Yahoo In China: An Unfair Attack
Duncan Riley
165 comments »
There has been much coverage this week on the Congressional hearing into Yahoo’s disclosure of information to the Chinese Government.
For those who missed it, in short Yahoo was attacked by both sides of politics for complying with a request under Chinese law, in China, to provide information on a political dissident.
The rhetoric was raw; San Mateo Democrat Chairman Tom Lantos called Yahoo moral pygmies, and Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., compared Yahoo’s cooperation with the Chinese government to companies that cooperated with Nazi Germany during World War II.
When it comes to China there are very few who will come to the defense of those who deal with the Chinese Government.
Yahoo’s actions might have been in part wrong morally, but legally they have done nothing wrong, and in a global economy this is even more true.
Consider what Yahoo has done. Yahoo China (which I’d note is only 40% owned by Yahoo) received a “subpoena-like document” that requested information from a sovereign nation. Yahoo General Counsel Michael Callahan contended that Yahoo employees in China had little choice but to comply with the government’s demands. “I cannot ask our local employees to resist lawful demands and put their own freedom at risk, even if, in my personal view, the local laws are overbroad,” he said.
For this, Yahoo has been called moral pygmies and been compared to a company trading with Nazi Germany. Lets flip this around: does the committee, or for that matter the American Government believe that companies trading in the United States should ignore local laws if and when they find them morally repugnant? I doubt they would, but this is the crux of what they are suggesting, unless of course they may be so arrogant to believe that US law should be the supreme law of the entire planet. Consider if Baidu set up an American subsidiary, and the FBI subpoenaed them trying to find information on a terrorist. Would they not expect Baidu to comply with the request? If Baidu failed to comply would the Committee and US Government support them in their refusal to comply?
I’m not suggesting that the Chinese political dissident in this case was a terrorist, but understand that some one advocating the overthrow of the Chinese Government is not dissimilar to some one doing the same thing in the United States, even if the two nations would disagree on categorization based on the means advocated.
Foreign and US companies trading in the United States are expected to comply with local laws, even those that many would now consider to be morally and legally indefensible. It was Google who refused to comply with subpoenas from the Justice Department in 2005, where as Yahoo complied. Other actions of the United States Government raise eyebrows world wide: the suspension of Habeas Corpus comes to mind.
China is not like Nazi Germany, even if I don’t agree with some of what the Government does there, and to suggest that it is like Nazi Germany is an insult to the victims of WW2 as well as the Chinese people. Presuming China is Nazi Germany, why is it that the United States is importing approx $280 billion of Chinese goods every year? If this committee is seriously anti-China, and this reflects the will of the Government, why does trade continue? why are Chinese companies allowed to trade in the United States and conversely US companies in China? This can be stopped: look at the current sanctions on Iran for an example.
Ultimately, Yahoo has been made a scapegoat for the flaws of US foreign policy. If the US Government is as serious as the rhetoric of this committee would suggest, they’d stop trade with China tomorrow, but that’s not going to happen, is it. The executive team at Yahoo may be on shaky moral ground, but legally they have done nothing more than be a good corporate citizen, no matter which country they operate in.
Yahoo really done nothing wrong in China with regard to the China laws.. /ac.
WTF? These idiots in the committee are paid salaries from the taxes people pay.
US Dollar loosing value and US loosing its trade dominance to China does not make China a Nazi Germany.
elvirs
I’m hoping the strong Jewish lobby in the US takes this committee to task on this: China might be far from perfect, but it aint, and never will be Nazi Germany.
China has come a long way since WTO acceptance and all the opening up due to strengthened trade links and more interdependence with the outside world. Obviously they have a long way to go, but they are on the right track.
Yahoo did nothing wrong but trading with China in the first place. Since nobody wants to miss that boat they are, as is everybody else. Complaining afterwards that they comply with Chinese Law is just plain stupid and only aimed at shortterm political profit.
Victor, Amsterdam
Duncan: Maybe you should read up on Tom Lantos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Lantos
“Born to a Jewish family in Budapest, Hungary, Lantos was part of an anti-Nazi resistance movement during the German occupation of that country and sought refuge in a safe house established by Raoul Wallenberg. In 1981 Lantos sponsored a bill making Wallenberg an Honorary Citizen of the United States.
