Shutterstock censorship, the woes of employees

[Guest]

According to NBC news, employees upset at shutterstock applying censorship to certain subjects at the request of China have been told like it or find another job.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/chinese-censorship-or-work-elsewhere-inside-shutterstock-s-free-speech-n1144211

 

Quote

Stan Pavlovsky, the No. 2 executive at the photo service Shutterstock, sounded frustrated. At what was supposed to be a celebration of a significant company milestone in December, employees instead focused on what had become an increasingly sensitive topic within the company: censorship and China.

Months earlier, at the request of the Chinese government, Shutterstock had begun censoring a few searches by users based in China for politically volatile subjects like "Taiwan flag."

 

Shutterstock employees who disagreed with the blacklist on free speech grounds kept asking about it at every big internal meeting. So, that day, Pavlovsky told them they were free to seek jobs elsewhere.

"The beauty of where we live and where we work is that we're free to make those choices," Pavlovsky told employees at the meeting at Shutterstock's offices, according to a recording of the meeting posted to a company internal website and heard by NBC News.

"And so, you know, it's a great market," he continued, "and employees have a lot of opportunities to work here, to work elsewhere, and we are very supportive when employees do not feel that this is the right place for them, to pursue other opportunities."

 

 

I’m sure this kind of thing will show up more as China tighten their rules on the internet. Surely it is the job of China to do what they see fit via their own firewalls and not pressurise overseas companies to do it for them. Right or wrong, at least it would mean employees against censorship do not have to battle with their own ethics.

 

Whatever the future holds on the censorship front, bosses should be supportive of their staff and not threatening them for voicing their views.

[porina]

I'll start by saying, if you want to do business in any country, you have to do so by applicable rules that may be different from where workers are. What do the workers realistically expect management to do? Either they break the rules in China, or they don't operate in China at all. Neither are necessarily good outcomes for the company. Also the exec, while technically right, is not doing himself any favours saying what he said in that way. I guess it then comes down to how many of the employees really feel strong enough about it. They have to follow through and leave if they believe strongly about it. If enough do so that it starts to harm the company, then execs may have to consider other options. If it's just a few noisy irritants, they wont be missed.

[TempestCatto]

So no more stock images of Winnie-the-Pooh?

 

[Trinopoty]

Content restrictions in countries are nothing new. We in the video game world have been dealing with this for a long time. The real problem starts when you start enforcing one country's rules on the entire world.

Censor stuff in China, I don't care, just don't bring that shit to other places.

[TetraSky]

38 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Shutterstock employees who disagreed with the blacklist on free speech grounds kept asking about it at every big internal meeting. So, that day, Pavlovsky told them they were free to seek jobs elsewhere.

Well, if I kept being asked the same shit over and over again, I'd probably tell them to F off if they aren't happy, as well...

It's China. Shit will be censored, you just gotta accept that. Better to censor a few things for users based in China, than to have the entire damn company blacklisted and lose the massive Chinese market. No one in their right mind would spit on that market just to protect the integrity of something as flimsy as Free Speech, which isn't an actual right everywhere in the world (Yeah, crazy I know).

[Sauron]

31 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

"The beauty of where we live and where we work is that we're free to make those choices,"

Yeah right, "just find another job guys" said the dude who most likely makes enough money to never need to work again for the rest of his life. Tone deaf hypocrisy is what this is. I hope that guy gets fired for PR reasons, poetic justice and all that. "Don't like working in a company where it's not ok to threaten employees for voicing their concerns? Find another job."

33 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

Surely it is the job of China to do what they see fit via their own firewalls and not pressurise overseas companies to do it for them.

I would say it's not their "job" either, rather it's a totalitarian mandate. As for pressuring, being banned from doing work in China is already pressure enough for a company like this - it's not like they're being threatened with violence or anything, the implicit threat is that if they don't comply then they'll be excluded from the Chinese market.

