Slashdot Mirror
Does Google Censor Chinese News?
mOoZik writes "A story carried by New Scientist suggests that Google might be playing into the hands of the Chinese government by blocking certain news stories which may be deeded inappropriate. Some users recently reported that Google's Chinese news search returned different results depending when they searched using a computer based outside of China. The claims were substantiated by researchers who connected to computers inside the country. Read on and decide for yourself."
I'm sorry but I don't see why this is such a surprise. If you're a multinational company and you set-up office in the United Kingdom then you have to adhere to European and UK law and if you set-up office in Turkey you have to adhere to Turkish
law. So what's the problem with adhering to Chinese law if you set up office in China?
Now you might not like the political stance of the Chinese government but that's your business after all it's their country and their jurisdiction. If you don't want to adhere to their laws don't set-up office there.
The principle motive of any company is to maximise its profits. If Google thinks working in China will enhance their profitability and they don't mind the draconian laws then it makes sense for them to enter that market.
We should not expect companies to make political statements - we have politicians for that - Companies are driven by different forces than politics and in the highly competitive market of internet search taking such a stance could damage the company immensely.
Simon.
If they don't play into the hands of the Chinese government, they risk having all of google.com blocked. If they do, they are seen as "censors" and "pawns" of the same government. Unfortunately money and page views seem to trump over principles when given a choice. Remember, there's always the proxy server approach for whoever wants to see the "uncensored" news.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
I wonder how much google supresses certain news stories that the US fed deems innappropriate?
I thought wide area distributed systems didn't necessarily have consistent data in all of their nodes - especially when performance is a more important goal than consistancy.
And i thought google was supposed to be the open, free source of information.. o well, i wonder how the chinese goverment could have pressured them?
From what I understand, Google already censors their content in other countries like France and Germany. This is only making the news because it's big bad China. Although it kind of does blow apart this image that they like to present as being crusaders of free speech.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
it's good business. Otherwise Google news might be blocked from China altogether and Google would lose access to a growing market. Corporations have always got along with authoritarian regimes, ever since the Nazis used IBM punch cards to tally the death counts.
The real question is why people expect a different standard of behaviour from Google than from other companies. I mean, you guys don't really believe that "don't be evil" stuff, do you? Google is Just Another Company.
It sounds like a step towards trying to regulate the internet.
The internet is nowhere, but it is everywhere..it has no boundaries.
China, and any other countries that try to contain the internet sounds very bad. It is a sad day when you have to cheat your way around something as useful as the internet to get a look into the real world.
No, really.
They have a direct tap into the consciousness of the (online) world. What we are worried about, what we are interested in, and they know as soon as these things change.
With that comes immense power, and opportunity for extreme evil.
Mark my words: One day we'll come to hate Google the way we (well, most of us) hate Microsoft...
Google already censors search results for e.g. Germany, due to sentences spoken out by some German court.
A monkey is doing the real work for me.
You would be correct if Google were selling razor blades, cheese or any other physical product. What they are doing is creating a news resource. Personally, I don't like the fact that a company which wears its ethics on its sleeve, so to mangle the metaphor, by stating "Don't be evil" as its company motto would self censor to fit into the demands of a foreign government.
It is the precedent that is important here. When you ignore this, you erode the fundamental freedoms that form the basis of the Internet.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
Random pigeon hole ranking.
I remember that I got different results searching for my name at work (my homepages at my work server) and at home. The domain you are accessing google from might be included as a search criterion.
Doesn't anybody else think that ever since Google announced a few new services that SlashDot is suddenly carrying stories that suggest that Google is evil?
Frankly, in this case it is quite clearly the Chinese government that is responsible for this. If Google doesn't comply, their service will be blocked from China such as they have done in ths past. If by "playing into the hands of the Chinese Government" you mean that they follow the rules of that country (just like they do in the U.S.), then I suppose they are. But by that argument, Google is clearly playing into the hands of the U.S. Government too.
Sunny
Be my Friend
Those wishing to take a stand this this a viable alternative to Google.
All The Web
Remeber alternatives are what encourages competition and that can only be a good thing.
Any other good search engines people can recommend?
----
it is understanable that google leave out those site. when people use the google chinese to search news site, who will most likely to come from China. even if google return the "correct" result, if the chinese goverment have already block the site, they will be clicking on the dead link.
if google don't take out those site, then it will in turn hurt google.
I am not saying it is a good thing, I personally don't agree on internet censoring, but that's how china work, it is something that won't change in a short while.
is that even a real word? wouln't 'deemed' be more appropriate/readable ?
Fry: heh, Yakov Smirnoff said it
Leela: No he didn't.
It makes sense for a company to comply with the laws of companies in which they target consumers.
:/
I like to read such posts from time to time because globalization made it possible for corporations to sue countries for forbiding them some practices that are legal in their originating countries...
Of course, China is supposed to be evil so we may still be annoyed by the eventual repercussions this will have on the Chinese.
Tough Dilemma...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
It could also be that China's own firewall has been configured to do some creative redirecting instead of direct blocks. Then again I know jack shizzle about that whole affair. Banana hammock.
that should read "don't be evil, that's a job for the guys who machine-gunned their own students protesting for democracy"
you somehow seem to think idealism is achievable in such an environment
you should be condemning the chinese govt, not google
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is not the first time that Google has imposed some censorship over its search engine. Check out this article at WorldNetDaily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTI CLE_ID=26819
When Google started out, they seemed to be a refreshing alternative to other larger corporate sites. Google is now becoming part of corporate America. With that, we can expect to see a more "tame" Google geared toward minimizing the making of waves for the purpose of maintaining investor confidence and ensuring a steady profit.
Is it "selling out"? Perhaps, but I think that this is the sort of thing that we can expect as a company expands and grows.
Get some.
Anyone know of a good anonymous-cach technology to pay for such a service?
here it is
fifteen jugglers, five believers
You'd figure they could put some specific charges with dates and the precise content that wasn't available. I love the way the Slashdot summary says "read on to make your own decision" but the linked article doesn't actually contain any more detail than the summary.
How we know is more important than what we know.
But certainly the news portal itself seems either biased, or US news really is that bad.
I have noticed if I search for a story I will find it, but the google portal does give a good indication of what the US is seeing.
For example Bushes war records. You check the news/search engine all you find is about the CBS documents.
However if you were to dig more you would find that a judge has ordered the release of the originals (ref: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6022115/).
