Chinese Force Mass Closure Of Net Cafes

Chien Andalusia writes "According to this article from the BBC, the Chinese authorities closed 12,575 net cafes towards the end of 2004. Due to the expense of computer hardware, net cafés have become very popular in China in recent years. The laws governing such cafés are very strict, especially in relation to minimising the amount of exposure children can get to the internet. For example, no net café is allowed to open within 200 metres of a middle or elementary school. The article also briefly discusses other restrictions imposed on Chinese net cafés."

Comments

Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[cyberfunk2]

I suppose it's only a matter of time til the chinese government learns what most people already know. If more than a few people know a piece of information, then it's pretty hopeless to try to contain it.

Now if only the RIAA/MPAA would learn this lesson.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[cyberfunk2]

Right, and what I'm saying, is that once the info's out there, and as long as it's got a important enough value to the people, it's likely to get to them one way or another.

For instance, don't you think they realize on some level whats REALLY going on, i.e. they're being censored. Upon discovering that, I'd be inheriently curious.. what exactly is it they're protecting me from? And lo, the ball and started rolling...

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[ScentCone]

Now if only the RIAA/MPAA would learn this lesson.

Must even the most un-related news items be somehow tortured into a reason to self-proclaim one's rights to an artist's work, unpaid-for? Some Chinese citizen sitting in a net cafe "knowing" the news is not the same as you sitting in your living room "knowing" the latest Green Day CD without paying for it.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[luvirini]

Yes, but slashdot crowd is hardly your average person on the street. Go ask a a few people on the street some questions about the world, I suggest subjects such as the cosolidation of media, to see how much people on average think about the dangers to free speech.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[jokumuu]

Well in general you do have to remember that RIAA is not an organisation for artists rights, it is an organisation for the record companies rights. The difference is huge.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[Anonymous Coward]

I think joe average is a bit smarter than we give him credit for.

Your opinion is both unpopular and correct.

Many liberal elitists are (rightly so) the loudest champions of our public school system, yet they love to bemoan the widespread ignorance of the masses, forgetting that the masses in America represent the product of our public school system.

Ask "Joe Average" about consolidation of media, and he will probably repeat a lot of what his High School civics teacher told him about it. Puzzling out whether that opinion is really all that enlightened... I leave as an exercise to the reader.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Depends. I'm sure the chinese government would like to censor music too, ever hear of their cultural revolution?

Or maybe when the news itself is copyrighted, and they start using copyright as a tool of censorship, then you'll reconsider? It's all just bits and bytes. Arbitrarily deciding that some arrangements of 1s and 0s is music that should land you in jail if you copy it, but that another is current news that it's immoral to censor is somewhat dumb.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[luvirini]

Well, I am not talking only about US, and definitely not in specially "elitistic" way. I have been to quite many countries in the all in all, and the same rule seems to hold true in most of them: Most people do not want to think.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[lawguy2006]

Arbitrarily deciding that some arrangements of 1s and 0s is music that should land you in jail if you copy it, but that another is current news that it's immoral to censor is somewhat dumb. Is it really? Let's try applying your argument to the real, tangible world. Would you argue that taking a TV from Best Buy without paying for it is NOT stealing, because a TV is just a different arrangement of particles than air, which is free for all?

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[radja]

so limitting free cultural exchange is good, but limitting free speech is bad?

both are important, and both should be legal.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[beattie]

Or maybe when the news itself is copyrighted, and they start using copyright as a tool of censorship, then you'll reconsider? It's all just bits and bytes. Arbitrarily deciding that some arrangements of 1s and 0s is music that should land you in jail if you copy it, but that another is current news that it's immoral to censor is somewhat dumb.

While some may agree with your premise, your argument is bad. Apply the same logic to some other thing. Say pictures. Why are some pictures like pornography censored, and others like pictures of national landmarks not? It's all just pictures, right?

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[ScentCone]

so limitting free cultural exchange is good, but limitting free speech is bad?

both are important, and both should be legal.

