Yahoo Defends Itself On China Allegations 110
Vitaly Friedman writes "Yahoo defends its policies in China as doing more good than harm, even as multiple dissidents have been jailed based on Yahoo Mail evidence. From the article: 'Yahoo continues to defend itself against charges that its Chinese operations have been responsible for the jailing of multiple dissidents. Multiple reports have surfaced which tie Yahoo Mail to various Chinese court cases that have ended in imprisonment for writers with politically unpopular opinions.'"
Anyone want to buy a bridge? (Score:4, Insightful)
Only a Yahoo would believe such a claim. In related news, has anyone read Gulliver's Travels? I take it the people who chose the name for the company didn't.
Nonsense (Score:1, Insightful)
About the best you can say is, "Shame on you, Yahoo!, for letting it be you." But, if you're going to do that, you better shame all of us for buying Chinese products. We're just as
Re:Nonsense (Score:2)
Exactly right. Conversely, if you're going to allow Yahoo to participate in human rights abuses then you'll also have to allow the Chinese government to do it. They're just as complicit, after all.
If you decide to take a stand against human right abuse then you'll have to stand againt Yahoo, the Chinese-purchasing cons
Re:Anyone want to buy a bridge? (Score:2)
"You have to get whatever news you possibly can into China as opposed to pulling back," he said. "Will they be edited? Yes. Should you go home? No."
There, now you don't have to waste your time reading this so-called "article."
I've seen blog entries by drunken teen-agers with more content and insight.
Yahoo should move its Chinese servers to USA. (Score:2)
In the imaginary country of Jailand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In the imaginary country of Jailand... (Score:1)
Cheap, Red, Back-Alley Painted Ladies (Score:4, Funny)
A: It does now!
Ya, Who would do such a thing? (Score:1)
Why is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)
I say
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1)
Yahoo sold their chinese operations to Alibaba this year.
http://www.alibaba.com/aboutalibaba/press/release
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a concern because Yahoo is a US run corporation helping a communist government crack down and imprison people for things that are not crimes in a truly free nation.
Of course China is worth billions to the US so not much is said about it. If it were, say, Cuba, then politicians would be beating their chests and wanting to invade as Cuba has little financial impact on the US economy. China does.
It's all about the almight fucking dollar.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Wars these days are not fought by having the soldiers line up and shoot.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that in at most 20 years, China will be a superpower, so if you don't fix them now while they might still listen to you, in 20 years they definitely won't listen to you. In 30 years, China may very well be the superpower, at which point how broken the US is affects me and the majority of the world's population a lot less than how broken China is.
I'll leave you with one though: around the annexation of Czechoslovakia, Neville Chamberlain remarked: "How horrible, fantastic, incredible, it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing!" or something to that effect. I'm sure people might have said something of a similar effect regarding the Holocaust if they had known: "[The Third Reich] is not the United States and they not only can, but do run things differently.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2, Insightful)
You have it bass ackwards. You're making a small case out of a big (and common) one. Freedom of speech is something we deem fundamental and universal.
When we lose the capacity to care about injustice, what good are we?
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)
Says who? Same people who thought Japan would buy out US, when Japanese economy was on a roll in 70s? Or that Soviet Union and communism comes and sweeps over the world? These same chicken littles are running around, claiming sky is falling. We'll see. I wouldn't bet on it.
Above is not to mean that status of super powers wouldn't change: it sure does over time. England and France lost their status, then Russia... US, too, will eventually lose
Godwin's law (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
We should not only sell them the gun to shoot us with but the ammo as well.
And then we should help them kill anyone protesting killing us before they come for us.
Come on guy- Yahoo is an american company-- it's okay to protest them helping a foreign government to advance non-american ideas.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1)
I disagree, they are a company first and foremost. It is not the job of the company to protect American ideals in China while doing business.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:2)
If the executives of Yahoo want to go live in China (and risk being picked up and shot one night when they say the wrong thing) then I have no problem with that. You don't see us protesting the behavior of CHINESE companies behavior in CHINA.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:1)
Judging from the long trail of executive splooge from here to China, they probably are. You only need to look at Taiwan to see that taken to the extreme.
Welcome to the real world! (Score:4, Insightful)
The internet is a technology - it's goal is not to undermine communism or authoritarian governments or to impose US ideals/values upon other countries. So why are so many people 'shocked' that companies like Yahoo! actually abide by the laws in the countries they do business in?
Look at wikipedia - just how successful do you think they'll be in China now that they're officially blocked??? Exact same thing would happen to Yahoo!