I've wondered if this is a new system of polluting the news on the net. As it is harder to control stories but easy to bury them.
I look forward to our next billion-dollar IPO based on the original philosophy upon which Google was based, now that they decided to give up on that proven successful space.
It seems that google doesnt even spider more than 10% of the content in the web. My own homepage is not in google's sight. Google is probably not the sum of all human knowledge. Anyways every company has to adhere to the laws of the country they want to do business in. Changing this fact could have an even more disastrous effect. We could try and change chinese laws instead ;)
tovarish
It's not just China !
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Google is a business and exists to make money. They have no principles, face it.
Google is NOT your friend.
In the tradition of misleading Slashdot summaries, this one contains only the accusation, not the defence. Here's Google's reply from the article:
"In order to create the best possible news search experience for our users, we sometimes decide not to include some sites, for a variety of reasons," says a statement issued by the company. "These sources were not included because their sites are inaccessible."
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
...and confirm what the top post pointed out - I'd like to add that Google, as an aggregator, isn't a news service. Google trawls and clips...that's all.
Anyone not aware enough to find other sources from time to time, deserves the narrowness they assume, whether it concerns Asia or Europe or NA.
Take responsibility for your own interpretation...after all, we were taught in school how American newspapers bury or bias 'news' by placing some on the front or back pages, while other stories get jammed against an inside margin. To repeat...don't be surprised when your 'news' is crafted by the source(s) you use.
Note that I don't think this is right, and the current internet censorship really sucks, neither does it work --- new sites containing western political views spring up every day and they can't censor them one by one. The recent efforts against porn sites are even more laughable, considering that it is still hard to find a news site in China that does not contain sexual content deemed inappropriate for children by most parents. Hopefully some time in the future they will admit that such efforts are useless and use the money on places that really need them (such as some poor rural areas).
However, I feel that it's better for the chinese people to get some access to google, rather than none at all. The Chinese government would not hesitate to completely remove access to google.com. This would greatly trouble a great many number of chinese people.
Some (censored) google is better than no google.
I agree with the first poster that it is not a surprise that they adhere to Chinese laws when feeding content to a Chinese audience.
In fact, I think it would be odd if they don't. There is simply no point in jeopardizing their business this way.
This reminds me of the whole Kazaa Lite censorship stuff, where they took a rather conservative route in obeying the law. But I think their stance in the legal area should save them lots of trouble dealing with the implications.
To iterate is human; to recurse, divine!
Actually, there's some prior art in this very area. elgooG is a "Google Mirror" that claims it's been used in China for a similar purpose. This was discussed here a couple years ago.
They aren't political parties, after all. Give to ceasar what belongs to ceasar; give ethics to politicians, and exploitation to companies.
/snip irony
And, if a big corporation set-up office in a country where human rights are trampled on and minorities are exploited what's the problem adhering to those laws, indeed?
After all, companies are driven by different forces, so they can't be hold responsable when they implement child-labour and the like! I mean, if it will enhance their profitability they should go for it; ethical behaviour could damage the company immensely.
And the damage to those children...ah well...profit must come first! It's not the job of the company to respect human life or to care about the people they exploit. (The idea!)
Hurray for capitalism in it's raw form!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Yahoo got in trouble as an auction site they run had items on it which are illegal in France. Maybe Google are just trying to comply with local laws rather than be censored completely...
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
Many of us on Slashdot use Google very frequently (almighty god, give us this day our daily byte...) to find all kinds of information including stuff that we need and use to make our livelihood. We also use google to keep up with the news. Mostly, we find what we need if it is out there on the net.
This easy access to information on the net seems to have distorted our expectations somewhat. We expect, nay demand, that Google find everything there is to find, always, correctly, without fear or favour, without regard to consequences that might affect Google itself, without consideration for the laws of the many lands that Google serves - in short we want Google to be a completely good and benevolevent omniscient oracle. Googles 'do ot be evil" motto is partly to blame for this - especially to people unfamiliar with the context of the phrase. I don't think the motto calls on Google to commit hara-kiri to assert its fealty to freedom and the protection of all good in the universe. I do not expect Google to take on the Death Star in a battered Millenium Falcon. I do expect, and rightfully, that google will not screw me over by selling my personal information, by setting terms and conditions that take away my ability to use it in conjunction with any other service or sofware I want, by taking away my right to choose, by deliberately and maliciously determining what I see in order to increase their profit.
Unfortunately, the same omniscient hold that Google has on the information on the net makes it easier for oppressive governments to control information. Previously, where such regimes had to track and control a million individual sources of information, they can now achieve that control by influencing Google. Since Google is subject to the laws of the countries where it operates (GASP!), it has no choice but to comply when threatened with complete blocking of its services in e.g. China or France. Remember the case of Yahoo! and neo-Nazi material? You can bet that Yahoo! will pull that information now that it is clear the first amendment will not protect them from legal process in France or Germany in respect of that material.
So, the question is, do we give up on google altogether? Of course not - it has for better or worse, grown into an extension of our memory, we google as easily as we breathe - my three year old daughter knows that google will help her find her favorite cartoon sites! What we need is a tempering of the expectation that we have of Google. Get used to the idea - you will need it more in the days to come, Google is merely another tool you have at your disposal. It is NOT the be all and end all of all known human wisdom.
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
Google would have to get the US Govt to raise the case in the WTO courts that certain chinese laws are affecting their ability to do business there.
Of course, these very laws are probably in the arms-length list of exceptions in the WTO agreement.
One of the pillars of Google's trusty algorithms is finding what sites link to URLs, that's how it ranks (nay?). If it is illegal for ISPs to provide links to said URLs, wouldn't they not be in the China link database anyhow? And if China linked to them because it compared databases with those of other countries, wouldn't it be getting normal people into trouble by serving them links to illegal material, whether or not they knew it to be such?
It just seems like a touchy subject, and I think a lot of people like to jump up and down assuming other places/countries are peopled by others like ourselves.
Guys, I read something (at a Freenet-related site, I think) recently that talked about this very issue. the PRC used to block all of google, but what they now do (AFA a non-techhead such as myself understand it) is intercept certain google searches and return garbage or alternative stuff. In particular, they block the obvious stuff, like Falun Gong, Tibet, Republic of China matters, etc.
If you are interested and want me to find my source, email me at robertcz@gmail.com
Damn fine point there.
Phil
I guess today is a passable day to die.
