f13.net

I'm sure you've all seen this article (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,39302927,00.htm) linked on Slashdot yesterday. It's about Microsoft shutting down a blog from a Chinese national, to "that products and services comply with global and local laws, norms and industry practices."

That part was interesting by itself to me, because it put Microsoft, a U.S.-based company, at the reigns of extending policy of a foreign government through their own multi-national service (since, as far as I know, their blog service is accessible worldwide).

But a more interesting part was what was stated (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/business/0,39044229,39236515,00.htm) later in the article, how in June, Microsoft used an algorithm to remove words like "democracy", "taiwan independence", "freedom" from a Chinese version of a MSN website. Trying to do use these words sends an error message to the user: "item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item"

Freedom to the highest bidder. Woot.

I'm not one who thinks American companies should be agents of our policies in the countries in which they also offer product or services. Heck, you don't see most consumer goods companies over-worrying about manufacturing conditions overseas, yet use them because the policies of U.S. manufacturing are more stringent (and perceptually more expensive), preferring to not extend policy.

But I also don't know how much business companies have overseas projecting the policy of a local government, particularly when that projection reaches back out of those borders to the world at large. I realize companies need to appease host governments. But it would seem to me folly to provide a community-building and collaberation tool all about speech and expression to a country with so many controls over that, particularly when you're trying to extend a service you first created in a country that allows it.

Sure, China's a fertile crescent for all manner of new business. I just wouldn't sign on to something that forced me to extend their policy if I'm based in a country with a diametrically opposed lifeview.

Thoughts?

Companies are in things for the biggest buck.  They will censor, curtail rights, and commit moral violations to the furthest extent they are allowed by the law.. whichever law their lawyers say applies at that moment.  This saddens, but doesn't surprise me.

Corporations are the new dictators, however they have the funds to circumvent or corrupt the legislative and judicial processes.  We're just plain hosed, IMO.

We may not like it, but when we offer a service in a foreign country, it has to adhere to their laws, regardless of our opinion of those laws.

For instance, Some Magic cards must be modified for sale in China. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=mtgcom/arcana/948)

It may seem wrong to us, but if a company is not willing to conform to local laws, another company surely will.

Um.

How the fuck do they manage Drudge Skeletons ?

Thing is, Strazos, the guy was using the USA-based version that's only supposed to be compliant with US laws not a China-based version.  So, he should have been protected by the US laws, except MS decided it was financially more advantageous to toss him out, presumably under pressure from China.  Same with the guy also mentioned in that article that Yahoo turned-over to be imprisoned.

  So what if MS decides some other government's demands are financially advantageous and hoses their users based on that? Would you be ok with that as well?

Do I like what they're doing. Absolutely not.

But MS has two choices: submit the Chinese version of the site to the demands of the Chinese government, or run the Very real risk of having their site totally blocked by the Chinese government.

Again, I don't like it, but the Chinese put MS between a rock and a hard place - submit to their demands which infringe on our sensibilities, or give up their business to a competitor by being blocked out of China. it's simply good business.

And I think business is bullshit, filled with highly-paid executives who don't have any actual skill at anything besides sucking ass and cleaning up the mess with their precious MBAs. But that's just me.

You're a naive fool.

Teh intarnets is an equalizing and moderating force in cultures exposed to it.  China may be struggling to maintain control of the tiger but for every incident like this there are 10,000 new thoughts and ideas that thier populace is exposed to because MS and co. play the little game and ban the big offenders that allow thier services to continue.

Its a revolution in the "something is changing and it can't be stopped" old skool way.

</geek manifesto>

Well, I know that a lot of the Business majors and MBA douchebags at my school knew jack and shit. And my school has a good College of Business.

No, he isn't. The business community if full of idiots. For most high-level execs their top skills are wining and dining investors, saving their own butts, etc. Yes, there are good people in the business world - they are a tiny minority from what I can tell.

When ya get to certain levels in large companies, you realize the view from within is very different from it is outside. I'll set aside the whole anti-establishment sentiment that's been part of college/university/new-adult-folks thing except to say to those who haven't been in a large company yet: wait until you've experienced it before proclaiming an understanding of it.

For the most part, I agree with what folks have said about Microsoft's role in all of this, partly because I have also said their position was tricky. But it really makes me wonder when the successful products of American conditions allow themselves to be subjugated by competing view points. For the fast buck.

