Bill Gates Defends Google's Censorship In China 511
worb writes "At the World Economic Forum today, Bill Gates defended Google's actions in China and told delegates that the internet 'is contributing to Chinese political engagement' as 'access to the outside world is preventing more censorship'. There was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China, he argued."
Exactly (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
The GNU GPL offers _ALL_ people freedom to run GPL licensed software. It doesn't exclude military contractors, Chinese citizens, Burmese citizens, neo-Nazi organisations, etc., that many "Freeware" licenses forbid use of their software to.
Technology is not an effective political weapon except en-masse. The idea of blockading all trade with China to punish its government for not following enlightened Western ideals is pretty much
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't live in the People's Republic of China and your ISP isn't in the effective jurisdiction of the PRC, you probably will see uncensored search results, especially if *google.cn is not actually hosted in the PRC.
Just how zealous is Google about this? Do they censor search results requested by residents of Taiwan?
--E
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
CEOs are just little Maoist dictators at heart. They share more with the reality of the Chinese rulers than they do with you, me or Thomas Paine.
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, oftne you cannot escape the effects of a corporation. I cannot escape tons of mindless advertisements. I cannot escape the influence of companies like Haliburton. I cannot avoid getting screwed by an Enron-like company. I cannot help but breath the polution put out by companies with a greater interest in profit than protecting the environment. I cannot help but have my voice heard less because I can't throw thousands of dollars to dozens of politicans every year. Etc etc...
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Interesting)
off the grid (Score:5, Interesting)
I escape pretty much literally thousands of tv ads every day - I don't watch stations that air commercials.
You, by not erecting off grid energy sources for yourself and watching tv every day are contributing to that pollution that so bothers you. So turn off the bloody tv and save that energy. Use that time you used to waste being a couch potato lobbying your representatives.
You are addicted to a culture you despise and blaming the culture for reflecting the values you support. That's not culture's problem, and culture cannot fix itself.
Re:off the grid (Score:3, Interesting)
A point that is heard on this and other message boards quite frequently is that today, the only true power, the only true vote, comes in the form of a dollar bill. You do reenforce the notion that dollars are all that counts, which is essentially WHY we are at the mercy of a unilateral power, the so called corporate "dictatorships".
Solar panels and gas generators are notoriously
Re:off the grid (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is why natural monopolies like that should be state-owned.
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Which reminds me. If Democracy is supposed to be such a good thing - and any government defying its principles is deficient, if not questionably moral - then why does the same not hold true for corporations? Why are they run by charismatic autocrats, backed by semi-secretive cabals?
All publicly traded corporations are a democracy. They are reponsible to their shareholders, the same way a government is responsible to their voters. The only difference is that it isn't a simple matter of one shareholder, o
Re:Exactly (Score:3, Insightful)
Guh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Democracy isn't necessarily a good thing at all times, as it can actually inhibit freedom if it is not counter-balanced. "Tyranny of the majority", for example.
and any government defying its principles is deficient, if not questionably moral
This is way too stringent. Firstly, what princpals are you refering to? There are many, not completely compatible, views on what a democracy really is.
Secondly, democracy doesn't necessarily product good or moral decis
Re:Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
Gates knows that any business that wants to be part of the future, needs to be involved in China and India. That's 1/3rd of the worlds population. Bill Gates and the boys at Google aren't stupid.
No one is saying they're stupid. (Score:3, Interesting)
Just that they are supporting China's oppression of political dissidents.
And your post seems to imply that they are doing it because it is more profitable than refusing.
Re:No one is saying they're stupid. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll tell you the reason that the United States cannot disengage from China, why the U.S. cannot let that country go into the shitter.
It's because China is the number 2 owner of U.S. public debt. Ontop of the ~500 billion dollars they own in Treasury Bonds, China also has their currency pegged to the U.S.'s, which means they buy up dollars at a furious pace.
BTW - Japan happens to be the #1 holder of U.S. Public debt.
If anything happened to the Japanese or Ch
Thanks Google for losing the moral high ground (Score:2, Interesting)
By undermining our trust, this re-opened the game for Microsoft.
