Why Microsoft censorship in China matters to everybody

Seems like I have created a bit of a stir with my last post on Microsoft's censorship of MSN Spaces Chinese blogs. Lots of interesting trackbacks and comments there. Definitely worth a read-through.

Sounds like Microsoft's Robert Scoble may be softening his stance a bit.  It seems like there are a lot of conversations and arguments going on internally at Microsoft that he can't talk about. (UPDATE: Robert says he hasn't softened his view; he's just trying to understand the other side.) Two other Microsoft employees have blogged about the situation here and here, defending their company's China censorship policy as a necessary evil.  Click through those links, read their full posts, and let them know what you think. (Update: Mat Marshall at Siliconbeat has updated his report with an official statement from Microsoft. More justifications.)

I liked the reaction of Imagethief, blogging from China:

As for the "obeying local laws defense", I have criticized that in this space previously. Certainly China is going to impose unique constraints on foreign companies operating within its borders, and I don't think the solution is necessarily for those companies to quit China (not least because my job depends on them being here). But the question that situations --and excuses-- like this raise for American tech-media companies is this: where is your ethical horizon? Every country has its own laws and regulations. Some are more egregious than others. Some are indefensible. When do a company's values supercede its desire to make money and generate shareholder return? Does that point exist in the absence of public scrutiny? Perhaps some American tech-media companies would like to articulate what kind of "local laws and regulations" would push them too far?

Hear hear.  Meanwhile, according to Forbes, Michael Anti's appeals to MSN customer service have gone completely unanswered. While MSN Spaces serves thousands of Chinese bloggers, they appear to have no China-focused customer service. Are we surprised?

In my view, this issue goes far beyond China. The behavior of companies like Microsoft, Yahoo! and others - and their eager willingness to comply with Chinese government demands - shows a fundamental lack of respect for users and our fundamental human rights. Globally.

Microsoft, Yahoo! and others are helping to institutionalize and legitimize the integration of censorship into the global IT business model.

Do not count on these companies to protect your human rights, if those rights are threatened by the over-stretching hand of any government anywhere on the planet.

If these American technology companies have so few moral qualms about giving in to Chinese government demands to hand over Chinese user data or censor Chinese people's content, can we be sure they won't do the same thing in response to potentially illegal demands by an over-zealous government agency in our own country? Can we trust that they're not already doing so?

When it comes down to  interests of government vs. interests of the individual it seems pretty clear where their default position lies. 

Will users and investors push for an attitude change? Can we convince them that disrespecting the universal human rights of users anywhere and everywhere will be bad for their business in the long run? Or will we all sit there like frogs in water being brought very slowly to a boil? 

Comments

[BGW]

While 'obeying local laws' is what Microsoft is using to defend itself, it seems to me like they are avoiding the central issue. The question has been raised numerous times and I have yet to see anyone at Microsoft address it: 'Why did Microsoft apparently feel the need to remove or block this blog completely, worldwide?' There may be reasons for this, technical or otherwise, that I do not understand. It may have been a mistake. Or maybe something appears to be different than it actually is in reality. Whatever the case, I think that we need to hear this question addressed. As far as I can understand, 'local laws' have no bearing on what Microsoft does with its services outside of China.

How Microsoft and other companies work in China is an important and complex issue that needs to be wrestled with both within and without the Chinese context. But this instance seems to be a case where someone or something in one country succeeded in disrupting the flow of information not only within that country, but on a global scale, with the cooperation of a global company. To think that this never happens is obviously naive, but like Scoble inferred in his first post, it is an issue that we ignore to our own peril.

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

BGW, yes, you're absolutely right. Thanks for adding that.

[Robert Scoble]

Just to be clear, I haven't softened my view. I was trying to explain the complexities of this issue.

One thing I dislike in people is when they just are religious about their point of view and can't see value in other points of view. I find that if you want to change people's view that you must get in their shoes first and figure out how to walk in them for a while.

It's an art very few people on the Internet practice.

[Rebecca MacKinnon]

Robert, yes, you're right, it's good to understand others' point of view. Perhaps I misread your last post as defending that point of view to some extent. I hope you'll elaborate eventually on your progress in convincing people over there.