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:1)
Is this really so different, except that China has more stringent (e.g. different) laws and you don't really agree with them? And when you say they are 'acquiescing to their non-binding reque
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:1)
And and decent person should be outraged in all these cases, whether the outrage occurs in China or in the U.S.
Morality is not geographic.
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:1)
There is a huge difference between business and parental filtering and legal filtering. The role of a business is to do business, the role of a family is to perpetuate the genes and ideology of the family, but the role of law in the modern tradition is to
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:1)
Look at wikipedia - just how successful do you think they'll be in China now that they're officially blocked??? Exact same thing would happen to Yahoo!
So what? Especially when people, both Chinese and non-Chinese get to view the magnificent Bu-Wikipedia (the "Not-Wikipedia"), and laugh at it, much as they would if presented with one of the "Golden Books" series that was such a popular supermarket sales item here not so long ago. Let China develop their own censored applications. But don't give them c
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:1)
Because the for-profit companies are run by people who should give a shit about these things, even though they apparently don't?
Make no mistake: Yahoo is aiding and abetting the enemy. The Chinese government is the enemy. They're the enemy of freedom and self-determination, and should for that reason should be considered the enemy by anyone who values those thin
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:2)
It's wrong to support a company which takes actions which are immoral and would be illegal here.
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems a little absurd to expect morals of a person, and then if that person founds a company say "oh that's alright, the company can do whatever is legal". What would be the benefit of giving companies such a free pass?
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:2)
No excuse (Score:2)
Yahoo is not just a faceless corporation who must do the bidding of governments whenever told. It's made up of actual people who have to decide whether th
Re:Welcome to the real world! (Score:2)
Yahoo can't do it? (Score:3, Insightful)
So clearly, Yahoo is also powerless to change there own business practices.
I mean, that totally makes sense, right?
Mod parent down. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Mod parent down. (Score:1, Insightful)
If you turn a political dissident over to the Chinese government then you are responsible for your actions. If I do it then I'm responsinble. If Yahoo do it then as a company they are responsible, and the individuals involved in making the decisions
Re:Mod parent down. (Score:1)
You can be even more direct than that. Ask this question: would you consider it to be acceptable for the CEO of Yahoo to perso
Why can't we score an article as Flamebait? (Score:1, Insightful)
Give it a rest dudes. Please.
Private companies are not David. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Private companies are not David. (Score:2, Insightful)
The government won't say boo about China. ~20% of the world's people live under a repressive regime and the leader dines with Bill Gates (a few weeks ago). Government doesn't give a rats ass so long as there's profit to be made. Just as good Ferengi should.
Re:Private companies are not David. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Private companies are not David. (Score:2)
Re:Private companies are not David. (Score:1)
If Yahoo sets this well-intentioned precedent and bends the Chinese law, then other companies will feel entitled to do the same, but in the name of self-interest.
Semel is right, lawmaking is a matter to be settled between US and Chinese governments. Com
Re:Private companies are not David. (Score:2)
Didn't Eisenhower warn of a coming military/industrial complex that would intertwine with government to distort its focus and provide inappropriate funding to industry? Things are now so mixed up that it's come back to bite companies as they're expected to do the work governments.
What's one customer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's one customer... (Score:2)
The lone customer will do what exactly?
Re:What's one customer... (Score:1)
Probably just languish in prison wondering if his family is safe and if the guards are going to beat him again. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/01/china11957
Current National Mindset (Score:1, Insightful)
Though the nation was founded by those who think this is WRONG to harm innocents in the process of justice, those in charge don't mind. (the sheep do not matter....)
What a stupid article (Score:2)
Re:100% lame (Score:1)
Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_pri_per_c
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2)
P.S. On the same page, you'll find that "Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen" still officially execute juveniles. "China, the most frequent user of capital punishment, does not allow f
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:1)
Actually put people to death that are on death row and that number will drop even sharper. (at least the ones that we KNOW did it, not just the ones where there was even still questionable evidence)
Using execution figures from Amnesty International here's the story:
1. USA - 300 million people - 60 executions per year = 20 per 100 million
2. Vietnam - 80 million people - 60 executions per year = 75 per 100 million people
3. Iran - 70 million people
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2)
Your argument that the US is better because it executes fewer people than in China is stupid. If the US put an end to the medieval practice of killing people, perhaps you could exercise a greater pressure on China on the capital punishment. We try to do that in Europe, but the US is a fly in the ointment, as always when it comes to human rights (the Gitmo gulags, intervention in too many countries, spy planes over Euro
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:1)
Guess which country is a solid #1 for prisoners per capita?
