Microsoft Bans 'Democracy' for China's Web Users

Doc Ruby writes "As reported, paradoxically, on MSN, 'Microsoft's new Chinese internet portal has banned the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' from parts of its website in an apparent effort to avoid offending Beijing's political censors.' MSN China says it must comply with local laws, but there is no Chinese law against the use of these words."

Comments

Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[TripMaster Monkey]

Remember Pastor Ken Hutcherson, and how he leaned on Bill about the whole gay issue? Where the hell is he now?
Surely, if he and his band of fundies can kick up that much of a fuss about homosexuality, they can certainly flex their muscles in the defense of human liberty and dignity.
C'mon, Ken...you've still got Bill's number...and here's a cause actually worth fighting for.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Loonacy]

Some guy leans on MS for defending human liberty and dignity, and now you want him to lean on them for NOT defending human liberty and dignity? I'm confused.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[msim]

My take on it is that somehow i suspect even if they wanted to "lean pressure" on that company. Despite the fact that MS has a 50% stake in it, there's not a lot that can be done from so far across the ocean.

I mean, it's in fricking CHINA and the joint venture company would be acting relatively independant of the parent company (in the US), sure it answers to the parent company, but i'm sure that the MS umbrella would leave it the hell alone when it comes to the myth of "local laws" in a place like china.

Oh and someone mentioned "unwritten law", fark yes if i was in China I wouldn't go risking my neck on something that the local goverment might not approve of on the off chance i pissed someone off.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Dystopian Rebel]

Anyone remember IBM and the Third Reich?

The unfortunate truth is that neither fanatics nor capitalists care much about the concepts "human liberty" and "dignity".

If they did, fanatics would soon have to recognize that whatever produced this world produced ~everything and everyone on it~ and all the "holy" books are not the words of any God.

If they did, Microsoft would stop struggling to build a secure network operating system and would simply become a Linux distributor.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody cares about China. We get cheap sh1t from them and so everyones content to look the other way. ESPECIALLY, I have noticed, all the self described "patriots". Remember, nah, few do... freedom was once something we gave a damn about, not just a lame excuse to make ourselves less free and invade foreign countries in the name of.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[CmdrTaco Is Retarded]

If they did, Microsoft would stop struggling to build a secure network operating system and would simply become a Linux distributor.

Huh?

You can be a capitalist and still support liberty and dignity. It just means Microsoft will stop having to cater to China's politics and opressive policies.

Are you implying if Microsoft sold BSD instead of Linux they would still not be supporting those things? They must sell Linux to meet your definition?

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

The pastor leaned on MS to back down on defending its employees' human liberty and dignity, in the name of religion. Now the poster to whom you responded wants the pastor to earn back some respect by leaning on MS to actually defend human liberty and dignity. That's not very confusing. Unless you're hellbent on using religion, whether Christianity or Communism, against liberty and dignity.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Brandybuck]

The unfortunate truth is that neither fanatics nor capitalists care much about the concepts "human liberty" and "dignity".

This has nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft. Both are publicly traded corporations. They are not human beings with the ability to be moral. To expect the end result of a collection of managers and paper shufflers to be concern for human liberty and dignity stretches the imagination. If Congress cannot do it, even though they're supposed to, how the heck can an artificial corporate entity ever possibly hope to?

A private corporation might be able to, only because it has one or two actual leaders at the top. But public corporations do not. They might have figureheads like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, but the inertia created by several layers of management prevent them from doing much more than giving speeches and approving of the quarterly report. And even if they did try to step in and take hands-on control, they're still employees able to be fired by the board of directors. And the board of directors can get replaced. The entire company can get sold. Ultimately no one is accountable at a public corporation.

Do you really expect every moral employee at Microsoft to quit their jobs over this? To you really expect every Microsoft stockholder to dump their shares over this? Do you know how many millions of shareholders there actually are? Have YOU checked that your pension or retirement fund doesn't have any Microsoft stock in it? And if it does, are you willing to dump all of it today?

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd just like to tell you, sincerely, that you seem to be a really smart guy. You can do great things.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Luddite]

Censoring a website is small potatoes compared to anything the Third Reich did.

>> Anyone remember IBM and the Third Reich?

Not old enough to remember, but I've read about IBM and Ford and General Electric and more. "Wall street and the rise of Hitler" by Anthony Sutton is an interesting read if you can find a copy...

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

That inhuman disregard for human rights is exactly what Marx was talking about when he predicted that capitalism would eventually oppress people so badly that they would take back the "means of production" from the exploiting owners. Marx lived before instantaneous global mass media, before his countrymen developed practicable theories of mass psychology, and their hybrid: advertising/propaganda. So his predictions of capitalism's demise depended on the dynamics of his time, which capitalism has trumped. The end might not be nigh, but collusion between the Chinese mafia government and Microsoft, promoting and protecting "Communism" throughout their empire, looks like a natural, predictable match that's here to stay.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

The Communist mafia government is doing a lot more than censoring a website. And their technocrats will continue to exploit tech companies like Microsoft more for population control, just as the Nazis did IBM, then create their own homegrown versions they can control better, without even the possibiity that discussions like this one could interfere.

FWIW, I note that Bush's grandfather, Prescott, sold Nazi war bonds illegally, funding bullets and bombs killing American soldiers, until shut down by the US government under the "Trading With the Enemy" laws. And I further note that Prescott's financial parnership with the Nazis extended back into the early 1930s, as Bush backed Fritz Thyssen, who in turn backed Hitler in his early rise to power. This kind of corporate backing of nominal "enemies" is nothing new, and a greater threat today than ever.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[value_added]

This has nothing to do with IBM or Microsoft. Both are publicly traded corporations. They are not ...

What they are or are not is entirely a construct, and a very modern one at that. Arguing in the abstract may be appropriate when writing a term paper for a Dead German Philosophers 101 class, or when drinking espressos and smoking Gauloise at a cafe, but it has little place in the real world where Life has a tendency to intervene and bitch slap you when you get out of line or otherwise behave in a manner that's not in the common good.

Is it such a challenge to consider that corporations are made up of people, and hence share a collective social responsibility?

If it is, may I suggest watching The Discovery Channel or Animal Planet.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[killjoe]

"Do you really expect every moral employee at Microsoft to quit their jobs over this?"

No but wouldn't it be a better world if they did.

"To you really expect every Microsoft stockholder to dump their shares over this?"

No but wouldn't it be a better world if they did.

"And if it does, are you willing to dump all of it today?"

If I knew about it then yes. I refuse to invest in MS. MS thinks open source is communist and a cancer on society. I have no desire to give a company that thinks like that any money.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[hdparm]

Despite the fact that MS has a 50% stake in it, there's not a lot that can be done from so far across the ocean.

Then, you just don't make a deal if that would mean going against some basic moral values. But then again, this is Microsoft. Bill'd sell his grandma and his ass for a bit more money.

I don't like him.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Stephan Schulz]

Oh and someone mentioned "unwritten law", fark yes if i was in China I wouldn't go risking my neck on something that the local goverment might not approve of on the off chance i pissed someone off.

I'm glad that people like Sokrates, Voltaire, Danton, Jefferson, Franklin, Gandhi and Mandela all agreed. Would be a very complicated world, otherwise. Maybe someone would even dare to have an opinion...

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it such a challenge to consider that corporations are made up of people, and hence share a collective social responsibility?


But isn't a company's 'moral responsibility' supposed to be filled through laws? Ie., your government should pass an order that says doing business in country x is not allowed, because of ethical issues.

Let's examine a couple of cases:
IKEA, if I remember correctly, got accused of child labor being used in their products - the public opinion forced them to polish their shield and make an attempt to deal with the issue.
Lufthansa, like 10 years ago, plain and simple publicly stated that they were concerned about rise of neo-nazis in Germany, as it could harm their imago (LH being a German company) and thus hurt their business. It may have slipped off from a PR droid, but it shows how far the social responsibility goes in real life.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[msim]

Hmm, as true as i know what your referring to to be, still im not in China and unless a lot more people got behind the idea, democroacy isn't going to get going anywhere fast in china. But then again what do i know, i never studied politics.

b.t.w. your Tiramisu recipe looks good :-).

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[TeraCo]

Sure, that's why he gives so much of it away. I don't know what drives him, but I doubt it's the numbers in his bank balance.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[hdparm]

Try to calculate how much is it in tax breaks. Plus, looks good in public.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

The end might not be nigh, but collusion between the Chinese mafia government and Microsoft, promoting and protecting "Communism" throughout their empire

I believe that's known as fascism - "the perfect marriage between capitalism and government..." (to paraphrase Mussolini, I believe). Of course, the second part should go "...for the purpose of subjugation and control of the populace."

It's no different from what happens in the US or anywhere else. We're surprised that aspects of our value-systems are censored over in China, but there are plenty of other (more logical, rational and understandable) value-systems that are censored to such a degree in the west that few are even aware they exist. Even more ludicrous is that these 'censored' value systems are extremely popular amongst the general populace, but there is no name, no investigation and no attempt to integrate these systems into the societal discourse.

In the absence of a philosophy with which to understand these values, people have called them 'common sense' for generations. Which, of course, leads to inevitable disagreement. Nonetheless, it is possible to connect almost everyone's idea of common sense into an integrated philosophy. In fact, over the past 4000 years, many people have done such a thing and humanity has ignored these people time and time again (though we learn about them in philosophy, classical history and latin).

Evidently, people do not want to be free. People do not want democracy. If people wanted those things, we'd be living in a far better world. However, most people don't even understand these concepts.

JH.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[MyLongNickName]

What a stupid response. Yeah... Bill gives away billions for a tax break. That's like putting a dollar in a change machine that only gives you back 40 cents... and doing it over and over.

I know this might come as a shock... but Bill might actually be a human being. Doesn't mean you have to love Microsoft. Obly that Bill Gates actually has a humanitarian streak in him.

But ofcourse, it is much easier to make a smart ass remark when faced with evidence contrary to one's beliefs.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[TeraCo]

I know the tax system in the US is fucked, but I can't see how it would be setup so that if you get a dollar away, you get more than a dollar back?

The fact remains that if all he cared about was the number in his bankbook he wouldn't give anything away.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[linuxci]

What's worrying about Microsoft is they still try to spin things to make it look like the good guys to all people. That link you posted about the article where MS decide to drop their support for a gay equality bill resulted in the legislation not going through. So what happens, to keep their gay employees happy monkey boy promises to vote for such legislation next time, of course if such legislation ever comes about again then they'll just be convinced to drop support yet again.

Motto - don't trust MS, use their track record as an example.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[SQL Error]

You pathetic clown, Communism was Marx's idea in the first place. The 20th century proved that Marxism leads inevitably to "that inhuman disregard for human rights". 100 million people died to prove Marx wrong.

Capitalism, on the other hand, has done more to improve our lives than any other idea since the discovery of fire.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is it such a challenge to consider that corporations are made up of people, and hence share a collective social responsibility?"

It is a shame this collective is NEVER held accountable then. Only a few at the top every so often. Not near often enough, and not near the number that should be.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it has done more to improve your life, as someone physically and mentally healthy, and able to act with sufficient disregard for your fellow human that you can hoard enough personal fortune to satisfy your material desires.

But you appear to be speaking for "our lives", which must mean you are including me -- so, tell me how the fact that I have been sickly all my life and that my parents never purchased insurance and that now I am an adult I am ineligible for appropriate insurance means that I should be praising Rand and Smith rather than Marx and Bevan.

I work as hard as I can, I enjoy no luxuries beyond an old computer for browsing the Internet from time to time (which I have because I use to work or study anyway), I have very good academic qualifications (though they took an inordinate amount of time to achieve), but misfortunes of birth means I would never be able to hold a regular job, and would benefit far more from a society which gave me better welfare care, to the point that I could be cured and make a much greater contribution back.

Were I living in certain of the more socialist European countries, I would be given appropriate care. As it is, I do not have the wealth to pay up front for such treatment.

None of this is hypothetical -- this is the state I am in right now.

(Just in case you spurt out any prejudices -- I am happy to say that my disabilities are overtly physical so you would believe me if you met me :-) I am entering this using speech recognition software, in case you are interested)

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Ravnen]

A certain level of human rights is necessary for criticism of, or opposition to, the state to have any effect. This level does not exist in China: if MSN offend the state, they will simply lose their right to operate in China.

Co-operating with an authoritarian regime is not something I am personally comfortable with, but it seems that many of those running businesses have no qualms about it. Moreovoer, those who refuse to do it are put at a competitive disadvantage by the current global trade regime, which leaves protection of human rights, the environment and many other things out of the equation.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[SQL Error]

But you appear to be speaking for "our lives", which must mean you are including me -- so, tell me how the fact that I have been sickly all my life and that my parents never purchased insurance and that now I am an adult I am ineligible for appropriate insurance means that I should be praising Rand and Smith rather than Marx and Bevan.

You have a sucky life. That's beside the point.

Marx is still wrong. Communism still murdered a hundred million people. Socialism still sends countries into spirals of bankruptcy.

Look, this is how it works:

Socialism tries to take the pie (the economy) and spread it around as evenly as possible. Communism is just the same, except it shoots anyone who disagrees.

Capitalism concentrates on making more pie. Capitalism isn't fair. It's not about fairness. It's about pie.

Under Capitalism, almost everyone ends up with more pie every year. Some people lose out; that's why every capitalist country has some sort of welfare program.

Under Socialism, almost everyone ends up with less pie every year, and eventually the country collapses.

And that happens every time, in every nation that Socialism has been implemented. The only difference is how long it takes.

I have sympathy for your disability, and respect your efforts to overcome it. But economically, Socialism is pure poison.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Dystopian Rebel]

You can be a capitalist and still support liberty and dignity. It just means Microsoft will stop having to cater to China's politics and opressive policies.

Yes, but will Microsoft support these ideals in China? I wish they would, even if it means not making millions of dollars.

Of course, for any company willing to forgo making the money, another will gladly step in. Such is humanity's inhumanity.

Are you implying if Microsoft sold BSD instead of Linux they would still not be supporting those things? They must sell Linux to meet your definition?

No, I was just making a joke: If Microsoft really cared about liberty and dignity, it would stop trying to foist its insecure operating system on us. :o)

Sure, I could have said BSD. In fact, I use FreeBSD... and damn it, I still can't get a native build of Java on AMD64.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[dhakbar]

"But ofcourse, it is much easier to make a smart ass remark when faced with evidence contrary to one's beliefs."

Likewise, it is much easier for a billionaire to make massive donations than it is for you or me. If Bill was a decent human being, he wouldn't be trying to buy business-friendly laws in the EU. If he were a decent human being, he would be able to see past his money long enough to use his billions to enact real, lasting social change. Has he done that?

Hell no.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Dystopian Rebel]

To expect the end result of a collection of managers and paper shufflers to be concern for human liberty and dignity stretches the imagination.

I think a daily stretching routine of this kind would be very healthy for The Imagination.

I would respect and support any organization for showing wisdom and leadership instead of becoming sequels and prequels to Gilliam's "Brazil" (Orwell's "1984").

If Congress cannot do it, even though they're supposed to, how the heck can an artificial corporate entity ever possibly hope to?

The US Congress has its problems and challenges; the people of today have their problems and challenges. There will never be enough laws to stop people from being arrogant and cruel; people have to be willing to want something better for themselves and their children. If the world were ~all~ bad and deluded, it would have been a turned into a nuclear fireball by now, instead of just a stinking landfill.

Do you really expect every moral employee at Microsoft to quit their jobs over this?

If there are enough moral employees at Microsoft, I would like them to 1) use their voice to change the mercenary approach of the organization from within; and 2) fix some bugs, damn it!

To you really expect every Microsoft stockholder to dump their shares over this? Do you know how many millions of shareholders there actually are?

Shareholders can be ethical, too. Of course, many are probably wealthy and don't care what happens beyond their own gated-communities and bank accounts. If Microsoft was implicitly supporting the curtailment of civil liberties within the US, for example, or higher taxation, I guess some of these shareholders might be concerned.

Have YOU checked that your pension or retirement fund doesn't have any Microsoft stock in it?

Yes I have, Sir: there is none. (I am a poor Nobody. :o)

And if it does, are you willing to dump all of it today?

Yes I would, Sir.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Dystopian Rebel]

Censoring a website is small potatoes compared to anything the Third Reich did.

Indisputable. However, the comparison is apt in as much as in both cases, a company is happy to meet the specifications for a dangerous regime.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Sj0]

I agree. Bill could have made even more than he has if he really wanted to be a dick.

Personally, I think he really gets off on controlling world trends far more than the money. If it was just about the money, he could have done much slimier things than he has. In fact, Gates was one of the first to not require royalties for every program created with his compilers, among other things, and Microsoft subtley promoted piracy to improve their market share.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

You're right about the politics. Except that there are differences between China's fascism and America's. There are political differences, where China pretends to be diametrically opposed to fascism ("Communism"), while America pretends to exclude both those polar opposites for moderation, both to cover their corporate government. And there are actual differences in how people live under the different versions: America's fascism is far from complete, yet rising rapidly, while China's is nearly complete, increasing only its wealth accumulation, while actually rolling back a little, as its products inevitably empower some people. Saying America and China are the same, "fascist", is like saying American Republican and Democratic Parties are the same, "corporate". Different fascists/corporations, different degrees of control, ultimately different degrees of tyranny.