20 minutes ago, porina said:

I'll start by saying, if you want to do business in any country, you have to do so by applicable rules that may be different from where workers are. What do the workers realistically expect management to do? Either they break the rules in China, or they don't operate in China at all. Neither are necessarily good outcomes for the company.

Who cares what is "good for the company" if it involves immoral action? Nobody's life is being directly threatened here, they're just going to make less money for their stockholders. Maybe they can cut the salary of the executives to make up the difference...

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Well, if I kept being asked the same shit over and over again, I'd probably tell them to F off if they aren't happy, as well...

It's China. Shit will be censored, you just gotta accept that. Better to censor a few things for users based in China, than to have the entire damn company blacklisted and lose the massive Chinese market. No one in their right mind would spit on that market just to protect the integrity of something as flimsy as Free Speech, which isn't an actual right everywhere in the world (Yeah, crazy I know).

The exec should be more supportive of his teams views. It makes any company a nicer place to be and usually more productive as a result. He should have tried to work with them, detail the reasons why the decision has had to be made. Instead it sounds more like he threw his toys from the cot.

 

On the censorship side, no matter how big China is, the rest of the world is bigger, Should everyone just capitulate? Surely their dictatorship should not extend to the rest of the planet?

 

Whatever rules China have decided on we shouldn’t dictate to them either, but nor should other countries bear the cost of doing their censorship for them.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

thanks for this update, gonna try to steer away from them, possible tell my workplace not to use them anymore. 

[Trinopoty]

9 minutes ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

thanks for this update, gonna try to steer away from them, possible tell my workplace not to use them anymore. 

Take an eye for an eye and the world will go blind before long.

This is a slippery path you walk.

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

14 minutes ago, Trinopoty said:

Take an eye for an eye and the world will go blind before long.

This is a slippery path you walk.

isn't that what China has been doing all this time lol 

[TetraSky]

1 hour ago, Phill104 said:

The exec should be more supportive of his teams views. It makes any company a nicer place to be and usually more productive as a result. He should have tried to work with them, detail the reasons why the decision has had to be made. Instead it sounds more like he threw his toys from the cot.

Considering it says they kept asking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the exec explained the views of the company to them multiple times and how this is a business decision they simply can't do without doing. Unless they want to risk losing the whole Chinese market. Simply put, it's a simple economic decision.
 

Do you want to keep growing your company and continue making loads of profits ?
Yes -> Censor images in ONE COUNTRY and get to keep doing business there.
No -> That one country blocks your website, you lose 1.4 billion potential customers. Or nearly 20% of the world's population. But you've protected free speech, pat yourself on the back.

 

1 hour ago, Phill104 said:

Surely their dictatorship should not extend to the rest of the planet?

Their "dictatorship" extends to anybody wanting to do business in their country. If a country decides something, as a business owner who wants to do business with said country, you have no choice but to bend over to their rules and laws. Otherwise you'll simply not be allowed to do business there.

 

1 hour ago, Phill104 said:

nor should other countries bear the cost of doing their censorship for them.

That's the thing though... It's not "countries" here. It's "companies". Other countries don't give two shit about China censorship. It ain't affecting them other than potential tariffs.
It affect companies that does BUSINESS with China. Completely different. These PRIVATE companies can choose to do business with them and pay the "extra cost" needed to censor stuff (which they could just outsource to China to do it for them, for much cheaper). Or they can not care about China and risk getting banned from that market.

 

Different countries, different laws, rules and rights. Doesn't matter what rights you have in your country of origin. If they want none of it, you have no choice but to agree to change or to f off their borders.

[Sauron]

11 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Considering it says they kept asking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the exec explained the views of the company to them multiple times and how this is a business decision they simply can't do without doing.

So what, can't the employees disagree and keep complaining?

13 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Otherwise you'll simply not be allowed to do business there.

China can't afford to stop business with the outside world entirely. If there was a unified refusal to comply with this sort of thing they'd have no choice but to allow it. Too bad that will never happen, because corporations are more concerned with immediate profits than human rights.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

3 hours ago, Phill104 said:

"Shutterstock employees who disagreed with the blacklist..."

