Google Shareholder Proposal to Resist Censorship

buxton2k writes "Slashdot has had plenty of stories about technology companies like Google kowtowing to repressive political regimes such as China's. I'm an (extremely) small shareholder in Google, and I looked at their proxy statement today. Most of the time, shareholders' meetings don't deal with anything other than rubber-stamping the board of directors, but Google's upcoming meeting has a interesting shareholder proposal dealing with free speech and censorship to be voted on at the May 10 meeting."

Maybe I can start to trust Google again?

[Metaphorically]

Good stuff, really does look like a "Do No Evil" attempt on the part of someone in there.

The second line is "Whereas, the rapid provision of full and uncensored information through the Internet has become a major industry in the United States, and one of its major exports", but since all the rest of it really does sound like they're trying to do the morally right thing, I'm willing to say that line is there to get the vote of the pure capitalists.

There's also reference to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights - rather than just a US-centric view.

Whereas, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are fundamental human rights, and free use of the Internet is protected in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees freedom to "receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] pretty clearly agrees with that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

So every once in a while Google regains a little bit of my trust.

Re:Maybe I can start to trust Google again?

[bernywork]

This was raised by a shareholder, in particular:

The Funds' request was submitted by Patrick Doherty, The City of New York Office of the Comptroller, 1 Centre Street, New York, New York, 1007-2341

Didn't the directors suggest a no vote?

Required Vote

Approval of the stockholder proposal requires the affirmative "FOR" vote of a majority of the votes cast on the proposal. Unless marked to the contrary, proxies received will be voted "AGAINST" the stockholder proposal.

Recommendation

Our board of directors recommends a vote AGAINST the stockholder proposal.

Re:

[Metaphorically]

I think I'll go home and cry for a bit. I mean, I try to be positive. I don't want to be a bitter old man. But really, the board wants to be more evil? Could it at least be a big shareholder who's voice matters that's putting this out there? Can I have a happy moment?

Re:

[bernywork]

No you may not you sensitive clod

This is slashdot after all. I figure I might recycle the joke once in a while, and being a geek, I modded it.

Re:Maybe I can start to trust Google again?

[morgan_greywolf]

I think I'll go home and cry for a bit. I mean, I try to be positive. I don't want to be a bitter old man. But really, the board wants to be more evil? Could it at least be a big shareholder who's voice matters that's putting this out there? Can I have a happy moment?

You might want to try some anti-depressants. ;)

Seriously, the shareholder referendum, if approved, would basically tie Google's hands in regards to dealing with an oppressive regime such as China -- it would leave them no option, even if say, agents of the U.S. federal government came to them and said something like "Don't rock the boat. We're working on a strategy here and if you make noise, you'll spoil the whole thing."

Not that I'm implying this has ever happened or anything...

Re:

[TubeSteak]

Seriously, the shareholder referendum, if approved, would basically tie Google's hands in regards to dealing with an oppressive regime such as China -- it would leave them no option, even if say, agents of the U.S. federal government came to them and said something like "Don't rock the boat. We're working on a strategy here and if you make noise, you'll spoil the whole thing."

Would it?
Larry Page, Sergey Brin & Eric Schmidt own the vast majority of voting shares.

If they don't want a shareholder's propos

Re:

[Ellis D. Tripp]

[quote]So every once in a while Google regains a little bit of my trust.[/quote]

Why?

This is a shareholder resolution, not something drawn up by Google itself. In fact, if you look at the end of the statement, you will see the the Google BoD is recommending a vote AGAINST this resolution, presumably because it will cost the company money...

Re:

[Aladrin]

There's apparently a law that prevents a company from doing things that will lose money for the stockholders. I'm not saying that it's the motivation here, but it could be a consideration. There is very little doubt about the monetary effect of being blocked in several countries.

Re:Maybe I can start to trust Google again?

[magarity]

There's no such law to that effect. But there is plenty of tort.