People want freedom. People also want property, and the power that provides it. There is tension between those two desires: humans are animals who think, not thoughts in animals. So we contain contradictions, even fundamentally. As time goes on through history, some events favor freedom, some favor exclusive property, some both (and some neither, but this discussion is already too ambitious for Slashdot ;). Our problem is that the two drives are cast as incompatible too often by greedy leaders. Personally, I see much hope in decentralization of mass communications, because people can "stick together" better, driven by affinity, even when mutual property isn't the connection. That dynamic can rebalance our power structure, by putting media control out of the hands of a few organized property owners, into the hands of the multitude. Whose manifold competing interests are best served by the small-scale cooperation that is natural to most people. More natural than forming a few huge, centralized corporations that monopolize power, and through it property... and inevitably destroy liberty. People don't have to understand the concepts - human nature lets us talk with each other, finding common ground to socialize. Telecommunication puts us within reach of each other socially, but out of reach of one another's property. People talking around the world lets us work together, despite those who work against us for their own gain.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

You obnoxious ignoramus, Marx was so right that his assessment was coopted by tyrants in the 20th Century who envied the "last phase of capitalism" in their preindustrial countries, and hoped to prolong it through propaganda. "Science" is the liberating, life improving idea that you're groping for, which has been exploited by Capitalists as much as Marxism was expoited by Communists. Capitalists have their abuses, and their contradictions (like corporate welfare), Communists have their own capitalistic abuses. You can't see that, because you're a slave to catchphrases like "100 million people died to prove Marx wrong". Every person who dies, happy or in warfare, without history ending in a perpetual communal state of equity, proves Marx wrong. And every one who lives under the heel of capitalism proves him right. Marx is dead. His "communism" has never yet lived, and probably never will. Our problem today is the inhuman disregard for human rights that capitalism thrives on. Open your eyes before you become just another proof of a political economics theory yourself.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

If it is, may I suggest watching The Discovery Channel or Animal Planet.

Crikey! Let's see what happens to this crocodile when I put my thumb up his butt. Ooo, he doesn't like that a bit!

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Socialism still sends countries into spirals of bankruptcy

You haven't had a look at your country's budget deficit, have you ? Just because the bubble hasn't burst yet doesn't mean your system is immune from it, in fact in a globe with finite resources it will happen at some point.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Dystopian Rebel]

You have a sucky life. That's beside the point.

Your tone shows neither compassion nor respect and coincidentally your statement may not be beside the point at all. Much of the world's animosity towards the US comes from the fact that it's too bad if other people's lives are "sucky" as long as the US makes plenty of pie.

North America is 4% of the world's population. Most of the rest of the world has never made a telephone call.

The Chinese "have a sucky life". The Africans have an even suckier life. Things are sucky in South America. In Russia, crime and corruption are flourishing, which is considered sucky even by the White House. If the President of the USA feels it is necessary to rebuke the Russian government for its corrupt and anti-democratic tendencies, what should the President say about Microsoft supporting the sucky dictatorship of China?

NOTHING. The difference there is that we want China's business.

What kind of Beacon Of Virtue is that? There's no need to debate ISMs: Any people who put dogma before people's well-being are doomed. Capitalism has outlasted some insane and cruel dictatorships. But it has not outlasted some insane and cruel dictatorships without having to learn how to treat people better. And -- surprise! -- in a global economy, capitalism has to learn how to treat ~everyone in the world~ better.

Capitalism is a philosophy of making money. Cheap labour + cheap resources + less regulation = more pie (as you put it) for ~some~. And by "some", we are not even talking about all Americans.

Building sustainable communities just makes sense. Taking care of people just makes sense.

Socialism still sends countries into spirals of bankruptcy.

Any community collapses when people concentrate on taking but give little or nothing back.

Any economy goes bankrupt when mismanaged. I direct your consideration to the US debt. How is the US going to take care of its people? By having the blacks in the Detroit ghetto buy shares in General Motors?

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

He buys goodwill with that money. Considering all the ill will his business generates, and the sensitivity to that ill will active in goverments around the world dealing with his monopoly, it's a good investment. If you don't understand how tax mechanisms subsidize rich people's philanthropy, which already buy them tangible relief from government pressure, you don't know much about philanthropy. You should learn more about the system before you criticize it.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[MutantHamster]

Because he personally went to China and did this? Perhaps you are not aware of how huge corporations like this work. Or even more likely, perhaps you are an idiot.

This has more to do with the Chinese government than anything else. For God's sake, do you think Microsoft is the one behind all the censorship there? Yup! It was Microsoft! Microsoft is the one that instigated a communist revolution in China in the early 20th century, and Microsoft is the one who turned the government corrupt and oppressive!

If Microsoft gave a shit about anything other than they're bank balance they would personally raise and army to invade China and liberate its citizens! Fuck Microsoft and their evil power-hungry Communist ways!

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Narchie Troll]

"Under Capitalism, almost everyone ends up with more pie every year."

Except in times of depression, of course. And in hyperinflationary periods. Or when the median wage is stagnant or dropping. Or in most third-world companies under colonial industrialism.

The actual truth is that socialism does not prevent growth. The socialist nations of Europe aren't in depression; hell, even the Soviet Union experienced continual economic growth. The fact that socialist economies grow more slowly than capitalist ones is only an issue from the capitalist standpoint that economic growth is an absolute good.

Socialism, on the other hand, is a belief that economic growth must take second seat to the material security and personal freedom of each person. (I do not accept Stalinism, Maoism, etc. as socialist.) It's interesting to me that capitalism is defended in terms of overall prosperity rather than individual prosperity, considering that socialism is always accused of valuing the group over the individual.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Money for Nothin']

You contradict yourself as follows:

What they are or are not is entirely a construct

But then you write:

Is it such a challenge to consider that corporations are made up of people, and hence share a collective social responsibility?

Corporations are nothing more than a legal construct -- they are a legal fiction, not physical entities. Hence, the grandparent is correct.

Corporations, given that they are purely legal fiction, have as their sole responsibility the task of making a profit for their owners. What those owners, being physical, actual people themselves, *do* with their earnings, is their business.

But the corporation has no responsibility to be "socially responsible" or any other such nonsense. Everybody from Milton Friedman on the right to Noam Chomsky on the left agrees with this (as the socialist book and film The Corporation shows).

If it is, may I suggest watching The Discovery Channel or Animal Planet.

As Adam Smith wrote in "The Wealth of Nations" way back in 1776, humans are the sole animal that exhibits social behavior. Wolves and dogs, often considered "social" animals due to their pack hunting organization, are not *actually* social animals, because when they make a kill, they will fight each other for that food. Those dog-based animals use each others' self-interest to take down an animal for food, but that is the extent of their cooperation; after that, their self-interest continues to dominate to ensure that they individually get enough to eat, even at the expense of others in the pack.

Humans, however, are sometimes more cooperative than that...

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you willing to stop using the goods and services provided by anyone who uses Microsoft's products also?

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Brandybuck]

Get some real world experience with corporations. You don't have true collective behavior, because you do not have one mind in control of the company. Rather you have something more akin to emergent behavior. Corporations will do things like donate millions to cancer research, and then turn around lay off hundeds of employees that they could have kept on if they didn't donate millions to cancer research.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Brandybuck]

At the ultimate root of things, capitalism is based on freedom, and socialism on slavery. Capitalism recognizes and encourages the economic system arising from the free interaction of free individuals. But capitalism isn't perfect (no one ever claimed it was). Socialism tries to correct the inequities of capitalism by taking freedom away from individuals to engage in free interactions.

Socialism does not recognize the ability of the individual to make his or her own economic choices, and so always needs a central authority to impose the system. In "theory" the socialist state would wither away and we would end up with one of several different varieties of anarcho-socialism. This has never happened, and there is no evidence that it ever could. Without the state there is nothing to stop free individuals from engaging in free economic transactions.

Of course, people still want socialism. Freedom is difficult. Freedom is not safe. Freedom offers no guarantees. People want strong centralized authorities to govern them instead. They would rather be serfs than freemen.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Brandybuck]

Of course, many are probably wealthy...

And many are probably poor as well. Being a shareholder isn't reserved for the wealthy. In fact, most shareholders are solidly middle class, as most shares in public corporations are in some sort of retirement or pension fund. So before you go ragging on wealthy shareholders (or advocating raising capital gains), remember that you're also talking about grandma down the street living on grandpa's pension.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

Your parallels are generally accurate, but in practice (where it counts), not so much in principle. For example, slavery is capitalistic, with people the capital. This was true in practice for hundreds of years in America and Europe. It remains true in Africa and Asia. Even the debt-bound salaried employee is to a degree a slave, though usually they've sold themself into bondage. Which is just the degree, and the terms; it's still slavery.

On the flip side, socialism need not be slavery. Some economics are more efficient as monopolies, like sewer/water systems, railways, justice, defense. The organizations owning that capital, providing those services, are best owned by the people, through representatives. That is appropriate socialism, which keeps people free. The alternative is private monopolies, which would hold the people in thrall: slavery.

These examples show the principle is not so clear, because meaningful counterexamples are practiced. As a winner, I prefer capitalism to predominate my national economics. But as an individual, I prefer the state to own and administer some capital and services that use/deliver it. Life is complex, and we have to choose the best systems for their particular operations. Fortunately, we don't have to merely choose one ideology, and adhere to its every implication. We can have a balance. That is the best way to preserve our freedom.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[MyLongNickName]

if you don't understand how tax mechanisms subsidize rich people's philanthropy, which already buy them tangible relief from government pressure, you don't know much about philanthropy

Please enlighten me. As I mentioned in the previous post, it is like putting a dollar in a change machine and getting 40 cents back. Yup, you do get to write it off. By most people (like original message in thread) seem to think that somehow the donators are getting more money back than they put in. They don't. They are just treated as if they did not earn the money.

Now, you make the argument that each dollar donated also buys some goodwill which helps his business. Perhaps. However, the folks that the Gates Foundation targets are not going to be the folks who are subsidizing his multi-billion dollar empire. Were he doing this out of purely economic motives, he'd come up with many ways to do it more efficiently.

Here's the facts: Bill donates a lot of money. Here's opinion: What you think Bill's motivation is.

I can come up with facts to support either view. This is more like a variant of the rorschach test that says more about the participants than the subject.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

More facts are in the details of tax writeoffs. Sure, there's a 40% return (not 140%) on donated money, as you save the taxes you would have paid on it, if you use the short form. But of course Gates doesn't. The tax code is written for rich people like Gates - and like me, though I'm not in Gates' category - but I am in his percentile. We accumulate writeoffs, to cover other income. There are all kinds of ways, many of them nonlinear: multiple purposes, reinvestments for credits, qualifying expenses of certain types for bigger writeoffs. There are also thresholds in certain accounts for chunking algorithms, certain countries, types of income.

And that's just the kind of thing that my accountant deals with. I'm sure that there are other laws that Gates' team (could be a whole school, with his fees) shoots for, even laws that Gates has purchased in our complex tax code not infrequently customized for rich individuals. In fact, at Gates' level, and considering how his donations line up with policies that Bush promotes as Federal charity expenses (like Africa), I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Gates' contributions allow the Feds to count his contribution as "US contribution", and thereby cut public expenses while reaching "the same goal". Such support for highly visible political purposes always get paid back. For example, Gates (and his top-lawyer father) made a lot of noise during the "kill the estate tax" debates about spending their money before they died on charity, rather than either give it to the Feds, or lobby to pass it all to their children. Their publicity fed both Democrat and Republican agendas, which also surely gets payback. Bush (and the Democrats who vote with him) has saved super-rich people like Gates (and not so super, but rich people like me) large percentages of their income in perpetuity, not just a one-shot deal like Gates' establishment of his foundation. These are not necessarily "facts", in that I have specific evidence of them, but believe me: I'm paying for tax savings, which I get, not infrequently by doing counterintuitive actions with my money. I'd bet Gates gets even more.

And with it, he gets lots of access to national leaders. Especially in the developing countries, where his greatest potential for market expansion lies, and which have much less leverage against an established monopoly. Plus he gets to groom his general public image, which can help him in every country, especially those where politicians have to choose between helping or hurting him. Which often means being with or against him, where his popularity with their people lets them let him off the hook more easily.

In that environment, Gates is doing the right thing. For himself, surely. But he's also putting money where it will do a lot of good, where others have not. So the system, and Gates, is producing a good effect. He's collecting money from people succeeding in the global economy, and giving it to those who are not. Which is old school "liberalism". It should be no surprise that the vastly powerful Gates gets rewarded for his largesse, and that doesn't undercut the value of his contributions. But it is a mistake to see it as purely a sacrifice. There's lots of enlightened self-interest there, much of it more immediate than even instant karma.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, I agree with you 100%. I'm posting as an anonymous coward to protect my karma and to mod you up.

People seem to be making comments along the lines of, "But how then does your government take care of thier people?"
to which I would reply,
It's none of the government's damn business and not its obligation.

It's hard to have an intelligent conversation with these people when we (they and us) assume very different base arguments.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[aminorex]

Under capitalism, fewer and fewer people get more and more pie until the system has totally collapsed.
But since the pie-owners control the media, they keep telling you how great the system is working.

I have a great life, but it makes me really unhappy seeing the future of OUR children destroyed by greed, and watching so much money being spent to kill innocent people that, had it been spent appropriately, all of the starving poor of the world could have been easily fed.

My life is privileged by wealth and comfort, and I am highly self-actualized. But the system is still fucked.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[TeraCo]

So what you're saying is that the desire for 'good will' is what drives him. Not the numbers in his bank book.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[rtb61]

That a business is willing to operate in this way (ignore domocracy and freedom) does reflect in the morality of that business and what it is willing (and it's board of directors and senior managers) to do for greater profits.

Now consider that the same corporation also peddles its influence in politics not for the public good just for greater profits. So is it more profitable for it, it's board members and share holders to operate in a totalatarian, undemocratic country (where the currency of power is changed from money to politics) than won't it use it's influence to remove access locally to democracy and freedom because it affects the bottom line and reduces profitability (having customers and employees that can publically express their opinion is expensive) .

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

He needs the goodwill to protect his bank book numbers. Monopolies are illegal, income is taxable, government contracts are potentially nonrenewable. Corporate goodwill is necessary - it's even got standard accounting practices for actual dollar valuations.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[TeraCo]

Surely if he is a monopoly he doesn't need good will at all. He can tell you to stick it, and you still have to buy his product. That is the very nature of a monopoly.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

Having a monopoly makes you vulnerable to government controls. Good will makes it easier for government officials to ignore his monopoly.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[TeraCo]

So you think the government let him off because he gives money to charity? Cool.

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Doc Ruby]

I think it was easier for the government to let him off because he's popular. He's popular partly because he gives money away. And he's got an ongoing image management problem, which the charity helps - without which, there'd be more demands to protect the markets from the "scary monopolist". Then there's all the other political benefits to his charity. None of this is new; rich people have been doing it, with different systems, for a very long time. Surely you don't think that all those billions in rich people's charity was because they're "nice", or don't value money, or the work they do to get it, and what they do without when they give it away?

Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him?

[Punkrokkr]

I think it has to do with tax brackets. For instance, let's say that I make X number of dollars in a given year. In in the 40% tax bracket, however, if I give $X-x dollars in donations I can write that off and I'm in the 30% tax bracket. Therefore I have to pay less in taxes which could result in me paying less total (taxes + donation). Not only that benefit, but I look like I care about others to boot.

In Communist China...

[XanC]

...there is no Chinese law against the use of the use of these words.

The more heinous laws may never be written down.

Re:In Communist China...

[msim]

Would they ban the use of the term "falung gong" though? i have a sneaking suspicion that they just might.

Re:In Communist China...

[TedCheshireAcad]

In Communist China, henious laws....write....you?

Re:In Communist China...

[DigiShaman]

Your forgot to add. "...into the ground, 6ft under."

Re:In Communist China...

[CrazyDuke]

Most people think of censorship as the government putting it's foot down and outright banning words or topics. Actually direct government intervention is not necessary.

All the government has to do is:
-pass regulations penalizing media outlets
-refuse to inform the outlets when releasing news items
-ignore questions and refuse to call on certain reporters during press conferences, if not outright banning certain people
-use other media outlets to turn one into a scape goat
-sabotage reporting for that outlet with false evidence from "anonymous" sources
-start accusations that the reporting is reclessly endangering others and threaten to prosecute
-"accidently" shoot at and imprison field reporters
-consistantly confiscate all of above reporter's recordings and notes as "evidence"
-question the patriotism and loyalty
-etc

...of media that "doesn't play ball." Any capitalist corporation will bow under such pressure because their primary driver is not integrity and values, but profits. If you are in the business of reporting news, patially or exclusively, you don't make any money if you don't have news to report or if your consumers think it's all lies.

Re:In Communist China...

[JNighthawk]

In the Empire trilogy co-written by Raymond E. Feist and Janny Wurts, Lujan tells his mistress, "Tradition is stronger than law."

Re:In Communist China...

[sconeu]

"... and charge you for the bullet."

Re:In Communist China...

[Doc Ruby]

No one is as fervently "anticommunist" as the mafia. The same way mafia "families" are "antimafia", when it comes to murdering their competing mafia families. Because they're the competition. That's why the mafia has been so connected to American anticommunism work. And so much blowback, like Kennedy's assassination, Iran/Contra cocaine dealing, etc. All these ideologies are just propaganda for the tyrants to convince the people to work for their own oppression.

Re:In Communist China...

[SEWilco]

... Microsoft's policies against Democracy survive.

Re:In Communist China...

[kevcol]

And so much blowback, like Kennedy's assassination

Oh please, spare me.

Re:In Communist China...

[daniil]

A true story: someone in Russia discovered that if you type the sentence "Legal capacity is a person's capacity to exercise rights and fulfil obligations" (in Russian) in MS Word with Russian spellchecking turned on, Word will immediately exit. It's probably just a bug, though, not a deal between Microsoft and the Russian government.

Re:In Communist China...

[sonamchauhan]

In Communist China, the law breaks you.

