Yahoo and Google: Democratic Responsibilities of Corporations


China is renowned for keeping its citizens in the dark. They censor their television shows and ads. Now time travel, homosexuality, and luxurious lifestyle programs are banned from Chinese television ( They sensor Internet chat rooms to deter the conversations from issues like politics “towards [issues] such as which celebrities make the best role models.” The government even goes so far as to set up fake websites designed at luring in “would-be dissidents” for their “apprehension” (Dann and Haddow, p. 220).

The first question that needs answering is as follows: is the free flow of information a human right? Back before the Internet, how much access to information we had depended on both our monetary wealth and status in society. If we truly want a liquid society, where serfs can become kings, free flow of information should be of the utmost importance. Information is power.

By definition, markets cannot be efficient if information becomes scarce or censored. Those in power can use information to further sway those under their control; even in a democracy, controlling the information can make the electorate vote in a way that seems in their best interest but really they’re being influenced by the censored distribution of information. Without the freedom to distribute information, a democracy by name cannot be a democracy in practice.

The censorship in China is done by government entities to exert “paternalistic influence” over the population politically. Chinese economic freedom has evolved massively since the days of strict Communist rule (Dann and Haddow, p. 220). This economic freedom has allowed companies like Yahoo and Google to establish a presence in the formerly closed state. In order to do business within the Communist nation, however, foreign companies must comply with Chinese law. When law conflicts with a firm’s moral compass, which should have precedence?


Google complies with Chinese law and omits certain things from search results inquired within China. Before the establishment of, every search inquiry had to pass through the “’the Great Firewall of China’” (Dann and Haddow, p. 221). This caused searches to take longer, thus less use of Google’s platform. Google set up a search database within China that already had politically undesirable items removed. This made the search engine faster and more accessible for many.

Hypothetically assume Google refuses service within China. Tech firms that are willing to swallow their moral obligation to society in favor of profit will step in and fill the void. A Chinese competitor, Baidu, soared from “2.5% market share in 2003 to 43% in 2005” (Dann and Haddow, p. 225). Google won’t solve anything by refusing service, except perhaps to exacerbate the problem. The search database will shrink, allowing less free flow of information.

Dann and Haddow argue Google produced a list of blocked items on its own, without “receiving direct orders from Beijing” (p. 226). By Dann and Haddow’s calculation, Google censored information without being directly ordered. Google was losing market share, and thus needed to revise their strategy. Dann and Haddow call this process an “outsource of censorship” by the Chinese government (p.226).


Yahoo!, an internet search engine and news site, allows its content to be censored in China as well. In Dann and Haddow’s research paper Yahoo is cited for aiding in the arrest of a citizen who “was sentenced to eight years in prison for posting comments that criticized government officials of corruption” (p. 229). Yahoo, like Google, asserted it had little to no choice in the matter, as it had to play by the rules in order to play the game.

Should Yahoo have sacrificed its Chinese branch in order to maintain its values? When does morality trump profitability in the business world? The answer can be easy when answering for the self, but harder when those affected have no skin in the game. American investors in Yahoo wish to see the company grow more profitable, period. Perhaps by sacrificing their Chinese branches, they can improve public image and gain market share… but perhaps not.

Yahoo can also assert that it was the responsibility of the individual involved to protect himself (or herself). If the individual hadn’t dissented against the government, there would be no wrongdoing and the individual would still be free today. Yahoo is merely providing the platform for conversation; they didn’t guide or start the discussion. Had Yahoo been actively endorsing the actions of the individual, they would be liable by Chinese law. Is it Yahoo’s responsibility to protect the users of its platform? If a controversial note was posted on a firm’s notice board, should the person who installed the corkboard be faulted or the individual who posted the note?

This turns the discussion to one of free speech rather than free flow of information. “It is the ability to exchange information that is valuable, not necessarily the worth of the information itself” (Dann and Haddow, p. 222). They argue it is the installer of the corkboard (from my example above) who is responsible for preserving the integrity of the information posted. Free flow of information is imperative to a democratic society. Uninhibited, unbiased news and information needs to be present in a truly free society.


Google and Yahoo’s responsibly to Chinese citizens can be argued from both points of view. On one hand, Yahoo and Google must follow the rules to play the game. If they want to utilize and operate in one of the fastest growing economies in the world, they need to follow Chinese law.