Google turns out to be a business rather than some geek temple of unfettered knowledge. Imagine that.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Google removed from sites from its' index some time ago due to legal pressure from the Scientology movement using the legal system of the United States of America.
Is this really news? Almost every country in the world censors now - there are few countries left where you can say anything you want. Welcome to the future, the way it has always been.
Really, why is the headline "Does Google Censor Chinese News?"
Shouldn't it read: "Does Google Censor Chinese Searches?"
Really, I don't think Google is censoring anything. If you want to find the articles, look elsewhere, use another search engine. Think about it, Google isn't a news organization. They aren't running around with a black marker.
And who cares? Sure democracies need free speech to work, but last I checked China wasn't. The fact that their government encourages censorship of this type says a lot about who is really to blame.
More needs to be done there. Should the headline read instead: "Is Google the Fucking U.N.?"
Get your Unix fortune now!
Its really a business decision - if the government of a country whos internet population is over 60 million demands that you stick a few lines of code in your software or they will block you totally, what are you gonna do? sure you're aiding and abetting crimes against humanity, but business is business and 60 million people is allot of business, its not like other companies don't do it - IBM supplied counting machines to the Nazis, Cisco supplies network equipment to the Great Firewall of China.
Also what exactly did they proove here? it seems a bit of a bad explination, if google was providing different chinese content based on your position relative to the firewall then that would mean the firewall was doing the censoring right? "Google China" means that google has determined you are in China from your IP or the address you typed - if the news was the same on both sides then that would be dodgy because it would mean the firewall wasnt changing anything so google must be?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
It also has a tendancy to provide a one-sided viewpoint of israel/palestine news, although I expect this is a result of successful lobbying rather than explicit policy.
more info here
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Maybe we don't have the right to blame Google for not giving up a potentially huge market as China, ok, but think about the consequences if the Google team decided to stay unfiltered and the China government had to censor them: chinese users would become third class internet citizens and have one more reason to demand a more democratic government.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Ask chineese people - do they prefer censored version of google or google being banned from china internet? I believe second option is much worse.
Given China's behaviour with respect to Tibet and Taiwan, I would say that any company that specifically re-enforces the policy of the government through censorship has no more right to claim to not be evil than Fox News has to claim to be fair and balanced.
So consider the case of underage pornography (something that the US government does censor). Should Google not censor it?
All governments that I know of do *some* censorship -- the question is just to what degree.
I mean, I think that the people running China are a bunch of shortsighted assholes, but they aren't qualitatively different from other governments -- just, perhaps, quantitatively. Given that we listen to US media, we hear a lot about how awful China is doing.
On the other hand, the US Iraq occupational authority did not allow freedom of press, and in fact shut down a number of media sources for criticizing them (newspapers and the only Arab-language news network). Naturally *that* didn't get much air time -- but godless communist oppressors censoring critical media is acceptable and *required* content for us to hear about.
May we never see th
Company chooses to make money over being banned shock!
Seems that BBC and CNN have been unblocked some time ago. Irritated by so many blocked sites recently (mostly software sites and personal web sites), I just didn't bother rechecking the facts. Sorry.
THat is likely google's motto. Somehow google is getting some sort of payment for this--some sort of access or license to operate is being granted, or something....
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Google is in the market to make money. They are a buisiness that is what they do. If they think by sensoring google news for chinese users that they cah make money, then yes they will be sensoring to there hearts content. Don't be fooled into thinking they are anything but that, a buisiness.
Don't get me wrong, i like unbiased uncensored news as much as the next person, but its obvious that google feels they can make money otherwise, so is it really so shocking?
We should not expect companies to make political statements - we have politicians for that
Oh, ok, so I guess we should expect companies not to get involved in politics in the west either, right?
To quote Rage Against the Machine, 'wake up.' Companies are heavily involved in politics, because politics is just an expression of the competing needs and aims of the members of society, and the corporation is just a way of aggregting the needs and aims of a small group of those members in an organised and efficient way. Those needs and aims happen to be the desire to make money; this is not an apolitical objective in this context.
Read Pynchon.
Their executives should have a proper trial someplace like The Hague and if found guilty be hanged until dead for crimes against humanity.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
I wonder how much google supresses certain news stories that the US fed deems innappropriate?
I doubt at all. I mean, every day there's headlines about this or that bad news from Iraq, or "news" like "Kerry said blah blah ...". Not to mention "reputable" exposes from CBS.
I know it's popular for today's youngsters to pose as though they are living in an oppresive dictatorship, but it's bunk, and really insulting to those who actually do.
Just wait a few years and the US will start censoring websites. In the run-up to the Iraq war US news outlets didn't ask any questions. Americans who looked at cbc.ca or bbc.co.uk realized the world was against the war (for good reason). Only seems reasonable, for homeland security reasons, that Homeland security dept should not allow Americans to read evil foreign websites in the run-up to the Iran war.
I love how people are bitching about how Google is at fault for possible complying with the Chinese Gov't.
And that Google's policy is Don't be evil, unless you have to...
But no one is bitching about the Chinese Government... What's up with that? It's the Chinese Government making these policies, and if google wants in, then they must comply. Simple.
If the United States Government required Google to filter out all READ: EVIL CONTENT, then the same folks would be up in arms over the US Gov't, and not google.
I guess out of sight out of mind eh? Or maybe it's just expected from Communists? I can't say why... More of an observation, but I do find it interesting that people are reacting harder on Google then the Government.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Search for this Slashdot thread with Google China (http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=zh-CN), give as keyword for instance "Does Google Censor Chinese News?"= %22Does+Google+Censor+Chinese+News%3F%22&btnG=Goog le%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&lr=)
The result? It's not there! (http://www.google.com/search?hl=zh-CN&ie=UTF-8&q
OMGLOL!
What goes on in Iraq is business, the mainstream.
The news won't mention (in the detail that should be expected) is that every american president is related to British Royalty or that Bush and Kerry are not only related but also from the same secret society, so whoever you vote for, the major policies of the US (read fed) won't change.
I know its popular for todays mainstream to bury their heads in the sand and take the news at face value but, it bunk, and rather insulting to those who don't.
China and the Chinese govenment's attempts at controlling the access to news on the internet are always a very sensitive issue, at least to Americans. So let's try to look at it from another angle. Let's assume that the American government wanted to block people's access to - what would be a likely subject? Websites that are deemed to advocate terrorism?