Dear milennials:

Disagreeing (or agreeing for that matter) with product design decisions and firm-regulator relationships is limited to a few decision-makers within a given company, at least in any meaningful way. I thought I'd throw that out in case it's not spelled out in the wikipedia entry for "job".

Regards,

Reality.

 

 

Seriously, a generic invitation to look for a different job isn't a threat to fire anyone, and in case you didn't know: yes, when you dislike a legal decision out of your pay grade, your choice really is to stay "as is" or look for a new job.

You are not a citizen of the company you work for. You just have an economic exchange contract with it. Your opinion will be valuable the day it becomes part of what you get paid for according to your contract.

[TetraSky]

43 minutes ago, Sauron said:

China can't afford to stop business with the outside world entirely.

Can't they, though? They have plenty of food, so much so that it's their primary Export.

While their imports... It's things like machinery, oil and coal. Machinery could just be copied and Oil/Coal.. Well that's a different story but I'm sure certain countries wouldn't mind doing business with China for that.

 

I think it's more like, the rest of the world can't afford to stop doing business with China and not the other way around.

 

43 minutes ago, Sauron said:

So what, can't the employees disagree and keep complaining?

Oh they can. Just like how their boss can just fire them.

If your boss tells you to stop/drop something and you refuse, that's called insubordination. Which you can be fired for. No matter how "right" you think you are.

I don't know what sort of jobs you've had, but complaining about things above your pay grade to those in "power", doesn't make you well-liked. Regardless of how "right" you believe to be. You sell your services(time) to the company and they are in their rights to stop "buying"(pay) your services if they don't like you(by firing you).

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Can't they, though? They have plenty of food, so much so that it's their primary Export.

While their imports... It's things like machinery, oil and coal. Machinery could just be copied and Oil/Coal.. Well that's a different story but I'm sure certain countries wouldn't mind doing business with China for that.

 

I think it's more like, the rest of the world can't afford to stop doing business with China and not the other way around.

 

 Nobody, or country, is indispensable. It takes a period of adjustment to be sure.

I am not sure it is the right way to go though. Because we may not agree with their ideology it doesn’t mean we should cut off all ties. We need to keep communication open to help affect change. Completely cutting off results in strengthening resolve, North Korea is an example of that.

Quote

 

 

Oh they can. Just like how their boss can just fire them.

If your boss tells you to stop/drop something and you refuse, that's called insubordination. Which you can be fired for. No matter how "right" you think you are.

I don't know what sort of jobs you've had, but complaining about things above your pay grade to those in "power", doesn't make you well-liked. Regardless of how "right" you believe to be. You sell your services(time) to the company and they are in their rights to stop "buying"(pay) your services if they don't like you(by firing you).

That depends on what country you come from. Here you could be sacked although they would need to have very strong grounds, but then you could sue for constructive dismissal. What this particular case shows is another form of restriction on free speech dictatorship on a smaller scale. Employees have the right to their views and should not face threats for having them.

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, TetraSky said:

Can't they, though? They have plenty of food, so much so that it's their primary Export.

Surely you can see how relying on export would make a country at least somewhat dependent on other countries...? And it's not national governments that are buying that food, it's companies. If they suddenly banned all western corporations from doing business with them their growth would stop dead in its tracks. So no, I don't think they can afford to do that - they may survive it but I don't think it would be remotely worth it just to avoid seeing the Taiwanese flag.

3 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

I think it's more like, the rest of the world can't afford to stop doing business with China and not the other way around.

Meh, we definitely could. As you said, their export is food and factory capacity, but we don't strictly need it - everything they make can be sourced from elsewhere in the world, companies just don't do that because it's not economically convenient when they could use the cheaper Chinese workforce. And to that I say - too bad, I think Apple can handle being a 500B company rather than a 1 trillion one. Not that they could ever be brought to give a shit about anything other than pure profit of course.

9 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Oh they can. Just like how their boss can just fire them.