On the other hand, they are actively participating in inhibiting the democratic process. The United States’ military has fought against the spread of Communism in several wars and hundreds of thousands had died to spread democratic ideals. Meanwhile, Google and Yahoo are assisting in the process of politically influencing entire generations of Chinese citizens.

Thanks for reading.




  1. Dann, G.E. and Haddow, N., Journal of Business Ethics (2008). Retrieved: Sept. 2016
Yahoo and Google: Democratic Responsibilities of Corporations


I recently quit chewing tobacco, and, as many former nicotine addicts know, your brain does this crazy thing where we try to rationalize our use of the substance. I would say to myself, “Well, everyone has a vice, right? Whether it’s caffeine, food, booze, wasting time on Instagram, etc…. You name it and I guarantee it can be abused, and is abused by at least one of the seven billion people on earth. So what if mine happens to be chewing?”

Laying in bed at night, I pondered the question above. Assuming my thinking was correct, I took the connection further into financial markets. If everyone’s got a vice, who’s to say financial firms (which are made up of people) aren’t subject to the vices of their employees or executives?

I googled, “top excuses made by drug users”. I got a top ten list from, but for brevity sake I’ll only mention the top four.

4.) Everyone else is doing it? So why shouldn’t I?

3.) I’m not hurting anyone else.

2.) I need it to be ‘social’.

1.) I need it to be successful.

The goal of every financial institution in the world is to maximize profit. Just look at the 2008 financial crisis. All the media attention that J.P. Morgan has been getting recently is over their reckless behavior selling worthless assets to unknowing investors. I would probably do a crap job of explaining a mortgage backed security, so for an understandable, interesting explanation go watch The Big Short (Margot Robbie, naked, in a bathtub lays it all out for you surprisingly simply). I put a short explanation at the bottom of this post for those of you interested.

At the beginning of the crisis of 2008, financial institutions flooded the markets with these worthless securities and made real dollars. My point being, financial firms will do (and have done) ANYTHING to prop up their valuations.

Onto my real point, vices. Ever heard the term ‘window dressing’ (keyed “Repo 105″ by Lehmann Brothers before its undoing)? (Cohan, No, not getting new curtains or window painting your friend’s car windows before the homecoming game. Window dressing is a common practice amongst investment banks and mutual funds to make it appear as though their financials are better than they are. For example, one measure of the security of a company is liquidity. Liquidity measures the company’s ability to survive if every one of their customers suddenly runs to the bank and pulls out all their money. One measure of liquidity is the leverage ratio. The more debt it has relative to its assets, the higher the leverage ratio, simply speaking. The lower your ratio, the less likely you are to go bankrupt when the whole market takes a turn for the worse.

In order to appear more financially sound, just before earnings are announced, investment banks will sell short-term bonds (some can be as short as one day) in exchange for cash. They count the bonds as assets, and pay off some of their longer-term debt with the cash. In one move, they increase assets and decrease debt; effectively lowering their leverage ratios. After the earnings are announced and in the books, they load back up on long-term debt in exchange for cash and repurchase the short-term bonds. Debt goes back up, assets go back down, and we’re back at the same place we started in terms of leverage; investors none the wiser.

Everyone is led to believe that financial companies are much safer than they actually are because of this immoral practice. Banking is founded on trust. If I give my money to a bank, I trust them to keep it safe and have it readily available if I ever need it. If my bank is practicing window dressing, how am I to know my bank won’t suddenly go bankrupt if the housing market starts to crash? Deception can absolutely crush a formerly trusting relationship.

In 1833 New York City, Benjamin Day founded The Sun; the newspaper was published and sold at a price that allowed the average, literate New Yorker to purchase a newspaper. The Sun was reputable, but recognized the importance of a compelling headline. They published a story about a man (Sir John Herschel) who had invented a new telescope that could see details of the moon. The story etched details of “a delightful valley ‘abounding with lovely islands and water-birds of numerous kinds… [and] a beaver that walked on two feet.” (White, 92) Though this false spread of information was harmless, it compares to what we’re seeing today across reputable financial firms. Frankly, it’s the spread of misinformation. Misinformation used to make huge financial decisions by the average American, such as, where to put money for your kid’s college fund? Where to keep my life savings? Who should I trust with my retirement money?