So many companies around the world are projections of their nations policies I think it interesting our's are not. Just interesting though. I know why that's not the case, at least at the window-dressing level. Just makes me wonder what will become of the state-side version of those services if they allow the foreign influence to affect what they deliver back to their hosts. It's cheaper to find a common denominator that works everywhere than localize for all conditions.

Most people in school know jack and shit, mainly because they haven't been exposed to real word issues yet, and that's regardless of degree.  Also be wary of ascribing either of those words to people who have experience, even if they might appear as such from where you are; although they might be, it's also possible that you only see their worst faults, while most of their work is hidden from your view.

I notice that often, such adjetives are ascribed to people in positions of authority.  Equally often, they are applied by others who are not. 

Truly spoken like someone in authority.  Someone in authority can still be seen as competent and knowledgeable by their underlings even when the majority of their work is done out of view of those beneath them.  Mostly it just comes down to not being an asshole in interpersonal situations and keeping people informed of the general trend of whats going on.

I'm NOT saying explain every decision, that's a big no no.  Just a tendency to shine a little light on the mushrooms every now and then.

Someone can seem that way, even when they aren't.  There is a difference between perception and reality.  You can have both a good person who is constantly criticized more for being misunderstood than for job performance, or someone who is piss-poor being praised merely for capturing hearts.  It's certainly not an always in either case, but it happens well enough for me to question my, or anyone else's, uneducated gut instinct. 

Far as the censorship thing goes, I don't really care.  Microsoft is NOT an "American company", they're a multinational company.  In cas it gets overlooked, a company is in the business to make money, not spread free speech.  I doubt any of the US people involved particularly like doing business in this way, but business is business, and it's far better for them to cultivate good relations with the government than to play vigilante.  This is a government who could, if it desired, legally allow the piracy of everything Microsoft and entirely undercut profit in the country.  Or they could just be assholish - rezone buildings that MS offices are in, or just bulldoze them down.  My brother in-law has worked over there and tells stories of the government, probably due to bureaucratic ineptitude, bringing bulldozers up to an office that was being used.  They forgot to tell the reisdents that their building was being taken by the government.  China is going Linux (with Win playing secondary on a dual boot) for most of their systems, so not like they have a huge personal investment in the company.  They could make things very miserable for MS over there.

But it is so much easier - and intellectually lazy - to just write off all their execs as having no skill and just sucking ass. 

One reason I was so glad to be fired out of walmart management was exactly this. I was constantly "in trouble" for "being mean". By mean, I mean (ouch, sorry) asking people to do their jobs properly and not putting up with bullshit excuses. There are a few competent people in the organization, but they are heavily outweighed by people just trying to cover their asses and kiss those above them. With competent management cores and good communication, our store could go up a million a week in profits (and would, until they split up that team or injected some bozos), but usually we struggled because of ineptitude. I don't play nice with ineptitude, so...no more walmart. The vertical climb (I was going to gun for at least regional IT manager) was a total mess because of all the ass-kissy politics that got in the way of competent people trying to just get the fucking job done.

Anyway. Companies dealing with China make me ill. That bill is going to come due in a big way and it won't be pretty. We've all but boycotted many companies, including walmart. There are more important things than ease and low prices.

Apparently, people have a problem paying a few more bucks for milk, TVs, and other shit.

Oh well.

Another scenerio is that authoritianism is ajusting its stadegy a bit.  Give latitude to the people on the bottom so they don't get too pissed, but keep strict control of the heirachy.  The idea that this latitude will result in structraul chance is speculation at best.

But an arms build up to colaspe the Soviet Union was speculation, so it may work out.  But if it doesn't we have made China a lot stronger and a much bigger threat.

Ok, first off, all communities have their idiots. Scientific, academic, industrial, medical. The business community is no magically unique in this fact, nor are others immune to the principle. Also, you speak as if you've hung out with every executive on earth and judged them accordingly. I'd imagine most of you have never even had dinner with more than a handful of major executives if any, and you have probably zero idea how they realistically spend each day. If you did, you would be more uneasy about making such generalizations.

Now that's not true, I watched American Psycho!  All he did was draw and listen to music.