I too can see their point of view and understand it. A lot of people agree with them. But I believe rather strongly that they are on the wrong side of history.

[Monty]

I find that if you want to change people's view that you must get in their shoes first and figure out how to walk in them for a while.

Robert, with all due respect, that's a completely wrongheaded notion in this case. I understand why Microsoft did what they did; I simply do not agree for ethical reasons. You're assuming that there's some deep and mysterious rationale to Microsoft's decision, when in fact it's obvious that it was motivated by business calculus: Microsoft wants to be in the Chinese market, and doesn't want to aggravate the Chinese government. How else can you read it?

[bill bishop]

and google looks like it may self-censoring google video in china
http://bbb.typepad.com/billsdue/2006/01/google_blocking.html

[Easycure]

When it comes down to it, it's all about the almight dollar. If Microsoft begins feeling like following Chinese government is going to hurt their bottom line, they'll change their own policies. Until then, watch what happens....

- crickets chirping -

[Chuck Pelto]

TO: BGW
RE: Something We've Known for a Long Time

"How Microsoft and other companies work in China is an important and complex issue that needs to be wrestled with both within and without the Chinese context." -- BGW

All business is complex. But none of it is rocket-science.

Many of us have known that Micrsoft was evil for a very long time. And whereas it was meant in jest back in the 80s, today we realize how close to the truth it was in the first pace.

When I saw tha Microsoft was in-bed with the Communist Chinese in the management of their internet, I knew the truth of the matter. It was blatantly obvious to all but the most benighted observer.

"But this instance seems to be a case where someone or something in one country succeeded in disrupting the flow of information not only within that country, but on a global scale, with the cooperation of a global company." -- BGW

Now we see, in this matter, the next step in the logical progression of Microsoft protecting its business interests, at the expense of everyone.

As some wag put it, over 2000 years ago, "The love of money is the root of all evil."

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[When it is time to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope. -- Stalin]

P.S. As for the benighted amonst US, as long as you buy Microsoft products, you're part of the problem.

[GFK]

"In my view, this issue goes far beyond China. The behavior of companies like Microsoft, Yahoo! and others - and their eager willingness to comply with Chinese government demands - shows a fundamental lack of respect for users and our fundamental human rights."

Are you surprised?

Companies as big as Microsoft find it very hard to innovate and compete with smaller, more flexible businesses. In every major industry, from Pharma to Steel, the big companies look to the government to help stifle small new businesses and reduce competition.

Microsoft is no different. While they haven't been very successful at it here in the states, with their knee-jerk censorship in China and billions in "donations" to India they may get more consideration from the Governments of these developing countries.

If we don't like it we can buy Mac's and Sony Playstations as we are increasingly doing.

[GFK]

Gee Robert, thanks for staying so open-minded about the blogosphere and not jumping to conclusions.

Oh, and thanks for the pedantry and condescension too!

"One thing I dislike in people is when they just are religious about their point of view and can't see value in other points of view. I find that if you want to change people's view that you must get in their shoes first and figure out how to walk in them for a while."

- from above post

"Already there are plenty of people who took me to task for reacting like a blogger and not waiting until I had checked with all the parties."

- from Roberts blog Rebecca linked to.

[Jeff Never Learns]

I understand that within China Microsoft has to play by certain rules, ultimately, though it should have a policy of constantly trying to expand them. The problem is, the Chinese are famously hang-tough negotiators. So if you show them you can be blackmailed over what happens in China, where do they stop? Will Microsoft censor Taiwanese blogs because China says to? Will Microsoft censor Chinese dissident blogs in America if they publish an email from China? (What, after all, is the practical difference between a Chinese MSN blog and a Chinese-written blog entry on an MSN blog officially "based" in the US?) As so often in these cases, giving in to keep the business relationship alive means lots more opportunities to give in will follow.

[TBlakely]

So Chuck(le) when do you think the Microsoft stormtroopers will kick down your door and drag you off to their virtual gulag?

TBlakely

[Stanger]

All this hub-bub about Company Values and Corporate Ethics is complete nonsense! The only thing big companies (any big company) values is money, and the only thing un-ethical in the corporate world is loosing money. Period. Everything else is fair game.