Re:

[azulcactus]

So every once in a while Google regains a little bit of my trust.

Actually, if you read the proposal you will see the Google recommends AGAINST this proposal.

From the article: "Recommendation Our board of directors recommends a vote AGAINST the stockholder proposal."

Who you really should be giving trust is The Office of the Comptroller of New York City who is submitting the proposal as a large stockholder.

From the article: "The Office of the Comptroller of New York City has advised us that it intends to submit the proposal set forth below for consideration at ou

Without the board, not much chance.

[Kadin2048]

This thing doesn't stand a chance.

I've been a shareholder in a bunch of fairly big tech companies (which is not to say that I've been a big shareholder) and in only one case have I ever seen a shareholder resolution unsupported by a company's board actually pass -- and that fairly recently [pionline.com] and was widely supported by a lot of big institutional investors (who presumably only care about their ROI, and not how the money is made). (This is excepting hostile takeover actions, I'm referring only to things in the normal course of business.)

I don't know precisely how many shares of Google stock is held by the board, but I'm going to bet that it's a lot, if not a majority outright, meaning that it's probably sunk without them from the get-go.

And, like it or not, most of the big shareholders of any publicly-held corporations are going to be pension and mutual funds, investment banks, and other companies -- not the sort of entities that are generally swayed by feel-good rhetoric; they're not interested in whether Google oppresses Chinese people, only whether said oppression is profitable (and legal, because its legality directly impacts its future profitability).

I appreciate the efforts of people pushing these resolutions, but I think that if we want to change the behavior of our corporations abroad, the change needs to be legislative, so that it wouldn't adversely impact "good" companies by making them less competitive relative to "bad" ones -- which unfortunately means it would need to be via that sausage-factory we have in Washington, which given its propensity for fucking up everything it touches, is probably a Bad Idea overall.

Re:

[Shakrai]

And, like it or not, most of the big shareholders of any publicly-held corporations are going to be pension and mutual funds, investment banks, and other companies -- not the sort of entities that are generally swayed by feel-good rhetoric

In this case it seems that this motion was brought by a pension trust:

"The Office of the Comptroller of New York City has advised us that it intends to submit the proposal set forth below for consideration at our annual meeting. It is the custodian and trustee of the

It's NOT a real fund -- Other Peoples Money

[alexhmit01]

It's a city government fund, which means that a politician has controls of billions of other people's money. He can do what he can to score points... Basically, he puts at risk the pension returns for the firefighters, police, etc. (not a huge one here, but it theoretically could lower their return from Google stock), but he gets political credit with environmentalists when running for future office. He didn't risk a penny of his money, but the firemen or the city if it guaranteed a pay-out will have to

Re:

[MrMarket]

I'm not suggesting that this is a good or a bad idea, but I AM suggesting that it is horrible (and corrupt) when public officials use public (or other people's money) for their own gain. Sure it's not an outright embezzlement like putting money in his pocket would be, but using the money to score political credit with people that will help him make more money...

Well that isn't behavior I like to see lauded as good...

Put up your own money, survey the shareholders, whatever, but to do something with other people's money for your personal benefit...

Sometimes this is demanded by the civil servants with money in the fund. For example, NYC cops and firemen did not want their pension money financing Iranian business activity. After pressuring Halliburton, GE, and Conoco-Phillips to stop doing business in Iran, they either stopped their subsidiaries' business activity in the country, or were dropped from the fund. Bill Thompson, NYC Comptroller, testified about this today in the Senate Commerce subcommittee hearing, "Halliburton and U.S. Business Ties to [videowebca...rce043007m]

Re:

[bodan]

I'm too lazy to check exactly, but I did read most of TFA, and Larry, Eric and Serghei together hold about 70% of the votes, IIRC.

Re:

[mounthood]

This could become the next "Divest from South Africa" cause for universities and corporations, so it's possible this could change without legislation.

Re:

[mshih]

This proposal doesn't really do anything besides rubber stamping what goole has already done in China.