Right. And according to your posted source, Cuba and Sudan are oh-so-pure at 0 prisoners per 100,000. Bad, bad, US. Bad US. Bad.
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:1)
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2)
I'd bet my lunch the companies we are bashing (Yahoo, Google etc.) have given into more questionable American subpoena the name of "anti-terror" than Chinese over speech violations.
If you skip the one sided over sensationalized headlines typical of Slashdot and actually read what Yahoo said [com.com] on the issue you will probably see their point.
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2)
"The record holder, though, is undoubtedly Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge: the regime forced virtually the entire population into labor camps or prisons during the late 1970s, killing as many as two million of the country's six to seven million people."
I particularly liked the fact that cuba had zero prisoners. Wow! Either the criminals are running rampant there or there are no criminals according to "reported" prisoners.
There is a reason huge numbers of people
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2)
According to your link there is no one in prison in ten countries. Some of the whose own governments admit there are prisoners.
Try again.
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2)
Some interpretation (Score:2)
A telling statistic is the US's portion of citizens who have been victims of a crime: 21%, which while high, only puts them at 15th of 21 reporting countries. That means they have a middle-of-the-pack crime rate but the world's highest jai
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2)
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2)
That China jails dissidents is bad, but they are not that many. Most prisoners in China are in jail for real crimes.
Re:Here's a ranking of prisoners per capita (Score:2)
I don't know if China or the US will come on top in stats; I certainly don't see any reason to believe that the US has any monopoly on free speech or liberal-democratic values. For sure, I'm not even saying that China is closed or totalitarian; most of my PRC friends and colleagues (I'm neither American,
doing more good than harm (Score:2, Interesting)
Old song, older lyrics (Score:1)
The way I see it is (Score:1)
Much like handing over Jews to Nazis for Gold (Score:1, Insightful)
In the cases sited, Yahoo gave the Government information without due legal process. Yes, even in Hong Kong there is a separation of Judiciary and Legislature.
The point is that Yahoo did not do this because it had to, other HK and Western companies reguarly follow proper due process.
Yahoo clearly did this to suck up to a government which will be handing out contracts and concessions - essentially it grassed its customers for cash. They should be f*****g shot b***stards. Coll
Re:Much like handing over Jews to Nazis for Gold (Score:1)
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Using the same rationalitions.
Here's your chance, folks (Score:2)
Once again, you can gratouitously shit on China because it is a repressive authoritarian regime, and say stupid things like "no information is better than censored information," or "foreign companies have a duty to flout the law in authoritarian countries," or any of the other drivel so often posted under this topic.
Things are not as they appear at first glance; if you l
Don't burn bridges as you cross them. (Score:1)
Yahoo! Go to Hell. (Score:2)
What will they do? (Score:1)
I say switch to Google, they are only slightly better.
Boycott Yahoo says NYT's Kristoff (Score:3, Informative)
Kristoff: "...nobody should touch Yahoo until it provides financially for the families of the three men it helped lock up and establishes annual fellowships in their names to bring Web journalists to America on study programs."
I think Kristoff's suggestion sounds doable.
Pay only link: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F
The website that coordinates the Yahoo boycott follows:
http://www.booyahoo.com/ [booyahoo.com]
Booyahoo has a link which details some of the alternatives to Yahoo services (hotmail, etc.) Some Slashdot users may want to help flesh it out.
Wikipedia lists some of the Yahoo owned sites and services (to avoid?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo [wikipedia.org]!
Yahoo!'s CEO, Terry Semel, talked about this... (Score:2)
Qui Bono? (Score:3, Insightful)
The profit chain doesn't just stop with Yahoo. Ultimately, the suppression of the Chinese people benefits Americans, and most other western countries. Not just through Yahoo, but through the collusion of countless other multinational companies with the Chinese oligarchs.
Our societies profit from the oppression of other nations. They did it during the colonial era, and they are doing it right now. The method has changed, some might say it's less severe now, but the result is the same.
People lose their freedom, so we live in opulence. And for most people in the west, it's a price they are more than happy to accept. Compassion is a rare commodity in the face of profit.
Shi Tao case: yahoo *not* obligated (Score:1)
This wasn't a case of complying with Chinese law, but of Yahoo trying to get onto the side of the Chinese government.
Rule of law (Score:2)
If we disagree we have two choices.