Yahoo budget now includes line item for “Penance”
Last week’s congressional flogging of Yahoo over its China pattern (see “Of course for the Yahoo execs, the confinement and torture lasted only a few hours“) included a strong suggestion that the company quickly and generously settle the lawsuits stemming from its cooperation with Chinese authorities in the identification and arrest of journalists. Today, a humbled Yahoo took that advice, giving up the “we’re not responsible” defense and announcing agreements, terms undisclosed, with journalists Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning, both serving 10-year prison terms.
In addition to providing financial support to the families, Yahoo will provide a humanitarian relief fund to support other political dissidents and their families, the company said. “After meeting with the families, it was clear to me what we had to do to make this right for them, for Yahoo, and for the future,” Chief Executive Jerry Yang said in a statement. “Yahoo was founded on the idea that the free exchange of information can fundamentally change how people lead their lives, conduct their business, and interact with their governments.” Said Morton Sklar, executive director of the World Organization for Human Rights USA, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the men: “The settlement provides more immediate help for the detainees and their families, but also provides a precedent making clear that U.S. companies have to do much more than just follow the orders of their host governments; that they have to look to U.S. laws and U.S. human rights standards when they make their decisions abroad.”
> Jerry Yang said in a statement. “Yahoo was founded on the idea that the free exchange of information can fundamentally change how people lead their lives, conduct their business, and interact with their governments.”
What a load. Yahoo, like nearly every other early internet site was started because it seemed like a good idea and/or might be some fun.
Talk about revisionist history (and delusions of grandeur.)
Ok, let’s see what Yahoo got blamed for. Apparently they gave away information about a political dissenter in China. Hmm! Isn’t this what AT&T are doing now? Isn’t our government snooping into our private lives on line? And these Congressmen berate Yahoo? Hmm. Seems there just might be a tad bit of inconsistency here. Certainly disingenuous on their parts.
Unfortunately, “U.S. companies have to do much more than just follow the orders of their host governments; that they have to look to U.S. laws and U.S. human rights standards” Since the last 6 years this is indeed a much lower bar.
The settlement offered by Yahoo in providing financial support for the two jailed dissidents is absolutely noble as well as practical. It is after all, people do risk their lives working in dangerous territoies just to provide food and shelter for their family, not necessarily for a noble cause. Surely, the world would look a little bit better after this.
“When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If you don’t want to do as the Romans do, leave Rome.” If you’re in China, you have to follow their laws. If you don’t want to do so, get out.
No money will compensate for having to spend ten years in prison nor will money compensate for the loss by the families of these men. Since Mr. Yang seems to be so principled, perhaps he should join them.Yahoo! had no business getting involved.
Brave New World and 1984 come to mind…the future indeed looks bleak…the West (that is us) is weak as tea…soo Yahoo helped send people to prison in a country where most of our stuff comes from these dayze…how odd my Komrades…this laptop I am composing this email on was made there, and my internet email platform is Yahoo…someday a lot of us writers and thinkers in the West will be victims of the corporations just like those two lads…arbeit mach frei…
Indeed, Yahoo, so as AT&T, was “founded on the idea that free exchange of information can fundamentally change how people lead their lives, conduct their business, interact with their governments;” therefore, it is not necessarily to speak in secret and with an intent to contrvene local laws and regulations. Is this not the virtue of an open society?