I'm sure many in the US would be against this on the basis of free speech, but don't you think there might be a large proportion of the population that would support this as part of the imaginary 'War on Terror'? And aren't there many good, or at least good sounding, arguments for this? And if such a measure was taken by the US government, how long would take before those who wanted to circumvent the restrictions, found a way?
So, let's return to China: isn't it possible that a large part of the Chinese actually think of this as good? I'm not saying they do, but isn't it possible? After all, we in the West simply don't have a basis for knowing. And isn't possible that the Chinese feel they have good reasons for doing this?
Finally - what do they actually miss out on? I have travelled to China many times now, lived there, I even own a flat there, and I have of course used the internet many times from China. I have never felt that there were things I wanted to see, but wasn't allowed to.
China may be stupid and have draconian laws. But in my opinion, and objectively, it is as much wrong to ignore laws in china if you do business in china as it is to ignore USA-laws when doing business in USA.
If I don't agree to some laws in the USA, because they don't match my morale, it does not give me any right to ignore them. Likewise it is for google in China.
It is simple to understand the issue by this reversed question: Should china ignore some laws in USA, if they do not agree with their morale/ideas?
Google does the right thing.
A friend of mine just returned from a trip to China where he was working for 3 months. He said that nobody there had ever heard of the Tiananmen Square massacre. When he explained what he knew about it, the Chinese people he was talking to just said, "Anyone could make up stories about our government." He tried going back to his hotel room and searching for the information, but he couldn't get any results.
What bothered me more was a conversation I was recently having with an American friend of mine (I'm Canadian) over a beer. He said that 9/11 was the first time that the U.S. had been the subject of an unprovoked attack on its own soil since the British attacked the U.S. in the war of 1812. I was sitting in stunned silence after he said that. I know for a fact that the U.S. burned Toronto (then called York) to the ground before the British attacked Washington. How could that be considered unprovoked? So, given that we're both products of our respective country's state funded education system, it gave me a queasy feeling to say the least.
Google Googles you!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
They're an American company and should be held to American standards.n s thing to be a little misguided.
errrrm... does this mean they should stop doing business with the French? Really, I think the whole they're-Americans-so-they-should-act-like-America
1.- This might seem moot to some people but it's not: America is a continent, containing within it maaaaany countries.
2.- If America jumps off a bridge, would you jump off a bridge too?
Please stop stalking me, bro.
In soviet China, the government Googles you!
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
What if Google were based in China, where they would normally censor, and were conforming to US policies of NOT censoring? I daresay that all the self-appointed moralists would be dead silent on that one.
Censorship is not evil. Just because you happen to live in a country where it is deemed WRONG does not make it evil. Chinese society will decide this, not some jingo behind a keyboard.
Is there any evidence at all that it's Google that's responsible for this? We use a combination of Squid in transparent proxy mode and policy routing to do something very similar at the company I work for. It seems more likely to me that the Chinese government is altering google searches in this fasion than that Google itself is.
Google's job is to return me links I can use. If I can't follow the link, it does me no good, so why show it to me?
What we don't know from the New Scientist article is if Google "censors" mirrors of the banned sites that are not banned by the Chinese government. Only then would Google not be doing their job.
Good for them. What's the big deal?
Google, as a corporate entity, and now a public one, has the responsiblity of maximizing profits.
If this means arbitrarily altering their service in certain markets, so be it.
They've done nothing wrong, morally or legally.
The attitude of the US is sickening, with utter disregard to sovereignity of other nations
I assume you are refering to the sovereignty of Afghanistan and Iraq. By harboring UBL after 9/11 the Taliban was complicit in an act of war. Perhaps you think the U.S. should have entered into peace talks with Mullah Omar? As for Iraq, Saddam's regime murdered 400,000+ of his fellow citizens, violated the sovereignty of neighbors Iran and Kuwait, renegged on a surrender agreement, defied UN resolutions for 12 years, and bought off security counsel members though the "oil for food" racket. I think the U.S. has shown remarkable restraint.
an ill wind that blows no good
** Given China's behaviour with respect to Tibet and Taiwan **
So, you're advocating a Tibetan return to religious serfdom? Because that's what they had as an independent country. They're genuinely better off as Chinese communists, and that's saying something.
Are there any search engines that take a more ethically defensible stance than google? ie if I decide to boycott google, where should I head?
For that matter, why not jump on me, or you, for not putting down that "Made in China" item in the store? Moral outrage should not be aimed at one company.
What worries me most about China is the skill with which they are able to control what the citizens see and believe, to the point that their notion of reality is so very different from ours. Differences of opinion (as between the U.S. and the French, for example) are natural, but when the lens through which information is filtered is not filtered, but distorted -- nay, completely altered -- there's a problem. Add to that the fact that China is or is becoming the largest market in the world, and you have the potential for something with far more impact than the U.S., and even more warped!
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
either way, it's all chinese to me....
- Rob
Join the Digital TV discussion @ http://forums.dvbowners.com
..globalization made it possible for corporations to sue countries for forbiding them some practices that are legal in their originating countries...
USA: Hey China! We demand that you stop infringing our copyrights and intellectual property laws. Or suffer the consequences!
China: Sorry, we didn't hear you. We were too busy inspecting our standing army of 2 million troops and all our shiny nuclear missiles. What did you say again?
USA: Errr, nothing.
The average American does a lot more to support China's policies than Google does by filtering a few searches.
Of course my hope is that stability and economic growth have a good chance of breaking the stranglehold of any dictatorial government. But we will have to wait and see.
Google uses Baidu's technology as its Chinese version of Google News. Headlines at Google News/cn are usually from state-owned media such as Xinhuanet and CCTV Online. BTW, I don't think Americans pay much attention to what's going on in China. So why is the news here...
There seems to be a lot of negative articles about Google here on /. lately. Yesterday's article about Ask Jeeves, today's article about China censorship (hasn't this horse been beaten ENOUGH yet?). Makes me wonder, based on other blatantly obvious product announcements disguised as news, if someone is paying off /. to slander Google.
/. with anti-Google FUD, posting stories about how another search engine is going to be better than Google, and posting about Google's downfalls.
Slashdot sells ad space to Google, so they have to be careful about actually slandering them. I have a suspicion that one of their other sponsors (Microsoft, perhaps?) is seeding
At any rate, I've long since decided that Slashdot is no longer news. Carefully disguised advertising is more like it.