Well, sure. But when an artist chooses to sell their work, and someone else chooses to find a way to get it without paying for it, that's not a freedom of speech issue. That's about people wanting the work that the artist produces, and not wanting to pay for it.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that filesharing is worse. When you steal one TV, the store loses one TV. When you make one MP3 available for download (i.e. steal it), not only does the artist lose the revenue they would have made on that MP3 if you had gone to the record store and purchased it, they lose ALL the revenue they would have realized from everybody else who downloaded the MP3 for free instead of buying it.

Saying that filesharing != theft is like saying that I did nothing wrong by walking into a restaurant then urinating on the main course. True, I "stole" nothing. But the restaurant can't sell the urine-soaked main course either.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[saider]

Upon discovering that, I'd be inheriently curious.. what exactly is it they're protecting me from?

Because our society values the freedom to make your own decisions. That's why there's a stink everytime the gov't tries to restrict our expressions.

In China and other places, the people are brought up believing in the Government as a protector, as a father. Since there is little to contradict this, they believe that the government is acting in their best interests when it tells them not to do something. Because of their lifelong conditioning, they accept this fact and move on with their lives.

This is how humans in general operate, and because we are conditioned differently in the West, we have a different response to and view of our governments. North Korea is another example of this. There was a show on PBS showing the horrific conditions in the country. The only reason they put up with it is because they honestly feel that South Korea and their imperialist allies will kill each and every one of them. They are in a completely different reality.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[Znork]

For every person exposing the truth, hire ten to malign him, change the issue, confuse the facts, misrepresent his views, misrepresent your views and outright lie and threaten.

I've realized that I'm being manipulated every day, and I live in a western democracy. Do you know how very difficult it is to discern who is manipulating you in what way, and how they in turn have been manipulated? Do you understand how difficult it is when you cannot even trust your own mind and language, as you will find your very instincts erraneous and the very language biased?

In your average newspaper and newscast it's almost impossible to find a single unbiased and non-propagandistic article. They're as rare as factually correct articles, and often the two go hand in hand. As journalists no longer appear to have the time, and few the integrity, try to do the factchecking yourself, and trace interests and bias in the article, and compare between different ones.

It's not that the average person cant form an opinion, understand a problem or draw conclusions from the facts. It's that the average person does not have the time, inclination or opportunity to double-check and cross-reference every fact and opinion they hear and question every belief and opinion they have once they discover inconsistencies. It's not very rewarding or conductive to living a happy life.

Propaganda works. And you, I and the Chinese get tricked every day.

What exactly are they protecting you from?

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[adamfranco]

In your average newspaper and newscast it's almost impossible to find a single unbiased and non-propagandistic article. They're as rare as factually correct articles, and often the two go hand in hand. As journalists no longer appear to have the time, and few the integrity, try to do the factchecking yourself, and trace interests and bias in the article, and compare between different ones.

For a scholarly look at this issue read Edward Herman & Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. In it they describe in detail many, many examples how "the powers that be" in the U.S. of A. have used the structure of the mass media to distort the world view of the citizens of this [USA] country.

What exactly are they protecting you from?

As far as I can tell, the nature of Power is such that for the most part, those with it want to keep it. Additionally, money and influence are both part of and equivalent to Power. With [enough] money you can buy influence and with [enough] influence you can obtain money. In order to retain Power those with it must ensure not that the populace is well off, but that they are content enough that they do not rebel or otherwise try to overthrow those in Power.

As much as the United States is a democracy, true democracy (in which all have a generally equal say) is impossible if there is a large concentration of Power (money and/or influence). If Power is not [relatively] evenly spread, then those with it can get a larger say by either force or by manipulating those without Power into agreeing with them.

So, what exactly are they protecting you from? In general, feelings of dissatisfaction with the state of your world (as it reflects on them) and your place in it. This manipulation can come in many forms, but several common ones that are repeated over and over are:

- Enemies: Enemies focus attention away from domestic problems to external entities, as well as providing a framework for "Be happy, at least you aren't in xxxxxx" comments.

- "Mindless" Entertainment: The more entertained you are, the less likely you are to rebel. "The Matrix" is an extreme example of this.

