Ballmer Defends Microsoft In China 162
An anonymous reader writes "Mr. Ballmer has recently posted on the official Microsoft blog discussing future business in China and defending Microsoft's stance of cooperating with the government even as other large IT companies have begun making public condemnations (Google and Twitter being the most prominent). Couple this with Bill Gate's speech on China's censorship being not all that bad (a speech very well received by Chinese media) and you've got people wondering: Is Microsoft aiming to take Google's place in China?"
Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)
you've got people wondering: Is Microsoft aiming to take Google's place in China?"
Of course they are! What a dumb question.
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. Microsoft wants to take Google's place everywhere.
In China specifically, Microsoft can't pack up and leave like Google did. China's already a big target for their anti-piracy efforts Their only option is to play nice with the government and get cooperation, no matter how bad it really is.
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
maybe Ballmer sees his reflection in China (Score:5, Insightful)
LoB
Re:Ubuntu's alignment with MS's search engine (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ubuntu's alignment with MS's search engine (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if this will have any impact Ubuntu's recent announcement that they are switching to use Yahoo (which is Microsoft Bing underneath) as the default search engine in their next release.
Yahoo already has a history of rolling over for the Chinese government [bbc.co.uk]. If Canonical doesn't mind associating with a company that helps oppressive regimes track down dissidents, I don't think Microsoft's announcement is going to make much difference.
i will remember this (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:1, Insightful)
Fixed that for you.
Microsoft have "no option" other than to obey ze orders, you say? I call Godwin [wikipedia.org] on that.
Re:More than likely. (Score:2, Insightful)
After all, they're only obeying orders, and so they bear absolutely no personal or corporate responsibility for the consequences of their actions. That's how it works, isn't it? Right?
That's right son, just obey the orders. And get that vagonload of Jews to the gas chambers.
I don't buy it. (Score:2, Insightful)
The important thing to keep in mind here is that Chinese by and large don't share the same mindset as Americans, that being that personal freedoms are more important than anything else. In fact, I don't think people in most Asian nations place value on personal freedoms to the extent Americans do. They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim. China is no longer the absolute disaster that it was under Mao and China in many was has more of a free market economy than the US does. But in general limits on social freedoms is very consistent with Chinese and asian culture.
There have been politicians in Hong Kong fighting increased Chinese control over the territory and several have resigned in protest. It makes sense since Hong Kong was exposed to the West so extensively for so long. That said, I'm curious to know if the average citizen even cares. Taiwan, which surveys have found to have among the most open-minded people in Asia, share many of these same beliefs. Certainly, exposure to Western culture is slowly eroding some of these long-held ideals.
I do find it ridiculous that Sergey Brin would somehow be touched by this cause considering that the situation in China is nothing at all like the situation was in the USSR. The Chinese government today is communist in name only. It makes me wonder if Google isn't making all this up to avoid discussion of the real reasons for their leaving China.
Re:i will remember this (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all like the USSR. Really! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More than likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):
"If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"
Understand that, and you understand the essential conundrum between respecting local laws and living according to principles. How corporations behave when faced with this says a lot about them and the people who run them.
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
At some point along that line, it no longer becomes immoral to remain in business, even if you are aware that some of your products are being used in an utterly despicable manner.
The question is not whether Microsoft should remain in business. It's whether it should do business with a government that will use your products in a repressive manner. A wagonmaker could probably sell his wagons to someone who does not kill its own citizens for their ethnicity and still remain in business. But here is the crux. It won't quite make as much money. And the pure lust for profit is what is objectionable here.
Re:It's quite simple. (Score:1, Insightful)
Ballmer's favorite tool, his Herman Miller Aeron Graphite Chair (medium size, C, if you are curious) has a frame developed in China.
Ballmer specifically picked it out for its aerodynamic properties.
Re:More than likely. (Score:1, Insightful)
That makes no sense. The Wheel makers deal with the Wagon makers, not the despicable entity. It is the business that deals directly with the entity in terms of direct sales that should be under scrutiny, not the ore miners, metal welders, axle and wheel makers.
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
What about when the order comes in for a wagon specialy designed for the purpose? China demands that they change their product in a way that everyone in the company has to recognize is unethical, but everyone just goes along with it and claims they're just following orders.