Big corporations do not care one whit about people, customers, employees, rights, laws, regulations, justice, culture, society, or anything other than money.

This is why we continually see companies making decisions that fulfill short-term greed, but in the long run hurt themselves and often others as well. Such as it has always been, such as it will always be.

[Baker]

It seems a tad naive to expect Microsoft, or any other outside business entity, to unilaterally democratize China.

As a business model, what advantage for MSM when they delete spaces? As a practical matter, it's simply counter-productive. More, it invites aggressive competition.

What's most amusing, however, is the assumption domestic blogs may now suffer a similar fate - as if the Internet is confined to Bill Gates' garage.

Meanwhile, we talk only words - while in China, an American company has made a substantial investment, which in the end will facilitate all citizens of the Internet.

[TM Lutas]

Some of us have had issues with MS for quite some time now. For those of us in the IT community, we have been quietly, though eagerly, awaiting the arrival of replacement code. As it arrives, we put it in place. With Samba, we no longer need Microsoft for file and print services for Windows. As OpenOffice and other office alternatives mature, we're going to move off of MS Office. We'll get the Microsoft Corporation out of our business infrastructure step by step, not for any ideological reasons, but because Microsoft has made many, many missteps that have been against our interests and when we no longer have to grit our teeth and bear it, we will stop. The day is coming.

Some of these missteps have been unfair competition in the form of offering interoperability in public but shaping the code in violation of that promise in private (this dates all the way back to the DOS era). Hard ball business deals are par for the course but Microsoft walks up to the ethical lines as SOP and goes over when they think they can get away with it or the fines won't outweigh the profits of bad behavior.

Time after time MS has raised the ire of various groups of people for various reasons. The common thread running through them has been a poor focus on business ethics. It shows itself here again with the decision to censor a blog worldwide.

This censorship is not, in fact, to satisfy local law. It is to satisfy a potentate's decree that a voice must be silenced. Microsoft bent its knee and complied. Every time this is done, a small fraction of its customer base turns toward alternatives, the coders making those alternatives (some open source, some not) work harder, and others who were merely contemplating making the jump, actually do it.

Congratulations MS, you've motivated me properly to continue deploying as much MS software as I can.

[Vulgorilla]

Microsoft is truly living up to its image as the "Evil Empire". If, during the upcoming revolution, I happen to "off" Bill Gates, I won't have any remorse since he would undoubtedly do the same to me should some government ask him to do just that.

The best way to fight this censorship? Hit them in the pocket book. Stay away from Micro$oft software / products. Embrace their competitors offerings, and spread the word. It won't happen over night, but it will happen. It took several years to bring the MSM to their knees using the same tactics, but the NYT is now laying off employees! Lets see if we can force Micro$oft to follow suit.

[Duke of DeLand]

I, for one, would be quite interested in hearing from Robert and any other Microsoft spokesperson who could tell me flat out that they (Microsoft) has NOT intereferred with, controlled, nor closed any other blog in any other country than this lone China case.

If they cannot say that, then tell me if there has been any form of interference with any blogger in the United States!

I'd love to hear a flat statement, not a dance-around.

Duke

[PersonFromPorlock]

I find that if you want to change people's view that you must get in their shoes first and figure out how to walk in them for a while.

The blogosphere's problem, I think, is that we suspect Microsoft of being not in China's shoes but in its pocket. We're told that even whores won't kiss for money but we aren't so sure about Microsoft.

[Mike]

I just like to think of the MS employees cheerfully censoring blogs for the almighty dollar, then clicking over to a news report and becoming alarmed and incensed at our own government SPYING on our own citizens! For shame!

[Chris]

It's unfortunate that nearly everyone uses this as an opportunity for shallowest of moral grandstanding.

If MSN Spaces does not abide by the terms the Chinese government sets down, it will be blocked off from Chinese visitors, just as many other websites are. That would mean the many thousands of Chinese who have worked to create blogs hosted by MSN would lose everything they have put on those sites. For the Chinese who do not yet have blogs, it means they will have lost one choice of platform. While there are other places for Chinese to blog, all of them are equally restrictive. Further, some Chinese must view the feature set of MSN as preferable to other blogging services to explain its popularity.