Lantos considers himself a secular Jew and is the only Holocaust survivor ever to serve in the House.”
“Yahoo employees in China had little choice but to comply with the government’s demands.” Of course. Who wants to get cattle prodded. It’s a common practice there.
um,may Chinese won’t read this blog in that the GFW will kill websites talking about Chinese Government
Hannus
last I heard TC wasn’t blocked in China, but that might have changed.
You should probably stick to reporting on tech news, and leave the discussion of ethics and international politics to more thoughtful people. You’re confusing general trade with collaboration. Big gigantic difference. Not even remotely the same. Also way to beat the strawman on the Nazi comparison. These kinds of posts are TC’s low moments. If your posts were all of this nature, I’d think you’d about bleed readership.
If you do business in China you have to obey their laws.
If congress doesn’t like Chinese laws then they can prevent US firms from doing business in China.
Sadly they can’t do that. This ridiculous congress (and free spending President) have sold much of the US debt to the Chinese. They need China.
Jerry should have let them have it, been cited for contempt of congress. Frankly, at this point, pretty much all Americans have contempt for congress.
Bjorn,
so you think China is Nazi Germany? Collaboration is such a dirty word: Yahoo was simply abiding by the laws of the country they were trading in. Are you suggesting that companies should come to the US and not comply with laws? After all, there are plenty of your own countrymen who would argue that US law in certain areas is pretty bad at the moment.
First sign of a decent argument: those against shoot the messenger as opposed to arguing the points raised
Erik
well said
Duncan, your post here conspicuously omits the consequences of Yahoo’s actions. People who advocated free elections are now in prison thanks to Yahoo, and could be there a long time. By not addressing the human cost and hiding behind what is “legal”, you make a very one-sided case.
I appreciate that the Chinese government is better than it was. And sure, they’re better than the Nazis, in that they haven’t killed six million Jews. But somewhere between 500,000 and 3,000,000 million were killed during the Cultural Revolution. And hundreds or thousands were killed during the Tiananmen incident in 1989. Their current leader, Hu Jintao, wasn’t involved in that; instead he spent that year cracking down on the Tibetans. So let’s just say that the Chinese government’s hands are not particularly clean.
Anybody who’s not sure about the current state of things should take a look at the latest Amnesty International report:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/chn-summary-eng
The reason we continue to trade is that we believe that engagement will help more than sanctions. But “continuing to trade” is not the same thing as “helping put Chinese activists in prison”, and I’m disappointed that you seem eager to conflate the two.
While China isn’t Nazi Germany, you can’t ignore the fact that human rights violations there remain systematic and widespread. So when it comes to judge whether trading with China is morally right or wrong you can’t just state “nobody wants to miss the boat” or “they have to comply with Chinese law”. Actually, there is nothing more dangerous than the cheap alibi “I had to do it because the law forced me to do it”. You mentioned Nazi Germany in the first place, so please do your history lessons: it is the fact that all the atrocities were covered by the law what makes Nazi Germany such an unrivaled evil. The Nazi terror was official government policy. So all those Himmlers, Goerings, Eichmanns etc. did what was law at that time! So be very careful if you just shrug and point at some foreign law when it comes to judge your deeds. The shootings at the wall in Germany were law in the German Democratic Republic as well. I could mention dozens of examples like this. Any company trading with China has to ask herself “what are the laws I have to comply to?” Yahoo is not a toy company, Yahoo’s business is personal data and access to information - so open your eyes a bit or are you that naive?
William
and does not the American Government incarcerate enemies of the state at Gitmo without fair trial? I ask this though: are you suggesting that companies in the US should ignore US law because some of it may lead to people being jailed without fair trial? Some would suggest yes, but what I’d say is that it’s the duty of any company to comply with the laws of the country they trade in, no matter how morally bad some of those laws may be. Yahoo has simply complied with Chinese law in China, who is a US to say they have done wrong? should they have denied the request and had their employees end up in a Chinese prison? The consequences of Yahoo not complying with that request are far, far worse than them complying with it.