1) Data that can identify individual users should not be hosted in Internet restricting countries, where political speech can be treated as a crime by the legal system.

All this means is that Google can't host their servers in place like China but it doesn't mean that they con't reveal the information.

2) The company will n

Well...

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Unless you have the backing of major shareholders and any hedge funds holding stake in Google, I wouldn't expect this to pass. It'd set up a roadblock to expansion in China, and since China = $$$, I wouldn't expect shareholders to pass anything that interferes.

This would be the same reason that owners of GM stock don't pass a resolution requiring the company to shift all their R&D into ethanol research - it doesn't make good business sense right now.

Expansion *in* China?

[argent]

I don't think Google would be giving up as much as you think... hosting *anything* in China is a self-defeating policy for a software company, and this proposal doesn't keep them from censoring material: it just keeps them from doing it secretly. Simply telling people that they've had search results blocked is a competitive advantage.

This is more like a shareholder resolution that GM make some currently optional safety equipment standard. Which, history shows, would be good business sense.

Re:

[EveryNickIsTaken]

There's plenty of Google services that could be rolled out into China. It's a market of over 1 billion people, and they certainly don't want to screw this up. Is Gmail even available there yet?

Re:

[lonechicken]

There's plenty of Google services that could be rolled out into China. It's a market of over 1 billion people, and they certainly don't want to screw this up. Is Gmail even available there yet?

How many of those 1 billion people are useful as consumers, I wonder?

Re:

[EveryNickIsTaken]

If even one-tenth of a percent are, then that's still 1 million consumers. Logic would dictate that this percentage would be higher than 0.1%

Re:

[Retric]

"Logic would dictate that this percentage would be higher than 0.1%"

What logic? People who pay them money are there customers and I don't see how logic would dictate that .1% of X population would pay them money. I don't think .1% of the US population directly pays them cash.

PS: When you do the web search their product is the chance you click on an add and their customer is the company paying for the add your just the sheep being spoon fed.

Re:

[argent]

Data point: India also has a huge population, but another mass market company (Ikea) has estimated that the total potential customer base for their products in India is no more than five digits.

Re:

[1u3hr]

Data point: there are 300 million mobile phone users in China.

Re:

[argent]

Data point: there are 150 million mobile phone users in India.

In the third world, mobile phones are the *cheap* way to get telephone service.

Re:

[1u3hr]

In the third world, mobile phones are the *cheap* way to get telephone service.

The point is that there is a huge market and demand for such gadgets. And it's not just the third world where mobiles are cheaper than land lines.

Re:

[argent]

The point is that there is a huge market and demand for such gadgets.

Yes, so what? We're talking about Google here... not Samsung, Motorola, or Nokia.

Re:

[1u3hr]

Yes, so what? We're talking about Google here. not Samsung, Motorola, or Nokia.

We're not JUST talking about phones. They are an indicator that there's money available for other things than the bare necessities even in the "third world".

Re:

[argent]

They are an indicator that there's money available for other things than the bare necessities even in the "third world".

Um, what makes you thnk cellphones aren't necessities?

Re:

[1u3hr]

Um, what makes you thnk cellphones aren't necessities?

Well, I don't have one, for a start.

Re:

[argent]

You're not in a third-world country where a cellphone is the cheap way (and often the only way) of getting phone service, and where it's not unknown for several families or a whole village to band together to pay for one cellphone as a result.

Re:

[1u3hr]

You're not in a third-world country

Actually, I live in China.

Re:

[argent]

Ah, snap!

Re:

[argent]

There's plenty of Google services that could be rolled out into China.

That's completely unrelated to my comment. They can do that whether or not the servers are hosted in China, or whether they do any censorship beyond what the Chinese government explicitly requires by law, or whether they explicitly inform people when information is being blocked.

Re:

[HellYeahAutomaton]

With the cash reserves Google has, they can afford to pull out of any country they want.
Even the shrewdest of investors would gladly see that Google would want to do business where it is easiest to do so most profitably.

