Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

UK's Journalists Calling For Yahoo! Boycott

Posted by timothy on Mon Jun 05, 2006 01:27 PM
from the damned-if-do-damned-if-don't dept.
Censorship Businesses The Internet Yahoo!
truthsearch writes "The UK's National Union of Journalists is calling for a boycott of Yahoo! because of its 'unethical behaviour' in China. Yahoo! has given details of at least three people to Chinese authorities who were subsequently imprisoned. 'The NUJ regards Yahoo!'s actions as a completely unacceptable endorsement of the Chinese authorities. As a result, the NUJ will be cancelling all Yahoo!-operated services and advising all members to boycott Yahoo! until the company changes its irresponsible and unethical policy.' Yahoo! sent a response to The Register."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Yahoo China has the Worst Filtering Policy 184 comments
rmunaval writes "Reporters Without Borders has an article on search-result censorship in China by different companies. The conclusion was made based on six politically sensitive keywords. A search on yahoo.cn resulted in 97% pro-Beijing results compared to 83% on google.cn and 78% on msn.cn." From the article: "[Yahoo!] is therefore censoring more than its Chinese competitor Baidu. Above all, the organisation was able to show that requests using certain terms, such as 6-4 (4 June, date of the Tiananmen Square massacre), or 'Tibet independence', temporarily blocked the search tool. If you type in one of these terms on the search tool, first you receive an error message. If you then go back to make a new request, even with a neutral key word, yahoo.cn refuses to respond."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

UK's Journalists Calling For Yahoo! Boycott 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • boycott? You serious? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mmThe1 (213136) * on Monday June 05 2006, @01:33PM (#15474161) Homepage
    boycott: an agreement usually among a particular segment of the population to reduce or stop the use and purchase of certain products or activities. (from here [pbs.org])

    Question 1: How can you reduce or stop something that's non-existent?

    Question 2: Agreement? Among journalists? Yeah, right.

    And yes, I Googled for that definition.
    • > Question 1: How can you reduce or stop something that's non-existent?

      Yahoo doesn't exist? O.O

      STOP THE PRESS!
    • To boycott Yahoo means to stop using Yahoo products. (search, email, messenger, web hosting, any Yahoo services)

      Answers:

      Question 1: How can you reduce or stop something that's non-existent?

      What doesn't exist? Yahoo services? Just stop using anything Yahoo is how to boycott Yahoo.

      Question 2: Agreement? Among journalists? Yeah, right.

      I don't understand the question. Journalist can't come to an agreement? Sure they do. All the time as sometimes it's the difference between life and death.
    • Agreement? Among journalists? Yeah, right.

      Are you kidding? One of the primary problems with journalism right now is excessive agreement amoungst the journalists. It's a rare issue where you won't get at least 80% agreement right now, possibly more, on issues where the general public is substantially more split.

      It is, slowly, getting better, but it sure is taking a long time, and I still couldn't hardly name a journalist that I'd call "libertarian". (John Stossel, maybe.) Even the diversity that is slowly de

    • Hit the Company by Hitting the Bottom Line (Score:4, Insightful)

      by reporter (666905) on Monday June 05 2006, @02:37PM (#15474675) Homepage
      In a declaration [rsf.org] in 2006 January, Reporters without Borders issued the following recommendation.
      No US company would be allowed to host e-mail servers within a repressive country*. So, if the authorities of a repressive country want personal information about the user of a US company's e-mail service, they would have to request it under a procedure supervised by US.

      Yahoo has, thus far, refused to move its servers from China to the USA.

      Both Microsoft and Google have, thus far, declined to locate their servers in China.

      In other words, Yahoo has the power to make substantive changes to its business model (to protect human rights) without significantly injuring its position in China. Unfortunately, the entire management of Yahoo, up to Jerry Yang (who is Chief Yahoo and has strong affinity to Chinese values), supports catering to Beijing.

      We, in the West, should hit Yahoo as hard as we can by hitting its bottom line. Until Yahoo rises to the decency of Google, which itself is no angel of goodness, we should financially pummel Yahoo by boycotting its services.

  • Long Time Coming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Monday June 05 2006, @01:36PM (#15474183)

    You can rail against the PROC-friendly attitude of Yahoo! (and others) all you like, but the company simply isn't going to care until you hit them where it hurts...in the pocketbook.

    Kudos to the National Union of Journalists for putting their beliefs into action, but will this blow to the pocketbook be enough, or is Yahoo! even going to notice?

