Boycott Yahoo

Originally posted by Redmike
A slightly abridged version of an article in the SSP's newpaper:

Up until a few weeks ago, few people would have known the story of Shi Tau. But since 30 April this year - when a draconian sentence of ten years imprisonment was meted out to him by the Chinese
authorities - Shi Tau is rapidly becoming an international cause celebre who could help bring o ...[text shortened]... by taking solidarity action, publicising them, and spreading the boycott like a computer virus.

The Scottish Socialist Voice version is somewhat anti-capitalist.

An anonymous Chinese citizen sent out information about how the Chinese government intended to censor information about the 15-year anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. This person used a Yahoo! e-mail address to do it. The Chinese Secret Police asked Yahoo! to turn over the sender’s identity. Yahoo! claims they did not know the reason why the Chinese government was requesting, and complied with the Chinese Secret Police without argument. They identified Shi Tau, a reporter with The Contemporary Business News in Hunan, who is now serving 10 years in jail.

The law in China is what the Chinese leaders (Chinese Communist Party) say it is. Currently it is illegal to post information on the Internet that "creates social uncertainty",...whatever that means).

Is Shi Tau is a victim of:
a.) The Chinese government.
b.) Yahoo!
c.) Himself.
d.) All of the above.

What is the one single thing Shi Tau could have done
to avoid 10 years in jail?

Originally posted by xs
The Scottish Socialist Voice version is somewhat anti-capitalist.

An anonymous Chinese citizen sent out information about how the Chinese government intended to censor information about the 15-year anniversary of the massacre at Tiananmen Square. This person used a Yahoo! e-mail address to do it. The Chinese Secret Police asked Yahoo! to turn over the s ...[text shortened]... the above.

What is the one single thing Shi Tau could have done
to avoid 10 years in jail?

Yahoo might be able to claim that they didn't know the puropose of the request the first time, but not subsequently. This wasn't the first such case, and Yahoo have co-operated each time.

Yes, the guy could have avoided a jail sentence by doing what he was told. Do you think that is what people who live under a totalitarian regime should do?

Originally posted by Redmike
This is a debates forum.

You need to be able to make more of a case than 'I am opposed to this idea because he is in favour of it.'

Otherwise we would call it the 'Playground argument' forum.

Do you approve of the actions of the Chinese government?

Do you approve of Yahoo's complicity in these actions?

I am not in favour of the Chinese form of government; it's communist and therefore in your line.

As to Yahoo, who knows whether or not they knew the what the outcome of their compliance would be? Perhaps they were gullible enough to thinks that communists were good guys.

Originally posted by Nargaguna
I am not in favour of the Chinese form of government; it's communist and therefore in your line.

As to Yahoo, who knows whether or not they knew the what the outcome of their compliance would be? Perhaps they were gullible enough to thinks that communists were good guys.

As I've already said, Yahoo might have been able to use that defence the first time they co-operated with the Chinese authorities, but this time they knew exactly what the consequences would be.

I didn't ask about the Chinese form of government, and it isn't communist. Just because a governing party is called communist, doesn't mean the country is communist.

You really cannot conduct a debate without the playground antics, can you?

Originally posted by Redmike
As I've already said, Yahoo might have been able to use that defence the first time they co-operated with the Chinese authorities, but this time they knew exactly what the consequences would be.

I didn't ask about the Chinese form of government, and it isn't communist. Just because a governing party is called communist, doesn't mean the country is communist.

You really cannot conduct a debate without the playground antics, can you?

You have really got your communist knikers in a twist over this one have you not? Call a rose by any other name?

Originally posted by Redmike
As I've already said, Yahoo might have been able to use that defence the first time they co-operated with the Chinese authorities, but this time they knew exactly what the consequences would be.

I didn't ask about the Chinese form of government, and it isn't communist. Just because a governing party is called communist, doesn't mean the country is communist.

You really cannot conduct a debate without the playground antics, can you?

"Yahoo might have been able to use that defence the first time they co-operated with the Chinese authorities"

Yahoo! needs no defence for co-operating with authorities, in any country.

Originally posted by Nargaguna
You have really got your communist knikers in a twist over this one have you not? Call a rose by any other name?

I haven't anything in a twist - why would you think I had?

Originally posted by xs
"Yahoo might have been able to use that defence the first time they co-operated with the Chinese authorities"

Yahoo! needs no defence for co-operating with authorities, in any country.

So, you're happy for Yahoo to co-operate with totalitarian regimes when they are denying their citizens' freedom of speech?

Originally posted by Redmike
So, you're happy for Yahoo to co-operate with totalitarian regimes when they are denying their citizens' freedom of speech?

You're twisting words. Nobody said they were happy about it.

Originally posted by Positional Player
You're twisting words. Nobody said they were happy about it.

OK then, do you think it is right that Yahoo co-operates with totalitarian regimes when they are denying their citizens' freedom of speech?

Originally posted by Redmike
So, you're happy for Yahoo to co-operate with totalitarian regimes when they are denying their citizens' freedom of speech?

Are you implying that companies should not abide by the laws of the countries in which they do business?

You have already admitted:
Yes, the guy could have avoided a jail sentence by doing what he was told
The totalitarian regime... (is) denying their citizens' freedom of speech

And yet your solution, boycott Yahoo!

Originally posted by Redmike
OK then, do you think it is right that Yahoo co-operates with totalitarian regimes when they are denying their citizens' freedom of speech?

But communist regimes always have denied citizen's freedom of speech so why are you suprised? It's part of the Marxist creed.

Tou would have been cheering like mad for Mao or Stalin had you been around in those days.

Originally posted by Redmike
OK then, do you think it is right that Yahoo co-operates with totalitarian regimes when they are denying their citizens' freedom of speech?

Personally, no. However, everyone has different morals, don't they? I can't condemn it. Wouldn't the Yahoo people face charges if they refused?

Originally posted by Nargaguna
But communist regimes always have denied citizen's freedom of speech so why are you suprised? It's part of the Marxist creed.

Tou would have been cheering like mad for Mao or Stalin had you been around in those days.

Firstly, there is no Marxist 'creed'.

Secondly, where, in any of Marx's writings, does it say freedom of speech should be denied?

.

Originally posted by xs
Are you implying that companies should not abide by the laws of the countries in which they do business?

You have already admitted:
Yes, the guy could have avoided a jail sentence by doing what he was told
The totalitarian regime... (is) denying their citizens' freedom of speech

And yet your solution, boycott Yahoo!

As I said, we cannot, as individuals, do much about the Chinese government.
But we can do something about Yahoo.

If the law of a country are oppressing their citizens, then it is right to put pressure on companies who assist them in this.

Why is this any different from preventing companies selling arms to oppressive regimes?