As a concrete, albeit somewhat less charged example of things being “flipped around” than the Chinese dissident, imagine an Italian wine seller offering free samples on a college campus. Even though it’s ridiculous in the eyes of most Italians that someone who is 20 in the US can drive, vote, fight in Iraq, get married and have children, but not drink a glass of wine, they’d still have to comply with the law.
It’s nice to read a level-headed response to what is a very contentious issue. I think most people would agree that Yahoo shouldn’t have assisted in the arrest of someone we now know to be a fairly innocuous dissident, but it’s also worth bearing in mind that, as far as Yahoo were concerned, the government will have had access to intelligence that Yahoo didn’t. As such, I doubt they would have been in any position to withhold information purely on the grounds of their own speculation, even though this speculation may have been well-founded given the Chinese government’s less than decent history of quelling political opposition. I can’t see any other business acting differently in the circumstances, especially given the highly lucrative race for internet dominance in China.
On a (kind of) related point, the current US government is guilty of innumerable foreign policy disasters that are far, far worse than this. Perhaps people’s attention should be focused on those rather than a single transgression from Yahoo, no matter how morally unacceptable it may be.
“People who advocated free elections are now in prison thanks to Yahoo, and could be there a long time.”
No, they’re in prison because of the Chinese government. They made the law, not Yahoo. Blame is not elastic and bears very little stretching, kindly leave it where it belongs.
I’ve never seen coverage of a Congressional hearing. Does everyone remain silent as lambs while representatives trot out absolute nonsense like comparisons to Nazi Germany? At least in the House of Commons when someone says something ridiculous, the opposition all jeer like mad. Actually, if you wanted to find a sound that represented true democratic politics, it would be that jeer. It’s an ugly sound but at the same time beautiful, because it means the opposition aren’t supinely giving into the government as a lot of them do nowadays whenever the government says ‘terror’ or ‘national security’. Try YouTubing Prime Minister’s Questions if you can’t understand what I’m talking about, you’ll soon hear what I mean.
Somehow I doubt the US would have a problem if Yahoo or any other American company helped a Middle Eastern regime capture a blogger, say oil-rich Saudi Arabia.
Suggesting that Yahoo should disobey Chinese law and put its Chinese workers at risk to please some imperialist lawmaker on the other side of a plant is a disgrace to Chinese sovereignty … I’m fed up of what happens in America being America’s business and what happens in the world being America’s business, we all know they’d defend their sovereignty with a bang so why do they not extend that to the Chinese?
The Chinese have the sovereign right to set and enforce any law they wish. America could easily stop American companies going to China but as usual the hypocritic capitalist wouldn’t do that … you can’t have it both ways.
These Americans need to realize they don’t control the world, especially when they are so opposed to the world controlling them (ie. Koyoto).
I really don’t see what yahoo did wrong given the circumstances. American politicians think they are all so good but in the name of terrorism americans have lost a lot more freedoms than they have gained. Luckily i am not American but I would be pretty pissed if Aus adopted some of those same rules.
America should look at themselves first, the want a global economy then you have to abide by other countries laws and regulations. If they want to isolate themselves from the rest of the world then do so but don’t be surprised when all the American based companies are no longer American based.
Good post Duncan. By choosing to trade in China, Yahoo is bound to abide by their laws. Yahoo can choose not to trade in China, but their stock price would be even lower.
The market drives where companies like Yahoo must play to make money.
We can say its morally wrong to hand over info as innocent people are incarcerated, but at the same time we all want stock prices to go up so that we can make money.
If we really want to change things in China and the world around, we can stop putting pressure on companies to grow and rather base our faith in the company upon how morally upstanding the company is.
Somehow, I don’t see that happening.
William:
> I appreciate that the Chinese government is better than it was. And sure, > they’re better than the Nazis, in that they haven’t killed six million Jews.
> But somewhere between 500,000 and 3,000,000 million were killed
> during the Cultural Revolution. And hundreds or thousands were killed
> during the Tiananmen incident in 1989. Their current leader, Hu Jintao,
> wasn’t involved in that; instead he spent that year cracking down on the > Tibetans. So let’s just say that the Chinese government’s hands are not > particularly clean.
