Microsoft hand in hand with an orwellian world

[Technocrat]

Well looks like microsoft has proven again that it cares more for money then for people.

BBC News Tech Story

[SirSpanky]

Surprising? Microsoft's responsabilities are to its shareholders, period.

In your search for humanist morals, avoid conglomorates

[Cameron]

From the article, it sounds like it's more of china's finger on the sensor button. Microsoft knows that China is a HUGE market, do you think they want to piss off the government and not get a piece of the pie....yea...It's all about the bucks man. Microsoft isn't in the business of starting cyber revolutions...

[Riverwind]

From the article, it sounds like it's more of china's finger on the sensor button. Microsoft knows that China is a HUGE market, do you think they want to piss off the government and not get a piece of the pie....yea...It's all about the bucks man. Microsoft isn't in the business of starting cyber revolutions...

Yahoo and Google do the same thing. It is all about the money.

[August1991]

The BBC article above provides for comments and the following comment seems typical:

I don't agree with the censoring of information by any government, but I don't understand what is the problem with Microsoft actions here.  As all companies, Microsoft is at making money and in the modern world, ethics is not good for business, which is sad but you can see it almost anywhere if you have a look at the world.

The comment implies that "creating wealth through trade is unethical". I find such logic appalling, and far too common.

Firstly, it is the Chinese government that is imposing censorship - not Microsoft. But far more gravely, the comment in effect blames a telephone for the unethical conversations people have with one. Microsoft is just a way to organize voluntary relations between people - like a boat, a street or a market. If a boat won't fly, does that make the boat unethical?

If that argument seems too subtle, consider thyis idea. North Koreans have no access to MSN messenger boards at all. Would China be better if Microsoft pulled out? (IME, the best way to deal with totalitarian states is to allow as much contact as possible on an individual-to-individual basis.)

And BTW, Orwell envisioned societies in which the State operated by coercion. No one is forced to buy Microsoft shares, products nor work for Microsoft. I have always found amusing leftists who cite Orwell.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August.

The comment implies that "creating wealth through trade is unethical".

That is a distortion, but

ethics is not good for business

is closer to the truth than your statement. The only way 'ethics can be good for business' is as a marketing ploy. (though some few adopt it out of pure compassion)

[kimmy]

While cooperating with China's censorship policies certainly isn't going to win Microsoft many fans, I don't think the onus is on Microsoft to be an agent of change.

When foreign businesses come to do business in Canada, we expect them to either follow our rules or stay home. And that appears to be what is happening with regard to Microsoft doing business in China. China's conditions for doing business appear to be a lot more restrictive than Canada's, but the theory still seems the same: follow the rules or stay home.

Microsoft's mandate is, as has been pointed out, to do business or not do business. Their mandate is not to attempt to change other societies.

Would the people of China be better served by having government-censored internet services, or none at all? Ultimately, I think that the Chinese government will find that this is more than they can handle. Maybe not today and maybe not tomorrow, but someday people are going to look at this as one of the straws that eventually broke the camel's back.

-k

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear kimmy,

Microsoft's mandate is, as has been pointed out, to do business or not do business. Their mandate is not to attempt to change other societies

indeed, they are in business to make money.

However, sometimes the desire to make money can lead people (or businesses ) to do bad things. Talisman Energy, for example, chose to get out of Sudan when it became apparent that the funds they paid the 'gov't' for the land was used to oppress and displace the local population in order to make the money. They have since tried (and to a large degree succeeded) to be one of the most 'ethical companies' in the world. Employees there are urged to not accept any form of graft or kickbacks, such as concert or plane tickets, etc, which are commonplace elsewhere. I believe that they are currently #18 or so on the list of 'ethical multi-nationals'.

Now, that being said, is it ok for Microsoft to help squash freedom and democracy elsewhere? The US gov't would have a fit of apoplexy if they did the same thing (or even tried to do business) in Cuba.