International Ethics Concerning China and the Internet

The internet has become a very important tool that can allow people to learn and communicate on a global level. Never before has such a wide spread network allowed for normal people across the globe to as easily communicate with one another, both directly and indirectly, and in doing so promote social awareness on current issues that occur in all corners of the earth. However, the freedom of the internet can be restricted and in places like China it is very often done so. The authoritarian, communist regime of China operates in a way as to restrict many freedoms from its citizens that people in countries like the United States are used to. Among those freedoms that are tightly restricted in China is the freedom of the press and the freedom to speak against one's government. As use of the internet increases greatly among Chinese citizens, the Chinese government has attempted to restrict much of the internet so as to maintain what they view as necessary control over the people. Restrictions such as what people can write in emails and blogs, along with what information they can view, are currently in place. From an American perspective these restrictions come across as unethical as America seems to favor a wider sense of freedom. Given the fact that many Chinese laws conflict with the American government's moral code, is it ok for US companies, particularly internet companies, to work with China in order to reach greater profit levels? Is it ok to ignore moral rights if it increases your profit?

The internet company Yahoo has dealt first hand with this problem. They have been on the rise in the Chinese market recently and have been trying to become one of the online leaders in China. With a fresh customer base full of millions of new internet users in China, this move seems very logical from a strictly business perspective. However, a watchdog organization called Reporters Without Borders has cited Yahoo as the specific company that acted as a police informant in a popular case involving the release of restricted information. The Yahoo branch that operates out of Hong Kong apparently linked together an email with the name and residential address of a Chinese journalist who sent out internal Communist Party information that expressed concerns about a small level of potential political uprising on a specific date. The journalist released this information to the international community via email. By American standards, this information would have been fine to release as granted by freedom of the press. In China, however, only information specifically given by the government can be released publicly. Therefore, it is a serious crime in China to report on anything else. The Chinese government had not figured out who had released the information online, but with Yahoo's help they quickly learned the name and address of the person who had obviously wished to stay anonymous. Yahoo's technology was such that it could easily trace the email back to the original sender. Without Yahoo's help, however, the Chinese government's own technology might not have been enough to find the journalist. After Yahoo pointed out who it was, the journalist was sentenced to ten years in prison for reporting on this restricted information.

With the power of Yahoo's technology comes responsibility. The company chose to ignore their own moral codes as a primarily American company and instead to use their technological power to the benefit of the Chinese government. This was surely done in order to further their standing with the Chinese government, who has the power to choose who will do business in their country. But even with millions, if not billions of dollars of profit from the Chinese market, was it right for Yahoo to directly cooperate with a country who ignores the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in doing so take ten years from a basically innocent man's life? They were probably being pressured heavily by the Chinese government to complete this task, but could they have refused without losing money? Could the situation have gone differently? Some of the philosophies concerning ethics touched on in class could help show what Yahoo should have done. Maybe they did the morally right thing based on some philosopher's ideas.

What would Nietzsche have thought about this moral dilemma? He is known for being an immoralist, but does that mean he automatically would disagree with standard international morals such as a right to free speech? Nietzsche was not against all morals and in fact would not have been able to express his different ideas had he not lived in a relatively free society. He didn't like the idea of a common mediocrity in which those who could excel weren't encouraged to do so. It would seem, therefore, that he would be against communism in principle as communism attempts to keep everything equal for everyone. So maybe Nietzsche would have been against Yahoo's decision to work with the Chinese government. Although maybe he would say that it is up to Yahoo to become as strong as it can be, no matter what it does in order to reach that level. It seems he was more in favor of individuals reaching towards the overman rather than corporations, however, so I would guess that he would not support Yahoo's decision.

The tricky thing about China is that it is supposedly a communist country, but does not at all follow the original intent of what a communist country should be like. In a true communist society everyone would be equal and this would make it better for everyone, in theory. And most importantly, an authoritarian regime would not control a true communist country with an iron fist. Along with this, it seems China's version of communism at its strictest sense prohibits it from advancing technologically at the same rate as countries which operate in capitalistic societies. The only way for China to catch up rapidly is to bend the rules of their blurry communist ideals and invite highly capitalistic American and European corporations like Yahoo to come in and set up shop. These companies are so hungry for money that they will go against their own moral codes just in order to secure a profitable place in China's rising economy. The irony of China's so called communist government is very apparent. This calls into question what Karl Marx might think of situations like this. Instead of siding with "communist" China, he would probably be disgusted by it. His vision of communism was based on his opinion that a progression of individual freedom was inevitable and therefore he believed the Proletariat would have to take control. But if the average people together were in control, they couldn't be restricted in the way the Chinese are. Marx would most certainly side against Yahoo for giving up a man who was expressing his individual freedom to an authoritarian regime who works against the Proletariat. Along with Marx, Hegel would also have to support the side of individual freedom and therefore would not support the choice made by Yahoo.

Thomas Hobbes believed it was in people's best interest to live in a collective agreement in which people live under a sovereign. This sovereign takes away people's ability to live completely freely, but Hobbes believed any sovereign would allow more people to achieve pleasure in the form of primary and secondary reinforcers. He would therefore be supportive of the fact that the Chinese people's rights are withheld by a governing body, just as those in any country are. He might be of the opinion that a person who wasn't following his country's rules should be punished, even if his country's rules are more strict than every other country's. He believed any sovereign was better than anarchy, but he probably favored those with more personal freedom. Given this information, it seems reasonable that Hobbes might have agreed that while operating in China Yahoo should cooperate with the Chinese government and therefore took the correct action.

It seems that many of the philosophers we have discussed in class would have favored on the side of increased personal freedom and against Yahoo for working as a police informant for a country who restricts a great deal of personal freedom. Technology is constantly developing and improving all over the world and is usually seen as a good thing. But it seems possible that technology can in fact be used to even further restrict freedoms and accurately identify rebellious people in places like China. The tracking of an anonymous email that contained internal information is one of the first major showings of how China will restrict the use of technology, and at the same time use technology to catch anyone breaking a law. More advanced technology could potentially make it even more difficult to stay anonymous and have personal freedom anywhere in the world. Popular science fiction ideas such as face scanners, wire taps, and spy satellites, among other things, are effecting the way everyday citizens live everywhere. Secrets and personal identities are more difficult to conceal, and as such those in power have the potential of gaining more control as technology increases. Large corporations like Yahoo who are willing to work anywhere where there is a sure profit are giving governments like China's an opportunity to even further restrict and monitor citizens. However, citizens are also enjoying new technology everywhere, so the future will determine how technology will effect the relationship between government and citizens and corporations and government.