So long China!

Re:

[Nos.]

There is profit to be made in China. If google pulls out of China, their stock price will fall. Stockholders don't normally vote in such a way as to lower their stock price.

Re:

[HellYeahAutomaton]

Their stock price *may* fall. They've had enough bad press with the whole China/censorship thing that pulling out may be considered as a stop-loss. You cannot predict the market reaction to this move.

Re:

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Wrong. Bad press in the YRO section of slashdot? Sure. However, investors typically don't care about YRO, or human rights in general. It's all about the bottom line, and if Google turns a profit in China (and there is no reason to think they're not), then that is all that matters to "real" investors. You and your 1 (or 100 shares) in GOOG is a non-factor in this.

Re:

[HellYeahAutomaton]

> Wrong. Bad press in the YRO section of slashdot? Sure. You fail to see the scope of the problem. How about the bad press in CNN? http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/30/technology/browser 0130/index.htm [cnn.com] The NY Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/23/magazine/23googl e.html?ex=1303444800&en=972002761056363f&ei=5090 [nytimes.com] or the BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm [bbc.co.uk] No, the scope of this isn't just here on Slashdot. China is running a two-faced capitalist regime' (worldly capitalistic,

Re:

[Nos.]

Okay, but if they're not pulling out, we can probably safely assume that their presence there is profitable. As I said before, stockholders aren't likely to vote for a company to pull out of a profitable market. You're right, I can't predict the future, but I doubt the press would have as negative effect as pulling out of a market the size of China's.

Re:

[rtb61]

Google is a marketing company, make absolutely no mistake, a bad public image can cripple their revenues and their stock price, and we are not talking a few percentage points, where are talking decimal places. Remember this, google addwords, their name always appears, addwords has more to do with selling google then selling the companies paying for the addwords.

What this stock holder vote will do is expose who at google believes that censoring freedom and democracy for profit is acceptable.

Don't think t

Re:

[UbuntuDupe]

Stupid question I don't know how to find the answer to myself:

Isn't Google owned 50% + 1 share by the two founders?

So can't they pretty much tell the shareholders to stuff themselves regarding these proposals?

Re:

[glesga_kiss]

Unless you have the backing of major shareholders and any hedge funds holding stake in Google, I wouldn't expect this to pass.

Disclaimer: I'm a shareholder in several major tech companies, not Google though.

This will NEVER pass. Not in a million years. There are similar points on most Annual General Meeting's agendas, introduced by the shareholders. Here's what you usually get:

Proposal 1

Elect John A.B.C. Smith to the board

Proposal 2

Shareholders proposal: try to be more ethical

Now, you always g

A small shareholder's take...

[DAtkins]

You know, this was the first shareholders vote that I actually participated in. Normally, I don't really care - and recognize that my measly holdings won't change anything - but this got me off my ass.

Will my 15 votes change anything? Hell no, but it's like voting for a 3rd party presidential candidate. At the end of the day I can go home happy that I actually did what I thought was right.

Interestingly enough, another ballot item was (paraphrased) "should we give the directors a big bonus for being so aw

Note the Recommendation of the Board: Against

[mattaw]

So the "Do No Evil" actually lasted about 5 seconds into Google becoming a listed company. Oh well, that was quite long.

From p32: Recommendation Our board of directors recommends a vote AGAINST the stockholder proposal.

Capitalism == Situational Ethics....

Re:

[BiggerIsBetter]

Capitalism == Situational Ethics....

As does life.

I think it's a ballsy move to put it to shareholder vote. Obviously, the large shareholders and the fund managers who are acting in the best financial interests of their clients will probably concur with the board on this one. It is nice PR move though, I guess (as are all the /. articles...)... Now they can pass the buck to the shareholders if there's any perceived backlash.

One assumes it's a business decision like any other, but I'd be curious to know the f

Re:

[Otter]

I think it's a ballsy move to put it to shareholder vote.

