Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

UK's Journalists Calling For Yahoo! Boycott 111

Posted by timothy from the damned-if-do-damned-if-don't dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK's Journalists Calling For Yahoo! Boycott More

UK's Journalists Calling For Yahoo! Boycott

Comments Filter:
  • Yet another company selling its soul to line up at the trough of Chinese traffic.

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

    by mmThe1 ( 213136 ) * on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:33PM (#15474161) Homepage
    boycott: an agreement usually among a particular segment of the population to reduce or stop the use and purchase of certain products or activities. (from here [pbs.org])

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

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

    And yes, I Googled for that definition.
    • Don't be naive. To boycott a website is to remove eyeballs, impressions, click-throughs. A boycott of a website can certainly be effective if its advertisers see a drop in traffic.
    • boycott: an agreement usually among a particular segment of the population to reduce or stop the use and purchase of certain products or activities.
      If you consider Yahoo a product, then you can reduce or stop the use of it.

      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).
    • "I sense a soul in search of answers"

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

      Yahoo doesn't exist? O.O

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

      Answers:

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

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

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

      I don't understand the question. Journalist can't come to an agreement? Sure they do. All the time as sometimes it's the difference between life and death.
      • No, see you missed the point - he has already started boycotting, and taken it one step further, denying that they even ever existed.

        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!'
    • So let me get this. Journalists are not ok with Yahoo! ethics, once, in China, but are somehow just fine with how MS' behavior over decades in the whole world.?
    • Agreement? Among journalists? Yeah, right.

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

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

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

      by reporter ( 666905 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @03:37PM (#15474675) Homepage
      In a declaration [rsf.org] in 2006 January, Reporters without Borders issued the following recommendation.
      No US company would be allowed to host e-mail servers within a repressive country*. So, if the authorities of a repressive country want personal information about the user of a US company's e-mail service, they would have to request it under a procedure supervised by US.

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

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

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

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

  • Long Time Coming (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:36PM (#15474183)

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

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

  • Pointless (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    People who care would be unlikely to be using anything-yahoo other than a throw-away spam address.

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

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:36PM (#15474189) Homepage Journal
    From Yahoo's response to the Register:

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

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

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

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

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

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

        • ...run by capitalists who one would assume would be sympathetic to any anti-Communist sentiments they might express, and who won't sell them out to their government to make a buck, or for them to not be under that delusion?

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

        These days economic persuasion is one of the most effective ways of bringing about reform. Having international businesses operate there puts no economic pressure on them at all.
      • I don't, nor ever have, even as a conservative, favored the "well, let's inject western influence" as a means of change. Why? Because in the meantime a lot of people suffer and ideas are still quashed. The U.S. shouldn't be in China and DAMN shouldn't be in Vietnam. We should stand by our priniciples and leave them alone. Actually, now would be the best time to do just that. Now that they've had a taste of western products, yank 'em.
      • P.S.: Yahoo! said in the article that they don't even known the nature of the investigation when they get a request for data. It could be a journalist being investigated for publishing information the government doesn't want people to know, or it could be a homocidal maniac that likes to wear heads as hats. Either way, they don't know.

        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)

    by oahazmatt ( 868057 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:40PM (#15474215) Journal
    But Yahoo!, along with Google and MSN, are business, first and foremost. None of these are meant to be champions of the people. All of these business want to do business in China, and currently the only way for them to do so is to abide by the laws established in China. Are those laws necessarily fair to the people? No. Is it the responsibility of Yahoo!, Google or MSN to bring about a revolution in China? No. A business is supposed to make money.

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

    • Correct. A business makes money.

      If a corporation were a human individual, it would be an individual with severe psychosis. [thecorporation.com]

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

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

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

      by Pendersempai ( 625351 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:54PM (#15474331)
      Since when does a profit motive exempt anyone, corporation or human, from morality? Would you say that there is no moral problem with what hit men do for a living?
      • Since when does a profit motive exempt anyone, corporation or human, from morality? Would you say that there is no moral problem with what hit men do for a living?

        Depends on who gets hit, and why.

