The Chinese Threat To American Speech (nytimes.com) 233
American companies have an obligation to defend the freedom of expression, even at the risk of angering China, writes The New York Times' Editorial Board. From the article: China's assertive campaign to police discourse about its policies, even outside of its borders, and the acquiescence of American companies eager to make money in China, pose a dangerous and growing threat to one of this nation's core values: the freedom of expression. The Communist state is becoming more and more aggressive in pressuring foreign companies to choose between self-censorship and the loss of access to what will soon be the world's largest market. An old list of taboo topics, sometimes described as the "three Ts" -- Tibet, Tiananmen and Taiwan -- has been joined by newer subjects that must not be mentioned, including protests in Hong Kong and China's mistreatment of its Muslim minority. The Constitutions of China and the United States both enshrine freedom of speech, but China's totalitarian regime has long taken a narrow view of that freedom -- and American companies have long accepted those restrictions while doing business in China. Now, however, China is seeking to control not just what is said in China but what is said about China, too. If China has its way, any topic it deems off limits will be scrubbed from global discourse.
For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the United States finds itself in a contest of ideas and principles with a country in its own weight class. But this time is different. The United States and China are economically intertwined: The trade volume between the two countries is the greatest of any between two countries in the history of the world. There is no reasonable prospect of disengagement, nor is that a desirable outcome. The clear necessity is for the two countries to find ways of living together, and coexistence requires respect for differences. Instead, China is engaged in the kind of cultural imperialism it often decries. China insists that its national interest is at stake. So is the national interest of the United States and other free nations. China has taken a hard line, and it's time for the United States to respond in kind. The United States and American businesses have a duty to not appease the censors in Beijing -- even if the price of insisting on free expression is a loss of access to the Chinese market.
For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the United States finds itself in a contest of ideas and principles with a country in its own weight class. But this time is different. The United States and China are economically intertwined: The trade volume between the two countries is the greatest of any between two countries in the history of the world. There is no reasonable prospect of disengagement, nor is that a desirable outcome. The clear necessity is for the two countries to find ways of living together, and coexistence requires respect for differences. Instead, China is engaged in the kind of cultural imperialism it often decries. China insists that its national interest is at stake. So is the national interest of the United States and other free nations. China has taken a hard line, and it's time for the United States to respond in kind. The United States and American businesses have a duty to not appease the censors in Beijing -- even if the price of insisting on free expression is a loss of access to the Chinese market.
Intertwined... (Score:5, Informative)
But this time is different. The United States and China are economically intertwined:
NIXXXOOOONNNNN!!!!!!!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Will either sacrifice access two China's private markets (by refusing to to meet the prerequisites involving censorship and deferment to Chinese culture and government) Or we will prove that the sacredness of free speech and US culture has become an empty farce.
We'll create wholly owned subsidiaries that operate in those regions in such a way as to handled the local laws and customs while shielding ourselves from any future mud thrown while washing our hands of the business decision that's been made.
Re: (Score:2)
hey alvin, about your newsletter.....
The irony (Score:5, Insightful)
how many companies have done this? How many have simply knuckled under for the money? I suggest the later far outweigh the former.
is that this is only short term money. In the long term, non-Chinese businesses will be replaced by Chinese ones. And they will be using our technology - either given to them as a condition of doing business in China, or stolen by various means. Then they use our technology to undercut our businesses.
In the long run, our businesses would be more profitable by stopping the flow of their technology to China. But that would require sacrificing short term profits.
Re: Intertwined... (Score:5, Insightful)
But even that won't really work.
Take the recent NBA incidents in the news.
Something a coach said just speaking freely of his own accord, supporting Hong Kong, something that is freely said here....prompted the Chinese to clamp down on the WHOLE NBA...which then put pressure on this individual to back off his comments, etc.
So, even if you had subsidiaries...that toed the line IN China, they will still try to silence people outside that subsidiary if they know they are associated with it via a connected company.
That is the Chinese desire...to suppress any speech they find derogatory or embarrassing about their government, or against their actions through economical means.
This isn't just about China wanting to control speech within their borders, this is them wanting to control it world wide.
Re: Intertwined... (Score:5, Informative)
Wait, wait, you've missed the best part.
It was something a coach said on Twitter.
You know, the social network that's banned in China.
