather than a sneer.
Part of the argument that Hollywood makes against China’s IP practices is that China does crack down on bootlegs of banned films, but not Hollywood ones. They don’t make this too loud, because they don’t want to associate themselves with that sort of censorship. But they do point out that if the Chinese government wants to control something, it can. And in the case of US IP rights, its not.
The reason why I care more about Google’s actions in China than Nike’s actions is that Google’s slogan is “Do No Evil” while Nike’s slogan is “Just Do It”.
Absolutely. Although it isn’t just US IP rights, but international IP rights. What will get you in Chinese prison faster- printing out a million copies of The Davinci Code, or printing out a million copies of a paper calling for a democratic ouster of Hu Jintao?
That’s part of what made the anti-Japan demonstrations in Beijing a farce last year as well. Suddenly, the Chinese government had no ability to stop people from protesting.
I don’t like what Google et al are doing, but Jeff is correct in many regards that all companies that choose to do business in China have to make these kinds of concessions. It isn’t just Western countries pushing western ideals, though. It is any company operating in a less-free country than their home base.
Imagine Chrysler trying to send a holocaust-denier to run some operation in Austria. Or someone that runs a pro-Scientology website in his spare time wanting to take a post in Germany. A company would have to deal with those restrictions for its employees as well, even though they are Western countries.