They're required to put any qualified proposal to a vote. Despite what the submitter thinks, largely symbolic politicized proposals are routine at any large public corporation.

Re:

[djasbestos]

Situational ethics and "Do No Evil" are incompatible. It may be pragmatic to quash the proposal, but you've got to draw a line somewhere...making good on the "do no evil" part. Otherwise it's about as not-evil as the USA-PATRIOT Act is patriotic.

But I guess that is where capitalism IS compatible with something not laissez-faire: fascist control of information.

***Resisting urge to obey Godwin's Law***

Evil will always win...

[Z0mb1eman]

...because good is dumb.

This line made me think:

3) The company will use all legal means to resist demands for censorship. The company will only comply with such demands if required to do so through legally binding procedures.

It made me think of all the "evil" companies that see breaking the law (and the associated fines or sanctions) as just the cost of doing business. On the other hand, a "good" company that basically says, "we will do no evil... unless we're breaking the law by doing good".

Re:

[FusionDragon2099]

You're thinking "chaotic good", Google's thinking "lawful good". There's different ways to go about the same goal, you know.

This whole thread is stupid

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

There, I said it. All this analysis of who is good and who is evil, it's all rubbish. While we humans disagree on issues of what constitutes evil, companies cannot possibly win (although, admittedly, some don't seem to try). For example, I believe that it is wrong for anyone to enforce their value system onto anyone else, but of course there are many out there who disagree. Who's right? Is the answer to that even possible to determine? It's a tired point, but it still needed to be said, and will continue to

Re:

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

We have to arrive at some standard of what constitutes "good and evil" and often that is only by debate and consensus. Although in some occasions it is difficult to determine, it mostly boils down to some rather simple, well-worn, well-understood principles that have been accepted for millennia -- that is why most of us can quite happily agree that certain things ARE most definitely evil and certain things ARE most definitely good.

This thread is about censorship, which is by no means agreed upon. Google is

Re:

[nine-times]

Right, I think that's what is difficult about the whole Google/China censorship thing. If you ask people whether companies should participate in government censorship, most of us would say no. However, if you ask whether companies should be bound by the laws of the land, I think most of us would say yes.

You might be thinking that this is a different issue because it's a Good American company against the Evil Chinese government, and the Good American rules should trump the Evil Chinese rules. However, I

Re:

[Alsee]

I don't think Americans would like it if some foreign company set up shop in America, started breaking American laws, and when caught exclaimed, "But your laws are wrong!"

Considering some of our laws, half of Slashdot might start dancing in the streets.

-

Re:

[jamar0303]

Frankly, I'd love it! To compare apples to apples, you do mean laws like the PATRIOT Act and the DMCA, right? YES!!!11!!1!!!!one!!!

Re:

[sethstorm]

I don't think Americans would like it if some foreign company set up shop in America, started breaking American laws, and when caught exclaimed, "But your laws are wrong!"

That explains the large Japanese automotive presence after the Buy America law was made and to some lesser extent, illegal immigration after 1986. Circumvent the law or lobby against enforcement, the sound is the same.


Right, I think that's what is difficult about the whole Google/China censorship thing. If you ask people whether companies

Re:Evil will always win...

[drinkypoo]

On the other hand, a "good" company that basically says, "we will do no evil... unless we're breaking the law by doing good".

Given that the law is often evil (like laws imposing segregation, or laws criminalizing victimless crimes) this is no useful metric whatsoever.

If it's illegal to give a "western" haircut in Iran, and women who wear a leg-revealing outfit can be whipped for it, then it's easy to see that the law itself can be evil.

Re:

[mattt79]

I'm reminded of the chemical company, IG Farber. Their use of slave-labor during WWII was completely legal... By German law.

