My response to Scoble

In justifying Microsoft's filtering of politically sensitive Chinese words on MSN spaces, Microsoft's uber-blogger Robert Scoble writes: "I have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in."  He continues:

I've been to China (as an employee of Winnov about seven years ago). I met with Government officials there. I met with students. I met with professors. They explained their anti-free-speech stance to me and I understand it. I don't agree with it, and I will be happy to explain to anyone the benefits of giving your citizens the right to speak freely, but it's not my place to make their laws. It certainly is not my right to force their hand with business power.

I lived in China for nine years straight as a journalist, and if you add up other times I've lived there it comes to nearly 12. I don't know what students and professors Scoble met with, and what context he met them in. But to state that Chinese students and professors have an "anti-free-speech stance" is the biggest pile of horseshit about China I've come across in quite some time. And believe me, there are a great many such piles out there these days.

In my experience, most Chinese, like all other human beings I've ever met, would very much like to have freedom of speech. This goes for students, professors, workers, farmers, retirees, religious practitioners, and even many government officials. Many said so to me in on-the-record interviews. Many more told me so privately, in trusted confidence over beers (or something stronger) among friends. 

What they don't want is to lose their jobs and educational opportunities by pushing too hard at the restrictions their government has placed on their ability to speak. They work within the bounds of the possible, and since people in China can say a lot more now than they were allowed to say 20 years ago, most take the long-term view.

It's very true, most Chinese hate it when foreigners lecture them about how they should change. They hate being patronized. Many view the common American attitude of "we're here to save you and make you free" as condescending and hypocritical. They'd rather continue living under their extremely imperfect political situation in hopes that eventually it will change, and that this change will be accomplished by Chinese people in a Chinese way. Only then will they have ownership both of the change and of the result. Otherwise, the change will be considered foreign-imposed, and the Chinese violently detest foreign-imposed anything. Even ones who privately and quietly detest their government.

I agree with Scoble: no outsiders, including Microsoft, can force China to change. But nobody's asking Microsoft to force China to do anything. The issue is whether Microsoft should be collaborating with the Chinese regime as it builds an increasingly sophisticated system of Internet censorship and control. (See this ONI report for lots of details on that system.)  Declining to collaborate with this system is not "forcing the Chinese into a position they don't believe in."  Declining to collaborate would be the only way to show that your stated belief in free speech is more than 空话: empty words. If you believe that Chinese people deserve the same respect as Americans, then please put your money where your mouth is.

But let's not single out Microsoft for trashing on this point. As this Open Net Initiative report and this 2004 Amnesty International report will make abundantly clear, China's filtering, censorship, and surveillance systems wouldn't be what they are today without lots of help from a number of North American technology companies.  Businessman and author Ethan Gutmann wrote about Cisco's particular contribution in this 2002 article which later became a book chapter.

In the name of free enterprise, Americans so far have acquiesced in U.S. companies' collaboration in the building and reinforcement of the Great Chinese Firewall. The Global Internet Freedom Act is being revived again in congress; but while the Act would allocate money to develop censorship-busting technologies, it makes zero mention of the U.S. companies whose technologies and software services are helping to strengthen this very censorship.

Scoble says it's better to be doing business in China than not, implying that this engagement is better for China and its freedoms in the long run. Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in economic engagement with China. But nobody said Microsoft shouldn't be doing business there. It's a question of how you do business and in what manner.

I can tell you one more thing about the Chinese. They hear what you say, then they watch how you do business. From there, it's pretty easy to figure out what your real values are.

Comments

[Curt]

Amen.

[Hans Suter]

Maybe Scoble wants to tell us that he isn't free to blog ?
;-)

[Albert Tanutama]

hi Rebecca, I commented in scoble's blogs that there's a fine line between limiting and restricting. Microsoft has created a software that promotes freedom of speech, but they are required to limit the software according to the local culture. I consider it as a sign of respect to the local culture. However, if microsoft created a software, specifically, to restrict the freedom of speech in order to get a business, that I will consider as not putting the money where your mouth is.

