UK's Journalists Calling For Yahoo! Boycott 111
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."
Shameless, Yahoo (Score:1)
boycott? You serious? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:boycott? You serious? (Score:1)
Re:boycott? You serious? (Score:1)
If you do not consider it a product, you can still consider using it an activity, and therefore you can reduce it (although I don't see how you can use an activity).
Re:boycott? You serious? (Score:1)
Answer to Question 1: Yahoo makes money off of marketing and advertising. By refusing to use their search engine alone which utilizes advertising.
Answer to Question 2: National Union of Journalists.
Maybe you should Google NUJ and the IFJ which they belong to.
Re:boycott? You serious? (Score:2)
Yahoo doesn't exist? O.O
STOP THE PRESS!
Re:boycott? You serious? (Score:2)
There is no press.
Re:boycott? You serious? (Score:2)
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.
Re:boycott? You serious? (Score:2)
Just like when you sleep with a girl that you live with during a druken party, but she doesn't want it to go anywhere when you wake up next to each other the next day. She says 'we will never speak of this night again' and you say 'who the fuck are you, get out my bed!'
Selective attention by UK journalists (Score:1)
Re:Selective attention by UK journalists (Score:1)
Re:Selective attention by UK journalists (Score:1)
Hmm? wonder how fast these journalists will unitely drop this when another Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson trial comes up?
Ah Journalists always looking towards the future, without doing anything except complain about the present.
Re:Selective attention by UK journalists (Score:2)
Re:boycott? You serious? (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Hit the Company by Hitting the Bottom Line (Score:3, Informative)
Where have you been for the past 6 months?
At any rate, I think the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. US ISPs are regularly compelled to provide information on customers regarding copyright violations. What's worse about China doing the same for activities which are just as illegal there
Long Time Coming (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Pointless (Score:1, Funny)
Yahoo said it themselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yahoo said it themselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Yahoo said it themselves. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yahoo's not providing change for the better in China by creating the illusion of free exc
Re:Yahoo said it themselves. (Score:1)
Delusion. The key word is delusion. They need to learn that while communism is ready to sacrifice people for the sake of crazy idea, at the same time, the capitalists are ready to sacrifice people for the sake of profits.
It's sad, but that's reality.
Economics (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yahoo said it themselves. (Score:2)
Re:Yahoo said it themselves. (Score:1)
Well, Yahoo! could ask.
They could demand a written, official request.
They could do what "news media" are expected to do when "authorities" demand the name of a source f
Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:1)
Correct. A business makes money.
If a corporation were a human individual, it would be an individual with severe psychosis. [thecorporation.com]
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:3)
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
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:2)
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,
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:2)
Well, according to your user info page, you've posted 2193 comments, against my 4027 (plus this one, making 4028 by the time I hit submit). That doesn't sound too bad (for you) until you compare our UIDs...
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:2)
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
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:2)
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:1)
Umm, I'd like to introduce you to a couple of people... This one works for the RIAA, and this one works for the MPAA.
They are here to take your first born, your left arm, and your computer. Three months from now they will file suit against you for downloading mp3's on the computer you no longer have.
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:2)
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:2)
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
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:2)
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
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:1)
Re:Not too say democracy is a bad thing... (Score:1)
Here's the thing. You're part of society and so am I. It's the people who define what the moral requirements are to operate. Since they're not behaving the way I, and many others think they should, it's up to us to apply pressure to them to change their ways. If they can't act as an ethical business while operating in China, then it's their responsibility to leave. No amount of good can justify violating the basi
Dosent matter government will find new sources (Score:1)
So in short, if the government wants details of all your emails they will have it "By hook or By Crook"
Stuck between a rock and a hard place (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Stuck between a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
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
Re:Stuck between a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
I disagree. I think the real ethical choice is between:
Re:Stuck between a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure none of that is true, though it's a common misconception. See here [onlineopinion.com.au], for example.
Re:Stuck between a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
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
Re:Stuck between a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
It's not just being high profile (though that doesn't help); it's the specific actions. IMHO if one company is opening a factory and employing people in China, and another company is turning in pro-democracy campaigners in to the (oppressive) government, well, I don't think it's unreasonable to make a distinction between the two companies.
I suppos
Totally foolish boycott (Score:2, Insightful)
Another case of liberals going overboard. Nothing to see here, move along.
Re:Totally foolish boycott (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Totally foolish boycott (Score:2)
"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",
Re:Totally foolish boycott (Score:2)
Yeah, that'll help.
Re:Totally foolish boycott (Score:2)
Doing something in London or Peoria does not do a lot where the problem is, in China. It's putting pressure on someone who has no power to change things. If they were putting pressure on the Chinese government about this, that would be different. But, it is symbolism over substance for these people.
Unless you're advocating an invasion of China to fix things, change has to come from the Chinese people themselves. Yahoo et al are t
Re:Totally foolish boycott (Score:2)
I am not interested in how much you care. I am interested in what you can accomplish.
Re:Totally foolish boycott (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Totally foolish boycott (Score:1)
Re:Totally foolish boycott (Score:1)
Conservatives used to protest Communist human rights abuses and insist on trade sanctions. Ronald Reagan famously demanded "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and used an official speech to denounce the USSR as "evil".
