NOTE: I posted this two days ago and noticed today that the post was no longer there. Anybody have any ideas how that might have happened? I had a copy in my email and am now re-posting it.
----------
I've been surprised by the lack of press about this.This past Wednesday's Financial Times had a good article suggesting that voluntary regulation might be the way to go ... something companies and countries could sign on-to as a way of affirming their commitment to free speech. Check out this quote from the article:
---------
Companies involved in the debate have also been examining an initiative created by the state department when Bill Clinton was US president.Oil and mining companies, human rights organisations and the US and UK governments signed up to the "voluntary principles on security and human rights" that were designed to guide business on how to operate in zones of conflict.
- FT, 02/15/06, Pg. 11
---------
Aside from the obvious moral question, there is also the question of whether this will, in the long run, be a profitable policy for Yahoo & Google. My guess is that the days of Chinese gov't censorship of the internet are numbered. If that proves to be true, and Google & Yahoo are widely known within and outside of China as having assisted the gov't with cracking down on dissidents, there may be little/no brand loyalty in the long run. Interestingly, the Yahoo issue came to the world's attention largely through Chinese sources who are against the gov't crackdown on dissidents.Some have proposed legislating this issue along the same lines as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The problem with that is that no broad base of global law exists regarding censorship. Therefore, it would be very difficult to hold companies to account. That's why I believe that a voluntary committment (which would have some marketing value as well as consumer loyalty value) would be a better (and more effective) way to go (see FT article above).
----------
I've been surprised by the lack of press about this.This past Wednesday's Financial Times had a good article suggesting that voluntary regulation might be the way to go ... something companies and countries could sign on-to as a way of affirming their commitment to free speech. Check out this quote from the article:
---------
Companies involved in the debate have also been examining an initiative created by the state department when Bill Clinton was US president.Oil and mining companies, human rights organisations and the US and UK governments signed up to the "voluntary principles on security and human rights" that were designed to guide business on how to operate in zones of conflict.
- FT, 02/15/06, Pg. 11
---------
Aside from the obvious moral question, there is also the question of whether this will, in the long run, be a profitable policy for Yahoo & Google. My guess is that the days of Chinese gov't censorship of the internet are numbered. If that proves to be true, and Google & Yahoo are widely known within and outside of China as having assisted the gov't with cracking down on dissidents, there may be little/no brand loyalty in the long run. Interestingly, the Yahoo issue came to the world's attention largely through Chinese sources who are against the gov't crackdown on dissidents.Some have proposed legislating this issue along the same lines as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The problem with that is that no broad base of global law exists regarding censorship. Therefore, it would be very difficult to hold companies to account. That's why I believe that a voluntary committment (which would have some marketing value as well as consumer loyalty value) would be a better (and more effective) way to go (see FT article above).
Comments