And, a final word on Google: I use it because it's accurate, mostly unbiased, fast, clean, and easy to use. You other search engines that want a piece of the pie need to realize that it's a BETTER PRODUCT that has made Google successful. Want to take on Google? Give me unbiased search results that are accurate, give me natural language searching, and keep your interface light and clean. The bloated shit out there that passes as a search engine is a discredit to you.
It has come out now that many US corporations did business with the Nazi's because there was money to be made, they didn't consider the moral questions of their paricipation in one of the most monstrous regimes in human history because "there was money to be made." Well, I'm not sure what warped philosophy lets a corporation off the hook because they want to make money, but IBM making punch cards to help the Nazi's more efficiently keep track of and kill Jews. But Companies such as: BASF, Bayer, BMW, Daimler Chrysler, helping the Nazi's and in the process making money is fundamentally evil and wrong.
Now, ask yourself this, if you lived under The Nazi regime back then would you consider those that are arms makers (to help make killing of humans more efficient) and computer makers (to make keeping track of all the dead bodies more efficient and to make the trains to the concentration camps run more efficiently) evil?
Your deeds make you evil, and by assisting those that are evil, such as those that would censor Information and use it to abuse the populace which is what the Chinese are doing (I take it you're all familiar with the Brutality inflicted upon "Political Dissidents"), you yourself become evil.
All Corporations that assist such iniquitous behavior should be held accountable for their deeds.
If Google has censored some content ,it must be for
a good reason. I don't think google would/could be bullied into censoring something.
All of you guys interested in anti-censorship should check out peacefire
Lord of the Binges.
I've just come up with a new drinking game.
Any time a post references Hitler, Nazis, or tinfoil hats, you have to drink once per reference.
This post included.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
I know they say it was researched, but how?
Personally I say that google is filtering good American news company Fox News.
Go to google news, try a search for "fox news", and you get nothing from the fox news site, mostly just articles that dislike fox news.
Next try a search for "cnn news", and guess what a full 10 links pointing to cnn's web site.
I personally think fox news is the only good news source, but even if I hated them, I don't want someone else filtering it from me.
So... You believe that google is filtering news from China based on an article that does not show you how to repeate the tests, yet you will read this and just ignore it, go ahead try for yourself.
The Chinese students weren't actually protesting for democracy, but against their current government. Yes an art class made a representation of the statue of liberty and people love to tout that visual, but the truth is that the students started a protest that simply got out of control. Their demands were essentially: less evil! They had a point, but they were clearly angst filled students (justified angst to be sure) with a "noble cause." Many in the protests weren't even marginally protesting for democracy, but for money. Without getting too much into it almost a great many people nationwide were unemployed after Deng Xiaoping had cut government spending. Those that were in Beijing seized the student protest as an opportunity to voice their dissent.
Remember that the students had essentially shut down the capital city for weeks before the government reacted. When they did react it was after word had got out that protests were starting in other cities as well. In their then current economic crisis they could hardly afford to have other cities production hindered.
None of this excuses the Chinese Government's horrible actions of the protest. But we can't speak as if the government was a cohesive entity either. In 1989 the current government was barely ten years old and hardly working well. The military reaction to the protests was initiated by a few members of the CCP, against the wishes of the others (who hadn't decided what to do).
I can't go into the details of the government's internal fighting because I honestly don't remember it well enough. But if you are interested in the development and mishandling of the entire affair, read "The Tianamen Papers." Also watch "The Gate of Heavenly Peace" from PBS, it is a truly excellent documentary.
e.g. Equating PATRIOT act with Chinese censorship law.
Useful Idiot - Someone ignorant of the true facts to the extent that they end up unwittingly advancing an adverse cause that they might not otherwise support.
e.g. Hijacking the issue of free speech in China into a discussion about free speech in USA, and thereby giving comfort to those imposing Chinese freedom restrictions.
Thanks for your anti-west sentiment, but what about russia? japan? china? the Islamic empire? Shaka zulu? Genghis Khan? present day somalian warlords. present day egypt, iran, syria? 1951 North Korea?
conquest is a Western invention? my ass it is.
"Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
to war protestors
That's what I don't get. Why should Google give a shit what China thinks? Fuck China. Google got along fine for years without worrying about China. If they can only dominate searching in the whole rest of the goddamn world, they will do just fine.
Sure, there is some censorship out on the Chinese google links, but overall, people in China are getting more connected to the outside world and seeing more of it than they ever possibly could because of google.
So there are some democracy sites and stuff being shut down, the truth is, the Chinese know that many, many places outside of China are democracies and their happiness and prosperity is evident through the picturas, text, and sophistication that they have despite the "inflammatory" websites.
In summary, China can't keep out the way they observe us. The Chinese people aren't so stupid that they cannot put two and two together. The more we communicate, the less barriers we have, and the more likely the Chinese Government will see communication as less of a threat and more of a friendly conversation with those weird people a world away.
You fucking boneheads. This mass panic attack over Google "abandoning it's values" is trite and overplayed.
EVERY COMPANY ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH wants, has, or will do business in China. It's a market of 1 billion plus. If you were a CEO, you'd be chatting it up with their economic ministry, too. And don't lie. Don't spout off about your "ideals," and your "morals," and "doing the right thing." That's a safety blanket for children and emotional regressed adults.
One more thing: I imagine Google is pretty sick and fucking tired of having to live up to this messianic image thrust upon it by geeks. They haven't come to rescue you, they haven't come to favor your cause of the moment, they haven't home to crown Linux, and they most certainly don't owe you shit.
"But I bought stock!" Congratulations. Your one share makes you a speck of dust in the vaccuum bag. I'm sure they wouldn't miss you.
Sorry for the rant, but the naivety around here gets old sometimes. It's like half of you never passed the fifth grade in your own mind.
They are only in a difficult position if you fall into the ideology that Google has a responsibility only to its shareholders.
That's not ideology -- it's US law. If they do anything else, they can be sued.
First the students protested. Next the troops were sent into to Beijing. And the biggest mystery in recent Chinese history is "at this very moment, ARE these troops loyal to communist party??" Someone in the army might sympathize with the students. As reflected by the number of dissatisfied student and civilian, it is highly probable that equal dissatisfaction exist in the army. Or simply, someone just tried to take this opportunity to take over the biggest (by population) nation in the world. Armed troops in the capital had subverted the government by force in the Chinese history.
