When you apply for ICP beian license at Aliyun (Alibaba's cloud), you either choose "I use Aliyun" and give them the server ID, or you choose "I use another server" and two additional fields appear: your server log in, your server password.
You need ICP license if you want to integrate any kind of service. Wechat, Alipay, other payment systems, SMS notifications etc, everything needs the ICP.
I guess AWS China also had to give up access to all servers to govt. And given the govt "professionalism" (check the China's Ministry of Information website), that's not the kind of access I'd like to give away.
In case you assumed that corporate responsibility is actually taken to heart by those making corporate strategic decisions, let this show you that it is not. Corporate responsibility moves are little more than good PR, a product selling point, and a way to avoid fines in some jurisdictions. Money matters more than morals. These corporations want access to the Chinese market. To gain access (and profit from) to the Chinese market, you must play ball with the state.
Maybe there's a middleground? You've still got to pick your battles and understand the scope of them. It's also entirely reasonable for a company to not to choose to follow a particular fight because it's too expensive or would have to much of an impact on the strategy of the company.
If a company decides to not fund healthcare for everyone in the US, even if that aligned with their values and CSR, there's no need to take a cynical look at that.
When has that ever been in doubt with regard to China? To do any major business in China you have to partner with a local company --which typically have ties to the CCP.
This is nothing new. Is there a difference btwn opening factories in China and legally outsourcing work to local cos which may or may not comply with even local labor and environmental laws and bowing to their local mores when it comes to softer areas like western ideas about civil liberties? That in no way means I agree with their view --I'm just asking are the two not different sides of the same coin and we (the "west") pretty much fully accepted the one side a long time ago.
Agreed. In China, the government controls the flow of money. Sadly, there's a saying among us Chinese netizens: "China is now powerful/rich enough, that no one can actually save us from it."
It's no surprise. Even if Apple or Amazon wanted to resist this, they won't get any competent support from the current US administration. The strategy for the time being seems to be "don't rock the boat" for US businesses right now.
What? Why do they need support from the adminstration. Either they do business in China, and implicity endorse all the anti-freedom, or they do not. Sure it would cost them revenue and share price. Well right and wrong are not economic propositions.
fyi AWS China is different from aws worldwide. It has its own portal https://www.amazonaws.cn, different set of services, policies, etc.
Many cool fancy new features on aws worldwide is not available on aws china. Some of the differences even breaks third party libraries. e.g. some version of boto.
What are they supposed to do? Either they comply or they leave the Chinese market. It's that simple. I hope people don't fault these companies for playing ball with a communist government.
Yes, playing ball with a despotic authoritarian regime is precisely what people are faulting these companies for.
A lot of companies left the market in South Africa market in the 1980s, to which the parallels are obvious.
But they didn't do it because they suddenly woke up and felt like doing the right thing; they did it because people's outrage over human rights in South Africa began to threaten the profits gained from playing ball there[1].
Perhaps a naïve question but I mean it honestly: What relevance does communism have here? Is "communist" just being used as a synonym for corrupt or is there another meaning?
I'm not American so I suspect I don't associate communism with the same things you do.
Which basically ends up to the classic deontological vs consequentialist ethic theories. I believe though that if enough companies like Amazon and Google won't accept the conditions imposed by the government then, after some time, they may decide to change their politics.
They do have influence here (in US) and there (in China). They should certainly comply with law and push for change together with US government. If change is not happening and laws aren't just then they certainly should leave.
That is what I was curious about. That is a country four times the size of America. It would be interesting to see how the conversation went in Apples and Amazons board room though.
So again, companies are fighting and vocal about "freedom", equality, lgbt rights etc only when it's convinient for them, as soon as they see that it might make them lose money - they will do whatever it takes to keep that cash flowing. Look at Tim Cook, how vocal he was in US with his LGBT support and anti-Trump position and other topics, but as soon as he sees that he can lose cash from China he does almost the same thing as what he is fighting against in US. How are these companies leaders different from those people in China who sit at a top of food chain and do same things because they worry about losing money after losing control...
that he can lose cash from China he does almost the same thing as what he is fighting against in US
I'm kind of wondering how you think its possible to run a large company while 'losing cash' because your supply chain is suddenly unavailable? Or because your competitors have a lower cost structure than you do?