- Playing on dreams: The "American Dream" is partially summarized as the opportunity of anyone who "works hard enough" to climb the economic and social ladders. In the current day and age (as well as many past) this is no more true than elsewhere in the world. A very few people truly go from "rags to riches" while the rest of us stay plus or minus a few degrees from the place where we were born. The promise of the "American Dream" is repeated so often though that most people take it to be truth, thereby voting for tax cuts for the rich on the belief that they will soon be rich too.

These and other tools can and are used by those with Power to protect the rest of us from the harsh truth that we are being cheated and our situation would be better if those with Power didn't have it.

Re:Sigh, Freedom of speech out the window

[hunterx11]

There is nothing wrong with preaching to governments that they are not according their people sufficient rights. A lot of people talk about "self-determination," by which they mean that governments themselves should be allowed to dictate how people live with absolute impunity. I would prefer a world where "self-determination" means that the people themselves can choose how to live, and if that means denouncing a government for their oppressive actions, so be it. Freedom is almost tautologically better than the alternative. You might disagree, but if you are free to do so, you are benefitting from it anyway. Freedom is the only system that doesn't force any values on you.

Yay communism

[Nastard]

Because it's important that we limit, as much as is possible, our children's exposure to information, education, technology, or anything else that might shape them into better, more productive members of society.

China: The Biggest Red State.

Re:Yay communism

[dave420]

You're confusing the Chinese government with Communism here. What's happening in China isn't due to Communism, but the powers that be in China, and their specific doctrine.

Re:Yay communism

[aelbric]

"Are you not aware of how many sick things can be found on the net? The article clearly states that they are trying to ban the bad stuff not the good stuff which can help in making the kids grow up into better people."

It is NOT ANY governments' responsibility to protect you or anyone else from "bad" ideas. This is the very definition of censorship. If you have kids it is YOUR responsibility to educate them about the "bad" stuff out there.

People do not gain the ability to cope with the horrors, scam artists, predators, morons, and evil people in the world by sticking their heads in the sand. Or by having someone else (the government) stick your head in the sand for you. Those things will not go away. Understanding them is the only way to combat them or defend yourself against them. Otherwise you just become another sheep in the herd.

Re:Yay communism

[mosb1000]

That's a true statement. Communism does not, in theory, require censoring information, oppressing people, and opposing all change and progress. But for some reason, whenever and wherever it has been implemented, it has involved these things.

Perhaps it's because the rigid top-down political structure that always seems to accompany it lends itself to these kind of abuses. Perhaps it's that people who implement communism feel that the common man is too stupid to be trusted, and must be censured and controlled.

Whatever the reason, that fact that these things always seem to be associated with communism does indicate that they're connected.

Re:Yay communism

[jc42]

Indeed; Communism is thoroughly dead in China. The current ruling gang apparently doesn't even give it lip service any more. Many writers with a bit of historical knowledge have commented that China is again ruled by mandarins, though they may not use that term.

It is impressive how long rhetorical terms can last. Thus, Communism died in the old USSR when Stalin took power and became in all but name a new tsar. But Western propagandists still used that country as an example of Communism 50 years later, despite all the objections that the term no longer applied in any meaningful fashion.

It's likely that 50 years from now, Western politicos will still be using China as an example of Communism, in their attempts to extend the old Communist/Capitalist false dichotomy.

It's really just a way of blindly using code words to avoid at reality. A reasonable approach would be to simply treat terms like "Communist", "Capitalist", etc. as symptoms of writing without much thought or understanding. It's hardly worth debating when such terms appear, since (as a form of Godwin's observation) such terms usually mean that no reasonable discussion will be possible. In American politics, the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" have come to have the same import.

OTOH, if someone refers to events in China as "Chinese", reasonable discussion of events there might be possible. The current rulers of China aren't beholden to any outside ideology; they are their own people, with their own ideas and goals. Understanding will come from talking about them as they are, not by describing them with foreign words that don't apply very well.

