By silicon.com, 13 June 2005 17:30
Microsoft has been accused of censoring the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' from its MSN website in China only a month after creating the web portal.
The FT said the company is blocking anti-communist phrases to avoid upsetting the Chinese government.
The software giant has neither confirmed nor denied this censorship but has given some woolly, non-committal statements that it abides by the regulations of the countries in which it operates. Which in the case of China is a fuller answer than you might imagine. Just ask Altavista or Google; China blocked its citizens from reaching both websites a couple of years ago.
Yahoo! has had tangles with the country too. In 2002 it defended a decision to sign up to voluntary content limitations with the Chinese government.
Getting into bed with the Chinese seems to be one of the major objectives of internet companies. After all, who could possibly afford to ignore an audience of more than a billion people? But at what cost?
The long-term gain is obvious for international corporations as they move towards globalisation. But any company that makes political statements - either way - on subjects such as censorship for the sake of business or supporting gay rights will also inevitably alienate some customers.
Freedom and democracy are deemed sacred in the west, where most internet media companies were born, so bending to communist requests won't sit easily with everyone.
Companies have to weigh whether whatever ethical or political stances they take are worth the possible negative PR and damaged customer relationships. In going along with China's censorship rules, Microsoft is tacitly approving of these rules.
At the same time, it's just a company trying to stay in business in a foreign country with a different set of cultural and societal standards.
To ignore China's censorship rules would be to prepare for an ideological fight. And is that really the job of a software company?
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. richard miller
The answer is in your article
> Freedom and democracy are deemed sacred in the west, where most internet media companies were born,
It is these values that enabled the environment where these companies are born. To actively support an environment which would stifle their birth is disgraceful - but it is a part of a wider problem. Large companies are not individuals, so they can get away with the Nuremberg defence of 'we were only following orders'
It is time that we hold the CEO of a company personally responsible for the moral outcome of the actions of the company they direct. With great rewards should come great responsibilities. With the rise of multinational companies but no multinational governance we are sleepwalking into a dystopia where companies will support values and processes that oppress human values in the interest of financial ones because they are not accountable for their actions. Union Carbide and Bhopal were an example of this in the physical world - this is a minor example in the virtual world.
Having said all that the Chinese are nothing if not resourceful. I am sure their spelling of these keywords will suddenly become dreadful :)
2. anonymous
Most business and especially their senior management have NO ethics whatsoever. This article , therefore, is a bit naive.