Dude, how about the millions of people that the US has killed or is killing around the world in multiple wars for no fault of theirs? How about Gitmo, like Duncan says?
> Anybody who’s not sure about the current state of things should take a
> look at the latest Amnesty International report:
Where is the report on the terrorist actions of the US govt against innocent civilians in other countries?
> The reason we continue to trade is that we believe that engagement will > help more than sanctions.
The reason you continue to trade with them is that you need them. As simple as that, asshole.
Bob
I’m a Chinese, and I’d say abiding to local laws is necessary for companies to exist there in the first place. But I wonder what was Yahoo! asked to do that caused such controversy?
Following the law is not equal to being moral. Therefore we can let the law go when it comes to the moral discussion of Yahoos actions.
The question is: Was it, with the above in mind, immoral of Yahoo to give the Chinese government information that led to the arrest and imprisonment of a political dissident, with the consequences of not doing so taken into account?
Good posts, and well said also Bob. Some “search engine philosophers” and technology romantists will be disappointed by this post, but it indeed gives us an idea about the polarity: business and cultural politics. Yahoo or Google didnt do wrong. They are complying. Who’s to blame? If they hadn’t we would have called them “American imperialists” - the “we do it our way”. What is happening in China must sensibilise us from a cultural and polical stand. The World Governments need to care about that. Those romantists people what do they expect: Embargo on China? A New War? Invading China?
Duncan, are you seriously saying that if the law required you to help put innocent people in Gitmo you’d do it? Morally, that a company is involved would not help; turning a profit by putting innocent people in Gitmo does not improve things.
Members of Congress can say Yahoo is in the wrong because they are humans, and because they are our elected representatives. They have a right to say that it is wrong to help put people in jail for advocating free elections. And as our elected leaders, they have the right to act on that belief. And since Yahoo is a US company, they are answerable to their fellow citizens and our laws.
I grant that once Yahoo received the requests, perhaps they couldn’t find anything to do but comply. But did they resist as much as they could? Did they know the risks when they decided to put email servers in China, and decide to pursue profit anyhow? And do they continue to stay in China so that will again be obliged to put innocent people in jail?
These are the moral question that you aren’t even beginning to address. If you want to come out and say that Yahoo’s profit excuses participating in imprisonment and possible torture, go for it. (Yes, yes, I’ll stipulate that it’s perfectly legal torture.) But currently you are still refusing to acknowledge the human cost of that profit, which is far from the clear thinking that I’d expect from TechCrunch.
The fact that members of Congress are questioning the morality of anyone outside of Congress while even considering granting immunity to a President who has done his best to obviate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is quite funny, or would be if it weren’t so pitiful. Pot… kettle… black.
To the writer of the blog,
I have been reading this blog for almost a year now.
I am really upset and disappointed with your views.
You show a complete lack of morals.
If the world was run by people like you we would still have slavery, no freedoms, no morals, just fucking addictions to gadgets.
Grow up !! Stop being such a follower. What do you stand for your beliefs, morals or the laws?
I am not going to read this blog any more.
You are just a bunch of fucking rich California kids that would kill half of the world to get the next cool iPhone or gPhone or fuckyourSelfPhone.
China owns a TRILLION dollars of US debt. That’s not Y!’s fault.
You think the US dollar is in bad shape now? China starts to dump their dollar holdings and we’re on even par with the peso. The Chinese are propping up our currency.
As long as China owns significant US debt, China can do whatever it pleases and the US government can’t say boo about it except whine about Yahoo!.
No comparision here between US and China
1) USA - a mature and ancient Democracy.
2) China - a young totalitarian government.
A political dissident in China is not a terrorist - the Chinese gov weren’t elected by the people - they just took power all by themselves - without asking anyone.
@ 31
You say
“1) USA - a mature and ancient Democracy.
2) China - a young totalitarian government.”
I guess its time to brush up your history lessons. I’m NOT from China but you get the point!!!