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

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

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

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

            Let's not confuse propoganda (by direct utterance or by context-twisting, etc) with "information." I was using the word "information" to mean "actual for-real-facts." I'll maintain my larger point, which is that the Chinese regime can only exist as long as we're busy shipping truckloads (well, boatloads) of cash to it in exchange for what their people produce. The more we buy from them, the higher
      • Since when does a profit motive exempt anyone, corporation or human, from morality? Would you say that there is no moral problem with what hit men do for a living?
         
        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.
    • But Yahoo!, along with Google and MSN, are business, first and foremost.

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

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

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

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

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

      I'm a staunch libertarian, but I'm getting sick and tired of the "they are a corporation, they are supposed to do this, you shouldn't complain" movement. It's complete bullshit. Individuals, communities, and organizations utilizing their power in bo
    • But Yahoo!, along with Google and MSN, are business, first and foremost. None of these are meant to be champions of the people. except that they all market by saying they're there for the people.... i.e. Google's don't be evil credo.
    • The only reason they get away with this sort of behaviour is that society tolerates it.

      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
  • Well I dont think the boycott of yahoo, will do any good. Governments will always find ways to get data out of the corporate servers about you and me. Might take time but the governments normally win cases by invoking national security and stuff.

    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)

    by Bogtha ( 906264 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:43PM (#15474251)

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

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

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

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

      If thei

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

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

        • Yahoo's obligation to their shareholders to make money - that they deliberately, willingly took on when they went public.
        • Yahoo's obligation to Chinese citizen's freedom - that they haven't deliberately taken on, but which
        • The sole purpose of Yahoo's existence is to profit. They took on responsibility to do everything necessary to maximise profits when they started selling shares. If they don't do this, then they can be sued by their shareholders under USA law.

          I'm pretty sure none of that is true, though it's a common misconception. See here [onlineopinion.com.au], for example.

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

      And, did they take off practically every thread of clothing they were wearing, and use only... um... British-made?... non-Chinese-parts computers while swapping the e-mail they used to set up their boycott? The Chinese government's horsepower comes as much from the huge amount of overall economic activity the west in enabling them to enjoy as i
    • 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?

      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
  • Yahoo acted under the letter of the law. They are not to blame for this, rather the government of China is. No matter what else, some of the data that the government of China does not want it's people to see is leakign past, so it si better for them to be there in the long run.

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

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

      by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @03:15PM (#15474520) Homepage Journal
      Another case of liberals going overboard.

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

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

        • So by your logic (if I'm reading it correctly) journalists should do nothing. In fact none of us should do anything. Let everything be. The world becomes a worse place to live, but so be it. We're not Yahoo executives, so don't bother trying.

          Yeah, that'll help.
          • So by your logic (if I'm reading it correctly) journalists should do nothing.

            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

      • If by "liberals" you mean people, and by "going overboard" you mean caring... then yes, many of us are guilty as charged.

        I am not interested in how much you care. I am interested in what you can accomplish.

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

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

    • Wow so now I'm a liberal because I protest Yahoo's subordination to a dictatorship.
    • >Another case of liberals going overboard.

      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.
    • Another case of liberals going overboard.

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

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

      Also, (probably because of that), while Yahoo has put three people in prison, Google has put none in, to the best of my knowledge--what is there to object to?
      • Last I'd heard Google also agreed to censor search results for China, but if you've heard otherwise since then, thanks for the update.
        • Not exactly true. They censor google.cn. There's also an uncensored chinses language version of google.com. This means that Chinese citizens have not only the same information available that they had before, but also the censored version in addition to this.

  • Whatever (Score:2, Insightful)

    by moe.ron ( 953702 )
    At the end of the day the real problem here is China, not any of the US companies operating there. The letter from Yahoo! points out the obvious, if you're there you have comply with the local law, they had no choice at the time. As for whether or not any US company chooses to operate in china, what difference does it make with regards to human rights there in China? At the very least, a US company operating in China has the ability to pay a decent wage and give their Chinese employees good benefits but bey
    • If you don't believe US companies/people have any power in China. Read about a man who uses his business influence to help chinese dissidents. [npr.org].

