p2pnet - rss feed: Adjusting morals to suit markets
p2p news / p2pnet: Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are matching their morals to suit new markets.
That’s the view of European Union commissioner Margot Wallstroem, referring specifically to the relationship the companies have with Communist China.
"Ms Wallstroem wrote her comments after learning about the lengths Microsoft, Yahoo and Google have gone to in order to accommodate the wishes of the Chinese government," says the BBC.
Google China was censoring news stories as far back as in September last year and, "Google is reportedly amending its index to exclude information to which the Chinese government objects. Microsoft and Yahoo have also submitted to the demands of Chinese authorities," says the story.
When p2pnet spoke with Google spokeswoman Debbie Frost on the censorship charges, she denied it was happening but said, "In order to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons".
Yahoo admitted giving the Chinese authorities information on Chinese journalist Shi Tao to Communist China Net police. Shi Tao ended up being jailed for 10 years. Company co-founder Jerry Yang tried to excuse the betrayal by saying Yahoo was, “obliged to comply with Chinese laws and regulations”.
But not to worry.
"In China, I think, that so far the political system and restraint on political speech in the internet has not seemed to have any adverse commercial consequences," ex-US president Bill Clinton said at the recent China internet Summit, in the process assuaging fears that human rights concerns might negatively impact corporate profitability.
Perish the thought.
Not that claims of unwholesome business practices centering China are a novelty. At the beginning of 2004, Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and Sun Microsystems were among companies, "which have reportedly provided technology which has been used to censor and control the use of the Internet in China," said an Amnesty International report.
"In her blog, Ms Wallstroem wrote that the firms ‘have flexible ethical standards depending on where they operate’," says the BBC.
Also read:-
BBC - Hi-tech firms censured over China, December 19, 2005
censoring news stories - Google on China censorship , December 16, 2005
jailed for 10 years - Yahoo on ‘grass’ charges, September 10, 2005
commercial consequences - China is OK, says Clinton, September 12, 2005
unwholesome business practices centering - US firms named in Amnesty report, January 28, 2005
December 19th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
“…the firms ‘have flexible ethical standards…”
Ummmm, I think that really means the firms DON’T have ethical standards, right? IMHO when it comes to “corporate ethics” (pretty much an oxymoron in itself), if the standards are “flexable” then there really are no standards for practical purposes. No big news flash there…
December 19th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Have lawyer ethics standards, the really flexible ones, ever stopped lawyers from profiting from the drug trade and the activities of the mafia by defending the criminals in court?
December 20th, 2005 at 12:52 am
It makes no sense to expect corporations to have any ethics at all. They are money-making machines, not human beings. Considered as people, they are sociopaths. So it should not surprise anyone that they do whatever they can get away with. The only limits on their behavior are those imposed by governments.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:31 am
The only true limit corporations have is public image. They must make it at least appear they somewhat follow the moral code of their customer base or the customer base will feel uncomfortable supporting them with their business. Government regulations really do not matter to corporations, as the government can be bought to look the other way. A good example of this is when Microsoft was hit with anti trust suits by the USDoJ in the 90’s when they were not contributing heavily to political campaigns. The USDoJ actually defended Microsoft when South Korea recently fined them for the exact same thing (except with windows media player). They must have learned their lesson and started paying the blood money.
December 20th, 2005 at 1:46 am
Very good point. Did you see a film called “The Corporation” by chance? Very informative.
This brings up one thing I see on P2Pnet a lot. Namely, the portrayal of the “big four” music labels as being things like the most evil people on the planet, etc… I don’t disagree with this other than the implication that the music biz is somehow worse than other major corporate interests. They are (almost) all utterly contemptible simply because of their “profits & stock values above ALL else” aproach to EVERY situation. It is the corporation’s fatal flaw. Greed machines run amok that will blindly destroy their own markets in their relentless, inflexable pursuit of profits.
December 20th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
It’s right that lawyers defend all comers in court. In this case, even when their client is obviously a scumbag, that person still deserves a defence. Lawyers mustn’t lie, but it is not unethical for them to present the defendant’s case.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:31 pm
“This brings up one thing I see on P2Pnet a lot. Namely, the portrayal of the “big four” music labels as being things like the most evil people on the planet, etc… I don’t disagree with this other than the implication that the music biz is somehow worse than other major corporate interests.”
Not really. The music labels are suing and criminilizing youth and their own customers. I do not recall any industry or firm that has ever done such a bizzare thing, all for the purpose of forcing sales down the custome’s throat. And to boot it is self destruction. Sony stock alone has depreciated to about 25 percent of what it was a few years ago. There must be a reason for this drop in value. The reason: Worthless business advice from the persons that understand the least about business, the lawyers.
December 20th, 2005 at 11:46 pm
“It’s right that lawyers defend all comers in court. In this case, even when their client is obviously a scumbag, that person still deserves a defence.”
The problem is that the idea has been inverted to mean that everyone that can pay will get legal representation to shaft the innocent. Take the lawyers that have sued Santangelo and others, who either did nothing or in the worst case did what we all use to do in the age of LP records and cassettes, we copie music, frequently because the recording was no longer available.
Do record companies that want to make a criminal of an innocent person deserve to have legal representation? Of course not. And if they get legal representation, it it is from a promiscuous lawyer, the type that will sue his/her mother for sister for copying a CD.
December 21st, 2005 at 6:09 am
You must not have heard about the DirectTV smartcart incidents then which was actually worse then what the RIAA is doing. While the RIAA does not know if all the people its suing have actually purchased any legal music, DirectTV tried to extort money out of over 170,000 of its own paying customers, eventually suing over 24,000 of them.
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_11.php
As long as a company believes that an action they take will bring them some kind of financial gain that outweighs any damage to their public image, they will take it. Their obligations to their stock holders demands that they do, even if that means stealing a little girls college fund or an old mans retirement fund.