Google Shareholders Vote Against Anti-Censorship Proposal – pcworld.com: A majority of Google shareholders voted against an anti-censorship proposal that took aim at the way the search giant conducts its business in China and other countries that engage in active censorship.
The company received a large amount of criticism last year on news that its Chinese search engine, Google.cn, engages in self-censorship. Patrick Doherty, who introduced the proposal on behalf of the New York City pension funds and the Office of the Comptroller of New York City, referred to Google’s congressional testimony from last year, which acknowledged that “the requirements of doing business in China include self-censorship–something that runs counter to Google’s most basic values and commitments as a company.”
In response, David Drummond, senior vice president for corporate development, said flat out that “this proposal would prevent us from operating Google.cn.”
The company’s board of directors had recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal.
Is it just me or Google has lost it’s liberal edge and is drifting towards a much more conservative way of handling business?
Let me see here…so they voted against the anti-censorship proposal and the anti-censorship proposal was proposed to stop censoring so that means they are going to continue censoring. <whew!>
We gotta stop giving in to the Chinese commies!
This is upsetting. It will be difficult for me to stop using google in a business that requires good information searching. Shit!
Why is this surprising? Google is a publicly traded company; pulling out of China would mean less money, so the shareholders are voting against it.
You buy stocks to make money; not to change the world, or “do the right thing. “
I voted to stop the censorship, but I did so knowing it would never pass. Is my conscience clear?
see… they made a mistake by *voting* – thats what mucked it all up
5. So it would be ok for you to buy stock in a company that was morally unacceptible to you? Lets say you are rabidly anitwar, Halliburton stock OK? Not making judgements, just wondering.
6. I’d say yes, trying to change the system from within is OK.
Liberals are as blindered as neocons, sometimes. Read enough history and you’ll discover political growth follows economic growth – not the other way round.
Do you honestly think China – or any other nation with several thousand years of history – will instantly flip around to what’s evolved on the other side of the planet (in only a couple hundred years) because “we” say they should.
In reality, commerce always trumps politics. That’s part of diplomacy. The rest is religion.
Google brings a potential service to Chinese people by being there. There is no shortage of means for anyone interested – in China – to get around the “official” censorship. Meanwhile, the other 99.99% of information made available is a Plus.
#2 – #1 they just became a run-of-the-mill yellow. Does this mean we will have to start boicoting google too?
Comment by pedro — 5/11/2007 @ 9:21 am
Are “we” boycotting anyone? I’m not boycotting anyone. Who are you boycotting? If I am supposed to boycott something, send me the memo.
#11 – I agree with the part of your statement, but before we do that we are gonna have to come to an agreement on what it is we think is broken.
I have a feeling there are two different and incompatible solutions in mind here…
Many companies have innovative ideals, like Google…then they go public.
In a phrase:
The problem is the people.
Just put a tariff on China until we like their system of government. Why knock Google for Chinese policies?
Hummm I guess a Mkt Cap of 145.33B will do that too you.
#17 – Why knock Google for Chinese policies?
Because Google does evil. Google lost their soul when they went IPO.
#5 – Tom
“You buy stocks to make money; not to change the world, or “do the right thing. “”
Then I may take it that if you are given the opportunity to invest in an apparently profitable company that traffics in kiddie porn, or facilitates human slavery, f’rinstance, you’d have no problem participating, letting them use your money to help destroy human lives and human society so long as you make a profit, am I right?
• • • • • • • • • • • •
It’s fairly obvious that one or two of you are (blissfully) unaware that Google has made a big deal about their business philosophy, in an effort to set themselves apart from amoral, typically Republican, businesses that put profit before human decency.
From the ‘Google Investor Relations’ site:
Ya. Riiiiight.
Now I don’t know about you, but in my book, there are numerous different words that might be used to describe caving in to a totalitarian government’s oppession of it’s populace in order to maintain profitability – “ethical”, however, is not among those words.
I’m curious as to what Google censors in China and what they don’t censor. I figure they probably censor most, if not all human rights abuses but do they provide links to stuff the Communists actually tell them to link to?
For instance, do they censor links to information and pictures of mass executions of ‘enemies of the state’ in sports stadiums or do they provide links to such information because the Communists tell them to provide those links?
How about slave labor, creating cheap goods for export to the U.S.? Do the Communists tell Google it’s OK to provide links to that information or would that fall under the umbrella of verboten subjects?
How about exported pet food, poisoning American pets? Is Google allowed to link to that information or is it a secret in China?
If Google is making enough money in China, will they start censoring things in the U.S. because the Communists told them to? After all, I can’t see them giving up any profits and if the Communists tell them to censor something for U.S. consumption, they’d better censor it, right? The poor stockholders desperately need those few extra bucks they get from their Google stock and I can’t see them objecting on stupid, non-economic grounds like morality or principle.
By any standards, Google is now working for the Communists with the blessing of their shareholders. In such a case, can they still be called an ‘American’ company and can their American shareholders still be called moral, loyal Americans?
Don’t be evil. Right! This can of worms has just been opened and there’s going to be a lot more of this “profits over humanity and freedom” debate in the near future.