I'd love to hear how they spend their day, why only they are fit for the job, what their true responsibilities are, etc.

From the people I have met, my views have only been confirmed. Sorry.

Same here. I'm not making this shit up. My experiences are based on who I've met, not who I saw on TV. MBA students are mostly dicks. Worse than med students and law students by far - and that's saying something. (Med students and law students are mostly dicks too, but they aren't idiots)

Executives? The ones I've met are mostly morons.

I guess we're talking about different things. I'm not talking about your average VP of cocksucking in the marketing department. Anyone can get an "executive" title now. I'm referring to the actual people who run the company from the top. The CEO, CFO, CAO, and in come cases CIO. If you're a VP, that usually means you're a trumped up manager.

I'd like to know what they're doing to earn all that bank....

The same thing they do in any company ... brown nosing. That said, *I* want to be CEO one day so I can make 300k+ a year for having to play golf with a bunch of other VIPs on the company's tab.

Yeah, yall are right, these guys just fell ass backwards into corporate leadership. They've never done a hard days work in their lives, certainly not 80 hour weeks or more. They just wandered in their because they knew some guy and now they are the head of a multinational because they have a low golf handicap, and they know what wine to order at a lunch meeting.  :roll:

Whether or not you like them personally, you sound like a bunch of uninformed petty hippies.

Everyone here who is apologizing for the corporate world has simply denounced our stance as "petty" etc, instead of actually answering the question:

What the fuck do they do to deserve any of that shit? It's a perfectly honest question.

What the hell does deserve have to do with it?  Quantify deserve and then maybe someone can give you an answer.

They get all the bennies because they have managed to get lucky enough and not fuck up enough to manage to get into a position where other people are willing to give them those things.  In case you missed it this is how most of life works.

You can stop being a pedantic apologist. If you can't answer a simple question, then don't waste the board space.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Ok, here goes:

In most cases the top executives have spent over 5 years in the same company, or over 15-20 in the marketplace as a whole. You won't see many top executives under the age of 45 in large corporations. They spent years in school, worked hours and hours when other people were going home, and they have a wealth of experience in the business world due to their longevity. Typically, their main job is to deal with the top end decision-making in the company based on the analysis gathered by the lower-level employees. In the Accounting world, the CAO and CFO would analyze the accounting data supplied by the employees to figure out which jobs/products/holdings were performing well or poorly, and they would make the moves accordingly. They spend the majority of their day in meetings, dealing with emails, reading through countless reports, signing off on contracts, dealing with lawyers, and talking to company suppliers.

In essence, they are the minds at the top looking for new opportunities, advancing the company, and creating policy. They get paid to be the company strategists. They are in charge of establishing the company culture. Take into example the actions of Truett Cathey and Chick-Fil-A setting up a private owned family-oriented culture, and the push to make sure that all employees have Sundays off. They hire and fire non-performers on the senior management staff. They evaluate performance. They set direction, and they make sure that their vision is implemented through direct contact at all levels. They set budgets, and they manage the firms overall capital. In military analogy, they are the "generals" of the business.

Thank you. Was that really so hard?


Can I still have a strong, vague, general dislike for Business/Marketing/PR/Advertsing/MBA people?

I have a dislike for most graduate level people, be it biz/med/or law. Especially law.

Mostly because they think that their schooling is something more than a necessary checkmark on their resume before they get tossed into their real school - "Life".

No need to be a douchebag.

As much as I hate Microsoft I applaud the action.

Unfortunately my angle on this may not be the intended subject matter of this thread.  As Henry Kissinger pointed out in his book Does America Need a Foreign Policy - the problem with US foreign policty today - and the broader views of the US public by extension - is that the soveriengty of nations is no longer respected.

We may not agree with China's position on many issues - but does that give us the right to try and undermine their government because we disagree?

I realize this can be taken to extremes (Nazi Germany), but in principle it seems we have lost in almost its entirety this right of respect. 

After all, if you don't think like us, you need need to be reformed.  :roll:

A link to the PNAC (http://newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) is appropriate.

A sample of the Statement of Principles for those who still haven't read the site despite my many linkings (it's kind of important to know!):
The signers:
Anyone in there look familiar? We can only be happy that Penn Gillette's quote is true: "The only thing saving us from their evil is their incompetence." Iraq screwed the pooch.