  • Yahoo said it themselves. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Monday June 05 2006, @01:36PM (#15474189) Homepage Journal
    From Yahoo's response to the Register:

    Ultimately, U.S. companies in China face a choice: comply with Chinese law, or leave.

    Most of my quick responses to this boil down to "Then LEAVE," but the money is so shiny, isn't it? In any case, the whole letter is interesting, and is worth reading TFA if you haven't yet.

    • But does leaving really make the situation better or worse for all parties involved? If Yahoo! left China it would be looked apon more favorably by other people in other countries... for about five minutes. But this would loose them money which would lead to the stock holders replacing the board and we would be right back into the issue of doing business in China.

      Don't forget how this could affect the Chinese people. Not the government, but the actual people. Is it better to just leave them high and d

      • Is it better for the Chinese people to have access to webservices that they think are run by a Western company that actually cares about its users' privacy, is run by capitalists who one would assume would be sympathetic to any anti-Communist sentiments they might express, and who won't sell them out to their government to make a buck, or for them to not be under that delusion? I'd say they're better off without Yahoo.

        Yahoo's not providing change for the better in China by creating the illusion of free exc

      • China is working to be a huge economic superpower. They can only become one with the interaction of other nations and companies in those nations. If no one did any business with China they would remain weak and be forced to act on the pressures of other nations.

        These days economic persuasion is one of the most effective ways of bringing about reform. Having international businesses operate there puts no economic pressure on them at all.

  • Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oahazmatt (868057) on Monday June 05 2006, @01:40PM (#15474215) Journal
    But Yahoo!, along with Google and MSN, are business, first and foremost. None of these are meant to be champions of the people. All of these business want to do business in China, and currently the only way for them to do so is to abide by the laws established in China. Are those laws necessarily fair to the people? No. Is it the responsibility of Yahoo!, Google or MSN to bring about a revolution in China? No. A business is supposed to make money.

    However, there is some nudging to be made. Google alerts the user when results are being ommitted. Nothing peaks one's interest more than "There's something here they don't want you to see".

    • However, there is some nudging to be made. Google alerts the user when results are being ommitted. Nothing peaks one's interest more than "There's something here they don't want you to see".

      People keep saying this, but it is not (AFAICT) true: Google.cn inserts a boilerplate notice at the bottom of every page that results may be censored. It does not provide any specific information about the extent or details of censorship.

    • Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pendersempai (625351) on Monday June 05 2006, @01:54PM (#15474331)
      Since when does a profit motive exempt anyone, corporation or human, from morality? Would you say that there is no moral problem with what hit men do for a living?
      • Since when does a profit motive exempt anyone, corporation or human, from morality? Would you say that there is no moral problem with what hit men do for a living?

        Depends on who gets hit, and why.

        How about a little less sophistry, and more reality. There is no way, on balance, that more information - seen by more people - can be anything but good for an eventually more open society in China. Stories about their government using data from businesses operating units in their country to deal unreasonably

        • There is no way, on balance, that more information - seen by more people - can be anything but good for an eventually more open society in China.

          There absolutely is a way that more information can be worse than less: if the information is misinformation, either by systematic inaccuracy or by systematic bias. Information has been used to oppress the masses ever since the invention of writing. Every oppressive regime that I can think of in recent history has had some analogue of a biased, state-sponsored n

          • There absolutely is a way that more information can be worse than less: if the information is misinformation

            Let's not confuse propoganda (by direct utterance or by context-twisting, etc) with "information." I was using the word "information" to mean "actual for-real-facts." I'll maintain my larger point, which is that the Chinese regime can only exist as long as we're busy shipping truckloads (well, boatloads) of cash to it in exchange for what their people produce. The more we buy from them, the higher
          • Hundreds of times I have read your sig

            Yikes! I think I must post too often.

            I assume that a 'bird dog' is a dog used for retrieving hunted birds and that you should take your bird dog hunting regularly to satisfy its natural behaviour and instincts?

            Certainly the phrase "bird dog" is a little broad, but yes, it generally covers the wide range of breeds that are used to help in hunting birds. People who favor specifically retrieving dogs (like Labroador Retrievers) tend to most hunt waterfowl (geese,
    • But Yahoo!, along with Google and MSN, are business, first and foremost.

      They're groups of people, first and foremost. And each individual in that group lives by his/her own moral values. Being a group of people they also operate collectively by a set of moral values. They've chosen money as being more important than free Chinese citizens.