Re:Hey, maybe it's a good thing! (Score:1, Insightful)
Well. they have to go through the "Extend"-phase first, and that's sort of scary.
When will the Microsoft Re-education Suite hit the stores?
How about Microsoft Planned Economy? Now you only need one spreadsheet!
Re:More than likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
But if you want to work in any of these environments, you have to go by laws
Well, there are two problems here. The first is that the Chinese government and his state corporations don't obey Chinese law. Isn't it forbidden to hack into other peoples computers in China?
The second is the key difference between Microsoft and Google:
Microsoft is directed by your standard issue marketing drone, Ballmer, and the result is what you usually get from western corporations: mindless search for profits. He may as well be operating a arms dealership.
On the other hand, Google (and many of the internet startups) is directed by people that at least gives some thought to morals and let it "interfere" with business. For them there are some laws that one cannot obey.
Re:More than likely. (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, you could just, like, not go there, you know? It's not like you're being forced to.
The problem here is that not only Mr. and Mrs. Microsoft are going there but they're saying that they're pretty happy with the local laws. So it makes one wonder which is worse:
1. They really believe that, or
2. They don't believe it but they say it anyway just to get even more dirty money.
Re:i will remember this (Score:1, Insightful)
MS is a business, not a freedom fighter in the human rights movement.
If I can take this comment out of context for a second, I think we all have a responsiblity to protect freedom, for ourselves and for others. Problem is, most people don't realize that, or don't really care. Ballmer is probably the latter. I guess I am too.
Re:More than likely. (Score:2, Insightful)
And where do you draw the line? A country (or state) that still has the death penalty for crimes that don't carry the death penalty in your country (or state)? A country that invades other countries and kills their citizens with no legal warrant? With questionable legal warrant? A country that supplies any of the above with funding or equipment? A country in which individuals supply any of the above with funding or equipment? A country in which some groups are seriously repressed but not killed? A company with a diversity policy not quite as encompassing as yours?
Realistically, if you're making the gas chambers then you have decided your moral position by the business you are in. If you are making the actual tools of killing then there's a case that you have a moral duty to take care over how they will be used. But the further you get from that then the more your moral responsibility is diluted, to the point where it's lost in the noise.
Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?
Re:More than likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
The following question appeared on a political science final exam in college (pertaining to American History):
"If all laws are just, were the Founding Fathers criminals?"
For what it's worth, when answering a conditional question like that you have to take the "if" part to be true even if you don't consider it to be. So the interesting bits of that question are whether the Founding Fathers broke any laws whilst actually under the jurisdiction of those laws, and if all laws are just does that mean that all laws should have universal jurisdiction. I don't know enough American history to answer the first part, but I reckon I could make a strong case for an answer of "No" to the second.
Re:More than likely. (Score:1, Insightful)
The corporate foolishness (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that, the Communist Revolution in China is essentially lawless. The whole idea of a corporation requires that laws actually exist and be consistently enforced. You have to have property rights, speech rights, indeed, human rights for corporations to happen, otherwise, they too can be randomly jailed and seized - witness what's going on in Venezuela. So, really, Microsoft and Walmart and other China collaborators are really just hoping that the current personalities in China will be consistent, and they are foolish if they think those hopes are anything more than risky hopes.
Re:More than likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
What corporate responsibility? Because it seems to me there's a lot of talk about corporate responsibility, but when it comes to it, the powers that be don't really care what a corporation does so long as they don't screw the shareholders/government. Otherwise, when a corporation comes into violation with the law (and assuming the defendants can afford to holdout for the duration of the trial), the most they'll get is some nominal fine that sounds big to the average person, but is really no more than a slap on the wrist.
All this justification crap is just fluff. Here's the real reason Microsoft is in China: Microsoft wants to make money. China has money to spend. Therefore, Microsoft will cooperate with China so it can get some of it's money.
That's it. Surprising, I know. Honestly, Microsoft could go on about how it'd give every Chinese person a fucking ice-cream shitting unicorn and it'd come to the same effect. So long as the shareholders are happy, it doesn't really matter what they say to the public.
If you know your history... (Score:2, Insightful)
I am sure IBM didn't see anything wrong with Nazi Germany either.