Bill, if you want to win the Internet (at least in the western world) - just uncensor China - and you will have stolen the moral high ground from Google. I'd switch. Your search results are good enough; and if it weren't that I mistrust Microsoft so much today I probably wouldn't be using Google.
Defends _Googles_ actions? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Defends _Googles_ actions? (Score:5, Informative)
Something I learned today... (Score:5, Informative)
MSN and Yahoo! behave much worse, from a do-no-evil POV. Consider this writeup in the Economist:
Now don't get me wrong. I dislike Google; I think their products and services are in poor taste. But certainly, the company deserves better than the slamming it's getting here on Slashdot, and I don't doubt they're at least partially motivated by the hope that they're working to improve things in China. If it was purely about profit, after all, they'd have opened Gmail to Chinese citizens (or have they already, contrary to the article [economist.com]?).
Re:Defends _Googles_ actions? (Score:5, Insightful)
When MSN China and Yahoo China followed Chinese laws and performed acts deemed unsavory by the American blogosphere (turning over information, censoring results, whatever), both companies were widely attacked. No one ever came to the corporation's defense by saying: oh, there is nothing the companies can do, Chinese journalists and others should have know better by using MSN/Yahoo US!
So when you say that "everyone seems to be a bit confused about this," you are correct, people should be confused about how to defend Google "Do no evil" for doing the exact same thing they are chastising Microsoft and Yahoo for. This double standard is indeed confusing.
Google's halo is undeserved in my opinion.
Google apologist logic 40 years earlier (Score:2, Insightful)
What about the ANC [google.com.au] you say? Well the South African government considers them terrorists s
And... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And... (Score:2)
Speaking of Ballmer, I wonder if you can find the monkeyboy video on MSN search?
Re:And... (Score:2, Funny)
Google just made a stunning announcement (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Google just made a stunning announcement (Score:5, Informative)
In one fell swoop, Bill Gates has now placed Google into the same group he is in. From his perspective, if he's evil, so be it... now he's in good company. Bill Gates may have just precipitated the destruction of it's arch nemesis, Google.
I was... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I was... (Score:2, Funny)
*whew* (Score:5, Funny)
Re:*whew* (Score:2, Insightful)
I see no problem at present with the major corporations' collective stance.
99.9% of chinese folks don't even consider themselves repressed, so why make it difficult for them to use the web?
Re:*whew* (Score:2)
Right is not Right (Score:5, Insightful)
So "There was no reason for technology companies not to do business in China." does not mean that It was right" but it does mean "There was no better option to earn money"...
The Right Thing can be different when viewed from different angles.
Re:Right is not Right (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right is not Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Gates is a robber baron.
Re:Right is not Right (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that you need to look up the history of totalitarian governments.
But thats ok because doing something wrong now and the foreseeable future, such as legitimizing censorship, is ok, because
Re:Right is not Right (Score:5, Interesting)
(Note: I stole the following example)
Look at this;
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananm
now look at this;
http://images.google.ca/images?q=tiananmen%20squa
Now would you know that "due to local laws some search results were excluded" that this was the difference?
>I simply can't fathom why you'd think the Chinese people are so gullible.
They are not stupid; the people are not getting the information they need. You can't ask for something you don't know exists.
For an example;
http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1722.html [asianresearch.org]
Re:Right is not Right (Score:2)
Gates actually claims to be a humanitarian, and has received accolades for such. Even a knighthood from the Queen, if I remember correctly. So it is very hypocritical to try and boost his image through charity - while in another role, undermining his charity work, by supporting much worse things.
Re:Right is not Right (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Right is not Right (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with being a business man. The fact of the matter is, nobody in the U.S. cares about human rights in China. That new Dell monitor? Made in China. The mouse and keyboard? Made in China. Half the components in your computer? Made in China. Those shoes? Made in China. That cheap pair of jeans? China.
Instead of whining on slashdot about how "OMG, Google's doing business in China!!1!! They must be evil!!", how about you get off your ass, make a stand, and discontinue doing business with China yourself?
Look at it this way, Google, Microsoft, and all the other companies doing business in China sell out their morality for hundreds of millions of dollars. The average U.S. citizen does it for 75 cents off a mouse and cheaper shoes. Maybe you're criticizing the wrong group?