I live in Shanghai. Google Cache and Google Groups are both blocked from anywhere in China (except oddly through China Mobile GPRS.)
.doc file. Being unable to research with Google Groups is also a problem since I work in technology.
This can be quite annoying, particuliarly when a site is down or I don't want to load a
If they are willing to cower under chinese pressure, and it is just pressure, then what are they doing to make the US happy? What if all the stories that were critical of Bush were suddenly removed from the news service? China banned google and even hijacked the DNS a few years ago because they weren't able to effectively block searches. Now they don't have to worry about it because there is only google and yahoo. Both catering to the chinese goverment.
Will Chinese gmail accounts have backdoors for the govt to search through? Maybe certain emails will get blocked. What if that same technology gets sold as a service to the CIA/FBI/DHS for use here?
I've watched a slow and steady decline with Google as they start catering to the whims of large industry groups and I foresee them being as whored out as Yahoo!. But without any other viable search engines who will be left to tell me what's out there on the web?
Yu know, this ting is just wong and a bunch of lai's. Hu ever did this has sank to a new lo.
And it's Craw, not Craw!
When it comes right down to it, most of us are killing something every time we turn on a light or drive to the store (excepting ppl with solar houses etc).
"Don't be evil" doesn't mean "forget about money".
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
"If they don't play into the hands of the Chinese government, they risk having all of google.com blocked."
Actually, what you say already happened two years ago, so I guess you're right.
Read wired's original http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google_pr .html
Eric Schmidt named CEO at Google
Former Novell Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt has been appointed CEO of search engine company Google Inc., five months after joining the company as chairman of the board.
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2001/0,4814
Elton John helps raise money for Gore
Flamboyant rock star Elton John, making his first foray into American politics after three decades of performing in the United States, endorsed Vice President Al Gore at a ritzy Silicon Valley fund-raiser... The fund-raiser, at the home of Novell Corp. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, raised $3.25 million for the Democratic National Committee.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/20/ campaign.gore.john.reut/
Buddhist Nuns Admit Destroying Documents /hearings.main/
Two Buddhist nuns who helped coordinate an April 1996 temple fund-raiser attended by Vice President Al Gore admitted today they destroyed a list of donors and other documents because they thought the information would embarrass the temple... Gore's appearance at the fund-raiser has proven a major embarrassment for the vice president, but he also faces new Justice Department scrutiny on another front: his 46 fund-raising calls from the White House.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/09/04/thompson
Buddhist nuns indicted for failure to testify in trial of Democratic fund-raiser
Two Buddhist nuns were indicted Wednesday on contempt of court charges for failing to appear as witnesses in the trial of Maria Hsia, who was convicted in March of campaign law violations in connection with a 1996 Democratic fund-raising event at the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple in California
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/05/ nuns.cnn/
Hsia Convicted in Campaign Finance Scandal
The jury convicted Hsia, a friend and political supporter of Vice President Al Gore, for arranging more than $100,000 in illegal donations during the 1996 presidential campaign.
http://www.asianweek.com/2000_03_09/news_hsia_fina nce.html
Clinton's greatest peril isn't Monica
James Riady and his Lippo Group latched on to a young Bill Clinton and constructed a web of Asian influence that funneled millions of dollars into various Clinton campaigns and causes (such as silencing Webster Hubbell). For this, Riady enjoyed not only access to Clinton, but Riady's chief stooge, John Huang, got top-secret security clearance and continued to see classified information even after he became a big fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee...
"Three remarkable women,'' as the authors describe them -- Democratic Party activist Maria Hsia, Pauline Kanchanalak of Thailand and Hong Kong billionaire Nina Wang -- all have money ties to Bill Clinton and Al Gore and all have connections to Chinese intelligence or the military arm of the Chinese Communist Party, the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
"Beijing did not hesitate to exploit this connection, even face-to-face with Bill Clinton,'' the authors say. Hsia is a known agent for the Chinese government who has been indicted for immigration and campaign-fund-raising scams and, say the authors, probably helped Chinese spies enter the United States.
Kanchanalak, who has been indicted on charges of violating election laws, brought leaders of a Thai conglomerate that is in business with Middle East terrorists and with China's biggest arms smugglers to t
Eric Schmidt named CEO at Google
Former Novell Inc. CEO Eric Schmidt has been appointed CEO of search engine company Google Inc., five months after joining the company as chairman of the board.
http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2001/0,4814
Elton John helps raise money for Gore
Flamboyant rock star Elton John, making his first foray into American politics after three decades of performing in the United States, endorsed Vice President Al Gore at a ritzy Silicon Valley fund-raiser... The fund-raiser, at the home of Novell Corp. Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, raised $3.25 million for the Democratic National Committee.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/20/ campaign.gore.john.reut/
Buddhist Nuns Admit Destroying Documents /hearings.main/
Two Buddhist nuns who helped coordinate an April 1996 temple fund-raiser attended by Vice President Al Gore admitted today they destroyed a list of donors and other documents because they thought the information would embarrass the temple... Gore's appearance at the fund-raiser has proven a major embarrassment for the vice president, but he also faces new Justice Department scrutiny on another front: his 46 fund-raising calls from the White House.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/09/04/thompson
Buddhist nuns indicted for failure to testify in trial of Democratic fund-raiser
Two Buddhist nuns were indicted Wednesday on contempt of court charges for failing to appear as witnesses in the trial of Maria Hsia, who was convicted in March of campaign law violations in connection with a 1996 Democratic fund-raising event at the Hsi Lai Buddhist temple in California
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/04/05/ nuns.cnn/
Hsia Convicted in Campaign Finance Scandal
The jury convicted Hsia, a friend and political supporter of Vice President Al Gore, for arranging more than $100,000 in illegal donations during the 1996 presidential campaign.
http://www.asianweek.com/2000_03_09/news_hsia_fina nce.html
Clinton's greatest peril isn't Monica
James Riady and his Lippo Group latched on to a young Bill Clinton and constructed a web of Asian influence that funneled millions of dollars into various Clinton campaigns and causes (such as silencing Webster Hubbell). For this, Riady enjoyed not only access to Clinton, but Riady's chief stooge, John Huang, got top-secret security clearance and continued to see classified information even after he became a big fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee...
"Three remarkable women,'' as the authors describe them -- Democratic Party activist Maria Hsia, Pauline Kanchanalak of Thailand and Hong Kong billionaire Nina Wang -- all have money ties to Bill Clinton and Al Gore and all have connections to Chinese intelligence or the military arm of the Chinese Communist Party, the People's Liberation Army (PLA).