That's one of the things that's so egregious about this. Their own citizens can't even see the content on that network, and China made a big deal about it anyway. This is not a subtle campaign by them.
Re: Intertwined... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two issues:
1. You can't "privately own" anything in China. You want to do business there, the Chicoms make you partner up with a local.
2. That local will make sure you do things the party likes. Otherwise, the whole thing will get shut down.
3. What the party likes can be anything. Don't forget, that the Chinese don't have a sense of humor. See "Winnie the Pooh".
Re: (Score:2)
Two issues:
1. You can't "privately own" anything in China. You want to do business there, the Chicoms make you partner up with a local.
2. That local will make sure you do things the party likes. Otherwise, the whole thing will get shut down.
3. What the party likes can be anything. Don't forget, that the Chinese don't have a sense of humor. See "Winnie the Pooh".
Ok three and I forgot to edit. Too late to fix now!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Given ideological evangelism, masking won't work (Score:4, Interesting)
Will either sacrifice access two China's private markets (by refusing to to meet the prerequisites involving censorship and deferment to Chinese culture and government) Or we will prove that the sacredness of free speech and US culture has become an empty farce.
We'll create wholly owned subsidiaries that operate in those regions in such a way as to handled the local laws and customs while shielding ourselves from any future mud thrown while washing our hands of the business decision that's been made.
No we won't. Because there will be forced partnerships with domestics, and depending on the importance of the industry the domestics are more likely to include state ownership to some degree.
And even for a very rare wholly owned entity, or a partnership, the foreign entity will only have an open market as long as the necessary official or unofficial technology transfers take place and the local workforce is fully trained and equipped. Then a fully domestic competitor will appear with an amazingly similar product. Depending on the importance of the product this will occur more rapidly. For the extremely complicated jet engine business the Communist Party plan was to have the domestic up and running in five years.
And in your hypothetical, the wholly owned domestic will not shield the US parent from criticism and pressure, the wholly owned will suffer for any "misbehavior" by the parent. This isn't some BS PR stunt where such masking works. We are dealing with ideological evangelism, it will cut through all such masking. The domestic will be a tool for exerting pressure on the parent.
Re: Intertwined... (Score:5, Insightful)
The New York Times thinks corporations should defend free speech in China, but suppress free speech in America: Free Speech is Killing Us [nytimes.com]. Whatever.
Re: Intertwined... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
viewpoints generally considered abhorrent
You're going to have to define abhorrent. For example, at one time, burning an American flag in protest was considered abhorrent all the way up until it was enshrined as political speech and protected. Is the First Amendment so easily thwarted simply by 51% of the polity finding something abhorrent?
Re: (Score:2)
...at one time, burning an American flag in protest was considered abhorrent...
No it wasn't. It was considered an act of protest.
Re: (Score:2)
...at one time, burning an American flag in protest was considered abhorrent...
No it wasn't. It was considered an act of protest.
Or it was the preferred method of disposing of a damaged flag.
Re: (Score:2)
And apparently the private speech rights of Americans need not be defended, as long as such speech is not politically correct [wikipedia.org] with respect to the American society.
In China, the government or the public would not care what the fuck you said to your girlfriend.
Re: Intertwined... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or we will prove that the sacredness of free speech and US culture has become an empty farce.
It is, though. Half the country cheers when Google fires employees for disapproved political speech. Democrats running for President of the United States (so, not fringe wackos) think it's perfectly acceptable to demand Twitter banish their opponent from its platform, and to dictate what counts as "true" to FaceBook. And then we're supposed to get super mad when the NBA comes down on one of their employees for disapproved (by China standards) political speech? And when China demands Blizzard punish people on their services for disapproved political speech?
This is all about whose ox is getting gored. I really want to print out that stupid "they're just showing you the door!" XKCD comic, roll it up real tight and cram it up Munroe's ass. Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. You'd be screaming bloody murder if somebody got fired from a "family friendly company" for marching in a Pride Parade because "freedom to advocate for gay rights is not freedom from the consequences of advocating for gay rights."
Re: Intertwined... (Score:2)
Some of us already knew that...
Re: (Score:2)
Seems pretty cut-and-dry.
It's economics versus ethics.
Not quite. It's greed versus tolerance.
No one is forcing any US individual or corporation to do business, ot have any relationship whatsoever, with China and its people.
It's just that, if they do choose to have such relationships, they must recognize and honour the Chinese principles, laws, customs and standards of ethics.