Re:Right is not Right (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to buy shit from China. You'll pay more, but you'll feel good doing it. I know I do.
Re:Right is not Right (Score:2, Insightful)
No it cannot.
If you try to refute me I will just say that from CERTAIN angles your post is wrong, and mine is right.
You've got yourself in a bit of a paradox now, haven't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_relativism#C
Re:Right is not Right (Score:3, Insightful)
They are censoring their results so that they can gain access to a large market, and potentially profit from this.
From Google's SEC Form S-1 Registration Form; ( http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000 119312504073639/ds1.htm [sec.gov] )
"Our search results are the best we know how to produce. They are unbiased and objective, "
"We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and research, not only to t
Good move Bill, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Still wondering (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still wondering (Score:5, Insightful)
When they sort out their freedom of speech issue - then let's talk about information sharing.
Re:Still wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
You can use google in a number of ways, they provide a number of different services.
Censorship is wrong, but if Google didn't negotiate with China, they would just ban google's whole subnet into oblivion. So, let's say that 20% of people would use google to find some information that may be considered to have something to do with politics. Of that 20%, let's say that some 70% would be ok for China, and another 30% is what they wanted banned. So, google is stil
Re:Still wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
Look, I really like Google, but let's not delude ourselves. This move was only so Google could get, or keep, a piece of that China pie. It wasn't to bring more information to China.
Re:Missing half the equation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still wondering (Score:4, Informative)
parent SUPER informative... but will they get it? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's one hell of an informative link right there, but it raises a few questions :
a) will your typical Chinese internet user know to do that
b) does this mean that google.com ( as opposed to google.cn ) is blocked from inside China? Must be, huh ?
c) how tough would that be to tunnel around? Possible to doable for the average curious person? What's the likelihood of being caught somehow ?
And no, I don't work for the Chinese government. ;-)
Unlike Google ( and MSN and Ya
Yup, you get Chinese google.com when in China. (Score:3, Informative)
mahlen
Re:Still wondering (Score:5, Insightful)
In some cases, maybe. In this case, no. What China doesn't want is political dissent. They aren't filtering sites about how to farm more effectively, or sites that make people laugh, or sites that allow people to find businesses, or sites that tell people the best treatment for a certain disese. Google is a great tool, and for most things, censorship will not change that. Were I given the choice between no internet access and censored internet access, I would choose censored, since the majority of things I do online are really of no interest to any government.
And why do you think they'll relax on free speech if they have no access to information? If we try to exclude China from the world, they might just close up even further. Open up to them and they'll eventually give in.
Re:Still wondering (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not the choice. they already have censored access from Yahoo and Microsoft. the difference is that Google censors more content than either Yahoo or Microsoft, and goes beyond what the Chinese government requested. So, how does it help adding Google, when it is less open than the existing alternatives?
And why do you t
Re:Still wondering (Score:5, Insightful)
The "critics", such as they are, are mainly those people that love to point out hypocrisy in others. Google brought this on themselves, though, by obviously juxtopositioning themselves against Microsoft with the corporate philosophy of "Do no evil." Remember your SAT keywords; Google themselves said "no evil" - not "Do the lesser of two evils."
Censorship in the support of a repressive government is considered by most people to fall under the umbrella of things evil. Justifying that action based on the corporate benefits or saying that, hey, atleast they know the results are being censored - as though millions of Chinese people are really that ignorant - does not change the fact that Google is helping to restrict the information available. That is why the critics are so vocal: it is about Google violating thier own philosophy and breaking netizen trust more than the specific benefit/harm tradeoff that filtering the results entails.
That's rather silly.... (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, Google's choices were:
1: Self-censor as per the PRC's wishes
2: Let the PRC do the censoring much more crudely
3: Be banned from the Chinese market
Which is the best solution? It is obvious.
I disagree about the "lesser evil two evils". There is no evil here at all. Rather, it is a question of how much GOOD Google will do. Their choices are some, less, and none, as noted above. Yes, "lots" wou
Re:Still wondering (Score:5, Insightful)
Sensoring is one thing. Sugar-coating and biasing is another.