Re:In Communist China...

[DavidBartlett]

Heck, if that's true, communists are anticommunists too. The vast majority of communist party officials were killed at the hands of their own comrades.

Re:In Communist China...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have real journalists working for you, instead of lazy ones that don't do a good job, none of that happens. Fake stories get found out. You don't run with a story because an anonymous source told you. Do you think this out before posting? Imagine if I called up the Post and claimed GWB was having an affair with me. Do you think they'll run this because they got an anonymous tip? They'd be nuts not to vet the story on their own. Sadly that is exactly what is happening with some places today. They want the stories to be true, so they believe anything. Journalism is what's lacking here. You think the administration is suddenly discovering these new ways of f'ing with the media? That kind of shit's been going on since the 1800s.

Re:In Communist China...

[CrazyDuke]

I am not talking about people that run stories on strictly hearsay. Although, tabloid style reporting has become mainstream in the US media, this is not always the case even with them, however. Did you know that Newsweek had their story pre-reviewed twice by the Defence Department before releasing it?

"Their information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur'an charge."

Oh, and I wasn't trying to be particular to the US or to this time in my original comment. Heck, wasn't this about a media company bowing to mainland Chinese pressure? Although, I do think, personally, that the current situation in the US is much worse than the past concerning passive censorship, I did not want to bring it up. I was trying to mearly point out that it is possible to exist without specific laws to the point, not to start up some kind of political pissing contest. I am aware of such tactics also being used in other countries. Again, I don't want to get into specific ones here.

Re:In Communist China...

[Doc Ruby]

Yes, it's true - and in precisely the way you describe. All this talk about "Commmunism" is just a charade to get people to go along with killing each other to get their stuff, and power over it (and each other). Capitalists have our own problems, but we're more honest about our principles. And therefore easier (if not necessarily easy) to live with.

Re:In Communist China...

[zippthorne]

How does communism compete with organized crime? Isn't there a really scary chinese 'mafia' or something? I would think that organized crime would thrive wherever the value of a human life is low, as it encourages recruits. (but indivual syndicates probably just want to avoid CHANGE)

Re:In Communist China...

[Doc Ruby]

As I mentioned: mafia "families" compete with one another. They also compete with one another. Politics makes strange bedfellows; economics makes strange boardmembers.

Re:In Communist China...

[krishmat]

Hmm...sounds like you are talking about Uncle Sam's treatment of the American Press.

So... Does that mean we can invade Microsoft now?

[Anonymous Coward]

cuz they must be hating freedum and stuff...

So some creative misspelling...

[Goldenhawk]

Maybe if they just used "democlacy" or "fleedom" - after all, that's how it's pronounced over there, right?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Re:So some creative misspelling...

[The Nine]

No. The Chinese language does have an 'l' sound (Shaolin monks?). You're thinking of the Japanese, whose language does not.

Re:So some creative misspelling...

[Fossilet]

Maybe if they just used "democlacy" or "fleedom" - after all, that's how it's pronounced over there, right?

NO. People in some part of the south pronounce like that. Most do not.

Re:So some creative misspelling...

[The Nine]

Never mind me. It's, uhh, backwards day. Yeah.

Re:So some creative misspelling...

[BandwidthHog]

No, in the South they add extra syllables to the vowels, pronounce a trailing '-a' as '-er' and just generally mush unwanted consonants together, so they soun-- oh, you meant the South of China, didn't you?

Re:So some creative misspelling...

[Fossilet]

No, in the South they add extra syllables to the vowels, pronounce a trailing '-a' as '-er' and just generally mush unwanted consonants together, so they soun-- oh, you meant the South of China, didn't you?

Yes, i meant the South of China.

Re:So some creative misspelling...

[Truth_Quark]

It's their 'r' that is 'retroflex', meaning the tip of the tongue is curled back that makes their r's sound a bit like an english 'l'.

The GP had 'l' sounds replacing 'r' sounds, which is a correct piss-take of a native Mandarin speaker.

Seen on a chinese website...

[guyfromindia]

C2lick her3e for our dailey s1pecial on d3mocrazy!

Re:Seen on a chinese website...

[smithmc]

Do you want your DEMOCRACY to SPURT not just DRIBBLE!?!? Would that special someone like your DEMOCRACY to be BIGGER and LONGER?!?!

Re:Seen on a chinese website...

[davew2040]

Don't you mean, "crick heal fole owl dairy speciare on democlacy!"?

Re:So... Does that mean we can invade Microsoft no

[geekee]

"Does that mean we can invade Microsoft now, cuz they must be hating freedum and stuff..."

That would be consistent with the Bush administration policies, i.e. invade Microsoft even though China is the real threat to democracy and freedom.

Next thing you know...

[bryan8m]

...Microsoft will ban the word "monopoly"

Re:Next thing you know...

[lilmouse]

Oh, that words's already been patented - you're not allowed to use it!

--LWM

Re:Next thing you know...

[zerus]

" Oh, that words's already been patented - you're not allowed to use it!"

I believe it's a registered trademark of Parker Brothers and not a patent ;-) I don't mean to nitpick

Re:Next thing you know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the statement was a joke and not an actual claim. I don't mean to nitpick.

Re:Next thing you know...

[MynockGuano]

I believe the reply was a joke and not an actual correction. I don't mean to nitpick.

Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[glrotate]

Why should it be forced on China? Can't one place be free of McDonalds, MTV, Democracy and Coca-Cola?

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[compm375]

No, that would involve freedom.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[guyfromindia]

Can't one place be free of McDonalds, MTV, Democracy and Coca-Cola?
There was no McD, MTV and Coke in India till '91-'92....but was and is a Democracy from 1947..

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[kentmartin]

Can't one place be free of McDonalds, MTV, Democracy and Coca-Cola?

Apparently not. I was in the Forbidden City in Beijing a few months ago. Bearing in mind that, after The Great Wall, it would have to be the most famous historical site in the entirety of China. What do you think is smack in the middle? A Starbucks.

I wish this post was a joke, but, I am very sorry to say, it isn't.

Ah - just noticed that wikipedia article above mentions it is there too, so I wasn't just seeing things.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[BandwidthHog]

Can't one place be free of McDonalds, MTV, Democracy and Coca-Cola?

One of these things is not like the other.

Idiot.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Brandybuck]

Funny thing too, since Starbucks is the preferred coffee provider of leftists and anti-capitalists everywhere (except in Berkeley, where the native Peet's is the preferred corporate coffee clone). Find someone railing against the McDonaldization of the world, and they probably have a Starbuck's cup in their hands.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

That reminds me of the fact that in the Forbidden city all these signs on the buildings which explain things to tourists have a remark that they are sponsored by American Express...

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[fliptout]

Yes.. Chinese people apparently love crappy American food, too.

While I lived there, I was appalled to see one of my chinese girlfriends gain a few pounds after indulging at KFC.. Chinese will be as fat as Americans some day.

And seeing people eat pizza with a knife and fork at Pizza Hut.

I should have done a better job cataloging all the queer things I saw during my stay. :)

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[I_bet_this_is_not_al]

Coke was actually the leading soft drink in India till 1977, when it left due to certain government policies. It returned later in 1993 (i think). I remember the good Campa Cola days though, thats when I was growing up...

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Animats]

Forbidden City Starbucks (picture)

However, the KFC in the Imperial Park didn't have their lease renewed. There is some hope.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not me. Their coffee tastes like somebody puked up the contents of an ashtray into it, and they get everywhere.

Part of the delights of coffee shops is FINDING ONE THAT MAKES GOOD COFFEE, not just creating a world where all coffee tastes like the same grade of shit.

Starbucks just shut down good coffee shops in favour of replacing all of them with the same brand of homogenous crap. They can go fuck themselves.

Thankfully over here (New Zealand) we still have thriving non-starbucks coffee shops nearly everywhere, and we have Hell Pizza and Burgerfuel taking a chunk out of the pizza and burger markets instead of of their disgusting American counterparts. Here's to consumer choice!

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Moridineas]

Indeed! As seen: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3737162.st m

Though my personal corporate America stuff abroad experience was getting a chicken tikka masala pizza at a Pizza Hut (I was tempted to go McDonalds there, and get a LambBurger [beef being a big no-no!] but I couldn't bring myself to do it!) in New Delhi (where it was classy!)

Would love to go to China some day!

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't one place be free of McDonalds, MTV, Democracy and Coca-Cola?

One of these things is not like the other.

Indeed, MTV has scantily clad chicks ... every now and then. Nothing like McDonalds, where you only see full-clad elephants (at least 'round here)

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, I like MTV too!!!

Slow Down Cowboy!

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 3 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site administrator.
[No joke - fucking slashdot asshole censors!]

Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.

It's been 4 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should it be forced on China? Can't one place be free of McDonalds, MTV, Democracy and Coca-Cola?

Good point gl, good point! I have a feeling those Asians are totally incapable of anything resembling a democracy. Glad to see someone finally recognizing that.

As to being free of McDonalds, MTV and Coca Cola, that is a tricky one. It is all I can do to avoid the McDonalds agents of enforcement. Believe me, when MTV representatives come into your house and demand to know why it is not on your TV, you better have some pretty damn good explanations ready. And as far as Coca Cola goes I was drinking a Mountain Dew the other day when it was slapped out of my hand and replaced with a Coke. NOOOOO!!!

Melodramatic ass

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

i thought it was a greek idea.
then the romans stole and rapped it up in the republic. for witches stand.
the rest is history.

this is not a democracy.
this is a republic.
fools.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW Greece, and Rome are part of Europe.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

and europe is united?
cohesive.
me no thinks so.
most of europe is/was tied up in fuedalism.
fascism/Empirealism/socialism,ect.

i dont think the greeks considered themselves "european"
i dont think the romans considered themselves that either.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Brandybuck]

Here's to consumer choice!

We've got lots of consumer choices here, just not in the coffee or smoothie market. Those have been taken over by Starbucks and Jamba Juice. Oddly enough, they're also the primary hangouts of anti-capitalist leftists.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Democracy is a Eurocentric idea, perhaps the USA should examine its use of Democracy very carefully.

Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea.

[coaxial]

Those have been taken over by Starbucks and Jamba Juice. Oddly enough, they're also the primary hangouts of anti-capitalist leftists.

No self respecting java junkie hangs out at Starbuck's. My favorite Starbucks story is about the Starbucks in downtown Kansas City, Missouri (near the Kansas border). It's literally right next door to an indie and has the lowest prices of any Starbuck's I've ever seen.(Almost a buck lower.) Yet, no one goes in. The indie next door always has twice as many people inside. The reason? Indies have class. Starbuck'ses (Starbucks'? Starbucki?) don't. They're designed for people to come in, order a "double low-fat hot vente latte" and leave. Indies (no matter what the sector) have a community. Chains don't.

Oh and the vast majority of liberals aren't "anti-capitalist", they're just against lassie faire econmics since it inevitably leads lower socio-economic standards for the vast majority of the population. There's a whole continum betweeen the extremes. Perhaps we should use it.

In other news...

[ravenspear]

Microsoft agreed to ban "innovation" from its international search portal to filter any potential self referential promotions that might run afoul of stricter false advertising laws in other countries.

Re:In other news...

[KaptNKrunchy]

so how long till they ban "linux"

Re:In other news...

[PFritz21]

Microsoft has also banned words and phrases such as "Red Hat", "Slackware", "SUSE", "Mandrake", "Debian", and the names of many other well-known Linux distributions. Hell, even the word Linux itself is banned. And let's not forget "Open Source".

Re:In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go to kill the joke.

MSNBC?

[Loonacy]

Anyone else think it's odd that this is being reported by MSNBC?

Hey! Check this out! The company i work for is being immoral!

Re:MSNBC?

[BandwidthHog]

I was kind of impressed by that, actually. Maybe they're just overcompensating in order to avoid an appearance of conflict of interest, but the net result is that (at least for now) they're not afraid to report unfavorable news about their parent company. Let's hope that lasts.

Re:MSNBC?

[a whoabot]

It's just part of the ongoing propaganda to make the Chinese government look corrupt in a way above and beyond Western governments in the eyes of people reading about this. With a proper, though perhaps dehabilitatingly sad perspective, you can see that corruption is everywhere: not just with those people whom most of us really know nothing about.

Re:MSNBC?

[Doc Ruby]

This story is true, and tells terrible truths about the actual tyranny in China, and even American corporate complicity in it. The dangerous propaganda is the silence on American "corruption", and our government's own attacks on democracy and freedom. The dangerous propaganda is that silence that fetishizes America; the truth about China is propaganda dangerous only to China.

Re:MSNBC?

[a whoabot]

To the extent to which the story tells truth about China, it is good.

The propaganda is not just the article though: it's the entire incident. Not to say it was planned as such, just that it acts as such. MSN banning those words was part of this incident, which is for, loosely, Americans, not the "Chinese." To the "Chinese," it never happened. The incident, the propaganda, is "us versus them" identity politics for Americans, which is dangerous for everyone. This vague and mysterious "China"(which us, the intended audience of this article, know nothing about) is "undemocratic" and "unfree," whereas America is free, is democratic. That's all it's trying to leave the reader with. And that's my answer to the grandparent's question. MSN would write about this because it casts "China" as them and not us, which seems to be their agenda.

Re:MSNBC?

[Doc Ruby]

This story fails only by failing to investigate Microsoft's decision more completely. MS claims they have to follow local laws, but there is no Chinese law requiring this censorship. As the article clearly states. As such, it makes MS look more eager than necessary to support China's well-known opposition to democracy and freedom (despite much Chinese propaganda). These facts about China are known to Americans, and most other people reading the news for the past 5, 10, 20, 50 years. It's not about an "unknown", "mysterious" China; it's in the context of a China known to be hostile to democracy and freedom. Yet it raises the question of Microsoft's complicity as proactive, or merely reactive to unpublished, but still enforced, censorship rules. That's an important question. Even though the reporter didn't expose the extent to which Microsoft is responsible, or just complicit, Americans (and others who can read that MSN page at will, including privileged Chinese) would do well to consider it. For their constructive influence on Chinese freedom, and to protect their own, as Microsoft stands ready to help any government control its people.

Are you saying that the "incident", Microsoft censoring "democracy" and "freedom" without Chinese requirement, is a plan to exaggerate China's censorship and control of their people's discussion of freedom? To make China's tyranny look even worse than it is? Perhaps, but we need some kind of specific evidence to consider that the "incident" isn't what it appears to be: confirmation of what we already know about China, and new evidence of Microsoft's complicity (confirmation of what we could expect from MS). Especially because the article doesn't say anything about America, or contrast the situation with any supposedly better environment here. Which means that your insight is entirely derived from *your* preconceptions. Which aren't inplausible. There's just no evidence for them in this article. Another reason why I'd like to see more investigation of the mechanics behind that MS censorship policy. Until then, we can only speculate who's serving whom, though there's more evidence for the simple reading - while they might both be accurate.

Re:MSNBC?

[stinerman]

Its more likely a "right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing" thing than anything else.

Fredom is slavery, war is peace ... etc.

[KwKSilver]

They're just against slavery. That's all.

1, 2, 3, 4

[pmazer]

1. Ban the use of the word freedom in China 2. To save "costs", only be able to use one filter: China's 3. ??? 4. Profit!

Re:1, 2, 3, 4

[Quantam]

STOP IT! All that's left of that horse is a half-dozen bloody ribs!

Re:1, 2, 3, 4

[BandwidthHog]

You must be new here. Eventually they'll tan the hide and hold a drum circle.

Re:1, 2, 3, 4

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with the other guy, people who are still peddling this joke need to have their karma burned to remind them not to use it.

It only works if you genuinely have something brilliant. And generally that means, no don't do it. I know *you* think it's brilliant with a thought process something along the lines of:

1. didn't get first post, but have to make comment
2. how about dragging out a tired old cliche
3. can't thing of a good soviet russia one, and I've already cut and pasted from bash.org twice today... wait.... I know which one to do!!!!11
4. ????
5. Then... as you try and post .....a mod CUTS YOUR LEGS OFF WITH A LIGHTSABRE AND YOU FALL TO THE GROUND, then you BURST INTO FLAMES AND SCREAM IN AGONY "I teh hate you!!!1" and the mod is like "I always loved that cliche, in soviet russia". Then the flames spread and you are burned on the FACE.

Then you are all like saved by the GNAA and they fix you up in this pimp ass black dude gimp suit. And you go to them: "where is my post? .... is it... ok?... is it alright?"

then you refresh your firefox tab, and see your post is at -1

"Noooooooo!"

Re:1, 2, 3, 4

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Flog dead horse.
2. Rinse, lather and repeat
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:1, 2, 3, 4

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard Ron Jeremy drives an SUV ;-)

And what about all the women who do... do they have small wangs?

No law?

[guardiangod]

MSN China says it must comply with local laws, but there is no Chinese law against the use of the use of these words."

Law? You don't need law to enforce the will of the party in China.

PS. Before this is mark flamebait- I am a chinese.

Re:No law?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm Jewish, and I too feel that the Chinese need a more democratic party. Without it, there will never be the enrichment of multiculturalism, and by proxy, miscegenation.

Re:No law?

[Anonymous Coward]

"you are a chinese"...what ?....goat, ram, kite, noodle, chopstick, balloon, space shuttle, lunar mission, 3 gorges dam.... ??

I am an Indian fart. Hi, nice to meet you. Would you like to have dinner with me ?

Re:No law?

[NanoGator]

"PS. Before this is mark flamebait- I am a chinese."

May I ask you an off-topic question?

Some of the stories I've read about China here on Slashdot lend to the painting of some really dark pictures. It makes me wonder: Is it bad there or is it more like a different mode of thought? I know little to nothing about Chinese culture, so I hope you don't mind my ignorance.