@William
>>But did they resist as much as they could? Did they know the risks when they decided to put email servers in China, and decide to pursue profit anyhow? And do they continue to stay in China so that will again be obliged to put innocent people in jail?
Did Google know the risks when they move their servers into china so that they can re-enable the caching link ? Yes.
Would Google give out user information to chinese government when they’re asked to do ? Yes.
Will google get the hell out of china ? No.
Are Google and Yahoo the only two US companies in China ? No.
Doesn’t that make Yahoo a scapegoat ? Yes.
Thus I think Duncan’s arugments & conclusion are perfectly fine.
@Erik
Censorship, Human Rights & Lead-Poisoned Products, if that’s all you know about china, you know NOTHING about China.
You make a good point. The only best (ethically speaking) course of action Yahoo could have taken would be to pull out of China. If they disagree with the laws they should not be trading there. However if they wish to trade they must comply with the laws of the land. Corporations are not ethical organisations and never have been. You are completely write if the comittee is opposed to repression in China, impose sanctions. If not, just leave it alone and deal with the fallout instead of shifting the responsibility else where.
Duncan,
you should have stuck with Tech. This is the most ridiculous post I read on here yet. I don’t believe you honestly side with a regime just because what they do is “legal” there. Well, duh! Of course it is.
I’ll let you in on a secret - the Nazis (since this comparison came up a few times), legalized what they did as well. That didn’t make the horror less wrong and that didn’t keep anyone from trying to prosecute them - even until today.
mention “Erik” in comment #33, But indeed meant “Tony” on #31.
“in my personal view, the local laws are over broad”
So what do you do there??? looking for easy money? so bend to regime - if not close yahoo.cn and that’s it…
Duncan: and does not the American Government incarcerate enemies of the state at Gitmo without fair trial?
No. It incarcerates combatants who were captured out of uniform in Gitmo.
No uniform (or some other recognizable insignia) = no POW rights.
Hint: That’s not a new rule. Bush didn’t make it up.
Hint #2: It’s ILLEGAL to put legitimate POWs on trial anyway. They can be detained until hostilities are over, but not tried.
If you were Chinese, and wrote this sort of stuff about the Chinese government, you’d be lucky if all that happened was imprisonment. If you were unlucky, you’d be broken up for spare parts for the gerontocracy and your family would be getting a bill for your execution.
Neither you (nor anyone else who writes this sort of tripe) has any realistic fear whatsoever that you’re going to be “incarcerated in Gitmo”.
In short, you don’t even believe your own bullshit.
I’ve unsubscribed from this blog in my RSS reader, since I don’t much care for being nauseated before I’ve even had my morning coffee.
The old rock and a hard place!
I understand Yahoo’s problem, they must comply with local laws of the communist state. The thing is where do you stop, how do you know if they are looking for a pedophile or a mass murderer?
BTW: I was just in China. On my way back now. It was a blast!
see pictures:
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
The quality of the information here at TechCrunch has severely declined since 2005. The numerous attempts at detailed analysis over the last few months have been a farce. You should really leave this stuff to the pros at the NY Times and Wall Street Journal. In any case now that you’ve revealed your anti-American sentiments I’m happy to be unsubscribed.
Anti-American? Oh noes! Its anti-American to suggest that America not export its legal framework around the world, how will all us foreigners live? We’ll never experience freedom or get to live in the safest country on earth (TM).
China does what China wants in China … live with it. Now if we could only get America to stop doing what America wants, you know, outside of America!
Why do you feel you have the god-given moral quest to export a piece of Pax Americana to all those poor unfree unsafe folks in China? And they’ll great you ase the freedom giving god fearing lovely folks you are and we’ll forever live in peace under American (I mean “free”) rule … except they’ll actually probably just start shooting at you! You know, kinda like, what Americans would do if foreigners tried to take over their country … BUT you know we’re good and they’re bad and we’re free and they’re not and they’re commies and we’re democratic and they’re not … load of tosh.
Words-words-words…
That’s how politicians are not entrepreneurs.
What would entrepreneur do? Find a solution - and EXECUTE it. Pure and simple.