If Google were to censor all occurences of 'Tiananmen' and say that the search returned '0' results because of censoring, I'd be likely to agree with you. After all, '0' results doesn't say whether Tiananmen happened or didn't happen.
But Google is hiding the content that speaks negatively of it, and not what speaks positively of it. Compare:
World -- http://images.google.com/images?q=tiananmen [google.com]
China -- http://images.google.cn/images?q=tiananmen [google.cn]
When all the serce results say Tianenmen didn't happen, and none say it did
Re:Still wondering (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Still wondering (Score:3, Interesting)
All you need to do is create a reasonable, censor-friendly website about the subject, get a good ranking, and then switch it overnight.
Example:
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen+m assacre [google.cn]
Second Link.
If the Chinese government wants to waste their time playing whack-a-mole, let them. There's no possible way they can filter the internet when people truly want to find the information.
Welcome to /. (Score:3, Insightful)
If MS censors in China, MS is evil and money grubbing and should be stopped.
If Google censors in China they're actually improving freedom in China just by being there.
If MS defends Google censoring China, MS is evil, Google is Good.
Wecome to
Re:Welcome to /. (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, the majority of the posts to this thread, at least those I've read, seem to be arguing against Google on this, many jokingly pointing out that a thumbs up from Bill Gates, the "Big Bad" on Slashdot, is hardly an winning endorsement of their actions in China.
Re:Welcome to /. (Score:2, Insightful)
Others take another position
Some think slashdot is a single entity with double standards.
Welcome to
No more articles on this please!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Google hasn't done anything countless other companies have done. But because thits Google the press goes crazy with it. This is laughable to say the least. The more China gets exposed to influences from other countries, the better off they are. Google alone can't dictate policy in China. But once they are established, change can occur.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]Re:No more articles on this please!!!! (Score:3)
Why don't you speak out about all the Microsoft/Bill Gates bashing that goes around here?
I don;t think it as bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Well I do but I won't feel any more worse about it than I do about China in general.
It seems like it should be similar but I think of it as completely different than the US, or other wesertn countries.
Basically China can do whatever it wants.
Of course those are those who think that you should boycott anything that does business there. That would mean you have to leave the US and stop buying most products.
This applies to both Google and MS.
Now yes I do think censorship as bad but it isn't the same in other places.
I can't really explain it though.
P.S. I noticed that when someone mentions they will be modded down in a post it actually gets modded up.
I don't mind the karma loss I just like lots of replies.
rare case (Score:4, Insightful)
Repeat after me until you believe (Score:4, Insightful)
Totalitarianism births democracy.
Benevolent societies are a natural byproduct following shareholder interests.
You neighbor abuses his wife and kid... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are going to use analogies.... (Score:4, Insightful)
IN the analogy you are using, you can refer the matter to an arbiting authority: the police.
In the case of Google, there is no referee, the referee is the client. And the judge, and everything.
If you wanna play in China (and if all your competition is alreading doing so, you must do so) then you are going to play under Chinese rules and brush up your Mandarin.
Re:If you are going to use analogies.... (Score:3, Insightful)
And there is, in fact, a higher authority. It's called world opinion. But Google's unabashed acceptance of human rights crimes as a cost of doing business just made China's crimes more acceptable to the rest of the world.
Having second thoughts... (Score:5, Interesting)
I work in a country where pornography is illegal, so whenever I set up a network I have to install a content filter as due diligence. Personally, I consider abuse of office resources to be a human resource issue, and I make it very clear to management that no filtering technology I can install will obviate the need for a clear Acceptable Use Policy and careful monitoring by staff and management.
I'm not entirely comfortable about blocking content on the Internet, as it's failure prone and IMO removes the responsibility from where I believe it should lie - squarely on the shoulders of the individual members of the organisation. I also find that the local attitude toward the human body extremely unhealthy and socially repressive. But because failure on my part to actively uphold the law of the land could result in my deportation and, more importantly, could harm the development organisation for whom I work, I hold my nose and install the filter anyway.
I still believe that the work I'm doing - bringing the Internet to places where it has never existed before - has more advantages than drawbacks. That's why I'm willing to compromise my principles and to go ahead with this.