Re:No law?

[guardiangod]

Normally law does apply to citizens, provided that you know your local policemen well enough that they actually goes through the trouble (1. not exactly a bad thing, they just do thier work faster if you give them a cigerette 2. most of them don't take large amount money bribe nowaday- the central government is really harsh on this kind of thing these days). However when you get to political (against the party) or economic (smuggling for exp.), the government draws the line.

Re:No law?

[Doc Ruby]

You're an asshole. Luckily, there's practically no chance of your getting laid, so we won't have to worry about your bullshit bigotry, and lies about your ethnicity and "feelings", being passed to another generation.

Re:No law?

[node 3]

Law? You don't need law to enforce the will of the party in China.

It's like that in the US now, too.

Re:No law?

[Frogbert]

Well assume for a second your a chinese citizen going to MSN China and all of a sudden you are arrested for political crimes. It may not happen like that but wouldn't you feel bad for someone if they were arrested because of something you wrote?

Re:No law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well assume for a second your a chinese citizen going to MSN China and all of a sudden you are arrested for political crimes. It may not happen like that but wouldn't you feel bad for someone if they were arrested because of something you wrote?

Dude, what are you smoking? Don't you watch the news or read anything? There was a law in China (donm't know if it's still present) that forbids people (woman and a man) holding hands in public. Talk about someone beeing arrested for political crimes. If that person actually is from China he is now either dead or loced up as they scan all net trafiic and irc conversations...

Re:No law?

[Pfhorrest]

I'm a bit confused here, Doc. How exactly is the grandparent bigoted? Taken at his word, he is encouraging the mixing of cultures and races. He says China needs to be more democratic to allow more multiculturalism and thus miscegenation (I had to look that one up - means breeding between different races). That's a statement in SUPPORT of such things.

Now granted, such an opinion is a little weird and uncommon, but I don't see how you can call it bigoted... quite the opposite in fact. Do you think he was being sarcastic?

Re:No law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhhh... if you let the Air America types build up too much blood pressure thinking about how evil America and Bush and capitalism are, they explode! It's fun to watch! Gibbage!

Re:No law?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bigoted because in Israel interracial and interreligious marriages are illegal.

Re:No law?

[CyberDruid]

Well.. even if we assume that being jewish automatically means you live in Israel. How does disagreeing with your country's laws make you bigoted?

Re:No law?

[Doc Ruby]

That is a lie. Another asshole.

Re:No law?

[Doc Ruby]

No, it's a subtle troll. "Miscegenation" has the literal meaning you mentioned. And in the US South, it's called "mixing". Both seem pretty simple, harmless descriptions of a practice which some people like, others don't care, and others hate. But the words are tagged with the traditional hatred of the practice. In the South, "miscegenation" was a crime, a cause for lynching, infanticide, ostracism of family branches. The emphasis was on the "mis", as in "mistake" - something always bad. Atavistic (look that one up :) Americans, also disproportionately Southern, are at war with "multiculturalism", too - another word that is merely descriptive, but is charged with anger for the same people whose grandpappies killed over "miscegenation".

The real clue is that the Anonymous Coward kicks off with a claim to be Jewish (apropos of nothing), then styles Chinese democracy as needing "more democratic party",then hits the "miscegenation" and "multicultural" buttons. There's a culture war in full swing in America. Fascists have mobilized the children and grandchildren of Americans who relinquished their racist power in the 1950s-1980s, with religious propaganda covering their corporate agenda. They're rolling back the civil rights protections gained for everyone, by painting them as "unfair advantages" for nonwhites, nonchristians, women, so everyone can be easier prey for unaccountable corporations, and the mostly white Christian men who run them. Their propaganda is highly centralized, focused, homogenous and predictable. It mostly works on a prerational basis, depending on the emotional power of charged buzzwords and coded phrases to provoke polarization.

It's clear to me that the AC was working that angle. If not, they could post essentially what you posted, with some kind of clarification of their dissonance. But there is none. I think I sank their battleship.

Re:No law?

[nunzio4]

Please provide one single example of official censorship of speech in the U.S.

waiting...

Can't come up with one?

Now please stop attempting spurious comparisons bashing the United States.

Re:No law?

[el_munkie]

It's like that in the US now, too.

I know it's fashionable for the "He's not my president" crowd to say this these days, but give me one actual example of this.

And to head off the probable reply, I have never voted GOP, I just think the constant use of such hyperbole makes people I would otherwise agree with on many issues sound like a bunch of hysterical morons.

Re:No law?

[node 3]

I know it's fashionable for the "He's not my president" crowd to say this these days, but give me one actual example of this.

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Any of the numerous arrests during the election.

The so-called "secret" law that requires photo ID to board a plane.

I know you only wanted one.

I just think the constant use of such hyperbole makes people I would otherwise agree with on many issues sound like a bunch of hysterical morons.

That's because you're an idiot...

Why do I say that? First, because you just called me a "hysterical moron". Next time try not to bring down the conversation.

Second, because what I said is true. "An idiot" is what you call someone who thinks a speaker of the truth (who was not, by the way, hysterical at all) a "hysterical moron".

(and no, you can't weasel out by saying you weren't calling *me* a "hysterical moron"--you clearly were, even if you thought you'd get around it by just grouping me in with them but not calling me one directly)

Re:No law?

[node 3]

Please provide one single example of official censorship of speech in the U.S.

Funny that I didn't say the US censors speech.

waiting...

Waiting? Waiting before you even posted the question? That's a bit foolish.

Can't come up with one?

More than one (not that I'm obligated to)...

The FCC (Howard Stern, Janet Jackson). The various examples where the courts say people can't talk about the subpoenas they are executing. Postcards from Buster.

But of course, you make another logical mistake--you ask for official examples. My post was about the unofficial (ie: with no law) examples, like the way many people were arrested with no basis during the election.

Now please stop attempting spurious comparisons bashing the United States.

Stuff it.

Hrm

[mingot]

Does google filter its content for china?

Re:Hrm

[liangzai]

No.

Re:Hrm

[Toba82]

No, china just blocks google period because they cache things.

Re:Hrm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes they do!

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/22/00 39208&tid=153&tid=217&tid=1

Re:Hrm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but sssh we are on ./ so it's OK.

Speaking truth to power?

[Slur]

Is Microsoft saying, in effect, that if Beijing ever decides to crack down on democratic movements Microsoft will be happy to provide dictionaries and spellcheckers with the proscribed thoughtcrimes removed? Boy they really have learned a lot about lobbying since the antitrust trial.

Last I heard China was working on their own operating system to supplant those of the West, so Microsoft might be wasting their time.

Re:Speaking truth to power?

[Quantam]

Is Microsoft saying, in effect, that if Beijing ever decides to crack down on democratic movements Microsoft will be happy to provide dictionaries and spellcheckers with the proscribed thoughtcrimes removed?

Sure. Word already complains about non-politically correct pronouns (at least on the stricter grammar settings)

Re:Speaking truth to power?

[BandwidthHog]

Is Microsoft saying, in effect, that if [the rulers of a country where they do business] ever decides to crack down on democratic movements Microsoft will be happy to provide dictionaries and spellcheckers with the proscribed thoughtcrimes removed?

You really think they're gonna sacrifice their empire for mere romantic idealism? You better believe they're gonna ride whatever tide comes ashore, in *any* part of the world.

Re:Speaking truth to power?

[coaxial]

Sure. Word already complains about non-politically correct pronouns (at least on the stricter grammar settings)

Really? I've never seen "co" suggested instead of "he" or "she". Or is it that you don't know what the difference between a noun and a pronoun is.

Re:Speaking truth to power?

[superyanthrax]

China could be developing their own operating system b/c they essentially suspect that Windows has backdoor code which would allow the US Army/CIA access to the Chinese computers, which would be very disadvantageous to China should a war start. In China policymakers always have fighting the Americans in the back of their heads.

Re:Speaking truth to power?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"Last I heard China was working on their own operating system to supplant those of the West, so Microsoft might be wasting their time."

Yep, using Linux as a base, and you better believe they won't give a damn about GPL. LOL I wonder is slashdotters will be up-in-arms about Chinese GPL violations? Something tells me "not". LOL

Re:Speaking truth to power?

[Fishstick]

>they won't give a damn about GPL

why, are they supposed to?

I mean, doesn't the GPL allow you to do whatever you want up until you release your modified version -- then you must release the source and all that?

So, if the Chinese govt were to develop their own linux-derived OS and use it internally without releasing binary/source to the public, is this really a problem? Of course, if they sold it (or gave it away) to their own citizens as a windows replacement without releasing source, that would be different.

I'm asking, not telling, because that's my (admittedly basic) understanding.

RedHat

[Moderator]

As I recall, RedHat was criticized a few years ago for removing the Taiwanese flag from their distribution to appease potential customers in mainland China. Let's face it, China is a huge market to get into; if a company that refused to ship an MP3 library with their distribution can be seduced by the Chinese market's potential, what good is a little democracy or freedom going to do to prevent Microsoft from acting in the same manner? It's all about money.

Re:RedHat

[CrazyDuke]

You just reminded me of something. I take it most of you that follow American politics even a little know about all the whining over 10 of Bush's judicial appointments? Well, after years (and particularly so in the past several months), of shrill complaints by the GOP that the Democrats where delaying and obstructing the "up or down" votes of these nominies, they finally got their way.

This is where it gets good: During the discussion over one of the nominies a few days ago, just before the vote, the Republicans demanded the debate be shut down and the vote put off. And, the Democrats agreed. What had been so important for them to put a halt to what they had wanted for so many years?

Well, it was announced that 2 communist Chinese businessmen had arrived in the captal building. And, yes, in a show of bipartisan support, both the Republicans and the Democrats stopped the important work of running the nation to both go and meet the businessmen. Not even a vote on a motion taken, just simulatious agreement.

Re:RedHat

[DNS-and-BIND]

Communist businessmen? Contradiction in terms, like military intelligence, or journalistic ethics.

Re:RedHat

[Anonymous Coward]

Many years ago the Chinese had embraced business and manufacturing, and global trade. Hadn't you noticed all the "made in china" stickers over so many products in your local stores?

Re:RedHat

[Anonymous Coward]

"As I recall, RedHat was criticized a few years ago for removing the Taiwanese flag from their distribution to appease potential customers in mainland China."

Actually it is a law all US business follows to import/export from China. This is nothing new and has been enforced for years. Amazing that so many people give out about China but don't know about this.

Re:RedHat

[NaruVonWilkins]

Got a link? I'm pretty sure Sensenbrenner cut off discussion without a consensus.

Re:RedHat

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably on the CSPAN website somewhere.

Re:RedHat

[CrazyDuke]

I went looking on the CSPAN website for it. And the 1 hour 30 minute video from May 16th 2005 they say they have on it appears to have been replaced with an archived 57 minute video from 2003 instead. WTF?

http://www.c-span.org/Search/basic.asp?ResultStart =1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Rogers+Brown

Re:RedHat

[zippthorne]

communist..businessmen.
communist..businessmen.

my head hurts.

Re:RedHat

[CrazyDuke]

Since when did autocratic and totalitarian dictatorships care if their policies make sence? Read 1984 again, particularly the parts about doublethink. And, for some overall understanding, the comparisons between the 3 superpower governments therein, the facists, the communists, and the theocrats.

Oh, and if it helps, even government run businesses need some kind of management hierarchy.

Re:So... Does that mean we can invade Microsoft no

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, a slashbot's attempt at understanding politics.

Just a sneaky way to censor...

[fm6]

...references to the People's Democratic Republic!

Re:Just a sneaky way to censor...

[zephc]

holy crap, that is comedy gold right there.

Re:Just a sneaky way to censor...

[poopdeville]

Interesting... minutes after visiting that page I got this e-mail from "james.bruns@fbi.gov":

Dear Sir(s) or Madame(s)

It has recently come to our attention that someone in your household or corporation has recently visited http://www.korea-dpr.com/. Due to this minor infraction, your constitutional rights have been suspended. Moreover, your children will be deported to Guantanamo Bay for interrogation and re-education.

I am not speaking for the agency when I say that I think you are a disgusting excuse for a human being. Your lack of respect for our fundamental freedoms is appalling and you deserve everything you'll get. Thousands of American boys have died protecting your freedom from despots like Saddam Hussein, and you just throw it away. You make me sick.

Microsoft & Chinese Bigotry

[Anonymous Coward]

This Bill Gates is the same Bill Gates who wants to open the floodgates to H-1Bs from China. Microsoft already employs, at Redmond, a shocking number of Chinese from the mainland. The company is quickly evolving into a Chinese company, with all of its moral bankruptcy. The latest attempt by Microsoft to "comply" with Chinese anti-human-rights laws confirms what I just indicated.

Note, too, that in March and April of this year, hordes of Chinese animals rampaged throughout China and demanded that Tokyo apologize for the "complicity" of today's Japanese in 60-year-old atrocities.

Now, the Chinese animals are totally silent when Microsoft complies with Beijing's laws by removing the word "democracy". Where are the Chinese animals? Why are they silent?

Why are the animals silent when Beijing refuses to apologize even once to Rebiya Kadeer for imprisoning her (a 60-year-old grandmother) for the "crime" of giving publicly available newspapers to some American friends?

Why are the animals silent when Beijing suppresses democracy?

Why are the animals silent? Such is the nature of Chinese people. The problem is not merely Beijing. The problem is Chinese society.

Re:Microsoft & Chinese Bigotry

[Barnoid]

Why are the animals silent? Such is the nature of Chinese people. The problem is not merely Beijing. The problem is Chinese society.

Oh, Ubermensch from the 'Oh Great United States of America!', land of the brave and the free!

You surely got the right to call the Chinese people 'animals'. Coz they are animals, right? These things, we can barely call them living creatures, should be happy you call them animals.

But why would you post anonymously? You got it right. Why hide? You know, there are two parts in posting anonymousy. One is the anonymous part. The other one is 'coward'.

Re:Microsoft & Chinese Bigotry

[ThePromenader]

All this pandering to the Beijing government for distribution rights, as low-down it may be because of the same's treatment of the people the company would like to distribute to, will only be a temporary measure. This period is "China's education" and it won't last long. Once it's over and the floodgates open, the Chinese economy will steamroll the world's.

Since it decided to open up, its people have been "getting used to" newer technologies - and how to make them for themselves. The textile industry is already ripe and just-opened - and not a month after Europe's quota on Chinese textile product imports was lifted, its market was flooded with a 200% increase of low-cost products, sparking a drop in the sales of more "local" companies. To compete, the local companies claim they have to relocate their factories to developing countries.

But here's the thing - even here the Europeans can't compete because China already has all the low-cost hands it needs, and to boot, it already has most of the machines and technology too. Its economy isn't one where everyone in a product's production chain, from raw material to store shelf, is aiming to make a 100% (or more) profit - which makes everything cheaper for them. What's more, since they're a bit 'behind' for the time being, they don't feel the 'need' to create new ideas when they can just dip into the existing market's and make them at a cheaper price. Bill Gates is only adding to this - just wait until the above hits the computer/software industry.

Unfortunately with the floodgates of trade already opening it will be soon too late to protest the Beijing Government's treatment of the Chinese people - the only to protest this is to refuse to have anything to do with its function, meaning cutting them off and not dealing with them - but already it's too late for that. The Bush administration is drooling at the aspect of billions of petrol-consuming new cars and they won't be turning back at any price. Not until the damage is (already) done, anyway. Beijing is full today of "western" businessmen wanting to sell planes, weapons and other technologies - but don't ask me what any of this has to do with "government" - the government's freinds won't want you to. But I digress.

The market eventually will "balance" itself, but before then, in the first decade (at least) after the Chinese floodgates open, we're gonna be in for a helluva ride.

American bashing starts now ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, everyone you love to bash America. Let us hear it now. Tons of fun. Makes you more popular.

Bow, like Australia, before your new Chinese masters.

Cue the usual crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

...that always turns up to claim the U.S. is worse than country X (where X=China) because their feelings are ignored.

So....

[Frangible]

When are the Ents attacking Redmond?

Is'nt americas working against Democracy

[anandpur]

Cisco built firewall for china and many other cos. helped china in a way that is in use against people who are working for Democratic or other free government. Now Microsoft

So what's new?

[DrDeaf]

You expected otherwise from MS? Or any other large corporation?

It's just "business"

Get over it.

Re:So what's new?

[Doc Ruby]

Just because we expect evil from Microsoft doesn't mean we have to like it, or ignore it. Get over yourself.

Re:So what's new?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary, don't "get over it." Fight it, unless you're too subservient a slave to consider it.

Not the US...

[Pao|o]

So much fuss over MSN China banning "freedom" and "democracy" when of those protesting this "injustice" arent even from China.

Must be a slow news day on slashdot.

The only thing this accomplished is drive web traffic to a MSN site

Re:Not the US...

[Pao|o]

...when most most of those protesting this "injustice" arent even from China.

We shouldnt be doing buisness with the Chinese

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

They want our money but not our beleifs. That's their right. But what are we getting from them in return?

How does it benefit OUR citizens? As you can see... China's priorities clearly have nothing to do with our beleifs, our products or our labor force. China only wants our dollar, and corperate America just wants slave labor?

Why do we allow this to continue? What is the real benefits of allowing our US based corperations, to exploit the world and devalue our country?

Re:We shouldnt be doing buisness with the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

> But what are we getting from them in return?

Cheap manufactured goods...

> How does it benefit OUR citizens?

It allows Walmart to keep "rolling back" prices. You do want cheap manufactured goods right?

> China only wants our dollar, and corperate America just wants slave labor?

Yep. Seems to be working out pretty well for everyone except the Chinese citizens that want to promote "freedom" and "democracy".