The net result for ordinary Chinese would be the loss of a valuable community, fewer blogging services, and a less competitive market, with no improvement in their actual level of freedom.

There's no "morality" in harming the Chinese people in this fashion. Microsoft is trying to provide a service, MSN Spaces, one many Chinese bloggers obviously see as valuable. This provision of this service is mutually beneficial to both Microsoft and its users. Microsoft is limited to the extant it can provide this service by the Chinese government - it is not plausibly within Microsoft's power to change this.

To defy the government's wish in this matter is equivalent in its consequences to shutting the service down altogether, as far as Chinese users are concerned. In no way is the "moral" course of action. It would rip away the community they've created, and the work invested in their blogs. It would in fact be "immoral" to do this.

All of you are too busy engaging in self righteous moral posturing to reflect on how your

"The behavior of companies like Microsoft, Yahoo! and others - and their eager willingness to comply with Chinese government demands - shows a fundamental lack of respect for users and our fundamental human rights. Globally."

This is false. No one has a fundamental human right to use Microsoft's private property to host their blog, especially when they are using it in a way that threatens the existence of thousands of other blogs, if it causes the Chinese government were to block off MSN Spaces entirely.

Anti has a fundamental human right to use his *own* property
(not that which belongs to others) to engage in free speech. And that right is not in any way being violated by Microsoft. It is being violated solely by the Chinese government.

[Andy Green]

I also concluded that Microsoft is not a force for Good in the world (despite the Gates Foundation very public redistribution action), but to be fair the problems are usually much more diffuse and deniable than this.

(BTW, in answer to Robert's point about empathy with the other guy, okay, once you felt like how it is to be in the other guy's shoes, and you still hate it, I guess it's okay to go on the same...)

It's not very moral to rot children into some kind of passive twitching consumer as the Xbox 360 does, but that is more defensible than cooperating to silence these bloggers for no reason but to chum up with the regime in expectation of first corporate, and then personal gain.

Microsoft is a flagship American corporation, the logic for not destroying its monopoly was not to destroy this American engine of software imperialism.

But unfortunately even if people want to do the right thing, there is no language or logic that can be used inside such a beast to justify NOT making a buck when the buck can be made and the people damaged by it are poorer than you, you will never meet them, and there is no legal liability to worry about (for there is no law that forces MSN to carry this guy's stuff).

[WILLIS]

"One thing I dislike in people is when they just are religious about their point of view and can't see value in other points of view. I find that if you want to change people's view that you must get in their shoes first and figure out how to walk in them for a while."

While you are doing your Vulcan Mind-Meld with the chicoms, Robert, consider that their over-arching goal is to retain their power over a population that did not grant them that power. At least pretend that you are not sympathetic to their "point of view" expressed in "local laws." I have finally seen the usefulness of open-source software.

[Texican]

Microsoft is a company trying to make money. China (Customer) is a huge market. The Chinese (Customers)have dictated the cost of doing business there, and Microsoft chose to sell to them under their terms.

Every company in America does this sort of thing every day.

I don't really understand why most everyone is up in arms about this. Microsoft as an orginization has only one purpose. (Hint: It is not to change the world)

They are serving their customers. I agree with Chris that Microsoft is not a force for good in the world. They are their to turn a profit and reward their shareholders. That they think that this purpose is best served by agreeing to one of their larger customers T&C's is not "evil" as has been stated here, it's just business.

[Conrad]

"One thing I dislike in people is when they just are religious about their point of view and can't see value in other points of view."

Doesn't this quote perfectly describe the mindset of the CCP and isn't it precisely what Microsoft is facilitating by doing Beijing's dirty work?

I guess ole Bob is able to overcome his dislike when there's a buck to be made.

[Chuck Pelto]

TO: TBlakely
RE: When?

"So Chuck(le) when do you think the Microsoft stormtroopers will kick down your door and drag you off to their virtual gulag?" -- TBlakely

Never. If I can help it. They tried last March, when I installed their 30-day demo on my primary workstation and lost control of it.

Had to do a brain-wipe on the poor thing and re-install the OS.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[When Microsoft finally makes a product that doesn't suck, it'll be a vacuum cleaner.]