Re:Yay communism

[jc42]

it's important that we limit, as much as is possible, our children's exposure to information, education, ...

Of course. And, as here in the US, attempts to block children's exposure to the Internet will have a valuable effect: It tells the children where the forbidden knowledge is to be found. Those who want to learn will know where to look. And the next generation will be fluent users of the Internet.

That's what we want, of course. So we should applaud all such attempts to block children's access to the Internet. This is the best path to a fully-interconnected world in which our rulers won't be able to keep us ignorant any more.

(Written with tongue only half in cheek. ;-)

Re:Yay communism

[Richthofen80]

I take it you've not read anything about communism

That's the idea. Everyone falls in love with communism when they read Marx. Everyone loves to TALK about communism. They write papers, they prostelyze about its virtues, and how wonderful it could be.

But how is it, something so good on paper could always seem to be implemented wrong. Must be the wrong leaders, they say. 'My gang would implement communism better', they write.

Maybe communism on PAPER leaves something out, that communism in PRACTICE always requires. Communism requires totalitarian rule in order to affix prices, force labor, and keep the popular will in check. Western pseudo-capitalist/democratic republics often don't need such rule, since participation in everything but rule of law is optional. In communism, those who choose not to work the assigned work defeat the larger economic machinery, which is highly directed. In the pseudo-capitalist/dr's, those who choose not to work only hurt themselves, they are not assigned any specific task and own the product of their labor.

The disenfranchising factor among communist philosophy is that one cannot be free, in the traditional sense (libre), if one does not own the product of his labor outright, to sell, barter or save. The freedom of speech evaporates if one cannot save pennies to buy a soapbox to stand on. One cannot be free to live where he or she pleases.

I guess a good encapsulation would be, can we expect the bill of rights to make any sense if Americans could not own the product of their labors?

Finally

[planet-sloop]

Finally someone doesn't want their public subject to so much inane american propaganda.

Re:Finally

[planet-sloop]

Its just a shame that no other countries news channel have such far reaching audiences as the yanks. the only one to come close is the bbc, but they are fairly neutral, and don't contest what the murdoch/turner stations broadcast.

Re:Finally

[luvirini]

In most countries of the world the local news channels have much more power than any international channel. if for no other reason, then for language issues.

Let's reward them ...

[Anonymous Coward]

By expanding "free trade agreements" and raising the H1-B quota !!!

This just in...

[gowen]

Chinese government restrictive, controlling bastards. But given the Great Leap Forwards, assorted purges on intellectuals, the show trials, the widespread censorship, the repression of Tibet and the Tiananmen Square Massacre, did we not know this already?

So, why is this news?

Re:This just in...

[dustmite]

You're right, human rights abuses are only interesting when it's new/exciting information .. because it's not about the information, it's all about the topical buzz, the fashionable memes, yeah man. I mean who wants to discuss China's ongoing human rights abuses, that's like sooo yesterday already! What's "cool" today?

Yes, it does make them worse.

[Anonymous Coward]

If we don't like our government, we can vote them out. If Chinese don't like their goverment, they go to jail.

There is a big difference.

Re:Yes, it does make them worse.

[yannack]

If we don't like our government, we can vote them out. If Chinese don't like their goverment, they go to jail. There is a big difference.

Actually, it's more like:
If we don't like our government, they make us think we can vote them out, and fix the election.
Is it still such a big difference?

If you think yes, factor in the you-don't-believe-in-our-values-so-we'll-hold-you- without-charges-lawyer-or-rights improvements to the penal code, a.k.a Patriot Act.

Re:No Spam

[antifoidulus]

I really doubt that a lot of that spam is being relayed through internet cafes. China only cares about stopping people from looking at new ideas, they hate stopping anything that makes money.

Uh huh...

[UnRDJ]

In other news, the Chinese goverment are a bunch of commie bastards, SCO are liars, and Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop market. Seriously though, this kind of reporting is good. People tend to forget about this kind of stuff unless they're frequently reminded.

Re:And how many thousands...