Do you know what American consumers will do if Tim Cook doesn't feed them the bullshit about how it's realistic to impose American values on their Chinese partners? American consumers will go buy a f'ing Samsung. Samsung's ethical record is horrifying and truly shameful - far worse than anything Apple has ever done or consented to - but American ignorance of and indifference to other cultures spares Samsung the same burden that Apple and Tim Cook bear. Cook needs to feed his customers the bullshit; Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei etc don't.
Apple's issue isn't just about 'losing money'. Their supply and manufacturing chain is in China. They have their throat laid bare on this one, and if they stood on principle, their throat would be cut in short order.
How is this different from companies abiding to a country's tax laws for example. If you want to do business in a country, you stick to its rules. China's rules call for censorship so companies must comply or leave. A bit too simplistic but that's how I see it.
Sad the world we live in. We need the world to reach for Western standards of openness, freedom, and dignity and put people before profits. Instead, I see us altering our way of life to the least common denominator of state coercion.
If you are software engineer, then you are spoiled for choice. When I left Bing, their censorship in China (unlike Google) was a minor reason for me leaving. So, while it wasn't the reason, it did contribute to my decision to leave.
And, again, we (SWEs) are spoiled for choice, hence taking issues like this into the account is certainly possible.
That's going to be up to you, the Amazon employee.
Personally, I'm unwilling to work for a company who's values are in severe opposition to my own, so I would probably quit my job over something like this (if I felt strongly enough about it).
That's going to be up to you, the Amazon employee.
Personally, I'm able to distinguish myself from the company and I my identity isn't the company's, so I wouldn't see a need to quit my job over something like this.
It is sad that Amazon does concessions for China while being blatantly hidered by them. For example amazonaws links are blocked by WeChat due to "This page has been reported multiple times as it rewards users for sharing on social network or following a brand." (This particular link was a direct link to a bus ticket in PDF format).
The explanation is especially shaky since the whole point of wechat is to share stuff and follow brands...
Amazon is too big, they can't afford to act otherwise. We should all build medium size, privately owned companies and at least try to have a spine. The background of the problem is nicely highlighted in DHH's blog post "Enough".
I don't understand the point of this report. Any server in China always subjects to GFW's censorship power. Or does it mean that a Chinese customer of Amazon Web Service can not rent a cloud server abroad for VPN purpose?
I wonder how much a publicly traded company could act upon their values, as opposed to the primary value of seeking value for shareholders. For instance, if an Apple or Amazon takes a stand and ends up having to pull out of China, would that be grounds for a shareholder lawsuit?
Shareholder lawsuits are among the least worrisome for a public corporation. They happen frequently. They very, very rarely end up adding up to anything that matters.
Why is that? There's an extraordinarily high bar to jump over if you're a shareholder and you want to sue and win, when it comes to showing damages from a corporation's decisions. I should emphasize it again: the bar is extraordinarily high.
It's so high, it's difficult for shareholder lawsuits to prevail against companies like Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
I'm glad everyone is so anti-censorship in this thread! Should tech companies also ignore censorship at the hands of European governments or Canada via "right to be forgotten" legislation? I seem to recall people on this site saying that it would be wrong for tech companies to resist the government in those cases. At least China isn't attempting to force censorship in other countries, unlike the Canadian government.
To all these "you either support freedom of information or you dont" commenters:
If life was only so simple.
No sane CEO would try to fight against Chinese government risking their access to the market.
Even if the goal for the company is freedom of information, pissing of Chinese government, risking the safety of the company employees in China and getting smoked out by the shareholders is not gonna help anyone. It's much better to initially comply with their rules, gain their trust and try to change things in the long run. Might never work but still better than this "in or out" idiotism which will never work.
Disagree. In my opinion, American/other foreign tech companies have gotten a raw deal in China, with constant technology theft and hindered access to the domestic market, in addition to the usual suppression of dissent/free speech. I haven't seen any signs that this has been changing for the better, so why should American tech companies engage in China?
[+] [-] mstaoru|8 years ago|reply
You need ICP license if you want to integrate any kind of service. Wechat, Alipay, other payment systems, SMS notifications etc, everything needs the ICP.