(Ok, let the Godwin comments begin, but it's still relevent)

Matt

Founders control all the votes anyway

[crt]

Remember that the Google founders have a different class of shares that count 10X as many votes per share as common shares. They can easily block any shareholder proposal they disagree with, although it certainly may look bad if there is heavy support for this.

submitting proposals

[magarity]

The Office of the Comptroller of New York City has advised us that it intends to submit the proposal set forth below for consideration at our annual meeting

The submitter doesn't say how small of a shareholder he/she is and obviously the NYC Comptroller controls more shares but publicly traded companies have to have a mechanism for shareholders to submit proposals to the shareholders' meetings. Usually there's a minimum holding for a minimum time, like 1,000 share for 180 days prior to the meeting

Re:

[Fritz T. Coyote]

This one made me proud to be a New Yorker. I mean prouder then usual. And usual around here is "Unbelievably Fragging Arrogant".

Perhaps it's not just about China...

[Joe Decker]

The requirement to make a complete list of censored material is the most interesting, I wonder what we'd find getting blocked in the US?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

The requirement to make a complete list of censored material is the most interesting, I wonder what we'd find getting blocked in the US?

The list of censored material, of course.

I keep having to say this...

[Moleculor]

In the long run, accepting China's censorship rules is a -good- decision and a decision for good.

In the dark ages, science was dead. It wasn't until trade with the east brought goods AND ideas west that society started shaking up a bit. People started figuring out that there were alternatives to feudalistic society.

In short, trade equals exchange of ideas. Exchange of ideas equals social change. Social change equals social revolution.

Google had two choices with China (and any other country that wants censorship): Be blocked entirely from the country in every way possible, thereby preventing exchange of ideas and hampering social change OR get a foot in the door to the country, providing access to new concepts to the Chinese and thereby slowly bringing about social change and potential revolution. YES, some things are censored, but as we all know, no censoring software is perfect, and humans won't think of everything. With Google there, EVEN censoring things, ideas of freedom will leak through and spark social change.

The decision to bow to the wishes of China's censorship in order to gain access to their populace was a good, moral decision.

Re:

[dwater]

> With Google there, EVEN censoring things, ideas of freedom will leak through and spark social change.

Google are nuts if they thing they're that important or powerful.

In my experience, Chinese people here use Baidu not Google, and they don't consider the US definition of freedom to be something particularly desirable, even if they consider it at all.

It's Yahoo! you really need to worry about

[MancDiceman]

Whilst Google are up for a bit of censorship, Yahoo! actively assist the Chinese in tracking down dissidents and getting them put behind bars [theregister.co.uk]

They responded by talking about 'vexing issues' when they were pushed on the matter [yahoo.com]. Vexing indeed, that somebody is stuck in a cell for demanding democracy because you wanted to "look after shareholder's interests".

They say they were just complying with a "lawful request" but at some point you have to realise that certain counties are going to ask you to abide by laws you find distasteful and take the hit on not doing business in those countries. Would Yahoo have done a deal with South Africa in the 1980s? With Germany in the 1930s? Or would they have got stuck in, claiming they might be able to 'transform opinion' by way of allowing people to share (censored) pictures and arrange (authorised) events?

And they might say now that they are sorry for what happened, but they are still in China and they must in some part be willing to comply with future "legal requests" so there's a question: if the Chinese government asked for help tomorrow, would Yahoo! assist? Or would they risk being shut down in China? I suspect for all their hand-wringing, they'd hand over the paperwork but this time do their best to keep it quiet.

There's a line that Yahoo! crossed that Google is far from crossing just yet, and I think this story is indicative of how they might hope to keep it that way.

By laying out an independent moral framework aligned with UN declarations, it's possible for a multi-national to make a call on whether they can go into a country or not, or to what extent. If China wants to control and watch every bit, every byte, we as an International community with personal stakes in democracy and liberty have a role in saying they shouldn't have access to best-in-class technology whilst they want that.

The Chinese Government should not be granted the ability to be able to run surveillance over their population really well thanks to the work of engineers in Yahoo's or Google's HQ - we should be making them want this tech enough that they are prepared to compromise and grant rights to the population currently kept from them, so the tech can't be used against a population.