But to answer your query, yes. Some people running our country believe we have the right, nay, the responsibility, to reshape the world to our liking.

Student of history much?  The Monroe doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary sound familiiar?

Yes. Those that don't learn are doomed to repeat and whatnot.

It's repeating, and the current PNAC is not a history lesson. We can do something about this one.

Yup. They're both bad policy.


History doesn't repeat per se, but I know what you mean. How much support does this slop have outside of the Whitehouse cabinet?

Many people insist that the US is not an Imperial power. Ha....

Jumping back to walmart and china for a minute:

http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2006/01/13/71108.html

I eat your naivete with a side order of bacon and fried Chinese children.


Microsoft has salivated at the thought of being able to sell in China for years. China has accomodated them a great deal, but really, is it any surprise that Microsoft would alter their stuff to get in bed with a market a billion Chinese strong? Especially when the stuff they have to fuck with (blogs) means jack and shit to what they want to sell to the Chinese? It's an addon. It's nothing to them. It's like telling them to unbundle Media Player and Internet Explorer from the desktop. They don't care so long as you buy the bigger package.

The more important question is why would you blog about that shit from China on MSN?

While many times, I will agree that a lot of executives are worthless wastes of space who truly do no work whatsoever, I can say what some of these guys do.

They talk to the people you don't want to, about stuff you don't want to deal with (like the things you and your chucklefuck worker friends fucked up), decide who gets hired and fired, how much money gets spent on healthcare, pension plans, retirement, and how business is going to be generated next year that will keep the employees paid and bitchy.

I certainly think most executives are overpaid and get way too many golden parachutes, but frankly, they do jobs I wouldn't touch with a ten foot fucking pole and talk with people I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

There is a joke of sorts that we threw around in my investment days - a small company of 10 guys requires just as many decision makers with as a firm 1000 times its size.

You're only hope in a large firm is to hope that it is decentralized - so that each national subsidiary actually has to think for itself.

It's not a direct question, so there is no direct answer. Nobody get's plucked off the street and handed six figures. Consider corporate management not unlike organized sports. People don't go from Little League to the Major League without working a fuckton, knowing the right people, doing the right thing, knowing the rules, knowing the pressure points of those rules, knowing how much pressure to apply, and doing so for decades on end. But most importantly: you need people who think those salaries are justified in order for the execs to collect them.

I personally don't think any actor or sports star deserves anywhere the cash they get. Yes, I know it's hard and shit, but call me a bit Puritan throwback or something by thinking a fucking teacher does more work in a week than Harrison Ford does in a year.

An old argument of course, but it's to illustrate the point: people only get paid what others think they're worth.

Weak. You know me better than that.

As I've had some dealings with executive management of Fortune 500 corporations, the one thing that astonished me greatly, that I seemed to be completely ignorant of, was the total interconnectedness of the corporate world. Most directors and board members sit on other boards, and CEOs are chairmen for multiple other companies. So a new marketing/management/manufacturing fad/trend/"paradigm" comes into play, and all these companies begin to act in total unision, inspired by Neutron Jack (yes, I know he's no longer GE head…) or the greatness of GE, or Honeywell, etc.…

For example: Kenneth Chenault, CEO of American Express is on the board of directors for IBM. Vernon Jordan, a board member, sits on the boards of Xerox, Sara Less, Asbury Automotive Group and J.C. Penney (for many years, Henry Kissinger was a board member of Amex…). Charles Knight, on the board of directors at IBM, also sits on the board at SBC, Anheuser Busch, Morgan Stanley and Emerson Electric.

There's a interactive nice flash presentation of this phenomenon, that seldom gets attention in the mainstream media, at http://www.theyrule.net, albeit incomplete and I believe current as of 2004…

When I was involved in outsourcing efforts (as well as Six Sigma campaigns) at American Express, it was driven by executives who all acted in incestuous fashion, following eachother in a giant circle jerk, no matter what factual data underlings reported from research. Decisions were made on the basis of this "executive club" comprised of top folks in the corporate world, and not from middle level management or even empirical data collected by those "on the line".

Naum, the same holds true for mid-level corporations as well. It's a large circle jerk of sycophants following the few real trendsetters, or the latest books written by the trendsetters that totally contradict what their last book said.