Imagethief

The nice thing about being a China blogger is that, at any given moment, there is nearly a 100% chance that some phenomenal scandal or catastrophe will be providing the grist for endless soapboxing. We're seldom short of material and, even when we are, there's the always rich "life in China" vein, waiting to be mined.

The topic du jour, the electronic martyrdom of Michael Anti, rolls on (today covered by Red Herring). I want to discuss MSN's possible motivations for removing Anti's blog from the point of view of a PR pro and technology industry observer. But before I do, there are two posts that I wanted to point to. The first is Asiapundit's appropriation of my "Daily PR Blog" theme. Journalist Myrick proves he has what it takes to be a top-flight flack with his theoretical justification for MSN:

As a publicly-listed business with billions of dollars invested in China, Microsoft first and foremost has a responsibility to its shareholders. While the company regrets the shutting of Michael Anti's blog, the terms of service on the MSN Spaces China site clearly states: “We may cancel or suspend your Service at any time. Our cancellation or suspension may be without cause and/or without notice.” We can therefore assure shareholders that no liability was incurred.

Most countries have laws and practices that require companies providing online services to restrict Internet usage for local users - whether it is laws restricting child pornography or, as in Germany and France, restricting access to sites that promote Nazism. Nevertheless, Microsoft believes that the company's services, even in strict regulatory environments, enables users of our services to build upon social and professional networks and enrich themselves and build civil society. At its core MSN Spaces believes in helping young people learn independent and critical thinking and fostering a culture in which people tolerate and benefit from different voices. And as Michael Anti himself stated, within China new Internet technologies are giving hope and inspiration people to people who feel they have lost their voices. Microsoft is proud to be within China in to help the country advance, give its people and their voices a place in a global dialogue and build a harmonious global society.

And besides, it's not like we're Yahoo! or anything. Those pricks got Shi Tao thrown in jail! All that happened to Anti was that he had to move back to blog-city. So bugger off and leave Bill alone. He's busy trying to cure malaria and doesn't have time for your petty bourgeois whining. Don't you wankers care at all about Africa? Get your priorities straight, piss off and go pick on Jerry Wang.

Alright, he comes a hair off the rails at the end there, but a pretty good stab nonetheless. This follows quite nicely on a comment discussion I had with Talk Talk China's Dan in the comments of my post yesterday on the same topic. In response to a question from Dan on what I, as a spin doctor, would suggest American Internet companies operating in China should do, I proposed more policy transparency. In particular, enunciate the following:

1. Why are they operating in China? (It's OK to say $$$.)
2. In black and white, what are their policies about local content control?
3. In black and white, what are their privacy policies in each country they operate in, and how will they respond to law-enforcement requests?
4. How will issues of extra-territoriality (Chinese guy using US servers) be dealt with?
5. Why are these policies necessary?
6. Where is the balance between legitimate pursuit of growth and compromising the company's principles?

You can see that some of this gets beyond the usual terms-and-conditions stuff, and is probably pretty unlikely to see the light of day, but I can dream. What I like about Myrick's theoretical response, quoted above, is that it ventures a bit into what would be a statement of principles from MSN (before it slides inevitably into comedy). I think this is important. No one rational expects media companies --which is what these kinds of Internet companies are-- to be able to operate by the same rules in China as they do in the US or Europe. But they have to explain in more detail what guides them, and what their participants can and cannot expect.

ESWN's Roland also takes the analyst's chair with a typically interesting and thoughtful post comparing the Yahoo/Shi Tao and MSN/Anti cases. Roland's thesis is that the two cases are completely dissimilar. In particular, he says that Yahoo is a China-registered Internet content provider (ICP), and Yahoo's representative office in China was complying with a legal warrant served upon it by Chinese law enforcement authorities, while MSN, which is not a registered ICP, apparently removed a blogger from US servers beyond Chinese jurisdiction at it's own discretion. Extracts don't really do justice to Roland's posts, but I'll pull a couple of salient paragraphs and urge you to read the whole thing. On Yahoo:

Previous discussions of the Shi Tao case has brought in extraneous factors such as Yahoo Hong Kong's role, or the location of Yahoo's mail servers.  But that is just smoke and mirrors.  The situation is much simpler -- the investigative officer hands in a proper warrant to the responsible person named in the ICP permit.  He does not care where Yahoo stores its data, he does not care where the parent company is located and he will accept no excuses.  Failure to produce the data is a violation of the terms of the ICP license.

This is the reason why I and all those who agreed with me sat down and sighed, because we saw no way out.  On top of that is the awareness that if Yahoo chose to refuse, they don't even know if they are defending human rights -- because they are just fighting this battle to protect the privacy of blackmailers, pornographers, phishers, etc.  Therefore, I called Option 2 bone-headed.  Do you see a way out?  Nobody else that I have talked to has an answer.