> Why do we allow this to continue?

And lose out on the cheap manufactured goods? That's unAmerican!

Re:We shouldnt be doing buisness with the Chinese

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do we allow this to continue? What is the real benefits of allowing our US based corperations, to exploit the world and devalue our country?

Dude, have you looked around America? It's Walmart walmart walmart. What we get out of it is to be able to save $1.42 for each radio controlled hummer!

Re:We shouldnt be doing buisness with the Chinese

[William Robinson]

The long term impact is there!!!

Business and economics allows us to have better understanding and recognization of mutual interests. But this interaction does not remain limited to dollors alone. A lot of ideas are also exchanged that come from project management, quality control, psychology, creativity management and so on.

Some way or other, it will dawn to China that, freedom is the way to go!!!

In other news...

[richdun]

Microsoft's has been blocking the words "Apple" and "Tiger" and phrases containing either the words "Apple" AND "Intel" or "Longhorn" AND "release date" on all its portals.

THE CHINESE CENTURY? Not gonna happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Who can stop the rise and rise of China? The communists, of course
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 12/06/2005)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml= /opinion/2005/06/12/do1203.xml

Seventy years ago, in the days of Fu Manchu and Charlie Chan, when the inscrutable Oriental had a powerful grip on Occidental culture, Erle Stanley Gardner wrote en passant in the course of a short story: "The Chinese of wealth always builds his house with a cunning simulation of external poverty. In the Orient one may look in vain for mansions, unless one has the entrée to private homes. The street entrances always give the impression of congestion and poverty, and the lines of architecture are carefully carried out so that no glimpse of the mansion itself is visible over the forbidding false front of what appears to be a squalid hovel."

Well, the mansion's pretty much out in the open now. Confucius say: If you got it, flaunt it, baby. China is the preferred vacation destination for middle-class Britons; western businessmen return cooing with admiration over the quality of the WiFi in the lobby Starbucks of their Guangzhou hotels; glittering skylines ascend ever higher from the coastal cities as fleets of BMWs cruise the upscale boutiques in the streets below.

The assumption that this will be the "Asian century" is so universal that Jacques Chirac (borrowing from Harold Macmillan vis-à-vis JFK) now promotes himself as Greece to Beijing's Rome, and the marginally less deranged of The Guardian's many Euro-fantasists excuse the EU's sclerosis on the grounds that no one could possibly compete with the unstoppable rise of a Chinese behemoth that by mid-century will have squashed America like the cockroach she is.

Even in the US, the cry is heard: Go east, young man! "If I were a young journalist today, figuring out where I should go to make my career, I would go to China," said Philip Bennett, the Washington Post's managing editor, in a fawning interview with the People's Daily in Beijing a few weeks back. "I think China is the best place in the world to be an American journalist right now."

Really? Tell it to Zhao Yan of the New York Times' Beijing bureau, who was arrested last September and has been held without trial ever since.

What we're seeing is an inversion of what Erle Stanley Gardner observed: a cunning simulation of external wealth and power that is, in fact, a forbidding false front for a state that remains a squalid hovel. Zhao of the Times is not alone in his fate: China jails more journalists than any other country in the world. Ching Cheong, a correspondent for the Straits Times of Singapore, disappeared in April while seeking copies of unpublished interviews with Zhao Ziyang, the Communist Party general secretary, who fell from favour after declining to support the Tiananmen Square massacre. And, if that's how the regime treats representatives of leading global publications, you can imagine what "the best place in the world" to be a journalist is like for the local boys.

China is (to borrow the formulation they used when they swallowed Hong Kong) "One Country, Two Systems". On the one hand, there's the China the world gushes over - the economic powerhouse that makes just about everything in your house. On the other, there's the largely unreconstructed official China - a regime that, while no longer as zealously ideological as it once was, nevertheless clings to the old techniques beloved of paranoid totalitarianism: lie and bluster in public, arrest and torture in private. China is the Security Council member most actively promoting inaction on Darfur, where (in the most significant long-range military deployment in five centuries), it has 4,000 troops protecting its oil interests. Kim Jong-Il of North Korea is an international threat only because Beijing licenses him as a provocateur with which to torment Washington and T

They aren't missing much... (Actual Results)

[Anonymous Coward]

1-9 of 37,059,663 containing freedom (0.27 seconds)
SPONSORED SITES
* Financial Freedom and Security For All - sp.quicklister.com
Financial Freedom is based on desire. I have the means as long as you are coachable and trainable. Learn to earn a 6-figure...
* Free Music Downloads - www.ez-tracks.com
Register now, and choose from a wide variety of your favorite artists and songs, such as Freedom. 100% free and legal.
* Your Financial Freedom - advantageconferences.com
Make $1K to $7K per sale, no cold calling, I will close for you.

Results
# Freedom Communications, Inc.
Freedom Communications, Inc., headquartered in Irvine, California is a diversified media company of newspapers, television broadcast stations and Internet-based businesses. ... * www.freedom.com * Cached page

# Freedom Internet Security
Surf the Net in complete Privacy! Freedom WebSecure is a state-of-the-art Internet privacy software that allows for anonymous surfing and private web browsing. more > ... * www.freedom.net * Cached page * 6/9/2005

SPONSORED SITES
* Would You like to Make Money Online?
Start earning $20-$200 every day, working less than 30 minutes a day... www.ezinfocenter.com
* Unlimited Christian Music Downloads
Download Free Christian Music. Register Now & Choose from a Variety... www.musicoffaith.com
* Work from Home
Find your freedom. Be your own boss and work from home. No experience... www.found-freedom.net
* Join Our Free Affiliate Program
Earn hundreds of dollars every month through our free SFI Affiliate... www.ezinfocenter.com
* Freedom - $19.29
Make Overstock.com your one-stop-shop for all your media needs. Find... www.overstock.com

link to the website?

[Doppler00]

Okay, the most annoying part of this article is that they never bother to LINK to the new website. What is the point of talking about a new website in a news article and not linking to it?

My quess is this is what they are talking about.

Of course, I don't know how to spell "freedom" in Chinese, but if you compare these two searches:

US
China

You can get a pretty good idea of what they block. And to think, we have U.S. companies helping them to achieve this....

Re:link to the website?

[euphonaesthesia]

I searched for 'zi4you2' and 'min2zhu3' ('freedom' and 'democracy', respectively; romanizations used in lieu of the actual characters) on msn.com.cn, and I saw no warning. I think the article is suggesting that the words may be blocked on some areas on its MySpace blog service.

Re:link to the website?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you think that a Chinese website would block all references to Tiananmen Square? It is a major landmark in the middle of Beijing, and the place where the PRC was declared (hence the significance of the 1989 protests there).

The answer of course, as another reply has shown, is that they don't block such a query at all. You're just a dumb troll, and the people that modded up your post are morons.

Re:link to the website?

[metricmusic]

Mod this guy up. The Square is too significant to be censored.

Re:link to the website?

[guorbatschow]

how can you come up with such a claim when you dont even know how to type tiananmen square in chinese? actually if you type in the right characters for tiananmen square (, you can only read this if you got the chinese charset), there are indeed lots of results. but you are right, if you bundle the search with "1989", but that wouldnt be a surprise, would it? microsoft is just trying to get market shares... besides, the main search engines for chinese websites are not google nor msn.

Re:link to the website?

[Anonymous Coward]

it _is_ being censored. search for tianamen and you get various results, search for tiananmen and you don't. the censoring doesn't make much sense in that it apparently only censors english in this case, but it _is_ there.

(capitalism+money) (democracy+freedom)

[shm]

Reminds me of that miserable failure.

Soon to come...

[TubeSteak]

In Soviet Russia, the Dupes Ban You!

Ironic..

[Anonymous Coward]

..coming from someone named "Jackie Chan Fan."

Clearly, the benefit for American citizens is cheap products. Benefit for American corporations: higher margins.

Yep, not a lot of long term thinking going on here in America. Buying everything on credit, spending money on high school football instead of advanced courses, etc. We're on the brink of getting our asses royally kicked.

That said, most Chinese I know really like America and Americans, just not our politics. As for me when I am there, I happen to like living in a god-less country, but I'm not so enamored with the totalitarian part. There isn't a perfect country to live in- when I live in China, I have simply traded one kind of stupidity for another.

Re:Ironic..

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I suppose it is ironic :) I am a fan of Asian cinema (Japanese and Chinese/HK) I have been for some time.

I'm not at all against trade with china. I'm sincerely asking a question about what folks think are the benefits of our current trade situation with China.

Personally I feel that it is a bit one sided to say the least. But I'm wise enough to know that i'm not an economics expert and welcome points of view on the matter.

The loss of American Jobs is a great concern to me. My point of view is that the wealthy folks of this country have very little to fear while the larger whole (non wealthy) of our country does.

Its my point of view that the wealthy really are not pro American and are capable of flying the coupe at any time. And they clearly doing that when it comes to jobs.

The long term result is a concern. What is to come of this? There are only so many things we can sell/make/develope. Personally I beleive we should become the worlds leader in new energy sources and automotive engineering. I also beleive if we were to acheive such a goal, we should not allow the car manufacturing corperations to simply take that technology and manufacture it all in China.

In a sense the short term experience is similar. We are giving away a lot of what we know and can do, just for cheap labor and profit margins.

Re:Ironic..

[servognome]

Clearly, the benefit for American citizens is cheap products. Benefit for American corporations: higher margins.

You forgot to mention the freeing of labor and capital to use cheap products for higher value activities; which is a long term effect.

Re:Ironic..

[rhakka]

I personally think it's important to note that the chinese government is changing. It's certainly not the same beast it was twenty years ago, it's slowly opening up, and I personally think this is due to its embracing of a role that is more of a player in the world at large. In this case, via capitalistic practices involving trade with other countries.

I think that china will find with time, that educated people make better assets, but unfortunately for them, educated people will also eventually change their system. They are on a one-way ride away from their roots, for the better, in my opinion.

Once they have something to lose, economic pressure can be used. Also, people with something to lose are less likely to fall in line behind bloodthirsty tyrants who promise something better.. they already have something pretty decent.

I'm not a sociologist or an economist or anything of the sort.. but in short, I think that helping china achieve prosperity is the surest way to make sure it changes for the better over time. And I think that's good for us here in the US, as well. Maybe not this year, but ultimately it will be good for world stability and things will balance out.

But keeping a country poor and desperate has never changed anything. See Castro, Hussein, Iran, North Korea for the most recent examples.

Re:Ironic..

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I'm pretty sure that the corperations are not concerned with this. Their intentions is to profit and use cheap labor.

I'm all for china becoming a more open society but as they close themselves off from the internet, and our companies censor words such as democracy and freedom.... I'm not sure how likely that will be. Those in power, like to stay in power :) And yes perhaps down the line, those in power will be preasured to change if they do so want to stay in power.

But i doubt the corperations are concerned about China's well being. Afterall, it is the corperations that are ignoring the well being of America and investing in China's labor force.

I'm all for improving China, but not at the expense of ruining our economy and placing a borden on our middle class.

From what i understand from the Global Trade movement is that those countries that are major participants will see their currency's balance out a little more than they have in the past. The dollar is dropping, the euro is high etc.

I'm just not so sure its a good thing. Are we balancing out, or are we simply losing?

Thats the big question. I care about American's first (since its where i live) but of course i care about the world as well. However it's our cities, our towns, our communities... our working class, and our poor that i would like to see do well. Providing them good jobs is just as important as providing them with cheaply made items imported from china.

Re:Ironic..

[rhakka]

I agree, and in no way do I think corporations are doing anything out of a sense of social justice or the like. I just think that as economic benefit becomes more balanced, than the world becomes more stable.

Simply put, inequity causes conflict and revolution. Prosperity, on the other hand, can propel change of quite a different kind. The prosperity china is shooting for will not be sustained by sweat shops. it requires highly educated, motivated people. I don't think such people will remain under tyranny for long, or tyranny that allows such growth will remain tyranny for long.

In basic terms, I don't think a top heavy world power structure such as we see now with the USA at the top of the heap and everyone else far below can last long. We've enjoy such a position for quite awhile now, but it's not sustainable in the long run. I am concerned with our poor.. but it's nothing like it is in Africa, or in parts of China even.

So I guess I'm not as concerned with us having to downgrade our standard of living a bit in the long run, if it means a more stable world, and I think it does. It's not nice, or fun, but neither is going to war to defend a standard of living that is relatively unnecessary, and I do think things will head in that direction if something doesn't give.

Corporations can do what they will, and they will, but it doesn't affect the way things work. People start at point Y and want more from there. When they finally want too much, business shifts to other people more hungry or desperate. Ultimately, the only way to fight this is for the world to be on relatively equal footing, and things like outsourcing are the mechanism that will eventually bring that to bear.

But it does mean that we cannot live like kings while substantial populations starve. I personally think that's good, even if there are downsides involved, such as workers being horribly exploited in the name of profits by being "allowed" to work in unnecesarily dangerous environments. There needs to be some policing of such things, IMHO, but the basic mechanism I think is sound. And I'm not afraid to live more frugally for it.

Re:Ironic..

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

It's all relative though. The poor living in America is in a sense similar to the poor living in China and Africa if you consider each as relative to its own economy. In other words, being poor in America may not mean living in a mud hut, but it means you're still relatively under classed compared to standard of living.

The standard of living in Africa is far lower than that of America... So the poor of Africa certainly look worse off than the poor in America... but in a sense its all relative.

If the idea is that no one in a wealthy country should be poor, then why is there poor in America?

And further more... How will bringing wealth to poor countries improve the poor? Wealth does tend to find its way to the wealthy rather than the poor.

The corperations employing "slave labor" in poorer nations is proof of this. The corperations are not doing it to improve a standard of life. It just so happens that we can pay them so little in money that it does happen to improve their life a little.

In the big picture, its still wealth, holding on to wealth. The poor are only benefiting because they are poorer than us who demand a standard of living that is greater than the extremely poor of other nations.

I guess the good side of me wants to just say "none of this is for the good of man" The side effects may help china become more of a working/educated nation but I'm not quite sure any of this has anythign to do with improving people's lives.

The second China's middle class becomes the American middle class... the second they allow their currency to rise in value.... thats when the corperations find another poor nation to exploit.

None of it seems right to me, or good for people. Sure there are some side effects that are beneficial but it appears that its all about the wealthy controling wealth and concentrating it even more, squeezing the working class into a lower standard of living.

Re:Ironic..

[rhakka]

First off, there is nothing relative about standard of living. You can take a relativistic stance, but I'm sorry, if you are starving in africa or living in a slum in america, those are two very, very different things. A good size chunk of the population of this world would chop off their right arm to have the slum standard of living. That is what I consider to be unsustainable.

Secondly, none of this is "for" the betterment of man. I just think it will tend to work out that way, regardless of what this is "for".

Thirdly, you hit exactly on how the mechanism works in my mind; when china's people grow their economy to a point where they exceed a level that other large populations are living at, then transference will occur again. But if this happens, that means that china's standard of living has increased, and the business is moving on to "greener pastures" for their perspective, for the cycle to start all over again; this is *GOOD*.

In my mind, it's kind of like seeding a field. business moves into an area to exploit cheap labor. In doing so, they bring some money and developement to the area. Eventually those wages rise, workers get organized, politicians want a bigger slice of the pie.. more wealth is directed at the workers over time, through one mechanism or another. When too much is going to the workers, then the business moves elsewhere.

however, the wealth has already been siphoned and used to build up from poverty. Now it could just crash again, but I think in at least some proportion of this cycle, it's the leg up a populace needs to then move ahead on their own steam.

I am ABSOLUTELY NOT saying it's all sunshine and roses. There are lots of problems with how it actually works and those do need to be watched and addressed. However, ultimately I do think it works out better for the poor, and the world as a whole.

If want to compete,, really, there are only a few options:

1. make stuff better, at a comparable price.
2. make stuff cheaper.
3. artificially raise the price of everything else, so our stuff can compete

3 is a band aid on a sucking chest wound, and also creates smuggling markets.
1 would be really, really nice, but the only way I see to do that is reducing labor through automation, which doesn't address the job problem (unless you work in robotics ;))
2 is the easiest, but hardest to swallow. You want jobs to come back to america? Then we need to work for less. We need to downgrade our standard of living. It's really the only way it works long term, unless we can consistently pioneer methods of making stuff better at a comparable price to cheap labor.

We don't have to live like africans to make it work, but we can't just live like we are entitled to wages that amount to a king's ransom worldwide and expect it to be sustainable. We are not "entitled" to live like kings. We were lucky enough to do so for quite awhile, but eventually, the swing goes back the other way and all of our whining isn't going to change it.. so I'd be prepared, if possible.

Re:Ironic..

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Oh definatly... the easiest way to swing things is too work for less in America. And that might actually be possible if the entire economy allowed workers to work for less. But our cost of living will never compete with China's (Well i shouldnt say never)

Its not as if i dont get the idea that we're balancing out... and we will balance out. I'm more concerned with losing the standard of living. I dont think we're entitled to it, but i do beleive as a country we should try to maintain it or improve it. If a corperation does not feel like it should support our country, then we should make laws.... STRICT laws to make sure we protect ourselves from being drained of our wealth.

The whole issue of fair trade comes to mind, which many beleive is anything but fair.

As for the issue of entitlement. I dont beleive we're entitled ot a way of life. However I feel as am American we're a team. My neighbor and I may disagree on many things but we're Americans. We're on the same team and i'll fight for him/her and i'm sure they would fight for me as an American.

The people within our country are my teammates. And from my point of view my team is being stabbed in the back by wealthy living within our own country. That worries me. Its a seperation. Apart of our team is doing something that on the surface looks very bad for the team. Now i'm open minded enough to listen to all views on the matter, and try to learn as i go, but on the surface it looks very bad for our team. And all i want is the best for our team.