Nope, in civilized countries workers have rights. Voicing complaints, particularly at an event where you're encouraged to express your opinion, isn't grounds over which you can fire someone. In my country if a company tried to pull that they would be instantly eviscerated by unions. You don't get to ask for your employees' opinions on the company's direction and then fire them if you don't like what they have to say.

11 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

If your boss tells you to stop/drop something and you refuse, that's called insubordination.

It's a private company, not the army. And again, occasionally voicing complaints through the proper channels isn't unprofessional behavior. If they constantly brought it up at meetings that were called to discuss other things or kept directly nagging executives then sure, it would be disruptive behavior and could lead to being fired, but that doesn't seem to be the case here at all.

[Sauron]

7 minutes ago, Phill104 said:

I am not sure it is the right way to go though. Because we may not agree with their ideology it doesn’t mean we should cut off all ties. We need to keep communication open to help affect change. Completely cutting off results in strengthening resolve, North Korea is an example of that.

It wouldn't be "us" cutting the ties, it would be China having to decide whether to allow continued business or shut it all down because they don't want to see a flag.

[Belgarathian]

This whole thread is a hilarious read. 

 

Just FYI, as a business you have to abide by the rules and regulations of each country you do business in and given that there are 195 countries in the world with different religion, governments, and laws you will 100% absolutely clash with an employee's morals/ethics by being a global company so I'm siding with the big guy telling his employee's to go fuck themselves after they continuously bought up censorship in every meeting (given that there is so much information missing from that story... where are the company responses? I don't believe for a second boss-man went from 0 to 60).

 

And it's not like America doesn't censor anything either. I mean, sure, they're not as bad as Israel, North Korea, or China but they still censor content based on their beliefs and values.

 

I mean, hell, it's hard enough doing business in some countries because you're bound by law to do things a certain way that clashes with laws in other countries yet you're held accountable in both.

 

- Political comment removed -

 

Sources:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/economist-intelligence-unit-downgrades-united-states-to-flawed-democracy-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#Internet

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by LogicalDrm

[MageTank]

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

Who cares what is "good for the company" if it involves immoral action? Nobody's life is being directly threatened here, they're just going to make less money for their stockholders. Maybe they can cut the salary of the executives to make up the difference...

Lives are not directly threatened, however livelihoods can be. We all want to take the moral highground when possible, but when your decisions impact the livelihoods of hundreds if not thousands of people, you tend to weigh things before simply choosing the "morally sound" option. After all, one can easily say it's just as morally acceptable to compromise on ones beliefs to benefit those that rely on them. It's pretty subjective on that front and it's not as simple of a decision to make as people make it out to be.

 

Obviously we all draw our lines relevant to our own moral standards, but I don't fault Shutterstock's decision here. If they feel China's business benefits their company (and those that work for their company), then it's their decision to make. Just like it's the consumers decision to decide whether or not they want to use Shutterstock or the employees decision to choose if they want to work for a company that participates in what they believe to be immoral practices. 

 

 

[Blademaster91]

Shutterstock is a large enough company to be publicly traded on the stock market, I'm sure they would do just fine without China. A company should value the opinions of its employees, and not allow one country to dictate what gets censored.

Also bringing the US into it is very much whataboutism, especially with things that have nothing to do with the topic.

[Belgarathian]

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

Who cares what is "good for the company" if it involves immoral action? Nobody's life is being directly threatened here, they're just going to make less money for their stockholders. Maybe they can cut the salary of the executives to make up the difference...

First, immoral action is subjective (from China's perspective Taiwan doesn't exist and the USA is spreading fake news to sow discontent within their populace and it would therefore me immoral not to censor it), second: that's not how business works. Your stockholders with voting stock decide the Board of Directors, who selects the CEO. If the business isn't performing as expected and the BoD and CEO don't have some good reasons as to why, they're gone. 

 

If the company looses net profit because they pull out of China, you can guarantee that there will be a restructure to cut operating expenses which will include cutting jobs. Which basically translates to "I don't think we should do business in China because it clashes with my morals, here's my resignation so that you can stop".