[planet-sloop]

It does because china isn't immune to war crimes...nor do they threaten 3rd world countries to remove aid if they don't vote to keep americans immunity

And we're surprised why?

[DesScorp]

China, for all the hype about markets opening up their society, is still a totalitarian communist country. I'm not surprised that they've cracked down on the cafes; I'm surprised they exist at all.

Re:And we're surprised why?

[Dogtanian]

China, for all the hype about markets opening up their society, is still a totalitarian communist country.

No, they're a totalitarian capitalist country now. Arguably fascistic, but certainly not democratic.

Re:And we're surprised why?

[Kjella]

[insert cheesy Star Wars quote]
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
[/quote]

China, like most other countries (actually with or without democracy) rely on most of the people being content. Internet is too valuable a tool, and people would be upset if they couldn't access it at all. So you try to please the majority, yet at the same time crack down on those that could challenge your authority. Totalitarian regimes impose as much apathy as loyalty. Don't piss them off, keep them fed and enterained (Romans: Bread and circus), don't let religion challenge goverment (Soviet Union, Falun Gong in China) and you'll stay in power. It's all in the HOW-TO ;)

Kjella

Re:And how many thousands...

[luvirini]

During history big emprires have allways done what they think is best for themselves. The voice of the people and definitely other countries have no bearing on those, thus I do not see anything special from historical perspective with the american empire.

Is not only about censorship

[stm2]

At least the ban for inet cafe close to elementary school. In Argentina we have a similar situation, there are a lot of inet cafes because hardware is very expensive since peso devaluation and Internet conection is also expensive. Most inet cafes are used to chat using MSN and IRC and playing FPSMPG (like Counter Strike), so boys hang around for hours there instead of studying. It is very cheap, because there are a lot of inet cafes, it cost about 0.35$/hour, that is cheap even for us. Boys mostly plays and some MSN, and girls go just to chat via MSN.
I am giving a basic computer course in an elementary school (9 to 12 years old) and they are asking me to teach them just to chat, even before learning how to type!

Not as bad as you may first think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in Beijing last summer, and the one thing that struck me was how our American media promotes an image of an evil tyranny in China. (While it is true that most freedoms - as we know them here - don't exist, it isn't the spawn of evil its made out to be.)

I had no problems accessing the Net from my hotel - albeit an intl. dialup connection - and even visited a few Net cafes. Most people I spoke to said the Internet was great but that we Americans don't realize that what we may want or consider a "great freedom" here in the US is not considered as important in the rest of the world. (Alright before you start going berserk and start spewing off about basic human rights, consider that we have made many, many mistakes in the past and it took us time as well to reach a state where we consider these freedoms as our rights; give 'em time!)

Anyway, my point being, Internet was completely accessible except for a few sites that seemed to be proxied out at the Net cafes - Slashdot being one of them! ;)

Things in China are CRAZY.

[Gannoc]

Wow, the people in power don't like something and want to see it censored or banned.

So, to try and convince the public, they announce that the thing that THEY don't like is dangerous for children...

THEN, once you've established that it is bad for children, you can get rid of it altogether in the name of protecting children!

I'm glad that would never happen here!

China remains an Evil Empire

[mi]

Call me "right wing", call me "a troll".

But time and time again, China demonstrates, that it still remains evil, embracing parts and aspects of Western capitalist democracy only as a more efficient way of doing things, rather than out of genuine desire to promote freedom...

How do they manage to escape the scrutiny of the same freedom-minded people, who can not talk about Bush without foam forming on their mouthes?

The same people, who insult politicians by painting swastikas on their portraits, but proudly wear Che Guevara T-shirts (with red star on top)?..

Re:China remains an Evil Empire

[Tonytheloony]

How do they manage to escape the scrutiny of the same freedom-minded people, who can not talk about Bush without foam forming on their mouthes?
You argument is flawed and simplistic (yet you get +4 insightful...) : disliking Bush has *nothing* to do with admiring China's leaders. I dislike both.
And childish/nonsensical terms such as "Evil" bring nothing to the table.
After all I consider Bush evil, but I guess you would disagree.