Maybe we'll become a nation of stock brokers ;)

Re:Ironic..

[cortana]

The benefit for the first world is that we can buy cheaper goods. The benefit for the third world is money. They really can work themselves out of poverty, if artificial barriers are removed.

Presently, something like 40% of the budget of the EU goes to subsidizing (mostly French) farmers. For every euro sent to corrupt African leaders in aid, we effectively take two euro back from hard-working, honest African farmers.

You are worried about the loss of American jobs. In fact, those workers are freed up: they now have the incentive and ability to do what Americans do best: invent, and profit from a new market. The next Internet, cheap fusion power, whatever.

The protectionism that you favour can only lead to starvation. Trade barriers that protect American jobs just make the country fat and stupid, while killing thousands of third-worlders every day through poverty, disease, starvation.

What the hell makes you think that people in your country should be rewarded for their inefficiency? Why should they have some God-given right to work in automotive engineering, when there are others in foreign countries who can do a better job, for less money, and who could really do with the work?

Freedom is a Universal Right

[Doc Ruby]

The European idea of democracy is that it is a *universal* right of people. It's not some product to be sold, it's a right to be defended by one's government. Or the people suffer, and revolt, though not always obviously. It's not some racist idea that nationalities and cultures are so different that our fundamental humanity is not the same, including rights to freedom. Even the Chinese mafia government recognizes this dynamic, as it's used the impulse to freedom in all its propaganda, way back to its revolution against its monarchy, even when using the propaganda to destroy freedom.

Taiwanese Backstabber

[Anonymous Coward]

If we cease business with China, we must also cease business with Taiwan in order for the ban to be effective. After the Tiananmen Square Incident, we Americans froze or curtailed our investments in mainland China in order to punish Beijing. Our efforts were completely thwarted by the mercenary Taiwanese. During and after the Tiananmen Square incident,Taiwanese investments in mainland China continued to grow at double-digit rates; the Taiwanese continued to give, to Beijing, any money and technology that we refused to give to Beijing.

The Taiwanese are no better than mercenary animals.

Reminds me of...

[D H NG]

In the Vietnamese Wikipedia, where I'm a sysop we actually had a discussion about how to translate the motto The free encyclopedia into Vietnamese. Many people were against translating the word "free" literally because it would throw off a lot of readers and the Vietnamese authorities and make it a target for the filtering software installed by the authorities. So we finally reached a compromised and used "open" instead of "free".

Re:So... Does that mean we can invade Microsoft no

[TubeSteak]

In Soviet Russia, Freedom and Democracy ban Political Censors.

wait a second...

Well, hell

[rscrawford]

That's an awfully un-American action for such a large American company. If we're so committed to spreading democracy throughout the world, then it seems that every individual and corporation ought to act like we really do believe in the values that we profess. Otherwise, they're just words, and we really do prove who we are by our deeds.

And because I'm a left-wing radical like Justice Rehnquist, I can't help but wonder how long before the same thing happens here?

Re:Well, hell

[blanktek]

I think the combination of the words "individual and corporation" demonstrates a growing confusion on the nature of modern industrial organization. Corporations only have the same consideration as individuals under US law, however will still behave as a firm (profit maximizations or whatever you want to believe).

Why increasingly believe that firms somehow have some moral apparatus while owners are increasingly seperated from firms operations? The days of owner-operators are gone. Its joint-stock now and there is no way to expect firms to behave in a socially considerate way unless they are forced to. So I'm a left-winger too, but this is mostly for the right-wingers (economically speaking).

Re:Well, hell

[rscrawford]

I agree that while corporations should be held accountable for their actions, they simply aren't; and it seems that their owners just don't feel any need to adhere to any social guidelines. It's a pity, and I'm sure that there are people who somehow believe that this is a virtue, but there it is.

Re:Well, hell

[l3v1]

Otherwise, they're just words

Well, well, sometimes some people suddenly seem to get it.

Re:Well, hell

[Anonymous Coward]

... it seems that every individual and corporation ought to ....

Never. That is the point of a pluralistic society. There are very few "oughts" for "every individual". This isn't one of them.

Re:Well, hell

[rscrawford]

Yeah, I figured someone would think Microsoft's action was A Good Thing.

Re:Well, hell

[OldManAndTheC]

every individual and corporation ought to act like we really do believe in the values that we profess

"Values" and "morality" apply only to the beliefs and actions of human beings. Corporations, despite the pablum served up by their PR departments, have only one aim: to make money for their shareholders. They support democracy when it helps them achieve this goal - when it gets in the way (as in China) they abandon their support and suffer no moral qualms.

Individual managers and employees have their own values which may lead them to disagree with the actions of the company. In privately held companies the owners have the power to refuse to engage in unethical behavior, even when it is do the financial detriment of the company to do so. But public companies ultimately must perform in the marketplace, where morality does not exist, so companies that hesitate to do the wrong thing are ultimately weeded out.

American companies (and French, and German etc.) have for years worked with anti-democratic regimes around the world. Microsoft is certainly nothing new. Corporations are amoral by nature, and we should not expect them to act they way a human being would.

Business as usual, nothing to see here folks

[Asmor]

Seriously, nothing at all unusual about this. All corporations exist for one purpose and one purpose only, to make money. Microsoft can make more money by falling into line (quietly, at least, it's entirely possible the negative publicity from this might make it more lucrative to rescind this policy, but it's still about money) than championing the virtues its home country [claims to] stand for.

Microsoft is no different from any other corporation. Microsoft == Apple == Google == Wal-Mart == TimeWarner == Clear Channel, the only difference between any of them is a question of scale. The primary motivator of each is money, never think otherwise.

Criticizing Microsoft for this is like criticizing water for conforming to the shape of its container.

New York City's Freedom Tower???

[NXprime]

So what will they call our soon to be built, Freedom Tower in NYC? :) The F****** Tower? [Note: Think of a colorful medaphor that fills the missing letters :)]

Re:New York City's Freedom Tower???

[kubrick]

The French Tower? Makes up for all those 'freedom fries'...

Our Rights Online?

[Jsutton1027w]

I think this should be categorized: Their Rights Online.

And, before I get flamed for being a typical American who thinks that everything revolves around him, let me refer you to the FAQ where CmdrTaco clearly states that 'Slashdot is run by Americans' and that 'the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S.' and therefore, most of the stories are US-centric.

But back to the topic at hand, I'm trying to figure out how this kind of a 'Microsoft is evil' story got onto Microsoft's own news site...

Re:Our Rights Online?

[William Robinson]

Yeah Right.

There should be separate sections for everybody like American's rights, Chinaman's rights, Catholics rights, Hindu's rights or Project Manager's rights etc. online.

Within few weeks, American's rights will be divided into thousands of different catagories like, Californian's rights, asian ameriacan's rights, american married to jamican's rights and so on.

It's not that bad.

[NRAdude]

As a "chinese" poster exclaimed a few posts earlier, the will of the party need not write its laws; it en-forces them, perhaps evenly in same precision as (no oath) COPS and related Policy officers on Americans.

And given the political atmosphere in America, with those United States employees tresspassing on foreign landings and soils, when is the B(W)ill of the people to be pressed and acknowledge that none may subvert the freedom of press? Taiwan takes a lot of crap from China for such a small dispute as having a line drawn in the sand with water, yet Microsoft (corporation) is not indebted to screen a foreigne state religion with a neighboring foreign state religion.

Microsoft, as well as every software development group, needs to stop recognizing and acknowledging these feuds; beginning with taking all the names for countries and states, thier inhabitants and citizens, and military, out of the software and allowing the person or licensee to dedicate or deed the software by whatever is willfully typed. I keep saying to everyone that I am not a citizen of the United States because that is a contract I didn't volunteer and as well it would mean I am in equal registry with a State in their own union; I am not supposed to type anything "United States" or "United States of America" because it has nothing to do with my predominance as a Citizen to this California. When the "Terrorists" crumbled the twin-towers, I don't go around spreading filthy thoughts and suggesting ideas to influence a foreign event that occurred three thousand miles away -- I don't put all my eggs in the same tower, so that dispute in New York isn't to force me into some draft; that's not Mecca. Stop forcing me and everyone to associate or use a name for a overlay of a country just because it matches a timezone! The same can be said for website logs and registration; I don't live in "CA"; my Citizenship is to California, not "CA" of "United States." Stop the ussurpation! Let the people speak their alignment! Let the people put a picture of their flag and the country or state for which it stands!

Remove all politics from software development, and allow the people unrestricted use to dedicate it to use; we just want stable computing. Get all the registration crap out of software! I don't live in "CA"! CA-CA-CAckadoodledoo

Yeah and here is the actuall Dialog....

[tetrahedrassface]

Microsoft: we like money...

China: we like money....

Microsoft: pay me....

China: we can get it for free...

Microsoft: WE can ensure your communist rule by limiting freedom.

China: wha? freedom? There is no freedom... only work!

Microsoft: Let us show you the way..

China: Deal!

D

well

[Anonymous Coward]

wlel cnosdireng taht the hmuan mnid can udenrtsand wrods wtih jmubled cneter ltetrs, tehy cuold awlyas use 'dmocarcy' and 'fereodm'...

Microsoft isn't to blame for China's problems

[astrashe]

I know this is pretty cynical, but Microsoft can't change China. I think it's unreasonable to expect them to burn all their bridges there in a futile attempt to change things that they can't.

As a nation, we (the US) have decided to look the other way about whatever problems China might have, in exchange for money. A huge proportion of the stuff at Wal-Mart is made in China. We swallow our principles and take the cheap prices.

Why should MS be better than anyone else?

China is really big and really powerful. They're so big and powerful they can tell MS to shove it. And they can tell the US to shove it. If or when China changes, it will be because Chinese people do it. No one is going to push them into doing anything they don't want to do.

Re:Microsoft isn't to blame for China's problems

[DNS-and-BIND]

A huge proportion of everything is made in China. Wal-Mart scapegoating doesn't help here. Look around the room you're in right now, and look at the labels on everything. I bet if you make a count, China comes ahead 2-1.

Cue people contradicting me here - I'm just trying to make a point. I'm sure everything in your house from the game controllers to the pens are all made in the good ol' USA.

Re:Microsoft isn't to blame for China's problems

[Witchblade]

China is really big and really powerful. They're so big and powerful they can tell MS to shove it. And they can tell the US to shove it. If or when China changes, it will be because Chinese people do it. No one is going to push them into doing anything they don't want to do.

And would they go to such great lengths to suppress the concepts of things like "freedom" and "democracy" if those in power didn't fear that a sizable amount of their people wanted to decide what was best for China? I hate to sound like the old codger, but some of us still remember Tiananmen Square.

And if you think that foreign corporations can't have any influence on wealthy nations that chose to subjugate their people history disagrees.

Re:Microsoft isn't to blame for China's problems

[kingofalaska]

A couple of months ago, an Army National Guard recruiter gave me a water bottle with all the ANG slogans, an American flag, etc. covering it.

On the bottom? A sticker that read "Made in China."

KOA

A Case for Traditional Monarchy

Re:Microsoft isn't to blame for China's problems

[Emetophobe]

As a nation, we (the US) have decided to look the other way about whatever problems China might have, in exchange for money. A huge proportion of the stuff at Wal-Mart is made in China. We swallow our principles and take the cheap prices.

But I thought Communism is bad/evil? Or is it only the Cuban form of communism that is bad? Ah, the hypocracy... I guess since it's now the "war on terror" and no longer the war on communism, it's all good and everyone can sing all the way to the bank.

Re:Microsoft isn't to blame for China's problems

[Junnonen]

Communism isn't as bad as it used to be, because there is no realistic threat of it spreading widely any more. (And there is no unfriendly superpower behind the process.)

I guess "communism" is bad to the people living in such system, but it doesn't prevent doing business with them.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

*claps*

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

claps*

Spay it, don't spread it.

Re:of religion and self-censorship

[Doc Ruby]

There's lots of people criticizing Israel in the US. And lots of people criticizing the Palestinian government. The American corporate media doesn't cover it much, because it's *their* game, that they're playing with the Bush government. All the American media corporations have stakes in the global weapons business, and their relationships with the Pentagon, which gives out the money. They like the game, because they get to control the people who pay the bills for their profits.

This is certainly not unique to the US, or China, or anywhere else. Even in Israel, the media coverage of the government's perpetuation of the war with Palestinians is inverse to the people's criticisms of it. It's even worse in Palestine, where the government's thugs, who embody the word-of-mouth media of the street, kill Palestinians who criticize their goverment's perpetuation of the war with Israel, as "collaborators".

None of this is necessary, but it's easy. And as long as its profits keep the government/media corporate cartels (fascism) in power and profits, it's going to stay that way.

The Great Firewall of China...

[J. Random Luser]

may be good at stopping naughty words getting in. I wish it was as good at stopping spam, malware and hackers getting out.

Re:The Great Firewall of China...

[Tablizer]

may be good at stopping naughty words getting in. I wish it was as good at stopping spam, malware and hackers getting out.

Maybe we should learn from spammers:

Fr33d0m and D3m0crAAcy can be yours, just overthrow your government! Red is d3ad! (And grab some v1ag.ra while your at it.)

corporations vs democracy

[darkonc]

How many times have you seen a corporation that was actually democratic? To create such a beast requires a conscious effort to bend the rules. Generally, a corporation is a paragon of dictatorships. The people at the top give the orders, and the people below them follow those orders -- or else. Where's the inherent democracy and freedom in that?

Back about a decade ago, one shell executive was quoted as saying that what any corporation needs, is political stability, and a compliant, cheap workforce == and dictatorships are really good at providing that.

Capitalism does not embrace democracy. It simply tolerates it in the context of western societies. In other countries where there is no need to push for democracy, why should a company do so? The linkage between the two is pure political sugar-coating. This is part of the reason for the tension between capitalism and Free Software (and why 'Open Source' seems like a compelling compromise). Free Software is about Freedom, choice and equality -- none of which really serves the purposes of your average corporate meta-entity.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[rollingcalf]

Exactly ... Survey says corporations prefer dictatorships.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/econ101/su rvey.html

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Moridineas]

But then again, as it has been said--"When goods don't cross borders, armies will."

Capitalism thrives when borders are open. Despite it being said repeatedly, war is NOT good for business. Or rather, war may be good for business, but not nearly as good as peace.

And no system of government has been as effective as democracies in maintaining peace. When was the last time any two democracies you know went to war?

Re:corporations vs democracy

[killjoe]

"When was the last time any two democracies you know went to war?"

Israel and palestine have been at war for decades now.

The question you ask is a weird one though. The US is a democracy and it can't seem to help but go to war every five or six years. So why is it OK for a democracy to wage war against a not-so-democracy.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Pfhorrest]

How many times have you seen a corporation that was actually democratic? To create such a beast requires a conscious effort to bend the rules. Generally, a corporation is a paragon of dictatorships. The people at the top give the orders, and the people below them follow those orders -- or else. Where's the inherent democracy and freedom in that?

Precisely. This is why I advocate that corporations, government bodies and all other types of organization should treated as the same class of entity, and held to the exact same standards. Governments and corporations as they exist today are both held to too lenient standards, but in different ways: government bodies are absolved of financial responsibility because they can take their funding at gunpoint if it comes down to it, and corporations are absolved of behavior responsibility because they are inherantly dictatoral/hierarchical in command, yet no individuals are held directly accountable for the actions of the corporation.

Capitalism does not embrace democracy. It simply tolerates it in the context of western societies.

I have to disagree with you here, but only semantically. CORPORATISM (a.k.a. fascism) does not embrace democracy, at least not the form of corporatism practiced in most capitalist economies today. The financially irresponsible government protects (though legal acknowledgement and force of law) the existance and of behaviorally irresponsible corporations, who in turn provide further financial support to the government.

But capitalism, in the sense of a free and competitive marketplace, is very compatible with true democracy. Democracy is, in a sense, a capitalist marketplace of wills. The parallels are clearly evident: in a democratic system, if you don't like what a candidate is offering don't give them your vote. In a capitalist system, if you don't like what a seller if offering you don't give them your money. And vice versa for both, of course, if you do like what they're offering.

If all government bodies, corporations, and other organizations were held to both democratic and capitalist (free-market) ideals, you would see a lot more financial responsibility in the various departments of government (when they don't have a get-out-of-debt-free card due to taxes), and a lot more behavioral responsibility in the corporations (when they don't have a get-out-of-jail free card due to broken legal constructs).

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Cally]

Capitalism does not embrace democracy. It simply tolerates it in the context of western societies. In other countries where there is no need to push for democracy, why should a company do so?

Capitalism is most efficient at improving the aggregate happiness ni a given society or economy which respect political freedoms. That's the pragmatic argument. Personally, I would hope that a corporation company firm or whatnot would reject money-making schemes that would involve unethical conduct, even if it's legal, beacuse the individual humans comprising the corporation have moral and ethical standards of their own. Sadly, a meme that seems to have originated sonmewhere in the 20th century development of global corps has it that employees are expected to hang up their ethics at the office door in the morning. In response to that we have various ethical consumer movements. I don't know how prevalent the phenomena is in the US or elsewhere in Euroe but here in the UK there's a growing range of companies who actively seek ethical business practices. For example my bank ((the Co-Op Bank) doesn't invest in firms using sweatshop labour, nivolved in tobacco or the arms trade, and so on. I just posted my vote on which charity they should give their annual donation to (I picked TraidCraft.) Every supermarket now has a range of Fair Trade products - this sector is booming. Likewise my personal pension funds are mostly invested in green and other 'ethical' endeavours such as Ballard (hydrogen fuel cells.)