That's implicit in the notion of sovereignty, which means that a nation is free to decide how it will conduct its business without interference from any outside agencies.
Of course, it fall
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, it they want to do business outside of China, they need to honor the principles, laws, customs and standards of ethics they find there.
If they're not compatible, it's time for them to make a choice.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I buy the "sacredness of free speech", because what is *sacred* is purely a matter of opinion. By that way of looking at things, China is not so much a *flawed* society, as one with different values.
I think we're on much safer ground with the *utility* of free speech. A society in which speech is strictly controlled by any one group is *dysfunctional*.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, this requires international _consolidated_, _highly coordinated_ action.
Good luck with that.
The board disagrees with you (Score:4, Informative)
I've been on the board of multiple corporations and the board disagrees with your assessment.
The corporation does/used to have a legal obligation to do whatever the corporate charter says the corporation is for. Historically, a corporation might have been chartered to "sell computers and related products and services". Nowadays, typically the charter adds "or any other lawful activity", thus nullifying that requirement - the charter just says that the company needs to do things that are legal.
The corporate officers do have a legal and moral obligation not to put their *own* personal interest above that of the stockholders, or those whom the corporation was chartered to serve, or donors. So for example it would be immoral and illegal for me to have the corporation buy my Dodge Charger for $150,000. That's called the fiduciary duty - corporate officers are not allowed to use the corporation for their own benefit, to the detriment of the stakeholders.
Re: (Score:2)
The corporate officers do have a legal and moral obligation not to put their *own* personal interest above that of the stockholders, or those whom the corporation was chartered to serve, or donors.
But only legal obligations carry any weight or can influence corporate policies. If you claim that there is some moral obligation, but it duplicates a legal obligation, then you might as well forget about the moral obligation and focus on the legal one - which can be enforced.
To some extent, this is what Robert Heinlein was talking about when he wrote, "Never appeal to a man's better nature. He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage".
True as that is of human beings, it is almos
Re: (Score:2)
... By definition a corporation has no better nature, but it is critically interested in its own self-interest.
A corporation's highest level of self-interest is to maximize profit. Therefore, to counter immoral actions by corporations (such as supporting a murderous-but-profit-generating regime), legal sanctions are required.
But we live in a corporatocracy; legislative and enforcement functions are at least heavily influenced, if not outright owned, by the corporations they should be policing and punishing. So we can expect corporations to continue bending over for China in the name of profit, just as our government
Re: (Score:2)
Although it seems to be long forgotten, it SHOULD be remembered that corporate charters implicitly include "in the public interest". The public interest is a requirement for a corporate charter to exist at all. Otherwise, it should be revoked.
Re: (Score:2)
The moral obligation of a company is to earn profit
I don't think that's exactly right. The legal obligation of a corporation is to earn profits, and arguably to maximize them. (Although that's a vague objective unless you specify over what time period).
I would argue that a corporation has no moral obligations, because a corporation is not an entity capable of moral or immoral behaviour. It is amoral - morality is a dimension orthogonal to it, which it has no means of grasping.
Re: (Score:2)
More fundamentally, corporate charters are contingent upon being in the public interest. It may be necessary to revoke a few to re-assert that point.
Corporate charters are not a right, they are a grant.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that a corporation has no moral obligations, because a corporation is not an entity capable of moral or immoral behaviour. It is amoral - morality is a dimension orthogonal to it, which it has no means of grasping.
Exactly - and that's why it's long past time for us to expunge this 'corporate personhood' nonsense from our laws. Corporations are not people, so they can't be expected to behave like people - accordingly, they shouldn't enjoy the same rights, privileges, and freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
China is a repressive, communist dictatorship, that already has 2,700 McDonald's locations. Third highest in the world.
Seeing as they ALREADY HAVE these sacred bastions of US culture, maybe they deserve some of the others too?
Re: Intertwined... (Score:5, Informative)
"Why do you insist that China behave according to your beliefs? "
Nice twist but wrong.
Americans are insistent that American companies behave in accordance with the Bill of Rights, especially the 1st Amendment. IF it fails all the rest are useless.
Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook and Google all have one thing in common: they give lip service to the 1st Amendment while at the same time suppressing it here at home and helping dictatorships like China suppress that unalienable right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Americans are insistent that American companies behave in accordance with the Bill of Rights
Um, what? Do you see Americans smashing their China-produced iPhones? Their TVs, computers, gaming cards? Americans want it, up an to the point where it effects them in some way that isn't abstract.
Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook and Google all have one thing in common: they give lip service to the 1st Amendment
The 1st amendment applies to people, and the press in the USA. It does not apply to businesses. And it doesn't apply to businesses operating in other nations. If you want it to apply in other places, make laws saying such. Don't expect corporations to do anything other than pursue profits. Corporations aren't you
Re: (Score:3)
Did you not get the memo? Corporations are people and in 2010 were granted 1st amendment protections. [thebalance.com]
Also, since we're talking about the 1st Amendment here, probably shouldn't disparage people USING that right on internet forums.
Re: Intertwined... (Score:5, Informative)
Human rights aren't merely a matter of beliefs. We are all humans and have a common interest in supporting a minimal standard of respect for humans. As Sean Connery said in First Knight "Either what we believe is right, and true, and good IS right and true and good for everyone or we are just another robber tribe."
Democracy and freedom of speech/expression are not just US Culture, they are the consequence of basic human rights. If you did have a benevolent dictatorship it would use its power to step in where things have gone awry disrupting a norm of self-governance and free expression and thereby be protecting those same underlying rights. It is possible we will one day have more evolved forms of these concepts open to my idea vs your idea debates but China is a far cry from any of that, it is a brutal regime with a long string of crimes against its people and humanity on the whole.
Every act of genocide, every person tortured in a camp, every protester brutalized, is an attack not just against the people of China but against every human and every democratic nation on earth, it is even an attack other governing structures wherein they still aren't okay with treating people that way. One day even our nation may fall, borders shift, political entities may merge, but we all have an obligation as human beings to ensure monsters like the regime in China aren't the legacy we leave behind to future generations.
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell are you talking about? It is China insisting that foreign companies obey Chinese policies beyond the borders of China even where it conflicts with the policies or ethics of the government or culture they are operating within.
Re: (Score:2)
But the People Republic of China wouldn't have even been considered for MFN status if their government hadn't been recognized, and that was, of course, Nixon.
Re: (Score:2)
No - He didn't oversee them getting MFN status but he initiated a trade alliance with China ("only Nixon could go to China") and his ideologies guided US policy towards China that eventually led to MFN status and to the issues we see today.
Re: (Score:2)
Nixon seems have recognized - quite a feat from the Oval Office - that the US government's official policy of pretending the PRC with its billion citizens didn't exist, and that a tiny handful of wealthy, unprincipled oligarchs crouched in an offshore island represented the real China.
A small triumph for common sense - such a rare commodity in political life.
To help Americans understand, perhaps the Chinese government should try refusing to recognize Washington as being the government of the USA, and instea
Obligation (Score:5, Interesting)
"American companies have an obligation to defend the freedom of expression"
Lets see what the stockholders say....Ahh no.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say companies have the obligation to .. follow the law. Then for those that are run by anonymous shareholders, they usually have a goal to get money back to shareholders.
But indeed that statement is extremely disturbing. Like, we have the best model and we want to impose it to the rest of the world.
You don't know whether it's the best model or not. You don't know if that's what people want in other parts of the world. You don't know what bad side effects it could have. Don't people learn anything abou
Re: (Score:2)
They have no obligation to follow Chinese law if they don't do business there and they have no obligation to do business in China.
IOW American companies have no obligation to follow Chinese law, only a strong desire to in many cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely. If they want to do business in EU, they need to implement GDPR. If they want to do business in China, they have to work with the Chinese government.
Nothing crazy here.
Re:Obligation (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That is an insightful comment, thank you. Basically, they think the Chinese government laws are not respecting human rights and therefore companies across the world (not only US companies, but EU and all others) should refuse to do anything that impedes human rights.
I guess the next step would be to precisely describe what human right is violated by the Chinese government and what to do / not to do.
Re: (Score:2)
The logic is: "If our model is not universally accepted, we cannot establish a firm grip on the political and economic systems of the entire world. But that is our goal - so our model must be universally accepted".
Moreover, if (say) the Chinese model is seen to be more successful than the US model, the goal might become unachievable.
Re: (Score:2)
These are the same fellas that threw Asange under the bus. The guy expressed himself. Apart from benefiting [financially] from what he exposed about the American government, he wasn't supported in any way.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see what their employees say--
On Twitter: "Fuck China!"
