Yahoo Rejects Anti-Censorship Proposal

Matthew Skala writes "The BBC reports that Yahoo! has rejected a shareholder proposal to adopt an anti-censorship policy, as well as one to set up a human rights committee to review the impact of Yahoo!'s operations in places like China. The interesting proposals are numbers 6 and 7 in the proxy statement available through EDGAR. This news comes on the heels of jailed Chinese reporter Shi Tao, suing Yahoo! for its involvement in his conviction, and Google's rejection of a similar proposal. The anti-censorship proposal was submitted by the same groups (several New York City pension funds) as the Google proposal. The proxy statement also includes the Board's recommendations — "strongly oppose[ing]" both proposals — with explanations of their reasoning."

The Board's Response

[casings (257363)]

Board of Directors Statement and Recommendation AGAINST Stockholder Proposal

Yahoo! shares the proponent's commitment to human rights, and as described in more detail in the board's statement in opposition to proposal no. 6 in this proxy statement, the Company's management team has already instituted practices and initiatives that are designed to assess the implications of the Company's activities and policies and to protect and advance essential freedoms, such as freedom of expression and privacy rights.

To

Re:

[glesga_kiss (596639)]

Board of Directors Statement and Recommendation AGAINST Stockholder Proposal

This is always the case at an AGM. I've never seen the board recommend FOR a stockholder proposal, nor have I ever seen one voted in. They are a waste of time regardless of the company.

Re:The Board's Response

[elrous0 (869638)]

Yahoo! shares the proponent's commitment to human rights

...as long as it doesn't cost us any money.

Good ol' proposals.

[Mockylock (1087585)]

China's proposal for anti-censorship against Google's said proposal is to propose a censorship proposal proposition. In response the proposal set by China, Google proposed to set a an anti-proposal toward Yahoo's proposal to create a proposal against the China anti-censorship proposal. These proposals were proposed as a proposition to anti-proposialism, not censorship.

Re:

[Rob T Firefly (844560)]

Yes, I'll marry you!

Re:

[Mockylock (1087585)]

This post was rated as "overrated" when it wasn't even rated. So, does that mean the "overrated" rating was overrated? So, therefore it's not overrated?

Re:Good ol' proposals.

[TapeCutter (624760)]

Is there an echo in your basement?

Re:

[jagdish (981925)]

Is there an echo in your basement? ..

What if they don't comply?

[4D6963 (933028)]

Here's what I don't understand, if Yahoo! stops complying with local laws, as these shareholders suggest, wouldn't it be purely and simply out of business in China? Could any company violate the Chinese laws and keep working in China, thus providing Chinese citizens a breach in the Great Firewall?

Because that's where it doesn't make sense to me, but maybe my analyse is a bit over-simplistic, if Yahoo! tries not to apply censorship laws, then it won't be able to operate in China and thus it wouldn't be any good for either Yahoo! or Chinese web-surfers, right? Or did I get something wrong?

Re:What if they don't comply?

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

Indeed, you got it exactly right. Yahoo's board further said that they think they have more leverage and actually promote free speech if they stay engaged, rather than taking their ball and going home.

Re:What if they don't comply?

[erroneus (253617)]

Because shareholders are human beings with thoughts, ideals and hopefully some conscience. The very idea that shareholders ONLY care about the end-result profitability of a company is and always has been a ridiculous assertion.

The proposal has been made and the board of directors have recommended voting against it proposal brought about by other shareholders. So it is the directors who are placing profit above human rights and not the shareholders at large. The very idea that the shareholders at large are responsible is ridiculous. The people responsible for the decisions made are far fewer and less obscure than you are trying to indicate.

Re:What if they don't comply?

[plover (150551)]

The proposal has been made and the board of directors have recommended voting against it proposal brought about by other shareholders. So it is the directors who are placing profit above human rights and not the shareholders at large. The very idea that the shareholders at large are responsible is ridiculous. The people responsible for the decisions made are far fewer and less obscure than you are trying to indicate.

It's not ridiculous at all. The directors have only recommended that the shareholders vote against the proposal. It's still up to the shareholders themselves to vote to make the final decision. The shareholders are ultimately responsible, not the board.

That said, boards of directors traditionally have a lot of sway in how the shareholders vote. Many companies are owned largely by various mutual funds and not by individual people, and the shares owned by the funds are voted for them by the fund manager. And fund managers almost always vote the way the board of directors recommend, meaning this might be the kiss of death for the proposal.

The shareholders do have another option, though. They can divest themselves from a stock they consider morally repugnant. This was done with modest success back in the 1980s to companies who did business with apartheid Africa; But mutual funds have grown much larger since then, and a sell-off by concerned individuals would probably have little effect on Yahoo!s stock price.

There are also mutual funds that pledge to invest in only socially responsible companies (can't think of their names right now, but they're pretty easy to find.) If they own any Yahoo! stock today, their fund managers would probably vote their shares for the proposal, and if it failed to pass they would probably divest themselves.

Re:

[Broken scope (973885)]

Because company image can have significant impact on company profits?

Re:

[Mister Whirly (964219)]

"Would you stop using Google things (maps, gmail, etc) if Yahoo had those tools AND were anti-censorship?"

Hell no. I choose my email, maps, search engines, etc. based on functionality, not politics.

Re:

[Taevin (850923)]

While the AC was somewhat trollish, I'm inclined to call you one as well.