Yay capitalism

[Dogtanian]

China: The Biggest Red State

If China ever was truly communist (which I doubt), it sure as hell ain't now.

As someone said, when they embraced capitalism, China went from being one of the last major left-wing dictatorships to being one of the last major right-wing dictatorships.

Which doesn't necessarily make them any more free.

It's all bullcrap anyway; the supposedly left-wing North Korea is run in a pseudo-monarchistic manner by Kim Jong-Il, who took over from his father. This is about as un-left wing as you can get; not that it makes any difference. Whatever their *claimed* alleigance, dictatorships are dictatorships are dictatorships, run for the benefit of the ruling party; in that sense, they are *all* right-wing, but not in a remotely "freedom-loving" way.

The more I think about this, the more the left/right wing labels seem like a joke; they only really have relevance when it comes to free societies.

Re:The Censorship Technology Is Good If Used Prope

[verus vorago]

Wish I worked for an employer like you. I'm getting grief about coming in at 11am. The fact that I a) work about 20 hours per week longer than most and b) actually achieve things (unlike a large minority) seems to be completely beside the point.

If your butt's not warming the seat at 7.30am then you've "got a bad attitude". One of the guys on my team has had several "attitude reassignment meetings" I'm still waiting for my first... any day now ...

Re:So?

[swb]

Its their country, their rules..

Let's take that idea to a logical conclusion:

Sudan...it iss their country, their rules.

Serbia...it is their country, their rules.

We can go back in history and include Cambodia, Nazi Germany, ...

I guess hatred of America is so strong these days that the Slashbots feel compelled to defend every other government, even some of the most despotic and totalitarian.

How moral is the Internet then?

[DSLAMngu]

Let's step back a little bit. They call it immoral net use, and there are disagreements. What, then, is the degree of morality displayed on the Internet?

Spam, porn, viruses, marketing, etc. And I can assure you that few children will go searching for MIT OpenCourseWare philosophy notes, Confician ethics, Maoist doctrine, etc. on their own. They will look for their favorite new music artists, information on the latest cartoon series, get on IM with their friends, or will just sit there and play flash games for the whole time.

Have you been in a high school computer lab? All kids do on the Internet is waste time and expose themselves to information that they are generally not morally equipped to interpret. When they need to do research for a school assignment, they will probably find that the restrictions will allow them to get the info they need fairly conveniently. So perhaps the totalitarian government is doing the children a service by keeping them focused.

On the other hand, I do not agree with the restrictions on adult consumption of the Internet. Clearly, at that point the government is perpetuating ignorence.

Also notice how loose the copyright philosophies are in China. IIRC piracy is allowed, even encouraged in there. We have the RIAA, the MPAA, the DMCA, and media corporations with the nearly full backing of the U.S. government. Perhaps one should consider whether the lawsuits going around would count as oppression/repression to a communist.

Re:The difference is not huge, the Artists transfe

[KtHM]

Right, because we know *everyone* who gets a record contract gets rich beyond their wildest dreams. *rolls eyes*

It backfires!

[Loundry]

Their censorship technology is the best in the world, and it would improve production if it was implemented in USA companies. How would it improve production you ask? It will, for example, keep people from reading Slashdot all day.

There is a psychological phenomenon in humans that control-freaks consistenly forget. Anything that you deny to a human appears more desirable to that human. If you say, "You can't do that," then the person being addressed will tend to want to do it *more*, not *less*.

For example, two children are playing. They may be playing in an ocean of toys, but the most attactive toy in the room to Child A will be the toy that Child B is playing with.

For example, the USA has some of the most repressive laws against drug use in the world, yet the USA is also the world's largest consumer of these "forbidden" drugs.

Also consider that "rooting for the underdog" and "fighting against the man" is seen as cool and hip in American culture. The "rebel" and "outlaw" are seen as positive, not negative, figures in American culture. Didn't all us Americans feel some righteous indignation when the Imperial officer seethes, "You rebel scum!" to Han Solo?

Info may get out, but it has no real potency

[FreeUser]

Right, and what I'm saying, is that once the info's out there, and as long as it's got a important enough value to the people, it's likely to get to them one way or another.