We're not looking at a liberal vs. conservative issue here.
We need better labels (Score:1)
I thought libersls favored government intervention. I thought conservatives favored freedom (except when they want to restrict it in the name of freedom -- but that's just neocons, I guess).
And I thought anyone with an open mind could see that both the boycotters and the 'engagers' have valid arguments. In any case, this certainly defies simplification of the liberal/conservative sort. (And, yes, I know my neocon barb was guilty of the same oversimplificatio
Google next? (Score:2)
Will Google support the journalists, and remove any Yahoo! feeds from news.google.com or do they already not use Yahoo!?
Re:Google next? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Google next? (Score:2)
Re:Google next? (Score:1)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
No one's saying Google's behaviour is good in this, but the moral equivalence between Google and Yahoo just doesn't exist.
Whatever (Score:2, Insightful)
not Whatever (Score:1)
I am tired of companies insisting that there is nothing they can do. When a company in the US wants a US law changed, they spare no expense.
I am also tired of the bullshit claim that businesses are soulless entities that have no responsibility to the public and only to their shareholders. Businesses are made up of individuals who make the decisions (e.g., to se
Re:Whatever (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Yahoo is right (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Yahoo is right (Score:2)
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.
Re:Yahoo is right (Score:2)
In the case of China.. that's not out of the question.
'issue bigger than us' cop out (Score:1)
Re:'issue bigger than us' cop out (Score:2)
The NUJ headline rocks! (Score:2)
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.
Devil's Advocate for Yahoo (Score:2)
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.
A bit rich (Score:2)
Re:A bit rich (Score:2)
Boycotting the wrong thing (Score:1)
In many cases, Yahoo! does not know the real identity of individuals for whom governments request information, as very often our users subscribe to our services without using their real names.
Might be what they're implying here is most journalist contacts in China aren't stupid enough to supply their real info.
Maybe instead of boycotting a route for information to/from/about a communist dictatorship, the NUJ should try boycotting the dictatorship. Crazy idea, huh?
Re:Boycotting the wrong thing (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be BETTER to BOYCOTT WalMart? (Score:1)
Amnesty International has reported recently that Box Store Giant WalMart, in an effort to feed our unquenchable consumerism with continued low prices is paying it's Chinese workers HALF of the legal minimum wage in China. What's worse is the legal minimum is still considered a HUNGER wage (meaning you still go hungry even though you work full time)
I'm pleased to see that some effort is being made to punish companies that choose to do business with despotic governments, it's the only power consumers actual
already there (Score:2)
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
All Purpose Excuse and Yahoo CYA (Score:2)
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
Re:All Purpose Excuse and Yahoo CYA (Score:1)
Agreed I don't think anyone company dealing with China with their oppressive and corrupt regime can really do business there without getting dirty and a boycott on China commercially though enticing would just hurt both of our economies.
We really should wonder with what the US government is supposed to stand for, why China is still on our countries perfered importers list.
Just makes me feel as an (Chinese)American that i'm living in a state of hypocracy.
I don't know why, but this actually reminds me... (Score:1)
Who knows. Maybe it's just me.
China not so bad (Score:2)
Re:China not so bad (Score:1)
Be it the US with GTMO, Saudia Arabia and most of the middle east, and their extreme take on the Law of Moses, China, and North Korea with their extreme stance on government criticism and censorship or The republic of Congo with their basic lack of common sense over corruption.
There is no such thing as sort of inhumane, or to allow some social injustic
Fiduciary Responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong-- I don't have any loyalty to Yahoo ('specially that worthless search engine), but if Yahoo didn't take this opportunity on "moral grounds" you can be 100% certain that they would immediately be sued by their shareholders...
Just my $0.02, and btw IANAA (I am not an attorney), just spend too much time with a few that I kn
Re:Fiduciary Responsibility (Score:1)
Re:Fiduciary Responsibility (Score:1)
A company has a responsibiity to the corporation. This includes the reputation of the corporation, the staff, the shareholders, potential creditors, and others. Furthermore, they are not obliged to maximise profits, but "work in the interests of the corporation". Its a reasonable opinion that turning someone in to an oppressive regime is not in the best interests of the corporation.
Re:Fiduciary Responsibility (Score:1)
You sound like a lawyer. Do you work for the MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft or something? j/k....Maybe...
The problem is that more people are worried about whats in their wallet more than whats in anybody elses wallet. If I can make my life a little easier by making other peoples lives a lot harder so be it. Lets all turn a blind eye!
To me that doesn't sound too responsible it just sounds selfish or greedy?
Unfortunately to many companies take profit over morality. Wish more people acted like Costco... Or h
US Government Kow-towing on a Soap Box (Score:1)
They talk about how tech companies are bad by obeying laws that would allow US companies to operate in China yet totally drop the ball on human rights issues and let hundreds of thousands of chinese employees in sweat shops create cheap manufactured products and allow other US companies to sell these items to the US consumers to gobble up. I don't hear them scolding Disney lately for their