Can you please cite any policy from ANY company ANYWHERE that says "baby-fucking is ok since it increases shareholder value"?

Can you please cite where the AC claimed there was ANY company ANYWHERE that has such a policy?

When you take someone's point and extend it by "lets just go all the way and see" you've basically lost the arguement

Not at all, especially in this context. The AC was replying to someone who suggested that sharehold

Re:

[Aladrin (926209)]

No, you got it exactly right. I'm surprised you haven't been modded down yet for it, though. Every time I say that, someone replies with 'Yahoo shouldn't help evil!' and 'if those people didn't want to be evil, they shouldn't work for a company that deals with evil countries!' and 'it's better to sacrifice yourself than someone else' even though it probably wasn't the employees IN China that even got to make the decision.

Yahoo's in an impossible position. If they leave China, they've abandoned people. I

Re:

[mdm-adph (1030332)]

Part of me wonders if there's a "breaking point" -- a point where Chinese officials will start loving money so much that they actually won't kick out a company that decides to take a stand against them.

Communist over Capitalist

[superpulpsicle (533373)]

This is proof that communist power > capitalist power. Simply for the fact that US corporations always have to yield to money. The moment money can't fix a problem, they are stuck. Will google and yahoo be able to ever bribe the communist party enough? I doubt it. I feel bad for the Chinese citizens who are censored in the middle of all this.

Re:Communist over Capitalist... no

[drhamad (868567)]

Well, I disagree with you there... because if it wasn't for the power of capitalism, American companies like Google and Yahoo! wouldn't exist, or wouldn't be strong enough, to even be over in China competing with Chinese companies. How many Chinese companies do you see in the US? Those that there are, are operating on a capitalist system.... another power of the capitalist system - you can't export communism (not using the cold war "export democracy" definition here, but rather that to be communist, your

Re:

[mi (197448)]

Will google and yahoo be able to ever bribe the communist party enough?

No — especially since our particular brand of Capitalism makes all bribery illegal — including that of foreign governments [wikipedia.org].

Corporations are good at and are judged on making money. Aiding human rights is nowhere in the picture. Until the lawmakers pass some kind of FCPA-2.0 — which would outlaw cooperation with oppressing regimes the same way FCPA outlaws bribery — no corporation will shoot itself in the stomac

Let me translate...

[superbus1929 (1069292)]

Yahoo! is deeply concerned by efforts of some governments to restrict communication and control access to information. Yahoo! also firmly believes the continued presence and engagement of companies like Yahoo! in these markets is a powerful force in promoting openness and reform.

Translation: Yahoo will give a brief second's thought to the plight of the common person in China before diving back into their Money Bin, Scrooge McDuck style.

Disproportionate effect

[Billosaur (927319)]

Let's face it, these rejections are driven by China. No, the government of China is not leaning on Google, Yahoo!, et. al., but is making it quite clear that the continued right to operate in China via Chinese web connections requires some... alterations. And because China is seen as such a lucrative market given its population size, non of these companies is willing to put itself in a position to be banned by the Chinese, ceding dominance of the market to its competitors.

I'll be most impressed if one of them decides to stand up and say "enough is enough". The fact is, the population of China is large, but they only comprise 1.3 billion of the 6+ billion people on the planet. A significant fraction, but not enough to justify turning their back on principle.

Silly proposal

[drhamad (868567)]

Yahoo! is going to conduct business in as many countries as it can, and to do so, it is going to comply with such laws as that country has. No other major company does any differently... just as Google didn't. To think that a company should say "no we're not going to participate in this MASSIVE market because we don't like the [moral] limits they place on us, which don't impact our financials at all," is silly. We should just let in house Chinese search engines take over that market? I think not. I'd

What markets can and cannot do

[Wubby (56755)]

Is it just me, or is this the clear limitation of "markets"? Markets are great for things like pushing down cost, creating diversity of products (through competition), and distributing wealth (if not manipulated).

But when it comes to profit vs. principle, it seems to hit a wall. Is this the reason markets can't stop human trafficing and a gov't has to step in. Any of you collije edumacated E-conomists want to correct me here?

Re:What markets can and cannot do

[danpsmith (922127)]

But when it comes to profit vs. principle, it seems to hit a wall. Is this the reason markets can't stop human trafficing and a gov't has to step in. Any of you collije edumacated E-conomists want to correct me here?

I'm not an economist, but this is why you can't have laissez faire capitalism to begin with. Letting the market take over human rights is precisely where the government should step in. To me if you are a multi-national corporation that operates and sells goods in the US, you should have to follow certain standards. Outsourcing should meet human rights standards, and any dealings in other companies should have to be held up to a standard. If given the choice between morality and money the corporation will always pick money as has been shown time and time again, the idea is that it's the government that has to force the corporation's hand in doing the "right thing."

Someone said it before and I'm probably misquoting them, but it comes down to I don't give a shit what the CEO of Ford thinks about emissions or his record on environmentalism, just like I don't give a shit what the CEO of Yahoo! thinks about human rights. I'm sure that some of these people are great people with great intentions, but regulation of the environment and human rights should be the government's job, because these things don't have pricetags, and the "free market" can't solve these problems. We shouldn't be expected to accept moral "handouts" from CEOs who decide that they will no longer do the wrong thing, we should be able to tell them to do the right thing, or quit doing business with us, without dollars and cents being the measurement.