      Companies are artificial entities. They only exist because of the people that run them. These are people choosing to not support freedom when they could actually make
      • "They're groups of people, first and foremost. And each individual in that group lives by his/her own moral values. Being a group of people they also operate collectively by a set of moral values. They've chosen money as being more important than free Chinese citizens."

        Yes they are groups of people; groups of people who want to make money. The managing group of people which wants to make money hires others to work for them, but not necessarily give them any sort of reasonable input for guiding the company
    • Ethics pervade every decision made by the modern corporation.

      And honestly, if it's not Google Yahoo or MSN's responsibility to bring about revolution, then whose is it? It's nobody's DUTY, but there are many corporations who go out of their way to go beyond their ethical duties to do what's right even though they don't have to. That's called corporate responsibility, and every day ethical corporations make money-losing decisions in the pursuit of what's right; whereas unethical corporations do not. Let us
    • Yes, they are a business first and foremost. And as a business keeping their customers happy (and paying) is first and foremost.

      Which means if the customer base wants more "socially ethical" behavior from corporations, then this is exactly what they should do.

      I'm a staunch libertarian, but I'm getting sick and tired of the "they are a corporation, they are supposed to do this, you shouldn't complain" movement. It's complete bullshit. Individuals, communities, and organizations utilizing their power in bo

  • Stuck between a rock and a hard place (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bogtha (906264) on Monday June 05 2006, @01:43PM (#15474251)

    I totally agree that corporations should not be sharing private information with governments. But it would be a lot easier to take the boycotters seriously if they had a sensible suggestion as to what Yahoo could possibly do about it. Just withdraw from the country? Let their Chinese management get arrested for breaking the law by not sharing the data?

    Are the boycotters also boycotting every other corporation that does business in China, or just the ones unlucky enough to have a high-profile demand made of them?

    • Ethically, this question really boils down to whether you accept the premise in TFA: do Yahoo! make a positive overall contribution to the people of China, or are isolated but rather dramatic cases like this too high a price?

      If their contribution is a net plus, then this is the price of doing business in today's China, then there is nothing else they could have done here. We have to accept this, and hope for better things in the future as a result of that positive contribution and others like it.

      If thei

      • Ethically, this question really boils down to whether you accept the premise in TFA: do Yahoo! make a positive overall contribution to the people of China, or are isolated but rather dramatic cases like this too high a price?

        I disagree. I think the real ethical choice is between:

        • Yahoo's obligation to their shareholders to make money - that they deliberately, willingly took on when they went public.
        • Yahoo's obligation to Chinese citizen's freedom - that they haven't deliberately taken on, but which
    • Are the boycotters also boycotting every other corporation that does business in China, or just the ones unlucky enough to have a high-profile demand made of them?

      And, did they take off practically every thread of clothing they were wearing, and use only... um... British-made?... non-Chinese-parts computers while swapping the e-mail they used to set up their boycott? The Chinese government's horsepower comes as much from the huge amount of overall economic activity the west in enabling them to enjoy as i
  • Yahoo acted under the letter of the law. They are not to blame for this, rather the government of China is. No matter what else, some of the data that the government of China does not want it's people to see is leakign past, so it si better for them to be there in the long run.

    Another case of liberals going overboard. Nothing to see here, move along.

    • Re:Totally foolish boycott (Score:5, Insightful)

      by truthsearch (249536) on Monday June 05 2006, @02:15PM (#15474520) Homepage Journal
      Another case of liberals going overboard.

      If by "liberals" you mean people, and by "going overboard" you mean caring... then yes, many of us are guilty as charged. Good job stereotyping and trying to negate an opinion based on your pointless classification!

      • "Liberal" as in thinking, "Complying with the laws of China resulting in a journalist/blogger/grandmother being jailed for violating Chinese law" is completely different than "Complying with the laws of the USA resulting in a pedophile being jailed for stalking children online". In both cases, the company is doing what it is legally required to do. To claim moral superiority or inferiority for one action versus the other is selective outrage, at best. Repeat after me - it's the Chinese laws that are "bad",

    • Yahoo acted under the letter of the law. They are not to blame for this, rather the government of China is.

      ah yes, the "I was only following orders" defence... Yahoo! ARE to blam for meekly complying with the Chinese. They should have told the Chinese EXACTLY where to get off... but then again, in this day and age, it seems that money comes before principles

  • I wonder why they aren't calling for a boycott of Google too? Maybe they are next.

    Will Google support the journalists, and remove any Yahoo! feeds from news.google.com or do they already not use Yahoo!?
    • I think google pulled it's servers out of china, that way they can defy the PRC "requests" without worrying about employees being put in prison for it.