At the same time,single-issue campaigning groups have had a fair degree of success lobbying with the weapon of bad publicity and boycotts of known-evil corporations. At one end of the scale you have McDonalds trying to fend of a tidal wave of bad PR by launching salads, fruit & veggie products (and KFC and BurgerKing are doing likewise); at the same time a large number of the above-mentionde megacorps are actively calling for mandatory action on CO2 emissions and global warming, whilst voluntarily introducing energy-efficiency features to their products and business practices. Of course there's a long, long way to go with the latter, and voluntary action is less noi substitute for proper legal requirements; and the need for those mostly voluntary orgs and communities (like... Slashdot?) to focus on particular companies and their busines practices. Don't you think Microsoft's alleged 'security focus' is partly a result of the growing recognition in society that Windows security is appalling, and that this view has sperad from the hardcore geeks?

Re:corporations vs democracy

[MonsoonDawn]

If you think the Palestinian Authority is a Democracy then you need to go back to school. The PA is a tribal oligarchy.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that Israel is a democracy, then you need to take some time to live in the occupied territories. The Knesset is about as democratic as apartheid South Africa was.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Moridineas]

wow, the Palestinian Authority is in no ways a democracy! yikes.. it may have been somewhat reformed in the last year or two, but nowhere near.

And as to your other question, why, it was somewhat rhetorical. When WAS the last time you saw two democracies go to war? Maybe there is something inherent in democracies that makes them not go to war with each other.

And the question was also relating back to my earlier quote--"when goods don't cross borders, armies will." In case you didn't know, this is a quote by a famous 19th century Frenchman--Frederic Bastiat. Somewhat ironically, France was a bastion of early classic liberal thought.

And it's a good observation!

Re:corporations vs democracy

[killjoe]

" wow, the Palestinian Authority is in no ways a democracy!"

Well they were elected. Of course the idea of elections by an occupied people is kind of a joke but they were elected nevertheless. The UN observed the election and verified it too.

"When WAS the last time you saw two democracies go to war? Maybe there is something inherent in democracies that makes them not go to war with each other."

Once again. The US goes to war every five to ten years. Sometimes it's against democracies, (iran, panama etc) and other times it's not. So the better question is why do democracies like to go to war so often.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Moridineas]

Like I said, Palestine isn't there yet. There HAVE been some reforms. Arafat was for all intents and purposes a dictator, and those in power are his groomed successors. Yes, there have been some moves towards a good democracy, but you can't call Palestine a vibrant democracy yet. That's completely stretching the terms.

Also, I thought this too obvious to mention earlier--the US isn't at war with the Palestinian authority. In fact they receive a huge amount of aid from us. So I'm not sure what your point is?

Iran likewise is no democracy. It has the FORM of a democracy, and is making strides, but until the Council of Guardians doesn't eliminate 90%+ of the candidates before elections occurs, Iran cannot be called a democracy. This has been the situation since 1978.

Panama? If you recall, the US invaded because the Noriega regime refused to leave power and annulled internationally certified election results. Again, you can't call this a democracy. Noriega is currently in jail right now for being a drug runner!

So I challenge you yet again--find an example of two democracies going to war. I'm not saying you can't find a single example, but it's hard, and so far you haven't touched on one.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[killjoe]

" Like I said, Palestine isn't there yet."

Like I said. They had an election which was monitored and approved of by the UN. That means they had a legally elected political apparatus which is the definition of democracy.

"the US isn't at war with the Palestinian authority."

No Israel is at war with palestine. One democracy is at war with another democracy and has been for the last twenty years or so.

"Iran likewise is no democracy."

Iran WAS a democracy when the US engineered a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and installed the shah. Again one democracy attacked another one.

"So I challenge you yet again--find an example of two democracies going to war."

Despite the complete irrelevence of your point I have pointed out two examples. Now answer me this.

Democracies seem to be rather fond of going to war and killing people who don't agree with them. US goes to war once every five to ten years like clockwork. Israel is perfectly happy to keep a few million palestenians under brutal occupation. South Africa ran state sponsored apartheid for decades. England went to war in the falklands. Apparently there is nothing that special about democracies, they kill by bombs, they kill by blockades, they kill by engineering coups, they kill by supporting "freedom fighters", they keep minorities under brutal occupation etc.

Apparently all that's perfectly OK with you as long as they don't attack another democracy. Is that because you feel that only humans who live under a democracy are worth something and that it's perfectly OK to kill humans who don't live in democracies by the tens of thousands?

Re:corporations vs democracy

[darkonc]

Possibly the US invasion of Guatemala (1954), although I'm not sure if that was a direct invasion. -- It was definitely US-backed.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[darkonc]

I would second the AC's comments.. The Israeli government is racist entity in that it effectively ignores the existence and rights of the vast majority of the Palestinians within it's claimed borders.

Although the Palestinian authority is nominally elected, it 'rules' only at the whims of the Israeli government, which undertakes military actions within Palestinian lands as an 'internal' action.

If you accept Israeli claims that it's actions on Palestinian soil are an 'internal security' matter, then what is going on in Israel is a civil war between the ruling Jewish faction(s) and the disenfranchised Palestinian faction(s).

If you accept Palestinian claims that it is a sovereign country and Israeli actions are invasionary, then the Palestinian Authority inherited a war at it's inception rather than being involved in the starting of one. -- then, of course, you run into the question of whether the PA is actually a democracy, and I'm not even close to knowing enough to begin to answer that question.
Before the inception of the PA, the PLO was a paramilitary/ revolutionary unit seen by many as even terrorist. Although it claimed to represent the Palestinian people, I don't think it even pretended to be a democratic entity.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Moridineas]

Like I said. They had an election which was monitored and approved of by the UN. That means they had a legally elected political apparatus which is the definition of democracy.

No, this is not the case. A non-country, without power, that has SOME elected officials, and only for the past 1 year is not a democracy. Not to mention, Arafat was de facto dictator. You CAN make an argument that the PLO is on the path to democracy. You CAN'T call the Palestinian authority of even 2 years ago remotely democratic. That's NOT the definition of democracy. Communist russia?

No Israel is at war with palestine. One democracy is at war with another democracy and has been for the last twenty years or so.

At war? I don't think so. And why 20 years? What happened in 1985

Iran WAS a democracy when the US engineered a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and installed the shah. Again one democracy attacked another one.

No this is not true. Iran at any period under the shah was not REMOTELY a democracy. The Majlis was powerless in the role of the governmen. Yes, Mossadegh temporarily rose to power (and took control of the military--democratic?). Yes, the shah was temporarily exiled. However saying the US engineered the coup is not true. Yes, the US was there, and spent money, and had people on the ground. THe coup was executed by the Iranian military. At the point of the coup, Mossadegh was very unpopular--he had lost the support of the clerics, the masses, and the socialist parties (Tudeh and others). The coup, in short, was complicated. I'd be interested in discussing the finer points of this if you'd like.

Despite the complete irrelevence of your point I have pointed out two examples. Now answer me this.

No, I'm sorry, the PLO is not a democracy, and it's not a country. Iran under the shah was most definitely NOT a democracy, or even close. Not the mention the coup was NOT a war. The Coup was not solely orchestrated by the US either. Your points are irrelevant.

Democracies seem to be rather fond of going to war and killing people who don't agree with them. US goes to war once every five to ten years like clockwork. Israel is perfectly happy to keep a few million palestenians under brutal occupation. South Africa ran state sponsored apartheid for decades. England went to war in the falklands. Apparently there is nothing that special about democracies, they kill by bombs, they kill by blockades, they kill by engineering coups, they kill by supporting "freedom fighters", they keep minorities under brutal occupation etc.

I disagree with your assertion that the US goes to war every 5 to ten years. South Africa is CLEARLY not a democracy. England POSSESSES the Falklands and was protecting their territory.

Apparently all that's perfectly OK with you as long as they don't attack another democracy. Is that because you feel that only humans who live under a democracy are worth something and that it's perfectly OK to kill humans who don't live in democracies by the tens of thousands?

No, but I would say the number of civilians killed by/under dictatorships, fascisms, military governments, etc FAR exceeds those killed in conflicts between democracies and others.

And back to my point--I never said democracies don't go to war with non-democracies--in fact if you recall I stated early on "IF GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES WILL" ... Democracies very, very rarely go to war with each other. I still don't think you've pointed out a single example.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Moridineas]

Like I said. They had an election which was monitored and approved of by the UN. That means they had a legally elected political a pparatus which is the definition of democracy.1

No, this is not the case. A non-country, without power, that has SOME elected officials, and only for the past 1 year is not a democracy. Not to mention, Arafat was de facto dictator. You CAN make an argument that the PLO is on the path to democracy. You CAN'T call the Palestinian authority of even 2 years ago remotely democratic. That's NOT the definition of democracy. Communist russia?

No Israel is at war with palestine. One democracy is at war with another democracy and has been for the last twenty years or so.

At war? I don't think so. And why 20 years? What happened in 1985

Iran WAS a democracy when the US engineered a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and installed the shah. Again one democracy attacked another one.

No this is not true. Iran at any period under the shah was not REMOTELY a democracy. The Majlis was powerless in the role of the governmen. Yes, Mossadegh temporarily rose to power (and took control of the military--democratic?). Yes, the shah was temporarily exiled. However saying the US engineered the coup is not true. Yes, the US was there, and spent money, and had people on the ground. THe coup was executed by the Iranian military. At the point of the coup, Mossadegh was very unpopular--he had lost the support of the clerics, the masses, and the socialist parties (Tudeh and others). The coup, in short, was complicated. I'd be interested in discussing the finer points of this if you'd like.

Despite the complete irrelevence of your point I have pointed out two examples. Now answer me this.

No, I'm sorry, the PLO is not a democracy, and it's not a country. Iran under the shah was most definitely NOT a democracy, or even close. Not the mention the coup was NOT a war. The Coup was not solely orchestrated by the US either. Your points are irrelevant.

Democracies seem to be rather fond of going to war and killing people who don't agree with them. US goes to war once every five to ten years like clockwork. Israel is perfectly happy to keep a few million palestenians under brutal occupation. South Africa ran state sponsored apartheid for decades. England went to war in the falklands. Apparently there is nothing that special about democracies, they kill by bombs, they kill by blockades, they kill by engineering coups, they kill by supporting "freedom fighters", they keep minorities under brutal occupation etc.

I disagree with your assertion that the US goes to war every 5 to ten years. South Africa is CLEARLY not a democracy. England POSSESSES the Falklands and was protecting their territory.

Apparently all that's perfectly OK with you as long as they don't attack another democracy. Is that because you feel that only humans who live under a democracy are worth something and that it's perfectly OK to kill humans who don't live in democracies by the tens of thousands?

No, but I would say the number of civilians killed by/under dictatorships, fascisms, military governments, etc FAR exceeds those killed in conflicts between democracies and others.

And back to my point--I never said democracies don't go to war with non-democracies--in fact if you recall I stated early on "IF GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES WILL" ... Democracies very, very rarely go to war with each other. I still don't think you've pointed out a single example.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[cthulhubob]

He didn't say Iran was a democracy under the Shah. That's obviously false. He said the U.S. *installed* the Shah, engineering the coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister, which is true.

The U.S. (mainly through the arm of the CIA) has a long history of interfering with democratic elections and overthrowing elected leaders in other countries.

A brief timeline:

1953

Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.

1954

Guatemala -- CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

1957-1973

Laos -- The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos' democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA's army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

1959

Haiti -- The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

1961

Ecuador -- The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

Congo (Zaire) -- The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba's politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.

1963

Dominican Republic -- The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.

Ecuador -- A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

1964

Brazil -- A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America's first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists" are no more than Branco's political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.

1965

Indonesia -- The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.

Dominican Republic -- A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs ev

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Moridineas]

Well, I disagree with the interpretations of a lot of these events, and what I said "when goods don't cross borders, armies will" stil stands. It's worth noting that most of these cases are when soviet leftist regimes that had stated goals of seizing property took over.

I honestly don't know enough about South america to answer most of those--my focus is Middle East/Central Asia.

Let's look at Iran though:

Iran - CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.

if all of his points are as biased and incorrect as this, I would take everything on that page with a HEAVY grain of salt.

1. The CIA did not overthrow Mossadegh. The CIA ASSISTED a preexisting coup plot. There was a small amount of CIA money and a small amount of advisors. Secondly, Mossadegh was an elected Prime Minister (elected during the reign of the Shah) who started off with little power. The Majlis, parliament, of Iran was practically useless. Mossadegh forced the Shah into exile, and seized control of the military. Later, Mossadegh became very, very unpopular (I mentioned this all earlier). That's when the coup happened.

2) The US did not randomly make a shah. The Shah CAME BACK to Iran from exile when Mossadegh who had forced him to leave was gone. Yes, SAVAK was completely brutal and terrible. The shah was the Shah before Mossadegh, and after. If you want to see brutal, look at his father Reza Khan/Shah Pahlavi. Brutal from the beginning.

Another example of twisting of facts:

Afghanistan -- The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

It makes it sound as if the US fucked up Afghanistan. Do you know how many civil wars there have been in Afghanistan in the 20th century alone? By my count, around 3-4, BEFORE the soviet invasion.

In short, the US HAS done a lot of shitty stuff. But, I would take this page with a heavy, HEAVY grano salis, as all of the events that I do know about are portrayed VERY inaccurately.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[cthulhubob]

Yes, they aided an existing coup plot. Does that invalidate the point?

The great-grandparent or so stated that the U.S. had never done anything to a democracy. Aiding a military coup against a democratically elected leader counts in my book.

Also, it's a non-sequiter whether the elected governments were liberal, communist, socialist, or whatnot. They were democratically elected. That would make actions against them actions taken against democracies.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[killjoe]

"No, this is not the case. A non-country, without power, that has SOME elected officials, and only for the past 1 year is not a democracy. Not to mention, Arafat was de facto dictator. You CAN make an argument that the PLO is on the path to democracy. You CAN'T call the Palestinian authority of even 2 years ago remotely democratic. That's NOT the definition of democracy. Communist russia?"

Once again. They had an election which was monitored and approved by the UN. I do conceed that the idea of an occupied nation holding elections is kind of silly.

"Iran under the shah was most definitely NOT a democracy, or even close."

Of course not. The US engineered a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the shah instead. One democracy waged war on another one.

"I disagree with your assertion that the US goes to war every 5 to ten years."

Disagree all you want, just crack open a history book and check for yourself.

"South Africa is CLEARLY not a democracy. "

It's not? Just exactly how do you define a democracy anyway?

"No, but I would say the number of civilians killed by/under dictatorships, fascisms, military governments, etc FAR exceeds those killed in conflicts between democracies and others."

Ah well I guess that makes it OK then. As long as you kill less people then brutal dictators everything is perfectly OK. So if george bush kills one less person then Saddam did then he is better then saddam!.

"-I never said democracies don't go to war with non-democracies"

I know, that's what bothers me. To you it seems perfectly OK for democracies to go to war as long as it's not with another a democracy. You seem to feel that people who live in countries who are not democracies should be killed or subjected by democracies if they don't buy their goods.

"IF GOODS DON'T CROSS BORDERS, ARMIES WILL"

Well good cross the israeli palestenian border every day, so do armies. Even if what you sia d was true, (it's not as israel and palestine prove) what an awful immoral statement to make. Buy my shit or I will kill you.

"Democracies very, very rarely go to war with each other. I still don't think you've pointed out a single example."

You are not reading my posts are you?

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Moridineas]

I think we're both having a very clear inability to communicate. I say "you haven't pointed out a single example of two democracies going to war" ... I don't see you refuting this ... you think I'm not reading your messages.

Read my other message about Iran--I think you misunderstand the situation in Iran.

Re: South Africa. A society with upwards of 80% of the population disenfranchised is not a democracy.

Incidentally, thanks for responding for so long! I always enjoy a discussion with people with very different viewpoints from mine that doesn't degenerate into trash talk etc, thanks!

Read my other post to the message you just replied to--I'm by no means saying that democracies don't do shitty things. I'm not saying at all that democracies don't go to war with non-democratic nations. Particularly in South america e.g. America has done a LOT of shitty things (though as I said in my other message, it's of worth to note that in many of these cases it was cold war dynamics playing out--with leftist regimes with stated goals of seizingp roperty taking power with soviet backing). Like I said, I'm not saying democracies are magically better, and I'm not sayin g they don't do shitty things, and I'm not saying it's ok for democracies to fight with non-democracies. You can't find a quote of me saying any of those things. What I noted, at the beginning, and have resaid in every message is "Democracies very rarely go to war with each other"

And you are incorrect. You may not know this, but Israel controls the borders of the west bank and gaza strip VERY closely, allows the Palestinian territories no direct contact with any outside country, no shipping, and no airport. That is not the definition of free border. I would, incidentally, also dispute that they are at war.

And I don't think people should be killed if they don't buy goods--again, how can you think I'm saying this, I don't think you understand my point. I'm pointing out, actually Msr Bastiat pointed out, that open borders = peace. This is actually not at all related to democracy (except democracies TEND to be best at having open borders--this is by no means a rule). Simply stating that countries in which goods and people cross freely and unmolested don't tend to go to war with each other. That's it--if you'd be interested in reading some of Bastiat's work, it's really astonishingly interesting, and I'd be glad to give you some references.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Moridineas]

Yes, it does invalidate the point. I never said "The U.S. has never done anything to a democracy" I said "democracies very rarely go to war." I have never said democracies NEVER go to war.