That said, I am not working for the local government. Quite the contrary; I work for civil society organisations who spend a great deal of their time and energy keeping the government responsive to the needs of the people. I feel quite ambivalent about companies like Microsoft, Yahoo! and Google, who are in effect doing the government's work for it.
Gates' logic seems to run as follows:
I've tried to weigh the kind of compromises I'm willing to make in the course of trying to benefit society in the country where I work against the purported benefit that accrues to the people of China as a result of the presence of these tech corporations, and for reasons that I can't express very well, I still feel that avarice is leading Gates and co. to make rationalisations.
Anyway, this post is not really trying to prescribe so much as to suggest that the moral and ethical ground is not nearly as clear on either side as we might like. I emphatically disagree with the argument that corporations are amoral and should act only for profit, but at the same time, I have little patience for those who allow Platonic ideals to control their real world behaviour.
Re:Having second thoughts... (Score:2)
He's absolutely right (Score:5, Insightful)
The point can also be made that Google did not have to enter the Chinese market, given those stipulations, but unfortunately, that is not the case. We need as much Chinese business as we can get to help with the ever-growing trade imbalances as we import much more than we export. I fail to see any semblance of a moral dilemma here.
Dangerous ... (Score:3, Funny)
Why is that dangerous
The end is near!!!
Bill's Latest Query (Score:2, Funny)
Google's Reply: "It commends Google for doing business in China. Put the lotion in the basket!"
Hmmmm (Score:2)
Everything or nothing vs. real world (Score:5, Insightful)
This is typical when asking for opinions of people not directly affected by the matter. Most of you being outside China, it is easy to claim that you would rather not use Google at all instead of use a reliable service with certain "sensitive" pages filtered.
If you put yourself in the position of a Chinese Internet user, the situation quickly gets different.
Google is a powerful tool, the benefits of which reach far beyond looking up the human rights sites on the Internet (as important as that may be on its own). Depriving China of Google's services is far worse development for Chinese citizens than what Google chose to do.
Also don't forget that it's a lot easier to control a population with overall less reach to information sources. Even if Google filters certain pages, the rest of the information is still an important tool in the fight against censorship and human freedoms.
As China's population gets increasingly better informed and educated, it will be increasingly difficult to control them in the manners we see now or in the past.
So I applaud Bill Gates for taking stand on the matter, never mind if it is to defend Microsoft's own policy or out of principle.
Some Google is better than no Google (Score:3, Informative)
I think alot of people are missing the point.
Google is restricting some sites. Yes. But by having servers for the Google Search, the users in China will be able to access content much more quickly. Ie, instead of a slow and unreliable search page, they will now have a high speed and reliable search page.
The only issue is that terms will be censored, as the government determines words that need censoring.
By making information search faster and easier in China, this opens up the minds of people using the net and the people they talk to. It makes the idea of freedom of information more prevelant and better accepted.
By not choosing to enter China, the alternative was that people would stop using Google because it was unusable in China due to dropped connections, poor speeds, etc. People would need to then use state-controlled search engines which could be shutdown outright.
People are saying it's a blow to human rights. I see it as a step forward for human rights. A tiny step, but a step forward nonetheless. Companies and people carrying the idea of freedom of information needs to start making more in-roads into China, and by extension, the Chinese Government's mindset.
The best way to combat opressive governmental systems is to spread the idea of a better system.
What people don't understand is that Google's going into China was probably something which Google negotiated upon from a disadvantaged position. China doesn't care for Google being in China. To be able to be in China and serve search results is a big boon, even with the restrictions. A boon to Google, for sure, but a boon to the people who live in China and want to use Google to search for information and new ideas.
Microsoft isn't really defending Google in the article. They are defending the idea of doing business in China. They are defending the concept that there is significant business opportunity to be had for companies doing business in China. If investors decide to back away from China as a market, that impacts Microsoft, who wants to increase their business in China.
It isn't so much that they are helping Google so much as keeping their ability to invest in China open.
Groups and organizations with ideas which would be considered radical in comparison to opressive governments are often times taking an all or nothing philosophy to oppression. Ie, all access or none at all. Which do you think is better for the people being oppressed?
By forcing an all-or-nothing decision/approach, you back the governments into a corner or you tie the hands of businesses. Often times, to the point where there isn't so much a discussion as there is a shouting match.