      Also, (probably because of that), while Yahoo has put three people in prison, Google has put none in, to the best of my knowledge--what is there to object to?

  • Whatever (Score:2, Insightful)

    by moe.ron (953702)
    At the end of the day the real problem here is China, not any of the US companies operating there. The letter from Yahoo! points out the obvious, if you're there you have comply with the local law, they had no choice at the time. As for whether or not any US company chooses to operate in china, what difference does it make with regards to human rights there in China? At the very least, a US company operating in China has the ability to pay a decent wage and give their Chinese employees good benefits but bey
    • As for whether or not any US company chooses to operate in china, what difference does it make with regards to human rights there in China? At the very least, a US company operating in China has the ability to pay a decent wage and give their Chinese employees good benefits but beyond that how could they possibly change China's human rights policies?

      Oh, that's simple. They could refuse to do business with China. As could many other western businesses. Call it a boycott if you want. China is trying to gr

  • Yahoo is right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by egarland (120202) on Monday June 05 2006, @01:51PM (#15474307)
    Yahoo doesn't get to choose to ignore laws they think are wrong. If the DOJ shows up at a library wanting to know who is reading about a certain topic they have to comply, even if they believe the order is wrong and evil, and/or unconstituional. If the DOJ shows up at Yahoo and demands the same thing, they must also comply. Why would Chinese laws would apply any less?

    It's WILDLY hipocritcal for the US Congress to haul Yahoo in and chastize them for complying with the same kinds of immoral, illegal, intrusive orders that they themselves are allowing the US government to issue.

    Glass houses, stones, pot, kettle... etc. etc. This is simply dog wagging.
    • If the DOJ shows up at a library wanting to know who is reading about a certain topic they have to comply,

      Or so the DOJ claims. The American Library Association disagrees [ala.org], and will advise any library recieving such a request to take it to court.

      Until there's more case law established in this area (and note that at least one provision of the Patriot Act involved was found to be unconstitutional, as mentioned in the linked article), I'd say whether the library "has to" comply is unclear.

    • If the DOJ shows up at a library wanting to know who is reading about a certain topic they have to comply, even if they believe the order is wrong and evil, and/or unconstituional.

      Really? They're going to hold a gun to someone's head? Some people are willing to go to jail for what they believe in. It seems you're not and are projecting that on everyone else.

  • Consider it outside the context.

    "NUJ advises boycott of 'unethical' Yahoo!"

    It sounds to me like they were offended by some yokel publically masturbating in his front yard.

  • This is simply a case of CYA on the part of Yahoo. Yahoo does business in China, therefore Yahoo must abide by Chinese law when dealing with Chinese matters or face consequences.

    People seem to forget that each country makes their own laws, and anyone wishing to do business in those countries must abide by the local laws.

    Yes, the Chinese laws are bad, but I cannot change them, Yahoo and Google cannot change them, and certainly the UK Journalists cannot change them.
  • For UK papers to accuse someone of unethical practices. The sloppy MMR reporting has led to a huge growth in diseases which should almost be wiped out. The Daily Mail is constantly preaching hate. I think it was the news of the world which itself helped organise what were essentially lynch squads for pedophiles who had already done their time and received adequate punishment.
  • I've been boycotting Yahoo for years - I don't buy any ads from them.

    It's like DRM-encumbered CDs. For some, it may be a political issue; but for most, it's a product quality issue. If I don't buy your product or service because I don't like how you produce it (or something else), that's a boycott. If I don't buy it because I don't like the product or service, that's just plain old market action.

    You don't target a Yahoo boycott at users; you target it at advertisers. Don't forget who the products are, and w
  • When Yahoo! China in Beijing was required to provide information about the user, who we later learned was Shi Tao, we had no information about the nature of the investigation.

    1. Would it have made a difference if you had such information?

    2. Since all any government has to say is "Child Porn" in an investigation and you'll cough up everything you have anywhere in the world, do you see how you'll never be able to have a policy that could ever allow you to decide which demands you will honor, and which you

    • I don't really think it's a cop out, but it may actually be missing an even bigger picture than Yahoo! acknowledges in their letter. Yes, Yahoo! and other multinationals must obey the local laws to do business in a given country. And yes, that may mean being at odds with their own values. But what they miss or fail to acknowledge are the long term costs to them of being on the wrong side. If China ever does develop into what the west recognizes as a free and open society, there will very likely be those who

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.