No ideas (I presume they NEVER had one)? Here’s one for you, Mr. Lantos: grant US citizenship to that unfortunate dissident NOW (it can be done, I’m telling you, 5 min to spoil a sheet of paper with two signatures)! Then - insist on Chinese government treating him as US citizen, protected by US law (then you can do it).
EXECUTE !
P.S. These guys can not execute a cup of coffee consumption, not to say come up with any idea what to do.
Hey, how about a nice political post about Ron Paul.
Then this blog can completely degenerate into flaming chaos.
Maybe we can add some info on how facebook will solve this problem as the one true platform?
What’s the difference between Yahoo spying for China and AT&T spying for Bush. None.
Who’s the moral pygmies?
TC’s not blocked here. not since i got to beijing in 8 october - the only thing that’s inaccessible (to me) is blogspot domains and erm.. multiply
In regard to the topic at hand, it isn’t simply that yahoo handed over information blindly. It is that they handled that fact and previous testimony very poorly. Basically, they withheld info from House of Foreign Affairs last year when questioned about it. Go figure, they withhold facts about the case from our congress, but china sends a note and they blindly follow it.
For actual details about this visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi_Tao
Thank you Duncan and most of those commenting here for being insightful and unbiased. I find it refreshing that not everyone in the United States has their arrogant heads up their ____ and think that we have some inherent right to impose our will over everyone else in the world. While I don’t agree with China’s policies and hope there is change around the bend there, as others have said, Yahoo respected the laws and sovereignty of they country they are doing business in. If you can’t respect the laws of the country, then you shouldn’t and can’t do business there. Yahoo is not there to make a political statement by resisting the laws, they are there to do business. Period.
Don’t worry Yahoo!, I’ve met some Pygmies and they seemed like nice moral people. Lantos must just be misinformed.
Perhaps the dissident will be tortured and killed. Maybe he will give up names of others to be tortured and killed. Maybe the families will face reprisals. China is not nice. Does not play well with others. They run over people with tanks when they are in a public square (Tininman Square)
Does any once care. Oh wait…a another nation killing and torturing is not our concern. We can pontificate about compliance with laws and make light of morality. We can write our little posts here and be safe while sounding glib and intellectual while someone is being tormented for his belief in freedom.
Sad.
Yahoo China should find a moral conscience and stick to it. So should the rest of you.
Sorry, but I would have to disagree.
The Chinese government is not Nazi Germany….it is worse.
They may not be trying to kill off a race, but they kill off peoples spirit. They stand by and let people die in the streets. They stifle free speech. They stifle religious freedom. Religion may not be a big deal to you, but it’s a big deal to those that practice it.
The Nazi government reigned for how long? A decade or so?
The communists government in China has been around a lot longer than that.
Yahoo should not have given out any information. They should have employed disinformation.
I feel wierdly torn. When I first heard the scandal I was apt to Yahoo is in the wrong, and yes China is a feirce government that does have its share of corruption. However, after reading this I think Yahoo was not truning a blind eye. Instead the company just wanted to protect its workers and abid by the country rules. There are things I don’t agree with in the US but that deosn’t mean I don’t comply with them.
I agree with William.
Sean, Mike … how about Yahoo gets out of China? Thats the moral thing to do. Disobeying Chinese law is no more moral there than it is moral to break the law here and however bad the Chinese government is, they are the sovereign government of the land.
The point is don’t go to China if you don’t want to play by their rules, the moral thing is to stay home.
Though I disagree with you more often than not, this is one of your better posts. Well done.
It seems to me a lot of people are missing why this became a big story. It wasn’t just a question of “Did Yahoo do the right thing or not?” The major issue that’s made this a big story is that Yahoo was lying about not knowing the intent of the investigation. Their CEO testified that they did not know about the nature of the investigation, but it’s been revealed that the intent was in the letter from the Chinese government they received. They clearly stated that the investigation involved “state secrets.”
DUNCAN CHECKS OUT
===============
BREAKING NEWS: Duncan Riley, a self-claimed blogger at TechCrunch, a growing farce of a blog everyday, has checked out of technology and is moving into politics.