In the Office: "God I hope they just capitulate. We need the contracts. I don't want to be laid off."
This stockholder says yes (Score:3)
This stockholder here says yes to free speech.
Companies I'm involved in should not prevent people from mentioning human rights abused by China.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading the daily news gives me a contrary impression. Everywhere I see stories about US corporations crushing freedom of expression and seeking to prevent it.
Re: (Score:2)
So should the government of the People, by the People, and for the People continue to grant them a corporate charter.....Ahh, no.
POOF!
Dear China (Score:2)
It's your own rotten, corrupt system of which you're fundamentally afraid. In any normal country Tank Man would be on the money.
Antifa, where art thou?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Is "free Speech" absolute? (Score:2)
China's assertive campaign to police discourse about its policies, even outside of its borders, and the acquiescence of American companies eager to make money in China, pose a dangerous and growing threat to one of this nation's core values: the freedom of expression
[Bold mine]
I will take this New York Times serious if they can state that Free speech is absolute...
In any case, entities are free to say whatever they want; but must also understand that their action will elicit a response they, and only they, will be responsible for.
Our house, our rules (Score:5, Interesting)
You tell me the same here? Go F yourself. The economic pressure will build on this side of the Pacific, and most companies will pick the prosperous West over restrictive China.
If that happens, China is in real trouble. Much of their touted growth is propped up with currency manipulation and GDP hacks like building ghost cities no one can afford.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be assuming their closed system will limit their prosperity. It's too early to conclude that. Their experiment in capitalcommunism is still underway.
If they produce lots of consumers willing to buy, it's hard for a corporation to ignore that market, even if it means annoying restrictions on the corporation's part.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be assuming their closed system will limit their prosperity
What "closed system"? The Chinese are ready, willing able to trade or deal with anyone. Have you heard of the Belt and Road Initiative? That will create a market far larger than the USA, or Europe, or both combined.
Re:Our house, our rules (Score:5, Insightful)
most companies will pick the prosperous West over restrictive China.
Will they? I saw something that said there's 600 million gamers in China. That's more customers than there are people in the US. Blizzard's choosing the prosperous China over the tiny USA. We're not the market. They are.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Our house, our rules (Score:5, Insightful)
That ball gets pulled way to often, and the dumb fuck still things they've got another chance.
Actually I don't think YOU get it. Its really worse than that. The decisions makers know that China will allow them to kick the ball a handful of times. They will enjoy a some good years, earn some hunge bonus and move on / retire whatever. China gets them to do all the leg work of developing the market; captures a lot of the technology and THEN yanks the ball away. Leaving the reaming US side of the business in the lurch when the music stops.
Re:Our house, our rules (Score:4, Insightful)
The economic pressure will build on this side of the Pacific, and most companies will pick the prosperous West over restrictive China.
Your facts are a bit out of date.
In 1969 the USA's GDP was about 12 times that of China. Today it is about 1.5 times greater, or about 0.25 times smaller if you use the fairer PPP (purchasing power parity) metric.
Which country has been doing better in the past 50 years?
Re: (Score:3)
> Which country has been doing better in the past 50 years?
We should emulate the Chinese by removing any and all workplace and environment protections in hopes of foreign investments to industrialize the nation?
I think the US has been doing better in the past 50 years. more inventions. more freedoms. elections. has diversity. has moral immigration. has ethical standards. has environmental protections. more exploration. more patents. more choices.
I don't think China would be doing as well if the US didn't
This is not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
China has always done what it wants, regardless of external criticism, and is frequently deeply offended when others see them for who they really are, as opposed to the public face they present.
Not that America is much different.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if there is no direct war, those groups (nations) with the most power often end up stepping on smaller groups without fully realizing how big their footprint is. "Oops, I stepped on Iraq there. Oh well, where's my scraping stick."
I notice you don't mention who it was who "stepped on Iraq" - and who didn't.
Since 1945 the USA has violently attacked scores of nations, inflicting millions of deaths. It has killed more civilians than the Holocaust did.
How many sovereign nations has China violently attacked since 1945? Or even before that?
More capitalism gone bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're an American-based company and you're putting profits over core American values then you're fucking up, plain and simple. Renounce your U.S. citizenship and move your company to China if that's the way you want to do things; we'll see how happy you are taking the bad with the good in China, oh and pro-tip: you won't like it one bit. Stop being greedy, disingenuous bastards, U.S. companies.