I guess AWS China also had to give up access to all servers to govt. And given the govt "professionalism" (check the China's Ministry of Information website), that's not the kind of access I'd like to give away.
[+] [-] micaksica|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madeofpalk|8 years ago|reply
If a company decides to not fund healthcare for everyone in the US, even if that aligned with their values and CSR, there's no need to take a cynical look at that.
[+] [-] mc32|8 years ago|reply
This is nothing new. Is there a difference btwn opening factories in China and legally outsourcing work to local cos which may or may not comply with even local labor and environmental laws and bowing to their local mores when it comes to softer areas like western ideas about civil liberties? That in no way means I agree with their view --I'm just asking are the two not different sides of the same coin and we (the "west") pretty much fully accepted the one side a long time ago.
[+] [-] l04m33|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaggajasoos33|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] radicaldreamer|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasz|8 years ago|reply
Frontline: Coming From Japan [The Fall Of The US Television Industry] (1992) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aesJTsZqm6c
[+] [-] ams6110|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] est|8 years ago|reply
Many cool fancy new features on aws worldwide is not available on aws china. Some of the differences even breaks third party libraries. e.g. some version of boto.
[+] [-] subway|8 years ago|reply
CN is operated (and likely owned) by a party other than Amazon, as Amazon ownership would make the org ineligible for an ICP (as of 2014, anyway)
[+] [-] lostmsu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiotapia|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] veidr|8 years ago|reply
A lot of companies left the market in South Africa market in the 1980s, to which the parallels are obvious.
But they didn't do it because they suddenly woke up and felt like doing the right thing; they did it because people's outrage over human rights in South Africa began to threaten the profits gained from playing ball there[1].
That's why articles like this one are important.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/11/17/t...
[+] [-] Veratyr|8 years ago|reply
I'm not American so I suspect I don't associate communism with the same things you do.
[+] [-] pera|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] option|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ngold|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cooper12|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnvonneumann|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lstroud|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] usaphp|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CountSessine|8 years ago|reply
I'm kind of wondering how you think its possible to run a large company while 'losing cash' because your supply chain is suddenly unavailable? Or because your competitors have a lower cost structure than you do?
Do you know what American consumers will do if Tim Cook doesn't feed them the bullshit about how it's realistic to impose American values on their Chinese partners? American consumers will go buy a f'ing Samsung. Samsung's ethical record is horrifying and truly shameful - far worse than anything Apple has ever done or consented to - but American ignorance of and indifference to other cultures spares Samsung the same burden that Apple and Tim Cook bear. Cook needs to feed his customers the bullshit; Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei etc don't.
[+] [-] vacri|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yingliu4203|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curiousgal|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robrenaud|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justadeveloper2|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostmsu|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] option|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vonkow|8 years ago|reply
Personally, I'm unwilling to work for a company who's values are in severe opposition to my own, so I would probably quit my job over something like this (if I felt strongly enough about it).
[+] [-] dis-sys|8 years ago|reply
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-08-17/a-job-at-...
[+] [-] madeofpalk|8 years ago|reply
Personally, I'm able to distinguish myself from the company and I my identity isn't the company's, so I wouldn't see a need to quit my job over something like this.
[+] [-] ballade|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mahyarm|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gigablah|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codedokode|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yoz-y|8 years ago|reply
The explanation is especially shaky since the whole point of wechat is to share stuff and follow brands...
[+] [-] patkai|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shmerl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bantunes|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Allower|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] notliketherest|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdcravens|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abecedarius|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
Why is that? There's an extraordinarily high bar to jump over if you're a shareholder and you want to sue and win, when it comes to showing damages from a corporation's decisions. I should emphasize it again: the bar is extraordinarily high.
It's so high, it's difficult for shareholder lawsuits to prevail against companies like Valeant Pharmaceuticals.
[+] [-] wyager|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] illuminati1911|8 years ago|reply
If life was only so simple.
No sane CEO would try to fight against Chinese government risking their access to the market.
Even if the goal for the company is freedom of information, pissing of Chinese government, risking the safety of the company employees in China and getting smoked out by the shareholders is not gonna help anyone. It's much better to initially comply with their rules, gain their trust and try to change things in the long run. Might never work but still better than this "in or out" idiotism which will never work.
[+] [-] ariwilson|8 years ago|reply