When questioned about it, he was candid about his shortcomings, “Well, I can’t really analyze technology because I don’t know s**t about analysis and technology. So, given that I am a dumb moron who resorts to cliche excuses, I think I will go into political opinions. I hear it’s a hot field where you can wag your finger, shake your head and counter anyone who disagrees with you by calling them unpatriotic or with cliches such as ‘don’t shoot the messenger’”. His ideal is Mr. O’Reilly.
Several Bay Area Technology Groups are mourning the loss of such a celebrated author and analyst in the wake of a Web 2.0 bubble. Duncan has been known to rally people around the world by getting them to agree on the fact that he is worst writer on the TC blog. His articles were also a sign of hope to many around the world who believed that anyone, and we mean ANYONE, could write a blog.
His blogs will be survived by several nasty comments and a few nice ones. Please express your support for his new decision by saying “Thank you Duncan”.
Well I think that China is just trying to protect their policy - I know some might not be 100% agree on their policy but it’s just something different..
It’s a booming country - I guess there should be some red tape..
Let’s face it, those Americans — politicians, officials and average joes alike — who attack Yahoo for this are just hypocrites. I bet that every single one of them would bent over backward to comply to chinese laws if they happen to have any interest or investment in China. It’s so easy to say that Yahoo should just get out of China when you have financial ties whatsoever to the company. Hypocrisy s so blatantly obvious with this kind of arguments.
A political flame war on a tech blog? Actually I enjoy the change of scenery. I’m generally siding with the author on this one. I agree China’s still go many problems (human rights violations, etc.) But in general, it’s political and economic climate is pretty ripe for investment right now. If I were Yahoo, I would’ve done the same thing.
As for people knocking on Duncan because of his supposed lack of political knowledge, this is a blog after all. Let him speak his mind, on whatever he so desires. Comments directed at the issues will determine the value of Duncan’s ideas. And ultimately, Arrington will decide whether Duncan should continue writing these kind of posts. Personally attacking Duncan doesn’t really help.
Frackin Yahoo! apologist…You probably gave Gizmodo the idea to use the man vs. PLA tank pic as cute and demean the tragedy of 1989…Appeasement is appeasement you putz.
@sean mcgee… sounds like bush and his mates, and i always thought that the slitties had their own sliteyed goverment. wake up and smell the cheese homo
What a morally repugnant post. This guy’s in prison for 10 years because of Yahoo’s actions, and your comment is “they had to obey the law”? What utter crap.
einar… what a gay name! do u do business with the state? no.1 terrorist on earth…
@siftee: Wow. You almost put together a complete sentence there.
The fact some of you are having a problem with understanding what Yahoo did explains some much in todays America.
The fact some of you are having a problem with understanding what Yahoo did explains so much in todays America.
Oooops
sorry, comment above was the states… or USA
what u trying to say gayboy? how is china worse that the us of a?
woah interesting thread - totally different string than I’ve read anywhere else. And I don’t think Duncan is American by the way.
This is the proverbial rock and hard place. Yahoo’s taking a bashing on this one and I’m not sure I disagree as someone is in jail for 10 years now for expressing his opinion. But wow, this is a nuanced issue - one that *any* company involved in user generated content needs to pay attention to.
@siftee: China as a country isn’t worse than the USA or any other country. In fact, it’s pretty cool. It’s the governments that give bad names to their Countrys. (USA included.) Instead of just assuming I’m a Bush-loving-WASP, try adding something constructive to the discussion. You can call me whatever you want, but you’ll just be proving yourself to be the biggest tool in the chest.
@Jason:
Maybe. But let’s think about the facts for a second; A guy is in prison for 10 years. Yahoo is to blame. If Yahoo wasn’t there, this guy would not be in prison.
Yahoo claims that they had to obey local law. Maybe, but Yahoo can’t hide behind ‘we needed to follow local law’ as a moral get-out-of-fail-free card because they voluntarily put themselves in that position. How? By choosing to do business in China.
If their general counsel finds the Chinese laws that they “have to” obey morally wrong, then why aren’t they pulling out of China?
@siftee: Great point.