"Beijing did not hesitate to exploit this connection, even face-to-face with Bill Clinton,'' the authors say. Hsia is a known agent for the Chinese government who has been indicted for immigration and campaign-fund-raising scams and, say the authors, probably helped Chinese spies enter the United States.
Kanchanalak, who has been indicted on charges of violating election laws, brought leaders of a Thai conglomerate that is in business with Middle East terrorists and with China's biggest arms smugglers to t
BTW the most exaggerated Tiananmen tales feature a wee fraction the deaths as in Panama for Herb the Perv's grab of fellow CIA asset Noriega.
A necessary correction to the absurdly modded-up "5: informative" parent's parent. Thank you.
... and you dumb fucks are complaining because Google censors shit?
Eat my goatse ass hypocrites.
Growing up there were always two or three papers in our house, the SF Chronicle, a Swedish paper (in swedish from sweden) and a local paper. My father and I always were amazed at the news that is censored here. Sometimes he would have to actually try and corfirm the stories, as we just couldnt believe that our papers could be repressed in this fashion.
This being said I dont think Google is at fault here, other that being a large and evil corporation but that is a different matter. I mean Google is just a search engine. But I take comfort in the fact that the censors will never win, as they have already lost, and only a better idea can beat a good idea.
---
My sig was stolen - the insurance company replaced it with this one.
They can either:
a) Censor search/news results in China..
b) Not do business in that market (ie. they'd be blocked by the Chinese censors)
Now, some will argue caving into the demands of a repressive, totalitarian government would be "evil".. but denying search service to one billion people, given that Google offers more than the censors would ever allow (they just havn't found and blocked it yet), would be even more "evil", don't you think?
The problem is, there really isn't a "good" way to deal with a repressive society
I am the maverick of Slashdot
..the more thankful I am that I live in the US and am for the most part free to say, think, publish what I wish.
I don't think Freenet and Entropy are trash... Maybe most of the content there are (I have used them), but the technology and the concept are interesting, if theoretically immature.
As for non-political sites... Yes, it is not the government's intention to block these sites, but it causes inconvenience and blocked access to valuable information, just the same. For political stuff, they at least have a large enough interested audience that much of them are "smuggled" into BBS boards or message boards anyway, even the false and slanderous ones, while if you are interested in some not-so-popular software or some LMM novel reviews located in blocked sites/IP addresses, you are shut out from the information except with a unblocked foreign proxy. How ironic.
This is really old news. There was a big broo-ha-ha over this a couple of years ago. Lots of articles.
Yes, it was a questionable deed to deem 'deed' a verb,
indeed, I deem 'deem' more appropriate.
If they do it in China, why wouldn't they do it in the US? The more recently a media network has started in this country, the more sympathetic it has been to government control. How can we test Google's American filters?
--
make install -not war
http://www.statoil.com/statoilcom/HMS/SVG03272.NSF ?OpenDatabase&lang=en&app=
The norwegian state owns a oil company. It is mostly open and democratic. It`s not easy for them and they do have problems with this. But they trye.
Deal with this: Google is just another business that will sell you out if they can make a big pot of money doing it. Hey, if you don't believe me, ask the Chinese!
Go ahead, mark me as troll, I have karma to burn.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
nitpick: those students weren't protesting for democracy, they were protesting for the US to stop helping a democratic country defend itself.
Case in point: Nazi Germany
Did you forget about that one already? I mean, we don't think that companies that did business with the Nazi's are somehow excused from responsibility, but for some reason tech companies get a pass in this situation because it's only freedom to think and read that is getting trampled on?
Ahhhh...you think the two situations aren't the same? Try reading Amnesty International's reports on China. Forced labor, political re-education, etc, etc.
Sound familiar?
Wow you're being rude, Anonymous Coward! I see my post rather so:
legitimate question, e.g. whether one is allowed in China to indicate that something was censored (I do wonder)
poor cynical allusion, e.g. noting that there is such an absurd thing in "our" laws (OK this one is in itself offtopic... so what?)
Your post is cool (nice words and crushing tone) but I fear (hope actually) that you're a bit over the top...
I'm not saying this to slam the US or start some flame-war of politics. I'm sure with a bit of diggin i could find some equally stupid policies in my own country. Just illsutrating the point that as companies become more global in reach they must deal with international laws (the laws of different nations).
And this isn't because the Chinese gov't is bad and commie (and they are), but because they're not in favour by the admistration, ditto with the Cubans. there are FAR WORSE reginmes in the world where it's perfectly okay to do business for Canadians and Americans because they're our buddies at the moment. Haliburton and a lot of other US companies were all over Iraq when Saddam was running the joint, before he p**sed off papa Bush by invading Kuwait. The Saudi's (our pals du jour) don't even let women drive cars and haven't had anything close to an election in 30 years. and so on.
i'm rambling but my points are: 1. Google's a business, so they're going to go where they want and it's legal and they'll comply with local laws, even if we don't like the gov't they're doing biz with. 2. nothing is cut and dried, why does china get favored nation status and cuba is off limits? 3. Canadians are as bad at this crap as anyone
and thank goodness I can view slashdot, or else I would be out dating some hot chinese babes :)
I'll get on that first thing tomorrow.
Seriously though, I am annoyed because I left my computer on at home in the States running sshd, and I registered with DynDNS... I get the impression all DDNS sites are blocked, ie I'm screwed.
What I need here is some 3G wireless internet access.. Dialup from my hotel is the suxors.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Google indexes what's out there on the web. In this respect, it's exactly the same as a dictionary or encyclopaedia. Therefore, search engines like Google should never have to censor; unless you think it's also ok for dictionaries or encyclopaedias to be censored. By doing so you would essentially be falsifying history.
This is at heart of the discussion.
Why Google complies with government demands is obvious and too trivial to even discuss: it's a business decision.
(Not that this means you have to agree with Google's stance.)
If governments have a problem with a certain site, they should go after the site itself, not some search engine that merely indexes what's out there on the web and happens to have indexed the objectionable site in question.
(Btw; it should be obvious that what's objectionable to one person or government is not necessarily objectionable to some other.)
The problem with Google taking the way of least resistance is this: where will it end? And what else has Google censored or will censor? What other information is Google keeping away from us or will keep away from us?
How can you trust a source of information if you are not sure the information is not tampered with or if some information is withheld from you?