 

28 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Shutterstock is a large enough company to be publicly traded on the stock market, I'm sure they would do just fine without China. A company should value the opinions of its employees, and not allow one country to dictate what gets censored.

 

You're probably right, they'd probably do just fine without China. But their stockholders wouldn't. See above.

 

Ultimately a business's purpose is to increase the wealth/value of it's stockholders, this truth gets more exaggerated the more stockholders there are and particularly when it's publicly listed. 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Belgarathian said:

, This whole thread is a hilarious read. 

 

Just FYI, as a business you have to abide by the rules and regulations of each country you do business in and given that there are 195 countries in the world with different religion, governments, and laws you will 100% absolutely clash with an employee's morals/ethics by being a global company so I'm siding with the big guy telling his employee's to go fuck themselves after they continuously bought up censorship in every meeting (given that there is so much information missing from that story... where are the company responses? I don't believe for a second boss-man went from 0 to 60).

 

You are probably correct. However I do feel the exec maybe should have gone about it differently. We do not know the full story here and I am not sure I trust NBC  to provide that.

Quote

 

And it's not like America doesn't censor anything either. I mean, sure, they're not as bad as Israel, North Korea, or China but they still censor content based on their beliefs and values.

 

 

 

 

America seem to censor things in a different way. There also appears to be a general spread of fear spread by certain elements towards anything different from their own belief system.

Quote

 

Quote

 

I mean, hell, it's hard enough doing business in some countries because you're bound by law to do things a certain way that clashes with laws in other countries yet you're held accountable in both.

 

I agree it is never easy. Some companies are willing to make choices about who they deal with based on the difficulties and ethical differences they have.

 

- Political part removed -
 

I started this thread not to talk about China, more to discuss how tech companies such as shutterstock should deal with the international arena they now strive to succeed in, and how they deal with the ethical dilemmas they will inevitably face.

Quote

Sources:

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/economist-intelligence-unit-downgrades-united-states-to-flawed-democracy-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#Internet

 

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Guest

[RonnieOP]

So their bosses told them how they want the job (that they hired them and pay them to do) done, and employees are upset?

 

I agree with Shutterstock. Dont like it leave.

 

I dont agree with pandering to China but its not my business. But in general when you are not in charge you do what your told or you find a new job.

 

If my sous chef came up to me and said 'Im not doing this dish anymore" I would tell him "You are no longer employed here anymore". Its a pretty simple concept. I dont understand how the workers think they get to call the shots.

 

Stick to your pay grade.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, Belgarathian said:

You're probably right, they'd probably do just fine without China. But their stockholders wouldn't. See above.

 

Ultimately a business's purpose is to increase the wealth/value of it's stockholders, this truth gets more exaggerated the more stockholders there are and particularly when it's publicly listed. 

I agree, I can't blame their decision as stockholders only care about money, although I think it's immoral for them to restrict the entire platform instead of censoring it only for China.

[TetraSky]

29 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

although I think it's immoral for them to restrict the entire platform instead of censoring it only for China.

They ARE censoring it only for China. It doesn't affect any other countries.

The only reason we are talking about this is because of a few employees that thinks the world runs on rainbows and unicorn farts.

 

Seriously, just this gem alone in the article makes my head hurts at the entitlement some people have these days:

Quote

"People feel management doesn't listen to them," a current employee said, expressing fear of retaliation for speaking publicly.

Welcome to reality I guess? When has the management of any company, ever listened to the lowly salaried employee's opinion on something the company wants to do? Or more to the point, why would they?

I'm 100% with Pavlovsky on this one. If they really don't like it, they can just quit and go elsewhere where their feelings might be appreciated.

 

They'll learn one day that thinking about stuff above your paygrade is not appreciated the great majority of the time, especially not when you start insisting on it multiple times. They should just worry about what goes on in their country instead of crying out for shit happening in another country they happen to do business with.