I have been all over this world, communist, socialist, Islamic, Orthodox Christian.
USA is not like any of them unless it comes to the “N” word
Moral pygmies?!?! This coming from the US govt who exported alleged terrorists to other countries for torture and interrogation because it is illegal to do so on US soil? Truth of the matter, politicians will spew morality only when it suits their needs. In this case, it is to divert attention away from how big of a failure the US is wrt Iraq and that whole mess. It’s much much easier to point fingers at someone else instead of admitting that the US govt f*** up.
The problem with Yahoo! isn’t the fact that they are doing business in China. Even Microsoft and Google do business in China.
The problem is that they have user information of Chinese citizens in China, which allows the government to extend its “generosity” to those who disagree with it.
To my knowledge, both Google and Microsoft only place user information in human rights friendly nations. If Yahoo! did the same, I would not have a problem with them.
But until then, the congressional comments about them are spot on.
PS
Comparing China to Nazi Germany is silly, as they are their own flavor of evil (just like communist Russia was in their day). However, China does brutally oppress people of faith (Christians and Muslims) as well as those in Tibet and mothers wanting a second child.
To simply excuse behavior because of the whole “sovereignty act,” justifies what’s happening in Darfur.
If keep saying to ourselves that we are not our “brother’s keeper,” we are only going to screw ourselves over, as well as half the planet.
Very thoght provoking..i read a lot about it in NYT.
http://www.meetingflex.com
Yahoo put the bottom line ahead of a users freedom. They are clearly in the wrong here.
How Techcrunch can get all over PPP and then whitewash a clear violation of a users privacy is beyond me.
China may not be Nazi Germany, but putting people jail for political thought is pretty damn close. Glad to see where TC stands: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
@77 that is you point of view. Makes you wonder if there is a bomb strapped to your chest as you head over to the GOP office
Enjoy the blog, but just my two cents: horrible post.
http://thereport.amnesty.org/e.....ific/China
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17349
“Yahoo’s actions might have been in part wrong morally, but legally they have done nothing wrong, and in a global economy this is even more true.”
What is one life when measured against a company’s profit margin? Where does responsibility lie for this man’s fate? Legally they have done nothing wrong. Legally, Rosa Parks was entirely wrong.
“Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Duncan, I completely agree. We can’t do business in China, profit from it, and selectively disobey certain laws in China. Besides, businesses are not political activists in China - that simply wouldn’t work.
By doing business in China, we support the oppressive regime somewhat. But we also develop an ally and help to bring China from poverty to prosperity, which is good for everyone.
What people don’t realize is that China cannot suddenly give everyone their civil rights or have a completely free market. The West is successful because it developed and grew over a very long period of time. In order to rapidly develop the economy of China, the communist party must maintain order and control. If they don’t, there will be more unrest, someone else will come to power, and China could collapse.
So while Rep. Chris Smith sits in Washington with a smug look on his face, he ignores the unique challenges that China faces, and the many instances of injustice that occur in the US (for instance, illegal wire tapping - maybe he should scold AT&T).
BTW - I am appalled at the oppression in China. I have lived there before, for two years. They don’t publish or even collect information on public health or their education system because the communist party does not want to be measured or judged. They control the state media and oppress minority races and minority religions.
But when we are dealing with laws and specifically about conduct of our own businesses in a foreign country, our goal should be consistency. Are we doing business in China? Did our country support China’s WTO membership? Ok, then we must follow their laws or we are corrupt. And lets not kid ourselves here, half the people who criticized this post are ignoring the fact that the US has it’s own problems with ethics. Yet foreign businesses doing business here are expected to comply with all laws.
Great post Duncan… couldn’t agree more
@ “A Cow”:
The name of this blog is what again: TechCrunch, right?
The reason for starting this blog is what again: Let me try using the words from TC. In the “About Us” page, they state, “TechCrunch, founded on June 11, 2005, is a weblog dedicated to obsessively profiling and reviewing new Internet products and companies. In addition to covering new companies, we profile existing companies that are making an impact (commercial and/or cultural) on the new web space.”
Then WTF is political commentary doing here?
Stop moo’ing and start thinking.