Bart McDade, head of equities at Lehman Brothers before its collapse, “said the accounting practice was just ‘another drug’ the executives were on”. (Cohan, Let’s go back to the top four excuses an addict makes when confronted:

4.) ”Everyone else is doing it, why shouldn’t I?” Because it’s false information, you cretins.

3.) ”It’s not hurting anyone else.” You mean besides the millions of Americans choosing to invest in your bank?

2.) “I need it to be social.” If everyone else is doing it, it’s social to partake. You don’t want to be seen as the one who ruins the window dressing party. “Next to doing the right thing, the most important thing is letting people know you’re doing the right thing.” – John D. Rockefeller. Expose the industry and you may be rewarded.

1.) “I need it to be successful.” If you need to spread false information to be successful, you’re just con artists dressed up in $5,000 suits.

The rationalization I spoke of at the beginning of this article is attributed to an individual’s limbic system. This bastard is responsible for the late night Twinky you’re shoving in your mouth while watching Jeopardy under the assumption that ‘you’ll run it off tomorrow’. The limbic system is in charge of your emotional and instinctual needs. The reason we are able to abstain from our vices is our frontal lobes. These are your control boxes in charge of rational thinking. They are able to override the excuses your limbic system is giving you through rational, calm reasoning. When I am able to override my craving for a midnight snack or my dire need to check Instagram one more time, my frontal lobe section of my brain overpowers the limbic system. While the people who make up the banks are more than likely capable of fighting off that late night Twinky, the investment banks themselves seem to have evolved absent a frontal lobe. Conclusion: Yes, everyone has a vice, even investment banks.

I would argue that the act of window dressing should be illegal, not only for the sake of investors, but for the sake of the average American.

Fun Fact: Wall Street ‘dogs’ are commonly associated with cocaine and money, both of which directly stimulate the limbic system. Source:

Whew, I’m going out for a Twinky.

Here’s a few links about window dressing in today’s markets.

Mortgage-backed Securities:

Before the 2008 financial crisis, there was the invention of the mortgage-backed security (MBS). The idea behind these securities was to minimize risk across the board, so banks sold pieces of mortgages to other banks, pension funds, mutual funds, hedge funds, and others. It was as easy as buying a stock or bond on the market. In exchange, the banks would reward the investors for taking on the risk with a relatively high return. “Where’s the problem?” some of you might be thinking. “Banks get less risk, I get more return; who’s getting hurt?”

Let’s say John and Jane Doe are hard working, responsible citizens, who pay back their mortgages and still have enough to take the kids to Chuckie Cheeze on the weekends. If they pay back their mortgage in a timely fashion, the banks get paid, the buyers of the MBS (who took on the risk) get their cut, and we had nothing to worry about. Everyone gets paid. Way to go John and Jane, you’re perfect examples of how the system was SUPPOSED to work.

The problem wasn’t with John and Jane, it was with Joe Smith. Thanks to slack standards of lending prior to the financial crisis in 2008, Joe was able to get a loan on a house he couldn’t afford. Joe was a hard worker, ate Ramen noodles for dinner, and didn’t take the kids to Chuckie Cheeze on weekends. Thanks to Joe’s financial illiteracy (and his degenerate mortgage broker), the rates on his mortgage were too high for him to repay. Bills started piling up at Joe’s door. If Joe doesn’t pay, the banks don’t get paid, and the investors who bought the MBS’s don’t get paid. We call this “defaulting” on your loan.

Banks accounted and prepared for the occasional default, because, to quote one of my favorite movies, Forest Gump, “shit happens.” ( However, this ‘shit’ was happening far too often (again, thanks to financial illiteracy and slack lending standards) and investors failed to realize it. Everyone failed to realize it, until it was far too late to amend.

Banks started realizing that some of the MBS’s were crap, utterly worthless, because the people who were supposed to be paying the mortgages were defaulting like crazy. They started unloading these assets. They dumped them onto the market, selling at whatever price they could get, to keep their bottom lines looking tasty.


  1. Cohan, William D. “Lehman’s Demise, Dissected.” Opinionator Lehmans Demise Dissected Comments. 18 Mar. 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.
  2. Clark, Andrew. “Lehman Brothers: Repo 105 and Other Accounting Tricks.” The Guardian. N.p., 12 Mar. 2010. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.
  3. White, Shane. Prince of Darkness. New York: St. Martin’s, 2015.