      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

    • As for whether or not any US company chooses to operate in china, what difference does it make with regards to human rights there in China? At the very least, a US company operating in China has the ability to pay a decent wage and give their Chinese employees good benefits but beyond that how could they possibly change China's human rights policies?

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

  • Yahoo is right (Score:3, Insightful)

    by egarland ( 120202 ) on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:51PM (#15474307)
    Yahoo doesn't get to choose to ignore laws they think are wrong. If the DOJ shows up at a library wanting to know who is reading about a certain topic they have to comply, even if they believe the order is wrong and evil, and/or unconstituional. If the DOJ shows up at Yahoo and demands the same thing, they must also comply. Why would Chinese laws would apply any less?

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

    Glass houses, stones, pot, kettle... etc. etc. This is simply dog wagging.

    • Re:Yahoo is right (Score:3, Informative)

      by geoffspear ( 692508 )
      If the DOJ shows up at a library wanting to know who is reading about a certain topic they have to comply,

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

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

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

      Really? They're going to hold a gun to someone's head? Some people are willing to go to jail for what they believe in. It seems you're not and are projecting that on everyone else.
  • While I do understand the need to comply with local laws in order to do bussiness there, to what extent can Yahoo! ethically take this stance? This is the question they fail to answer, and saying "This is a real example of why this issue is bigger than any one company and any one industry." is really just passing the buck so they can keep making the bucks. What is hard to know is just how much leverage companies like Yahoo and Google have in these situations. I have a feeling it's not much by Yahoo's repons
    • I don't really think it's a cop out, but it may actually be missing an even bigger picture than Yahoo! acknowledges in their letter. Yes, Yahoo! and other multinationals must obey the local laws to do business in a given country. And yes, that may mean being at odds with their own values. But what they miss or fail to acknowledge are the long term costs to them of being on the wrong side. If China ever does develop into what the west recognizes as a free and open society, there will very likely be those who

  • Consider it outside the context.

    "NUJ advises boycott of 'unethical' Yahoo!"

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

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

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

    Yes, the Chinese laws are bad, but I cannot change them, Yahoo and Google cannot change them, and certainly the UK Journalists cannot change them.
  • For UK papers to accuse someone of unethical practices. The sloppy MMR reporting has led to a huge growth in diseases which should almost be wiped out. The Daily Mail is constantly preaching hate. I think it was the news of the world which itself helped organise what were essentially lynch squads for pedophiles who had already done their time and received adequate punishment.
  • I found this line especially poignant:
    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?

  • 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

  • I've been boycotting Yahoo for years - I don't buy any ads from them.

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

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

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

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

    • 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.

  • ...of a line from Les Mis [wikipedia.org]: “If I speak, I am condemned / If I stay silent, I am damned.” Maybe I'm the only one here who cares, but doesn't it strike you as oddly fitting the whole thing? (Well, other than the fact that Les Mis = French != British, and there's nothing to do with China anywhere in the ething, but even then, there's the whole Europe thing going.)

    Who knows. Maybe it's just me.
  • I think we need to be wary of going harsh on China - sure they are no angels but they are a million times better than Saudi Arabia and just about every other Middle Eastern country - they are going to try and ally themselves with China, especially concerning weapons (that they are too retarded to develop themselves) and energy. We need to be on China's side first because lets face it, China and Chinese society has more in common with us than with those dirty hand chopping daka-dakas who want to take over th
    • Err? No...Any country that can treat it's own citizens inhumanly is bad.It's not something that should be taken away using the the black/grey/white scale.

      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

  • Um, am I the only one who will acknowledge that Yahoo has a legal duty to its shareholders, as a corporation, to maximize profits using any legal means necessary.

    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
    • It is true that a company has a resposibility to shareholders to maximise profits. But that does not equate to having no moral responsibilities. To slightly Godwin this and extend your argument to its logical conclusion, were China to offer Yahoo cheap slave labour, you would argue they would be legally obliged to use it. This is not the case - and, even in the morality free corporation you suggest it wouldn't be the case. What the NUJ are trying to do is to bring corporate responsibility home to Yahoo
      • That's not accurate.

        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.
    • Um?

      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

  • This government is just as bad at kow-towing to China. If they want to make a change do a technology embargo on China.

    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

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close