[Craig]

Microsoft word is an export, and every dollar China spends on Microsoft products is money that flows into our economy.

Furthermore, Microsoft provides a product, they are not defenders of democracy. It's not like they're providing arms. Besides, isn't it preferable to make China depend on an American corporation, instead of encourage them to be self-sufficient and develop useful products on their own? As long as China is dependent on us for basic technology, they will not be a threat.

[Katherine]

I think you mean "respect for the local government," Albert. I think the whole point of Rebecca's post is that the local government's aims are not necessarily those of the individuals who make up the local culture.

More generally, one can justify all sorts of things as "respect for local culture," from racial and religious discrimination to stoning of homosexuals. That doesn't make those things right. If you're willing to sacrifice your stated values in the interests of business, then you have just demonstrated to the world that business is your only value.

[Tad]

At the same time you say "But to state that Chinese students and professors have an "anti-free-speech stance" is the biggest pile of horseshit about China I've come across in quite some time." you also says "In my experience, most Chinese, like all other human beings I've ever met, would very much like to have freedom of speech." and "What they don't want is to lose their jobs and educational opportunities by pushing too hard at the restrictions their government has placed on their ability to speak". Well , you just said the anti-free-speech stance is a "pile of horseshit" but you just confirms what you said down on the post ... If they like to have freedom of speech is because they don't have , and if they don't want to lose their jobs and educational opportunities by pushing the restrictions their government has placed they have an ANTI-FREE-SPEECH STANCE ...

[Robert Scoble]

Hans: I'm free to blog whatever I like. The fact that I link to those who disagree with me proves that.

[isaac]

I think Robert is free enough on blogging, but maybe not so free on thinking of the whole thing. As a Chinese blogger, I'd say how painful we are to do blogging under the shadow of "self-policing" that Robert may never feel.

Even just from technical view, Robert may understand how evil to tell a word is "illegal" or "legal". Is there any word a natural born criminal?

In this case, MS is definitely a conspiracy to "anti-free-speech" and even far more than gov like to see. So suspicious that it's a flattering behavior for some other goals?

About those "professors" and "students" Robert talked with before. I don't think they were talking to you from heart inside. People there are accustomed to tell foreigners how great my country is and try to hide any real feelings. And most importantly, the academic atmosphere in China is too "unified" today to be referenced.

[Opine6]

Craig,you are mistaken. China will knock off Microsoft's software and mass produce it. Microsoft will be lucky if they recoup their initial development cost.

American manufacturers who have been foolish enough to move their operations to China have had to contend with China setting up a factory down the road from them, producing the same product, before they've barely opened their doors.

The Chinese Government doesn't subscribe to the notion of "intellectual property". Just ask the music industry.

Other than that, I hope the Chinese will have Internet free speech someday, like we have (for now).

[digitalbrownshirt]

"Microsoft has created a software that promotes freedom of speech, but they are required to limit the software according to the local culture. I consider it as a sign of respect to the local culture."

Albert, the problem with this is that the local culture is whatever the communist party says it is. People don't generally hire government officials to keep them silent because they want to shut up but some possessing demon won't let them.

Also, nice picture Rebecca! I'm usually against the torture of a female invading my space, but think I could come around to it.

[Hans Suter]

Robert, it was a kind of joke. Why don't you answer this one:"People don't generally hire government officials to keep them silent because they want to shut up but some possessing demon won't let them." ?

[P. Ingemi]

This sounds a lot like Carlyle's quote concerning slavery during the civil war concerning hiring by the month vs for life.

[Alan Gutierrez]

Gee whiz, Robert, what if the Chinese wanted you to forward the name of the posters that attempted to use the words "democracy" and "freedom" in forbidden postings to the police and the Communist Party? What if the Chinese wanted you to mantain a database of the frequency of these attempts, and retain the content of the original posting for use in investigations and prosecutions?