You're right! Fox News, one out of fifteen major news sources is somewhat biased towards conservatism! Therefore American government is the same as one that actively jails dissidents, firewalls its Internet off from the rest of the world, censors any negative stories, edits all its major newspapers, sics soldiers on protesters in its capital city, and uses mental institutions to 'reform' dissidents! Yes, yes!
I stepped on a fly today! I'm Hitler! Wheeeeeeeeee!
Google doesn't give a shit. They want money and customers. The concept of Capitalism doesn't involve ethics. It's wagging the tail.
Feed dirt to people, keep them happy by telling them they are eating gourmet brownies. Microsoft does it, now Google and others will follow.
Not a war, a helpful defense action!!
Didn't really finish my post since I clicked the wrong button. I will not be posting a corrected version of this post at this time.
Hi, if you read Chinese, you may realize that they don't sensor the mainland news.
For example. I found news from papers created by the infamous, (and illegal, and banned in PRC.) cult FLG group.
If anything is sensored to please the Chinese government, that would be. But of course, there is the frequent problem of Chinese people in China loosing access to google search engine--a much bigger problem for Google right now.
I think this illustrates an issue I have been seeing a lot.
People live to the letter of the law with freedom instead of living to the spirit of the law.
If someone says something they don't like or if it is too inconvenient they are happy to rationalize their actions/inactions by pointing out they are still inside of the lines.
Here's an article dated January 2003 talking about how google decided to cooperate with the Chinese government, and why. This isn't new at all, in fact it's over a year old. Google's don't be evil policy hasn't changed, this is one decision which they decided it was less evil to cooperate.
_ pr .html
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.01/google
Please, college freshman, don't post on Slashdot.
because the first rule that Google claims to follow is "do no evil."
"...if google wants in, then they must comply. Simple." - no, that's not that simple. Google doesn't have to comply if they want to stand on the higher moral grounds; it's about freedom and basic human values. If companies that want to do business with China comply with those restrictions, soon enough most of the world media will comply and the news and information will be indirectly altered. Is this kind of world you want to live in?
However, as noted before, Google and others will try to comply for the sake of doing business with China. What is the price to pay for freedom of information? How much Google would lose if they didn't comply? It is ironic that companies such as Google was created in California, where freedom is a cherished value, but now Google is a big name and so they, like everything in the capitalist world is money driven. And, yes, this is about money, isn't it? At least they should say that up front instead of telling a lie of "improving service".
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
I've just noticed something regarding the replies to the Google censorship in China piece ... The replies that take a pro-Chinese government or pro-Google stance get Scores of 5 and 4 and comments like "Insightful" whereas replies that take an opposite stance tend not to get those scores. Hmm?
I understand that Google is a business, but when it claims that it will be doing "good" as an over-riding governing principle and pulls a fast one like this then I think people have a right to be critical. I think a lot of the critics that came before this reply had some insightful things to say. For some reason they weren't scored higher.
No, Simon, I'm not "surprised" by this. What I am surprised by and disappointed in is the response by people on Slashdot (the posts and the mods) to the naked hypocrisy of a company that claims that it wants to do "good" first and foremost and turns around and does evil.
... a lot of American, British, etc. tech companies want to do business in China and some go so far as to help build China's 'Great Firewall.' But guess what ... this is America. We have freedoms that people in China don't have. Why shouldn't we take advantage of that opportunity to criticize the hypocrisy of a company that talks like a do-good-er but doesn't back up the talk.
... that doesn't mean those laws aren't evil.
There seems to be a case of convenient amnesia here. Not too long ago there were stories of people in China (and elsewhere) using Google (and mirror sites like 'Elgoog') to get information that was verboten. Google was the hero back then and it was unreservedly doing good. How soon we forget.
I understand why the weight of the posts and scores here are pro-Google
Oh, BTW, China can have any crazy laws it wants to
I don't like to post Anon Coward, but pro-US statements often result in lost Karma on slashdot. I don't want my speech to be restricted (modded down) by emotional reactions to my statements.
Just read comments on this story and you will see a great deal of equivocation and an overabundance of useful idiots. There is simply no comparison of freedom of speech between the two countries. Don't take my word for it... go compare Chinese news sites to US News sites.
You know, just because some attitude is ingrained in a culture doesn't make it above judgement. Some cultures are inferior to others.
Yeah parsing language. To communicate. That's how it works. Sadly, I said don't bother to reply unless you addressed our role as world cop. I guess that didn't parse. Thanks for your time!
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I didn't say that.
Real social change comes from the ground up.
The Chinese govt cannot hold it all back forever... especially when there are easily seen and obvious working alternatives out there.
Stop being so negative.
Not in this case. The army was already in the city and had plenty of opportunity to seize power. If the PLA had subverted the government by force, what was their goal? They did a bit of protestor crack down but only reluctantly and sparingly. The PLA commanders knew that there was political infighting going on and they didn't know which side was going to win, so they played it safe. They went through the motions of obeying the orders to disperse the protestors and they didn't crack down with extreme measures (i.e. there were survivors).
Remember that the PLA is essentially the CCP, just a different part of it. So while the CCP is in power, the PLA is in power. They aren't rivals or even political opponents but the same team.
Thanks for the answer. I recognize that my allusion to US law was, to say the least, futile. And you definitely have a point with the useful idiots.
*cue Disney music*
Are niggers the same thing as jungle bunnies? How about spear chuckers? Porch monkies? Chigaboos? Coons?
The key flaw in the logic there is to view China as a normal country like France. Every Chinese can tell you that China is NO France, despite the effort of that murderous regime trying to give it a human face. Unfortunately, they have achieved some degree of success.
Oct. 3, 2004, PDT 2 am http://news.google.com/news?ned=cn&hl=zh-CN The run down of the headlines in English translation: 300 million people/time participated in defending mother river campaign in past 5 years; Weekly highlights; Sharon: Gaza operation will continue; US planes and warships frequenting North Korea, experts doubt so called 'missile threat'; Latest poll: Kerry beats Bush after debate Tourists soar in attractions nationwide; China and G7 calling for stable oil market; Severe traffice accidents surge; Guangdong monitors firms, businesses devided into 4 categories; Anti-money-laundering admin set up; Hangzhou's prospects: wedding business; New virus found by national center; Academia Sinica: new scientific revolution in making; Half of nation's junk mail server found in Guangdong; ... ...