Change comes gradually. Sometimes decades, if not centuries. Yes, oppression is wrong. No, it won't change over night. Yes, the filtering of Google isn't optimal. But Google's presence in China helps to increase the visibility of an outside company and still offers a better mechanism to access the web's information. It isn't a great big step, but it's a step forward.
People are so stuck in the mindset of: do what we want or we will sanction you. Except that can't be leveraged against China because they are the biggest buyers of US bonds. They are a major investor in the US government. So sanctions against them is highly unlikely.
Gotta find that middle ground that everyone can agree on at the moment and find a better one down the line.
Google isn't evil. Not from my point of view. They are trying to do the best they can given the restrictions presented to them. Microsoft is hardly cheering them. The last thing Microsoft wants is Google to have a strong footing in China. Microsoft is only defending the idea of doing business in China, not Google's doing business in China.
Crowd pleasing (Score:2)
The one thing all these extremely rich folks seem to take
Insidious Filtering (Score:5, Interesting)
Take a look at the Google US search for "Tiawanese Independence [google.com]. Note that the first result is the Tiawanese Independence Party, and #2 describes how Bush Opposes it.
Now, let's take a look at the french site, to see if the results are similar - "Taiwanese Independence [google.fr]". Very similar results.
Let's try this on
Far more insidious than actually banning certain searches is manipulating the results themselves to tout the party line. Leave a few fringe sites up, so you don't appear to completly control things, but remove any site you consider to truly be a threat. After all, they are doubleplus ungood.
History Always Repeats Itself (Score:5, Informative)
During the period of Apartheid in South Africa, American companies that did business with the white-minority government used similar rationale to justify their investments in South Africa. Their basic argument was that if they did not go into South Africa, poor black South Africans would suffer. Most people did not buy their argument then, and those few who did were in the camp of "look, business is business, there's nothing wrong in trying to make a buck". The only saving grace for Bill Gates, Larry Page, Sergy Brin, et al, is that people do have short memories.
Re:History Always Repeats Itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say that western investment was 'bad' for south africa. Why then is it no longer the way it was?
Just an honest question.
Re:History Always Repeats Itself (Score:3, Insightful)
Wikipedia on Apartheid [wikipedia.org]
Re:History Always Repeats Itself (Score:4, Insightful)
It was brought down by embargoing, banning them from sporting events, etc. - the precise opposite of what we're doing with China here.
Re:History Always Repeats Itself (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not Google/MS/Yahoo's fight... (Score:5, Insightful)
10,000,000,000 partner points! (Score:3, Funny)
Its like that Family Guy... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if we'll see anyone resigning at Google in protest...
Re:Error #236563 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Error #236563 (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what he's really saying is that Microsoft's censorship technology doesn't work properly - and therefore they misrepresented themselves in their agreement with the Chinese government. Shouldn't Microsoft be able to deliver on what they say they will? Why is their censorship software ineffective?
Re:Uncle Wang (Score:2)
Re:Great way to kill google's image (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So much for all that "charity" work (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Guess the $900 million he pledged just today to help fight TB was just play money? Look -- you can love or hate Bill, I really don't care, but maybe if you bothered to realize people are complex -- not all good, not all bad -- you MIGHT avoid such a ignorant, unsupported, knee-jerk remarks.
The guy has done some serious good in the world with his money, regardless of your hate for Microsoft or his approach to business;
$5 Billion to World Health Org
$100 million to help fight AIDS
$750 million to the Vaccine Fund
Though are REAL dollars, it's one helluva PR bill if that's all you think it is. According to Wikipedia, the Gates Foundation is the largest charitable organization in the world today -- with a trust set up to donate $1 BILLION anually. I'm guessing you probably haven't even given $50 to a single charity lately...
Criticize him for his monopolistic tendencies or business practices, but give credit where it's due.
Re:Americans should look in their own backyard (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Americans should look in their own backyard (Score:3, Insightful)
Relativism (Score:3, Interesting)
I think human rights are universally valid; just because they violate some nations particular cultural habits doesn't invalidate them, and just because they've "Western" doesn't invalidate them either. Individual libe