You'd do it wouldn't you? Are you doing it already?

It's the Chinese law you've sworn do uphold and defend.

[digitalbrownshirt]

If "not speaking freely" is a feature of the Chinese culture, why so much effort on suppressing free speech. Why the need to suppress what isn't there?

[Todd]

We should be sympathetic to MSN, given that it is probably trying to do its best under difficult circumstances. In the end it will provide an opportunity to large numbers of people to have access to what they may not have otherwise, though it may not be as much as they like to, for now.

I also like to add one more point to the eloguent response by our host RM, which is very insightful, and with which I fully agree. I am not sure if China is ready for the kind of free, open society we have here in this country at this point. China never has had such a system in its history. Without a strong democratic political system, and a critical mass of responsible, educated public, it may only bring confusion and chaos to many of its people.

[Joe]

Yes, let's continue to tilt at windmills. The naivete of the Microsoft critics astounds me. If Microsoft were to hold a hard line with the Chinese government, they would be banned entirely from the country and one forum for the exchange of ideas would be lost. (The joke of automated censorship is that it concentrates on words or phrases, not ideas. Surely no chinese dissident is so stupid as to use those words and phrases freely on any public forum, electronic or otherwise, without understanding the consequences of doing so.)

[P. Ingemi]

something else just hit me.

There are over 1 billion people in china. Some day they will no longer be under red rule.

What happens if those same people who suffered under that rule decide to sue companies that worked with the government ala the reparations movement in the US?

Even if you don't believe in the movement (I don't) who is to say that this won't catch on there? If I was the shareholder of a company I'd be worried.

[ChinaWatcher]

I generally agree with Rebecca's outlook on this issue, but the reality that must be borne in mind is that the Internet, even the imperfect version that exists in China, has done more to enable liberation of the thinking of the Chinese people than any other mass communications tool invented. The people that build the routers, switches, cell phones, design email, IM, SMS clients, etc. are all in effect working to undermine the edifice of one-party rule in China, even if that is not their stated intention, the cumulative effect leads inexorably in that direction. Yes, the Chinese government can take certain measures to control aspects of Internet discourse, but ultimately they will run out of fingers to plug the holes in the GW of China dike. What would people have the Ciscos, Junipers, Microsofts do? Abandon the China market to the likes of Huawei, ZTE, et al. with their close links to the government, and a willingness to do the bidding of Beijing? The fact is that the free market, not the Chinese government, has led to the development of software and hardware tools for monitoring/filtering etc content, and all Beijing has to do is purchase the right stuff and configure it. In fact, you could take the opposite view, and applaud these companies for wiring China and allowing information to flow, it may not all be free, but as the volume grows, and there are more ways to subvert existing controls, the widening gap between state -controlled media and the "other" stuff will grow, and inquiring minds will wonder why....

[Richard]

Hi,

I hope you don't mind but I nicked your quote about regarding the CCP more as the China Nationalist Party these days and used it in my blog in an article about free speech and democracy. Do you think that maybe one day soon they might consider changing their name to the 國民党?!?

Richard

[Juan]

Or to invert the argument: perhaps there is a very marked Chinaization of America in values, in journalistic norms and political views (or lack thereof). America is beginning to look a lot more like China than the other way around!

[juan]

Or to invert the argument: perhaps there is a very marked Chinaization of America in values, in journalistic norms and political views (or lack thereof). America is beginning to look a lot more like China than the other way around!

[Fred]

When Robert Scoble wrote "They explained," I understood "they" to mean the people he met (Government officials, students, professors, etc.). When he said "their anti-free-speech stance," I thought "their" meant "China's." In other words, the people he met explained China's stance on free speech.

Obviously Robert can speak for himself, but I'm not sure his original post meant to imply that professors and students have an anti-free-speech policy. That'd be just, well, silly.

