« George Wants it ALL | Main | Player of the Week, Jan. 30, 2006 - Mahmoud al-Zahar »
January 29, 2006
Politics and Money
U.S. Internet companies are relucant to participate in Congressional briefings about their business dealings with the Chinese government. The issue is restriction of Internet searches and the tracking of data.
The firms were asked to attend the February 1 briefing by the Congressional Human Rights Caucus following uproar caused by search giant Google's decision last week to censor websites and content banned by China's propaganda chiefs.
"We have heard from Microsoft that no representative from the company will attend the briefing. So, with Cisco Systems, this makes two companies that have confirmed they're opting out," Lynne Weil, spokeswoman for caucus co-chairman Democratic Representative Tom Lantos (news, bio, voting record), told AFP.
As the briefing date gets closer, "others are still unfortunately keeping us in suspense," she said. "It is mystifying why these companies would not want to take part after all this is an opportunity to clear their names," Weil said.
Google agreed to censor websites and content in its search service launched Wednesday in China.
The move followed similar actions by rivals Microsoft and Yahoo in cooperating with Chinese censorship.
From a business strategy, this is a losing proposition for the Internet companies. Why is it in their financial interests to comply? I am sure that they might get some negative feedback from various human rights groups and maybe some politicians, but the longer term impact by backing out of China is far more consequencial. It is a huge market, which they could easily lose if they leave. In addition, there is the hypocritical position of many critics in that they currently support hundreds of companies who are doing business in China. Thousands if not millions of Americans buy products made in China, a place that does not pay proper wages or necessarily comply with acceptable safety and environmental standards. Where is the protest about this? I am sure the same Internet companies see this hypocrisy and think it better to keep their mouths shut. The strategy is financial not necessarily ethical. The way they score is by making money. They all seem to view the current strategy as being more benefial to their own game than that played by the politicians. In addition, I have never seen a business plan that indicated Google is required to provide every single person in the world access to every piece of information they desire.
Posted by Chip Spear at January 29, 2006 8:15 PM
Comments
crushingly rearrangeable international tormenting:epitaxially:Italianizer?hosted jams
Posted by: Anonymous at September 20, 2006 1:11 PM