Microsoft plays footsie with China

[Christiern]

Thursday June 16 2005

'Beijing's bitch'

By Guardian Unlimited / World news 02:36pm

News that Microsoft had joined forces with the Chinese government to ban words such as "democracy", "human rights" and "freedom" from its weblog service, MSN Spaces, had set “the blogosphere a-buzzin’," remarked Tim Bray at his Ongoing blog. Bray was not alone, writes Toby Manhire, in condemning the US company for agreeing to "be Beijing’s bitch to buy some bloggers".

Roger L. Simon, too, was aghast to see Microsoft "playing footsie with [a] fascist regime". Bill Gates had revealed himself to be "a moral weakling". That said, Simon could not "imagine any self-respecting blogger would even consider using MSN Spaces while this policy continues. That would be cooperating with totalitarianism, obviously the antithesis of what we are trying to do."

But Beau Monday thought that the Chinese would have little difficulty circumventing the portal restrictions, "even if they have to use the word 'cabbage' when they mean 'democracy'. No democratic movement in the history of mankind has ever stalled just because the word 'democracy' could not be uttered".

MSN’s explanation — that it "abides by the laws, regulations and norms of each country in which it operates" — won little sympathy. "The mark of a great company is one that is not afraid to turn away business if it violates their sense of ethics," argued Yohn Yunker at Corante. "When American-based companies assist a government in banning the use of words like 'freedom' and 'democracy' these companies have become part of the problem and not part of the solution. This isn't localisation; this is capitulation."

For Mark Desrosiers at New Patriot the episode underscored "how unfettered markets have no concern whatsoever with spreading democracy. A major American company will eagerly kowtow even to the most repressive crypto-communist nationalist regimes — and broadcast its own humiliation in the blogosphere — so long as there is profit to be extracted."

Mr. Brightside warmed to that theme at his Day in the Life blog. "Microsoft's decision, and indeed modern China as a whole, shows that there is nothing incompatible between capitalism and totalitarianism," he said. "The cold war myth of 'capitalism leads to democracy' is again proven false."

Microsoft employee Robert Scoble offered a rare defence of the MSN move at Scobleizer. Americans, he argued, have "absolutely no business forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in." When he visited China — "about seven years ago" — he met with government officials, students and academics. "They explained their anti-free-speech stance to me and I understand it. I don't agree with it … but it's not my place to make their laws. It certainly is not my right to force their hand with business power."

What did Rebecca McKinnion, who has worked in China as a journalist for nine years, think of that? It was "the biggest pile of horseshit about China I’ve come across in quite some time", she declared at RConversation. "In my experience, most Chinese, like all other human beings I've ever met, would very much like to have freedom of speech." In any case, she continued, "declining to collaborate with this system is not 'forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in'. Declining to collaborate would be the only way to show that your stated belief in free speech is more than empty words."

Edited June 18, 2005 by Christiern

[vibes]

Chris, are you going to mention the greed of other companies, like Google and Yahoo, that also comply with Chinese laws on freedom of speech, or lack thereof?

You do business in another country, you obey its laws. I don't think this has much to do with greed.

[Christiern]

Good point. Check new thread title.

[Guy Berger]

I guess I'm not sure what the proper course of action is for Microsoft. Censorship is fucked up, but my understanding is that Microsoft is merely complying with Chinese law. (If they were designing special software in order to facilitate Chinese censorship, that'd be a completely different kettle of fish.) I imagine other companies have to do the same.

So it comes down to whether Microsoft should say, "Either you change the law or we're leaving." I'm not sure what the proper decision is -- we're talking about (easily evaded) government censorship, not about more horrific human rights violations. Blogs with partially effective gov't censorship are better than no blogs at all -- what would happen if western companies running blogs withdrew in protest?

I think this is interesting, by the way, because it illustrates what living under a garden-variety dictatorship is like.

Guy

[Jazzmoose]

Cabbage now!