Guess what, that's probably the biggest fear of the US government right now.
Companies moving to China, out of reach of the US government. US citizenship? you bet they are going to renounce, it is maybe the only citizenship in the world where you have to pay taxes even if you work in another country.
How bad China is? Probably not bad at all if you are rich. As for business, the domestic market is huge, so even with tariffs and all that, it may be more profitable to stay in China.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're an American-based company and you're putting profits over core American values then you're fucking up, plain and simple.
Silly person.
If you're an American-based company and you're putting profits over core American values then you're cleaning up, plain and simple.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
My company, my rules, if I want profit over some chump's speech that is my god-given right.
What he said.
Umm Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no reasonable prospect of disengagement
Why not we have lots of other potential trade partners and virtual all the natural resources we need inside our boarders. Disengagement is perfectly reasonable; but would take time..
nor is that a desirable outcome.
Sure if you believe that some how continuing to trade with them is going to liberalize them; like it hasn't worked for the last fifty years. Or maybe its because you are sell out and its making you money so you don't care you are enriching our enemies, undermining your fellow citizens marketability, and supporting oppression.
The clear necessity is for the two countries to find ways of living together, and coexistence requires respect for differences.
No wrong; there is no reason we should "respect" a backwards evil oppressive system like what exists in China. We should be trying to bring down the PRC; and recognize the ROC as the real China. Not trying to coexist with EVIL.
Re: (Score:2)
If only it was coexist, we as a nation and the elite want to profit from them as much as possible.
So we are not co-existing, we are feeding the evil.
This is the shiddy end... (Score:2)
Just think like an EMPLOYER for 5 seconds... (Score:5, Insightful)
People love to vilify anyone with a "CEO" title or anyone on a "board of directors". They imagine that they're all old, fat, white men sweating goose fat while deciding which people they're going to screw over to further increase profits.
How about we remember that these people quite frequently care about their employees and would rather eat crow and take public flak than lay off a significant portion of their workforce? Seriously... here's the scenario:
You own a software company in the United States and 25% of your company revenue comes from customers in China. Someone in your middle management makes some pro-HK posts on Twitter and suddenly YOU get communications from your lawyer and PR firm stating that China will find those posts and hold them against you during the upcoming contract negotiations and you should probably say something Pro-China officially to prevent contract issues.
You have a choice. Do you prepare for layoffs ensuring that some of your employees will miss mortgage, rent, or medical payments or do you choke back your pride, write up a pro-China response, and prepare for the hate you're going to receive from your employees and people who don't actually give a shit about your company?
I sincerely hope that you choose to curb-stomp your ego for the financial security of your employees (albeit while using some of your own funds to lobby your local Congress-critter to take some strong action with China).
It is the height if comfortable privilege that we demand that OTHER people risk their financial livelihoods so that we can see a good guy/bad guy fight on social media.
Re: Just think like an EMPLOYER for 5 seconds... (Score:4, Insightful)
Way to build a false dichotomy. CEOs can be greedy little shits and still cave to Chinese demands. What you really point out is that in our hyper-Capitalism, everyone at every level is compromised, whether through vulnerability or greed. This is just the version of the world where the US has been weakened by corruption to the point that we can't stand up for our own values anymore.
There are systems of government that protect against corruption due to financial vulnerability and greed, but the US is so invested in the carrot and stick economic narrative they forgot the flourishing garden narrative exists and works.
Re: (Score:2)
"everyone at every level is compromised, whether through vulnerability or greed."
That's a bit of a truism. Of course we're affected by trade. Trade is what makes society work.
"There are systems of government that protect against corruption due to financial vulnerability and greed"
How does said system of government have any bearing on the appropriate response to China's attempt to control speech outside their borders and how companies response to those attempts? Does this system have a name? Can it be implem
Re: (Score:2)
People love to vilify anyone with a "CEO" title or anyone on a "board of directors". They imagine that they're all old, fat, white men sweating goose fat while deciding which people they're going to screw over to further increase profits.
I don't imagine anything of the kind. I know a lot of CxOs are young or middle-aged men and women of all colours of the rainbow - sweating goose fat while deciding which people they're going to screw over to further increase profits.
Bezos. Zuckerberg. Pichai. The list goes on and on and on.