I used to believe that.

Now I no longer do.

There is all kinds of information on the Bush administration that people, including those that served in his first administration, were desperate to get out to the American public, including specifics on his incompetence with respect to guarding against terror, the war on terror, the misinformation on Iraq, etc.

Yet we reelected him, and over half the people in the country believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, despite proof to the contrary that hasn't only been bandied about on the internet, but has been reported in "mainstream" media news outlets as well.

The information may get out, but misinformation from "official" sources is clearly more potent in the perceptions of the mindless masses. The evidence of that is nowhere as clear (or discouraging) as here in America.

Re:Info may get out, but it has no real potency

[phuturephunk]

I would suppose that has more to do with mass psychology rather than the info not being out there. It's been proven time and time again (with some spectacular failures that took a whole lot of life with them) through the history of time that humans will believe whoever believes in their purpose the most.

I think it has something to do with people basically being terrified of the unknown and the uncertainty in life. This is why we have constructs like Religion, its all just coping mechanisms.

The danger is when someone with the wrong idea gets enough steam behind him/her to gather a following that then turns into a legion of people all saying the same thing and believing the same thing even in cases where contrary evidence is right in their faces. They almost HAVE to believe because the chaotic truth proves much to scary for them to cope with.

or something to that effect..

People just don't care

[egy]

I think it just too hard for us to understand china people. They have totally different culture from european/american, so they care more about where to get food than of human rights or freedom.

I am from Ukraine, and in November, when it was Orange Revolution here in Ukraine, I've read various people comments on bbc.com on that topic (our revolution). While most comments were positive, I remember one comment from china's women; she was very negative and said that people should better care about other things as food, money and such.

May be for china people it's acceptable that your goverment are gangsters and thiefs as long as they give you enouth food. For me, it isn't.

PS. Sorry for my bad English.

On the "death" of communism...

[DesScorp]

" Indeed; Communism is thoroughly dead in China."

Some aspects of it are.

"The current ruling gang apparently doesn't even give it lip service any more."

They give it A LOT of lip service. It's still in all of the major speeches during national holidays.

"Thus, Communism died in the old USSR when Stalin took power and became in all but name a new tsar."

That's news to Nikita Kruschev, who was essentially replaced by commitee. No one even knew who the "one guy" in charge was for a couple of years after his removal. Eventually, it was discovered that the Central Commitee picked Leonid Breznhev as the General Secretary. The party regained control after the death of Stalin, and stayed in control until Gorbachev. The attempted coup was BY the major powers of the party. So please don't pretend that communism never existed after Stalin. For all of the evil of that system, the party did pick leadership in an orderly fashion after that.

"...the old Communist/Capitalist false dichotomy."

If you REALLY think there's no difference between capitalism and Soviet style communism, then no rational words are going to sway you.

"...not by describing them with foreign words that don't apply very well."

When they stop calling themselves communists, then maybe we will too. Again, the Chinese leadership still embraces the Marxist/Maoist imagery and speech, voluntarily. No one from the West forced it on them, so please stop acting like we are doing just that. THEY (the governement) identify themselves as communist.

BTW, there ARE still true believers in power in China, many in the military. They don't like the trappings of a market economy, but they do like the money it brings in to pay for planes, tanks, missles, ships, and now, the space program.

Re:My experience in China

[MightyMartian]

> And despite the attempt at censorship, there was a
> lot of information about government corruption
> which managed to leak out anyways. (Chinese gov't
> billionaires, Political elite getting away with
> murder, etc. )

It sounds just like old Imperial China. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

> If there's one thing I learned in China, it was
> how deftly the US government manages to control
> the information which reaches the majority of
> its citizens, despite the existance of a 'free
> press.'

WEll, I'll wager that the US's press is far more free than anything China's ever seen. For every news source that seems quite happy to tow the line (Fox News anyone), there are others that are eager to attack the government of the day on any issue.

A free press isn't about excluding government propaganda, but rather about debunking it.