That's our job. Software runs civilisation. As software developers/companies, the moral imperative is with us. We are the arms manufacturers of the future, because the weapons will be software loaded with information as the ammo. We direct this gig. We don't realise it yet, but we do.

We should be saying "you don't get Google, you don't get yahoo, you don't get any of this, until you treat your people as we would wish to be treated, as we agreed by way of UN charters all mankind should be treated". Saying that by exposing China to this tech will somehow change how government works is like saying you can fix Darfur with some really noble op-ed pieces in the New York Times.

If I held Yahoo! stock, I'd sell it. I'd tell everybody else I know to sell it if they held it too. If Yahoo! say the only barometer of morality is how well the stock is doing, everybody needs to sell up and make it clear why: at that point the needle swings from "profitable to be in China" to "OMG! WTF are we doing in China? The stock is tanking!".

FWIW, I've not used a single Y! product (including flickr or upcoming) or API since they've become the henchmen of brutal dictatorships. I'd ask others to consider doing the same too.

Re:

[dwater]

> We should be saying "you don't get Google, you don't get yahoo, you don't get any of this, until you treat your people as we would wish to be treated, as we agreed by way of UN charters all mankind should be treated". Saying that by exposing China to this tech will somehow change how government works is like saying you can fix Darfur with some really noble op-ed pieces in the New York Times.

It seems to me that Chinese people don't really want Google and/or Yahoo! in China. It's the other way around. I

Get over yourselves

[Tiger4]

"Do no Evil" was never serious company policy at Google. And all the repeating in the world isn't going to retroactively make it so. It was just stroking fanservice to all the MS haters at the time. At best, it was an ideal they would have liked to aspire to, if it didn't get in the way of doing business.

And by the way, who runs the office of Evil Arbitration and Determination? Ask them if it more or less Evil to :

1. do business in China by China's rules (and thereby make money for the employees and inv

Re:

[Sefert]

Exceptionally well put. Frustrates me to constantly see people suggesting that western nations should be pushing their values, morals and ethics on other countries because they see them as better. I certainly don't like China's laws, but it's their laws. Communism is a successful form of government, even though it's sucky, and it requires a higher degree of censorship to work. All governments have some form of censorship, and frankly, I really don't think some things should be allowed to be put out ther

Re:

[dwater]

I agree with much of what you say, apart from :

> Communism ... it requires a higher degree of censorship to work.

Now this isn't really directed at you, but in my personal view, with nothing apart from experience to back it up, is that the need for (significant) censorship is only while the country develops and the need is dwindling as the country prospers.

I think the history is that communication has been such that people tend to believe the things the read and/or are told - especially people out in the

About friging China

[Vexorian]

Companies have got to follow a country's laws in order to have business in that country, period. Let the activism to governments, let World Savior George Bush free the Chinese people. Or much better, let the Chinese free themselves.

Do no evil, but what about YOU?

[SmallFurryCreature]

There is a portion of slashdot users who believe the war in iraq is about oil. Wether this is true or not is another discussion. The question is, what do you do about it?

I think that a bumper sticker on your SUV with "Impeach Bush" is not entirely convincing.

There is a portion of slashdot users who believe that the Chinese goverment is a dictatorship who opress their peoples (and others like Tiber and less directly Taiwanese) rights. Wether this is true or not is another discussion. The question is, what

Fluff

[Trojan35]

Wow. 4 Google topics on the front page right now, and this is probably the only one that isn't fluff.

Sorry for trolling, but all the google fluff is starting to annoy me.