Re: (Score:3)
Alright. Let's talk about Blizzard. Activision-Blizzard is an gaming entertainment company. At the end of every game production cycle, they lay off a BUNCH of people because that particular industry is allowed to treat their employees disposably. If China bans Activision-Blizzard from China, how much revenue does Activision-Blizzard lose?
How likely is that lost revenue going to come from profits versus workforce reduction.
Imagine you're a middle manager. What do YOU hope Acitivision-Blizzard does in reactio
ISP ToS (Score:2)
Your local tin-pot dictator grants a geographic monopoly to ISP's and then lets them prevent you from using the Internet as a peer-to-peer network the way it was designed.
That's why these centralized communications hubs popped up. The winning solution will be decentralized.
This isn't a freedom of speech issue (Score:5, Insightful)
All of these are examples of coercion. It's OK when kept entirely within a relationship (I can refuse to allow you entry into my store if you aren't wearing shoes). But it's wrong when you try to use your influence to change behavior in relationships not involving you (I shouldn't refuse to allow you entry into my store just because you don't wear shoes at a different store).
The fundamental right at stake here isn't freedom of speech. It's freedom of choice - the right to make your own choices free from the fear of retribution by uninvolved third parties. And China is not the only country trying to erode global freedom of choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This isn't a freedom of speech issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
American Speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone else find it hard to take the NYT seriously when they and their ilk have spent years arguing that private companies are not subject to the tenants of freedom of speech and are all of the sudden expecting private companies to be all jingoistic rah rah US free speech? Won't China simply point to the ongoing and accelerating suppression of muh extremism by US companies against the wrongthink of US citizens and legitimately ask why China and its interests are not also legitimate factors in deciding who should be banned from our contemporary forums?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's an obligation for UN member states,
China also signed treaties banning the use of CFCs. Surprise, surprise... pesky satellite surveys find China is spewing tons of illegal CFCs.
Some of us know China is a piratical shithole of lying liars. That's no surprise and not my point.
My point is why does the NYT have the least smidgen of credibility on this topic? Since the 1920's when Walter Duranty was covering for Stalin the NYT has been happy facing totalitarian hell holes planet wide, including China. More recently the fig leaf of "human r
Re:American Speech? (Score:4, Insightful)
The cowardly NYT lost all right to lecture about the virtues of free speech when they chose not to reproduce the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Cynically, I want to believe this is just an invitation to get bought out. Then they can go right back to turning a blind eye towards China and relentlessly attacking Trump for 'starting' the trade war, and not have to pretend to care about foreigners imposing their values and restricting speech for US citizens. I'd watch for a company like Tencent to start buying up their shares.
Wrong premise (Score:3)
"American companies have an obligation to defend the freedom of expression". When it comes to American for-profit companies, that is not the case. American for-profit companies have one, and only one, obligation: to maximize profit for their shareholders. All other considerations are secondary - profit maximization while complying with the law is preferable, but if they can pull it off without complying with the law, while not getting caught, that is acceptable.
Our descendants a couple of centuries from now will hopefully regard our times with incredulity and disgust similar to the ones we reserve for the times when slavery was widely accepted in the American society as part of what America is all about.
"American" Companies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legally? (Score:2)
No they don't (Score:2)
American companies have an obligation to defend the freedom of expression,
No they don't. The US government has the obligation to enact laws to proscribe how US businesses operate. Expecting business to "do the right thing" is like expecting a bear to keep out of the honey pot.
Free Speech Supports Physical and Mental Freedom (Score:2)
So many of you defending China and for-profit companies are surely millionaires or soon to be millionaires. Otherwise, how will you be able to escape the consequences of supporting brutal, authoritarian governments and amoral companies bent on making all people blind servants?
No skin. (Score:2)
American companies have an obligation to defend the freedom of expression, even at the risk of angering China, writes The New York Times' Editorial Board.
Well yeah, they would say that. They have nothing to lose. The New York Times has been blocked by China's Great Firewall since 2012. Of course they don't care what China thinks.
As everyone else has already pointed out, it's about the money. The New York Times can't lose any to China's actions. They're not allowed into China at all. Blizzard and the NBA stand to lose tens of billions of dollars. You bet they're going to knuckle under.
And how about the reciprocation? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so why not label this "third-world capitalism"?
You mean second-world capitalism.