23 Jun 06
Originally posted by richjohnsonIt'd send a very loud message to other companies, wouldn't it?
I do not think that the Chinese government will care one bit whether people boycott Yahoo or not.
Obviously, Yahoo would care, but their only recourse would be to pull out of the Chinese market. How would that help anything?
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI suppose it might, but what would the result be? Do you think that we'd see a general boycott of companies doing business in China, or that any significant number of companies would cease do do business in China?
It'd send a very loud message to other companies, wouldn't it?
(Before you respond, look around you and pick any 5 items at random, and tell me how many were made in China.)
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by richjohnsonPerhaps, but it would mean companies would think twice about being so keen to co-operate with the regime.
I do not think that the Chinese government will care one bit whether people boycott Yahoo or not.
Obviously, Yahoo would care, but their only recourse would be to pull out of the Chinese market. How would that help anything?
I don't have a problem with companies doing business in China, but they don't have to play ball quite so much with the authorities.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by richjohnsonI know exactly where you are coming from and I do agree. However, I also think that it is the responsibility of individuals to exert consumer power under circumstances like these. Essentially you're either saying (a) I can't do anything about it, so I shouldn't care, or (b) I don't care enough to do anything about this. Every person makes a difference, mate!
I suppose it might, but what would the result be? Do you think that we'd see a general boycott of companies doing business in China, or that any significant number of companies would cease do do business in China?
(Before you respond, look around you and pick any 5 items at random, and tell me how many were made in China.)
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI don't see that keen-ness to cooperate (or lack thereof) would make a difference. Perhaps Yahoo could have engaged in stalling tactics (which would likely have resulted in fines and/or arrests of some of their personnel), but the end result would be the same.
Perhaps, but it would mean companies would think twice about being so keen to co-operate with the regime.
I don't have a problem with companies doing business in China, but they don't have to play ball quite so much with the authorities.
It might have been a good PR move for Yahoo to try to withhold the information that the Chinese goverment demanded, but could they have done anything that would have led to an outcome other than Shi Tau going to jail (possibly along with some Yahoo employees)?
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by richjohnsonThey had lots options which would have made a difference.
I don't see that keen-ness to cooperate (or lack thereof) would make a difference. Perhaps Yahoo could have engaged in stalling tactics (which would likely have resulted in fines and/or arrests of some of their personnel), but the end result would be the same.
It might have been a good PR move for Yahoo to try to withhold the information that the C ...[text shortened]... led to an outcome other than Shi Tau going to jail (possibly along with some Yahoo employees)?
They could have warned Shi Tau.
They could have lied to the Chinese auhorities - maybe said the e-mail was accessed from a public computer.
They didn't have to drop the guy in it up to his neck.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzActually, what I'm saying is (c) boycotting Yahoo for complying with Chinese law will not do any good. Chinese laws can only be changed by the Chinese themselves.
I know exactly where you are coming from and I do agree. However, I also think that it is the responsibility of individuals to exert consumer power under circumstances like these. Essentially you're either saying (a) I can't do anything about it, so I shouldn't care, or (b) I don't care enough to do anything about this. Every person makes a difference, mate!
Besides, if Mr. Tau knew he was doing something illegal (which I assume is the case), he should have been prepared to accept the consequences (in the tradition of civil disobedience), or should have taken better steps to conceal his identity.
23 Jun 06
Originally posted by RedmikeI agree that warning Mr. Tau may have made it harder for the authorities to locate him, but once they did the person or persons responsible for the warning would probably end up in jail too.
They had lots options which would have made a difference.
They could have warned Shi Tau.
They could have lied to the Chinese auhorities - maybe said the e-mail was accessed from a public computer.
They didn't have to drop the guy in it up to his neck.
I've never been to China, but my understanding is that there aren't "public computers" in the sense you are using the term. I think that you need to show ID to get access to a computer at an Internet cafe or the like.
24 Jun 06
Originally posted by richjohnsonI've been thinking about this for the last couple of hours. I think these coompanies have, of course, an obligation to work within the law, and therefore, provided that the charges agaist this guy were legit, and they had a court order then there is little that Yahoo! could do. That said, of course, we as consumers have to decide whether we choose to give our money to companies and corporations who merely follow the law or to those companies who practice in a morally reasonable way. Yahoo! acted in an appropriate way legally, but do you think that they acted in a good way morally? I cannot see how corroborating with a totalitarian regime can be said to be morally defensible. What about civilians of occupied territories who sided with the Nazi's in WWII, are they less guilty of sending the Jews to concentration camps than the Nazi's themselves were? Even when it was these people who reported the Jews? I think, in this case, Yahoo! is endeavoring to put shareholders profits (by collaborating with the Chinese government over a matter which, whilst the law in China, is certainly legal under international law) above any moral responsibility it might feel towards people.
Actually, what I'm saying is (c) boycotting Yahoo for complying with Chinese law will not do any good. Chinese laws can only be changed by the Chinese themselves.
Besides, if Mr. Tau knew he was doing something illegal (which I assume is the case), he should have been prepared to accept the consequences (in the tradition of civil disobedience), or should have taken better steps to conceal his identity.
24 Jun 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzGhandhi brought India to the brink of self-destruction as he himself acknowledged when he went on hunger-strike to stop the mass murder he had engendered between muslims and hindus.
Strange how few people remember what Ghandi did for a living, isn't it? Of course, he was just a waster, and India should still be under Imperial control, right Narg?