Re:I don't buy it. (Score:4, Insightful)
They'd much rather have a secure, stable society than appease to every little whim.
This is a fallacy. Authoritarian government do not promote secure, stable societies. They repress. They oppress. They don't allow people with grievances to air them or to hold the government accountable for their actions.
Authoritarian governments CREATE instability because they eliminate the safety valves that prevent small grievances from becoming revolts.
Re:More than likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?
I can't speak for the entire community, but personally, I don't modify the system to order for censorship nor do I sell a support contract for that use.
Re:More than likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, self-regulation is a fantasy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for making it so clear that there is no hope for self-regulation at all. The only hope to keep companies behaving even the slightest therefor must come from government control. Nothing like a honest capitalist to make clear the need for government interference.
Sorry, that is a lie (Score:4, Insightful)
MS is NOT selling its soul in China for revenue. You cannot sell what you do not have. Ballmer and Gates have no morals. Oh, they are not evil, that takes a commitment. They just have absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. Look at how Bill Gates does his charity work, always with an angle to somehow better MS. It is the way he thinks.
And before you defend him, remember that is a LOT easier to have morals if you are rich. If MS pulled out of China what would happen to these two guys? Absolutely nothing. They ain't doing this to survive, they are doing it for yet another billion whose difference they will never ever notice.
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, self-regulation is a fantasy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More than likely. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:More than likely. (Score:1, Insightful)
And where do you draw the line?
This is ever the problem, but how is that an excuse for not drawing it? More to the point, whatever you may think of the actions of the US, it is clear that China killing dissidents for advocating democracy will be on the wrong side of the line no matter where you draw it.
Just out of interest, if there are problems with MS providing software to such governments, what does the Linux/GNU community do to make sure their tools are not used instead?
There is little the community can do to stop a foreign government from using their software short of not distributing it. But there is a difference between supplying the public at large with general purpose tools that someone nefarious could use for something evil, and actively consorting with the evildoers to adapt the tools to their needs.
Re:So, self-regulation is a fantasy? (Score:1, Insightful)
The only hope to keep companies behaving even the slightest therefor must come from government control.
Seeing the ineffectiveness of government regulation curtailing corporations, I'm holding out to see how effective angry, torch-bearing mobs are.
As for capitalists, I most definitely am one but corporations owe their existence to government regulation. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Any government created entity has no business insisting on being unregulated, particularly those with a product that depends on regulation for it's existence, like banks, copyright bases businesses etc.
Individuals, on the other hand, born of nature not by law ought to be left unregulated as far as possible. And no, a corporation is not just a collection of individuals, it is a separate entity as established by law.
Re:More than likely. (Score:5, Insightful)
Realistically, if you're making the gas chambers then you have decided your moral position by the business you are in. If you are making the actual tools of killing then there's a case that you have a moral duty to take care over how they will be used. But the further you get from that then the more your moral responsibility is diluted, to the point where it's lost in the noise.
And that's exactly the issue, here. Most people likely wouldn't care if China was somehow using existing Microsoft services to send disinformation and propaganda to their citizens. It's the fact that China is saying, "Please modify your existing software so that it sends disinformation and propaganda to our citizens," and Microsoft is saying, "Ok, sure. What kind of censorship would you like us to make for you?"
Regarding the wagonmakers analogy -- it's upsetting, but not a big deal if Nazis are using a wagonmaker's wagons to transport Jews to a fiery death. That's not the wagonmaker's fault, necessarily. What Microsoft is doing, though, is making a Jew-transporting wagon that is engineered for the purpose of sending Jews to their fiery death.
Re:More than likely. (Score:2, Insightful)
And where do you draw the line?
This is ever the problem, but how is that an excuse for not drawing it?
Not at all, but it means that you shouldn't think that where you draw it is the only morally valid place to draw it.
Microsoft does business in the US, doesn't it? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is a slippery slope. China has human rights violations, but then again so does the US. There are over a million people of color in America in PRISON because of the so-called "War on Drugs" which is executed with a discriminatory bias, where white people (and people of the upper class) get off scot-free, or never even get harassed in the first place. Should MS and other companies pull out of doing business in the US until it gives up the war on drugs?
Re:More than likely. (Score:3, Insightful)