On MSN:

Maybe the MSN Spaces workers think that their lives are at risk.  But it cannot be more so than that the life of blogger Anti, who is owed an explanation just which specific MSN Spaces Code of Conduct he violated or which national law he is alleged to have broken.  More generally, who are these MSN Spaces employees?  Why are they deciding what can or cannot be spoken in China?  What are their qualitifications?  What training did they have?  What is the basis from which these decisions are being issued?  In the absence of information, I have zero confidence in them.  Please prove that I am wrong (and it had better be more than your fearing for their lives!).

Now I would like to presume to add something to ESWN's analysis. The issue of whether MSN is a China-licensed ICP is moot, as is the question of where their servers are or whether MSN Spaces falls under any kind of Chinese jurisdiction. It doesn't matter because Microsoft, MSN's parent, wants to do business in China. Like all other foreign companies operating in China, that puts them in thrall to the Chinese government.

Because of my privileged position in the lofty towers of spin, I get to see in great detail how MNCs (all MNCs, not just my clients) manage their communications with regards to the Chinese government. WTO aside, foreign companies operating here are acutely aware of the need to maintain government favor because of the impact on policy, the huge economic role of state-owned-enterprises, and the murkier non-policy ways in which the central and provincial governments can influence the fortunes of foreign companies in China. I could make a fat scrapbook out of press releases and corporate communiques that wax on about "commitment to China" and all the good works that have been to help build local industry, support the Chinese economy and move high-end development and R&D to China (I believe it is journalist Matt Forney of Time who coined the phrase "PR&D").

This is certainly true for Microsoft, who went through a notoriously crappy patch in their China government relations a couple of years ago from which they are just beginning to recover. Microsoft watched the Chinese government promote local software makers and invest in the dreaded Linux operating system. Even now, the Chinese government is working on a software procurement law that will influence the software purchasing choices that government agencies can make. About a year ago there were issues surrounding the Beijing municipal government's purchase of Microsoft software, and the deal was cancelled, though later reinstated. China is currently considering an anti-monopoly law that might impact Microsoft's business. And this doesn't even begin to touch Microsoft's direct interest in the government's enforcement of IPR laws. (All links in the preceding two paragraphs to China Daily stories.) On top of all of this is precarious, nationalism-driven Chinese public sentiment with regards to foreign MNCs, especially market-dominating ones that might be seen to be impeding the rise of local competitors. The Chinese have a love-hate relationship with these kinds of companies, balanced on a razor's edge. It often doesn't take much of a push to tip that public sentiment toward the negative side. (See Bokee's cynical, commercially-driven rant against MSN, also via ESWN, for an example of how canny Chinese companies take advantage of that situation).

Now, in a perfect world all these government-related issues wouldn't spill over into Microsoft's regular commercial businesses. But this isn't a perfect world. This is China, a country that, for all its power and promise, still has a murky relationships between policy, law and business. So, while MSN might not have removed Anti's blog because of explicit government pressure, I will tell you that this is a company that is acutely aware of the need to not offend the Chinese government if it is going to continue to pursue business in this country. MSN's servers could have lived on the moon, for all the difference it would have made to Microsoft's sensitivity about offending the government. If MSN or Microsoft felt they were running the risk of seriously running afoul of the Chinese government, I doubt they'd wait for the phone call. It's a business decision.

And that comes back to the statement I made in my post yesterday. Where are company values in this equation? How do foreign companies in China balance the need to generate profits and shareholder value with the need to maintain principles? There is a legitimate argument to be made for the importance of doing business in China, even at the cost of the occasional compromise in values that seem obvious to Americans. I, for one, enjoy living and working here despite my reservations about the government, which makes me complicit in this bargain. Consequently, whether or not MSN should have banned Anti is something we can debate (although I hope I've illuminated the possible motivations a bit). But we shouldn't have to debate the guiding principles behind the decision. They should be stated clearly. "Following local laws" is not enough.

In the meantime, we can thank Asiapundit for taking a stab at it in their place.

Disclosure: Imagethief does not represent Microsoft, although he did previously, in Singapore. He also thinks the removal of Anti's blog was abhorrent.

Update: Nice update from Asiapundit pointing back to much of the emerging coverage in the American mainstream media and many good blog posts. Please have a look. Microsoft has a real PR problem from this, although it's not actually huge and I suspect it will be brief as, in my opinion, most of the American public won't really care. Also, I'll add one MSM story, the AP piece by Joe McDonald, via the Washington Post, which quotes my friend and former colleague David Wolf.