This approach failed with Microsoft

[sttlmark]

Some MS shareholders tried a similar resolution a little while ago, right after that China blogging scandal, but the initiative didn't get a lot of press. There was an article in the Seattle Times back then that talked about why these things always fail:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/microsoft/20 03289541_microsoftholders05.html [nwsource.com]

The board of directors and the large investors never go for stuff like this. A company does not exist to make the world a better place, to live ethically, or for any of

Larry&Sergey can outvote all other shareholder

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has two classes of shares: Class A common shares (which are what trade under the symbol GOOG) and Class B common shares. Class B common shares are almost identical to Class A common shares, except that Class B common shares have ten votes per share, whereas Class A shares have only one vote per share. Class B shares can be converted at will to Class A shares, but the reverse is not true.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin, between them, hold enough Class B common shares to control more than 51% of the vote

Google doesn't care what its shareholders think

[jalefkowit]

... because they don't have to.

When the company IPOed, they issued two classes of stock: one that you could buy (Class A), and special shares for Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt [usatoday.com] that carry 10 times the voting weight of the shares available on the public market (Class B). The result is that anything that Brin (founder), Page (founder) and Schmidt (CEO) don't want passed can't be passed by a shareholder vote; ordinary shareholders simply don't have the voting muscle, even if they all voted together.

Google's rationale at the time was that this arrangement would free them from pressure to constantly be posting higher earnings each quarter. In their SEC filing, they included an unusual "Letter from the Founders [sec.gov]" that defended the approach:

The main effect of this structure is likely to leave our team, especially Sergey and me, with significant control over the company's decisions and fate, as Google shares change hands. New investors will fully share in Google's long term growth but will have less influence over its strategic decisions than they would at most public companies...

Academic studies have shown that from a purely economic point of view, dual class structures have not harmed the share price of companies. The shares of each of our classes have identical economic rights and differ only as to voting rights.

Google has prospered as a private company. As a public company, we believe a dual class voting structure will enable us to retain many of the positive aspects of being private. We understand some investors do not favor dual class structures. We have considered this point of view carefully, and we have not made our decision lightly. We are convinced that everyone associated with Google--including new investors--will benefit from this structure.

(Emphasis mine)

It's hard to read the part about "retain[ing] many of the positive aspects of being private" as anything other than "we don't want shareholders telling us how to run our company". And given how the stock is structured, shareholders can't, unless they can win over one or more of the three top execs at Google to their point of view.

Solution

[Orig_Club_Soda]

Whenever Google finds itself limited by government intervention, it should call itself Google-lite. This will allow Google to continue to do business, while maintaining its credibility by acknowledging the product being used does not carry Google's full feature set, quality, and potential.

A second action is that Google could report periodically how many search items are blocked by various governments. A large part of the insult to the user is the perception that we are receiving all thats available. If resu

I'll be the bad guy

[writerjosh]

You can't expect a hardcore regime like communist China to change over night. They are making leaps and bounds towards capitalism (which WILL eventually lead to democracy) without the coup or collapses the USSR faced. So, I don't automatically chalk Google up to being "evil" simply because they are bending the laws of censorship. Yes, they are no doubt thinking of their bottom line, but Google is one of the last moral(?) mega-companies in the world today. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they ar

Snowball's chance in hell of passing

[vinn01]

These kinds of morally upstanding proposals are common by gadfly shareholders. The only thing worthy of note in this effort is the fact that it was proposed by a large fund, not some wingnut. Bravo for them.

However, morals have little place in the commerce of business. I am a corporate cynic. Thus, I am certain that no corporation is going to stand up for freedom when there is money to be made cooperating with repressive governments.

The likelihood of passage, against of votes and recommendation of the board of directors, is nil.

What's interesting

[larry bagina]

is not the shareholder proposal. Every reasonably known company has 3-10 per year. However, most board of directors provide a rationale for why they suggest voting against it. Why doesn't google's board provide a reason to vote against it? Maybe it's because insiders control the votes via their special super-powers stock. Or maybe it's because they can't rationalize it.

Would this change anything?

[harves]

I'm coming very late to the discussion here, but if I were to pick China as an example, hasn't Google already tried to "use all legal means to resist demands for censorship". From what I can tell, there aren't any legal means for Google to resist censorship in China. For those of you claiming "this will force Google out of China", I think you will find you're wrong.