[Frank Braun]

Rebecca,
Gutsy position, well articulated. I admire you very much for your straightforward, blunt assessment of what is one of the more pathetic examples of corporate double-talk (or perhaps I should say, “double-reasoning”) I have seen in a long time.
The man obviously has a right to his position; but it is still a pile of horseshit, nonetheless.
Scoble’s reasoning is torpid; he misses the point…it’s not an issue of forcing the Chinese to do anything. It is an issue of allowing them to force US into a position diametrically opposed to our own values (unless you consider our core values to be expediency and making a buck at any cost). The Powers that Be in China are tough in defending what they perceive to be their “convictions”---with Scoble’s position, they have every right to hold nothing but contempt for our own lack of courage behind our “convictions”.

Frank Braun

[Rick]

comment from 'Chinawatcher':

'The fact is that the free market, not the Chinese government, has led to the development of software and hardware tools for monitoring/filtering etc content, and all Beijing has to do is purchase the right stuff and configure it. In fact, you could take the opposite view, and applaud these companies for wiring China and allowing information to flow, it may not all be free, but as the volume grows, and there are more ways to subvert existing controls, the widening gap between state -controlled media and the "other" stuff will grow, and inquiring minds will wonder why....'

There may be "more ways to subvert existing controls" in time to come, but I wouldn't necessary put any trust in that. One has to consider the mindset and ideology of the government of the day: there will be more controls and techology developed to counter any 'subversion', and there can always be laws to make such subversion (or attempted subversion) a crime, or at least to pre-empt them. Just look at a certain tiny dot of a country in Southeast Asia.

[C. Owen Johnson]

There is a larger point here, and that is that Microsoft in China does vastly more to spread democracy by supplying the tools people use to communicate than banning the word "democracy" does to impede it. Further, Microsoft furthers China's technological dependence on the US. Every year, China falls farther behind the US; becomes more dependant, less capable of threatening us, less able to challenge us in any meaningful way. They are being converted into something not far from a US client state, much the same way Russia has been. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your POV, but it is a fact.

In short, all the critical components of China's economic engine are supplied by the US or by Europe, though to a lesser extent and still with US roots. The Chinese cannot reproduce or replace these components, despite earnest efforts going back decades, nor do they fully understand them. China blusters and threatens and becomes shrill -- and internally worries strenuously about this [these facts have been freely, even vehemently acknowledged by the Leadership] -- but can find no solution. They are faced with the choice between economic growth and technological self-sufficiency, which the leadership sees as security; but that is in fact no choice at all, because technological self-sufficiency means a return to Maoist rectitude and self-sacrifice, and the current leadership maintains its position solely by it ability to deliver economic growth and above all, consumer products. They are now hostage to their promises and when they show signs of beginning to fail in those promises, they will be replaced, perhaps violently. So they forge ahead out of fear of going back and buoy their spirits up with the delusion they can control the forces that are transforming them. Wittingly or not, we -- that is MS and some other foreign companies -- support them [or seem to] and feed the delusion [e.g. that banning words or trying to block a website will actually make a difference] because transforming China is safer course than breaking China's economy [which would be a trivial exercise at this point] which could easily trigger a bloody national crisis. Thus MS -- and other US IT companies operating in China -- actually enhance our security and, in a odd way, that of China itself [though not that of the leadership].

Second: I would like to second Mark Steyn's analysis of China. [See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/06/12/do1203.xml.] I could elaborate on his thesis at much greater length but not nearly so eloquently, so I will forebear except to say the cycles of Chinese history show no sign of being radically altered and we are likely to see in our lifetimes what has happened in China so many times before.

PS to Rebecca: I’d be more careful about charges of “horseshit’. You and Scoble are both right. China is far from monolithic on that point and the answer you get depends on where you ask it. In Beijing and Xian, many students and professors — and of course all government officials — do say what Scoble reports. In Guangzhou, Shanghai, and of course Hong Kong, they will mostly say what you report — overwhelmingly so in the first and last. The answer one gets to that question depends mainly on that locality’s relation with Beijing, and that is of course the problem China faces.