People are so eager to refute this simple point that they are grasping at the slightest of straws--"the US assisted a coup that overthrow a narco-dictator who had been elected at one point and then annulled the electoral system--see, the US is bad"

Like I said, I honestly don't know enough about most of the South american cases to comment in detail. Unfortunately.. Most such actions were done in the name of preserving open elections and democracy. ~shrug~ Probably BS to a large degree. It's all the cold war. Most of the very few incidents people have been citing can be related directly back to Soviet sponsored regimes taking over. Yes, we did bad things. But it was war with the Soviet union, basically.

Personally I think the point is more or less over as no has come up with a non-US example, and the US examples are mostly cold war by proxy. Yes it sucks, but the truth is (as I do still see it): democraacies DO go to war with each other very rarely. An order of magnititude more rarely than non-democracies.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[killjoe]

"Re: South Africa. A society with upwards of 80% of the population disenfranchised is not a democracy."

Why not? A democracy is simply a method of electing leaders. Once elected if the leaders choose to keep 80% of the people then it's still a democracy. Nowhere is this more plain then in Israel where a parlimentarian democracy is subjugating millions of palestenians.

As for Iran I read your posts and I disagree with your spin on what happened. You seem to feel that the only valid democratically elected leaders are the ones that agree with US policy. That's crap.

"You can't find a quote of me saying any of those things. What I noted, at the beginning, and have resaid in every message is "Democracies very rarely go to war with each other""

I am questioning why you feel to make this nitpicky (and wrong) statement. So what? Why is this even remotely interesting or important when me and the other person have shown voluminous examples of democracies acting as bad or worse then tyrants. Why do you attach such importance to this silly statement. It means nothing. Democracies opress minorities, democracies support tyrants, democracies arm the evil of the world, democracies institute apartheid, democracies sanction slavery, democracies fund and train death squads but hey THEY DON"T WAGE WAR EACH OTHER and that's the important thing byu golly.

"Simply stating that countries in which goods and people cross freely and unmolested don't tend to go to war with each other. "

Two words. Israel, palestine.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[Moridineas]

Why not? A democracy is simply a method of electing leaders. Once elected if the leaders choose to keep 80% of the people then it's still a democracy. Nowhere is this more plain then in Israel where a parlimentarian democracy is subjugating millions of palestenians.

I don't understand ... "if the leaders choose to keep 80% of the people" ? We can disagree with definition of democracy then. I don't believe South Africa was a democracy. It was a pseudo-democracy, but not full. This is semantics and definitions though. As the generally excepted definition of democracy (look it up)--a democracy is control exercised by the entirety of a population.

As for Iran I read your posts and I disagree with your spin on what happened. You seem to feel that the only valid democratically elected leaders are the ones that agree with US policy. That's crap.

I wouldn't say that at all. France is democratic. Turkey is democratic. Venezuela is democratic. All these countries have governments that disagree with the US. My point about Iran is that at no point under the Shah can the government be described as remotely democratic. Mossadegh was elected under the shah. Just because there are elections does not a democracy make.

I am questioning why you feel to make this nitpicky (and wrong) statement

I don't see it as nitpicky or wrong. The point of the matter is the growth of democracy across the world has brought about much greater stability than ever before. No, democracies are not flawless, but then I never said that. Yes, democracies DO see non-democratic regimes as natural foes. No surprise. I don't see why you're surprised by this? You are annoyed by my statement--argue with it--and when you can't dispute the facts attack the argument as "nitpicky and wrong" .. I don't understand what's the point of this.

And it does mean a lot. yes, some democratic governments have bad track records. They don't compare to China or the Soviet Union.

And again--let me put this in very simple terms for you--Palestine is not a country. Palestine (if you wish to treat it as a country) did not have elections until the past year or so. Israel and Palestine are today at a FAR better place in terms of peace and agreements than they have been in the past..maybe 30 years. Just because today the Palestinian authorities show SOME democratic leannings does not mean they've been a democracy for the past 55 years. Heck, the IDEA of a independent Palestine is newer than that. I don't understand your arguments here.

ultimately the point is, if everyone had governments like those in Western Europe (let's ignore the Us--they're pretty much the only ones you can find examples for that are even SOMEWHAt legitimate) the world would be even more stable.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[darkonc]

No, I'm sorry, the PLO is not a democracy, and it's not a country. Iran under the shah was most definitely NOT a democracy, or even close. Not the mention the coup was NOT a war. The Coup was not solely orchestrated by the US either. Your points are irrelevant.

The US engineered the coup in Iran to put the Shaw back in place as the dictator. I'm not sure whether or not the the government in place at the time was democratic, but it was definitely in place because of a popular revolt and had popular support vs the shaw.
That was the main reason why the US embasy in Tehran was taken in 1979.. The people of Iran were deathly afraid that the US was plotting to put the shaw back in power again and that fear was far more powerful than Kohmeni's popularity at the time. (He tried to talk the hostage-takers out, but failed).

England POSSESSES the Falklands and was protecting their territory.

England didn't go to war against the Falklands.. They went to war against Argentina -- but I think that Argentina was a dictatorship at the time.

No, but I would say the number of civilians killed by/under dictatorships, fascisms, military governments, etc FAR exceeds those killed in conflicts between democracies and others.

The US is estimated to have killed between 100,000 and 1/2Million in Iraq either directly or indirectly. This puts it into running with other conflicts around the world, and far exceeds the number of americans killed by all forms of terrorism in the last decade.

Re:corporations vs democracy

[killjoe]

" The point of the matter is the growth of democracy across the world has brought about much greater stability than ever before."

You have got to be kidding me. There has been continious war raging across this planet for the last two decades and more. Where is this vaunted stability you speak of?

"I don't see why you're surprised by this? You are annoyed by my statement--argue with it--and when you can't dispute the facts attack the argument as "nitpicky and wrong" .. I don't understand what's the point of this."

It's silly statement to make. It's like saying, Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate people but he always put the toilet seat down after he used it. The fact that democracies fund death squads and murder people by the tens of thousands is somehow completely forgiveable by you becuase you think they are killing killing people in non democracies. Of course that's wrong. US funds and trains death squads in democracies as well as non democracies.

" Palestine (if you wish to treat it as a country) did not have elections until the past year or so."

Go read a history book. The had elections before the last year. The elections were monitored by the UN and approved by the UN. It's apparent you are working from a point of complete ignorance here.

"Heck, the IDEA of a independent Palestine is newer than that. I don't understand your arguments here."

Here I will try and put it into simple words. Israel sell goods to palestine, palestenians cross the border to work shit jobs in israel. Good and services flow across the border and yet so do the armies. So your argument about when goods don't cross borders armies will is proven to be wrong. You screaming about how palestine is not a country and is not a democracy does nothing to help your cause. Whenever I or other people point to an example where you are proven wrong you simply start whining that those countries are not democracies despite the fact that they held monitored elections.

"ultimately the point is, if everyone had governments like those in Western Europe (let's ignore the Us--they're pretty much the only ones you can find examples for that are even SOMEWHAt legitimate) the world would be even more stable."

You keep believing that if it makes you feel better. What makes you think those democracies won't fund death squads or impose cruel sanctions against each other? I and others have pointed out copious examples of democracies ferment instability, pain and suffering towards their own residents and other countries. But hey you go on living in your dream world where medocracies are all sugar and spice.

couldnt put it better myself

[minus_273]

from the article

Attempts to input words in Chinese such as "democracy" prompted an error message from the site: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item."

Man, I HATE communism.

Re:couldnt put it better myself

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I HATE communism.

Communism is an economic philosophy that the current Chinese regime no longer adopts. What I suspect you dislike is not the economic policy but the political policy adopted by the Chinese government (single party, weakly enforced civil liberties, etc).

Oddly enough, this isn't too different from the current politcal situation of the USA (PATRIOT Act, two party duopoly, etc)

Re:couldnt put it better myself

[Anonymous Coward]

>Man, I HATE communism.

Why do people continue to mix up communism and a corrupt government hiding behind the facade of 'practising communism'?
Communism is the antithesis of capitalism *not* democracy. Go look up wikipedia.

The chinese communist party is and has been practising a dictatorship regime; the reality is, communism is but a lip-service in china nowadays.

Re:couldnt put it better myself

[HishamMuhammad]

from the article

But while China's ruling Communist Party deals harshly with political dissenters, there is no Chinese law that bars the mere use of words such as democracy.

Man, I HATE propaganda.

The message you quoted is courtesy of Microsoft and was not requested/demanded by the Chinese government.

What I don't know is if they're doing this to please the Chinese government, since they're after their money (also from the MSN article: "MSN this year became the first big international internet service to win a licence to offer value-added telecoms services in China") or to please the American government, by painting this picture of totaliarianism in China ("forbidden speech") so that the American people feels "more free" in comparison. Probably both. Money seems to be the only ethics in place.

Re:Mercenary Taiwanese Scum

[Pan Sola]

I find some of the points on your linked article to be grossly rather misleading.

When referencing "The Constitution of Taiwan", one must realize that the name of the document should technically be "The Constitution of the Republic of China".

When that document insist that "Tibet is part of China", it meant "Tibet is part of the Republic of China."

Thus when saying the constitution of Taiwan says Tibet is part of China when the Chinese army are killing Tibetan nuns, the first reference to China and the second reference are pointing to different entities.

The referenced link makes it sound like Taiwan believe Tibet belongs to a murderous government, when in fact that very document (the "Constitution of Taiwan") deny the legatimacy of the Bejing government to whom the nun-raping Chinese Liberation Army belongs to.

Because the "Constitution of Taiwan" still think R.O.C. is the rightful ruler of mainland China, any reference in it that talks about "mainland China" also means the R.O.C. government, which in fact no longer rules the mainland.

The misleading nature of your reference makes me doubt the validity of the other information on that page (even if the numbers or the quote are true, the context might have given completely different meaning).

Remember, when the "Taiwanese" government say that anything is "Chinese" or "belongs to China", they mean their little government located in Taipei that only has effect soverignity over a few island. More often than not, it is more accurate to replace what they are saying to "Taiwanese" or "belongs to Taiwan", where Taiwan technically means the Republic of China.

Numerous American groups were and are engaged in a boycott of Chinese products and have demonstrated loudly and vociferously against the occupation of Tibet.

Numerous Taiwanese groups have done the same thing too.

If the actions of many captalist corporations of a certain nationality/ethinicity is sufficient to charactize a people, as you have done using Taiwanese companies to characterize the Taiwanese people, then I can also say the American are no better than mercenary pigs. Slashdotters should be all too famaliar with a few examples.

The majority of the Taiwanese population would be outraged to find any Taiwanese company profiting from China in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square. Realize, most Americans actually don't know how Starbucks exploit the environment and coffee workers, about the Nike sweat shopts, etc.

This response has the biase of an individual who identifies himself as being a "Republic of China" Chinese who was born and mostly raised in Taiwan. Individuals who identify with the R.O.C. are actually closer to being the minority in Taiwan, compared to the people who identify themselves as strictly "Taiwanese". The referenced link stated Eighty-five percent (85%) of the people of Taiwan are Chinese. Only fifteen percent (15%) are Taiwanese. without any reference, and probably uses some biological ancestry demographic data instead of using what the people actually identify themselves with.

Re:So... Does that mean we can invade Microsoft no

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to see Microsoft ban the words 'bug' and 'poor user interface' from OS review sites. Would it have an effect?

FUD & Ignorance

[delicious]

I think about 99% of the comments replying to this and similar stories can be easily marked as flame bait. The truth is, a lot of people don't fully understand what is the impact of the globalization movement. Yes, US coperation wants to crack the Chinese market; people may think that the way these companies have to cater to the Chinese government's paranoia is dangerous, but so is the global dependence upon the US market of these coperations. Do you want another depression if the market in the US dries up? Yes, China wants US money, and yes, there is undoubtably some labour abuses going on, but their abundance of manufacturing contracts literally saved the Chinese economy from turning into Siberia. It's a multi-faceted issue, neither side is "right" or "wrong"; there's a fine line, humans aren't perfect, the world trudges on.

Bill Zedong

[Zuperdominican]

You guys knew this was coming. They just announced a while back that they were removing the My from My computer now they ban democracy, soon it will be our computer

I for one,

[mbkennel]

"I, for one and speaking for MicroWalSoftxxon Corp, welcome our new Chinese Communist overlords."
-- Steve Ballmer.

don't moderate this as "Funny" either

shh! don't tell SCO

[toby]

Last I heard China was working on their own operating system to supplant those of the West

How long before Darl issues pay-up-or-else letters to everyone in China?

Coming Soon: Microsoft Office Red

[commodoresloat]

Microsoft: delivering the office productivity tools the modern Chinese bureaucrat needs to torture dissidents and promote worldwide cultural revolution.

What about the freedom to not extoll freedom?

[CyricZ]

What about the freedom Microsoft has to run (or not run) whatever content they wish on their web site? You can't have true freedom if you force people to extoll freedom and democracy.

MOD PARENT UP

[commodoresloat]

Insightful and funny. It just goes to show how out of it MS PR is. It's one thing to understand the Chinese government has a problem with the idea of democracy, but to assume that they therefore have a problem with the word democracy is a stretch.

In Soviet Russia...

[Metostopholes]

You also couldn't talk about "freedom" and "democracy."

Oh wait, the joke doesn't work like that, does it?

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[shutdown -p now]

Disabling my sarcasm filter for a moment...

The funny thing about all communist countries is that there you're often required to talk about freedom and democracy: that is, how free and happy you are to breathe the air of a country democratically ruled by the people themselves, rather than those poor slaves living in imperialistic countries. Of course, not forgetting to thank the ruling leader and the Party for such a glorious achievement.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, "freedom" and "democracy" talked about you. As a matter of fact, I think that might still be the case.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

You could talk about freedom and democracy as much as you wanted in Soviet Russia. Those nice people of the party even arranged special meetings for all those who were intrested in dicussing this. These meeting were hold constanly all throughout Siberia. Many people enjoyed these meetings for the most part of their life. In fact most of them never went home!

Google

[minus_273]

Keep in mind, when google pulls a stunt like this, its ok.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, when google pulls a stunt like this, its ok.

Says who? If Google does anything slashbots are on them like flys. You got modded as funny but I don't think you ment it that way after I read your rather right wing sig. Go home troll.

Re:Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep in mind, when google pulls a stunt like this, its ok.

Yeah, because they will probably add something like "some search terms were omitted due to the fact that your government told us to," with link to a helpful letter. Kind of like in DMCA cases when $cientology decided to shoot themselves in foot with a bazooka.

odd and interesting

[phantomfive]

I find this odd and interesting. Most Chinese I've met feel they are free. Also, democracy is as old in China as the Communist party: Mao Ze Dong's little red book has a whole section lauding the advantages of democracy. In fact, this seems to be a move against the government by Microsoft. The best way to censor would be to not bring up any pages when someone searches for "democracy". Letting them know they entered a forbidden word will make them more aware of things they can't do, and will make them feel oppressed.

Pointless

[liangzai]

I don't see the point. Take a look at http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/ for an example of Chinese debate on various topics. Although articles can be pulled if deemed too offensive (this is a newspaper, whose existence dependes on the party's benevolence), there are no simple words like democracy or freedom that are forbidden. Chinese censorship simply doesn't operate on that level.

On the site you can see examples, mostly in English and sometimes in Chinese, of pretty straightforward debate on most sensitive issues, and my impression is that anything goes as long as you are informed about the matter you are discussing.

Furthermore, I don't understand how you could ban words. It is easy to circumvent this, because you can just use similar-sounding characters to fool the system; people will still understand that ziyou means freedom, regardless of what characters are used. You could also write it backwards, or use latin letters. Or why not l33t.

Universal Human Rights

[Doc Ruby]

So much fuss from a person who doesn't believe in freedom about people defending freedom. Reading this story on Slashdot has enlightened at least a few people about Microsoft's complicity in China's war on freedom and democracy. Present company excepted.

This is why blogs are taking over Big Media.

[CyricZ]

Incidents like this are why blogs are rapidly overtaking Big Media as the average individual's main source of news. It's a type of natural selection, perhaps. A news organization that fails to deliver truthful news will be usurped by individuals or organizations who will.

While it's often said that the quality of blog content can't be guaranteed, events such as this show that the very same holds true for Big Media. Quality is not guaranteed by any media source.

Remember...

[torrents]

In Soviet Redmond, Democracy Bans You!

that's just how it works nowadays

[v1]

in a communist government... whatever the government wants, that's what the law is. That stuff that's scribbled down somewhere, that's just a courtesy, it's most certainly not required. We'll just call those "rough guidelines" to what is "legal", and maybe be real nice and tack on a and anything else we think of later if we're in a real generous mood.

Of course here in the USA we just have a variation on that theme, with our new "anti terrorism" laws that are secret. (secret laws? WTF?)

"Ignorance of the law is no defense". "But you said it was illegal for me to know what the law is!" "What does that matter?"

I mean really... what's the difference? Is there a difference? I don't see any...

It gets worse...

[PingXao]

America is sending tons of money to China for their cheap goods produced with cheap labor under a ruthless regime. What do they do with all that money? They LEND it back to us. Our national debt is running, what, like $1 Billion a day now? Lots of it is being bankrolled by China.

Not only do we pay them lots of money for their goods, as citizens contributing to the balance of trade deficit, but then the govt lends them billions and billions affecting the other big defecit: the national budget defecit.

The effect of all this is low interest rates in the U.S. that are keeping the housing market going pretty strong. All it takes is China to decide they don't feel like lending us any more money and you can guess what happens then. Hint: it ain't pretty.

MS isn't the worst offender...

[bokane]

The Great Firewall of China actively monitors incoming data for keywords. There's no set list, and red-flag words will vary from city to city (Shanghai tends to be strictest) and time to time. It's not at all unimaginable that 'minzhu' (democracy) would set it off, causing the Great Firewall to stop the transfer and return a fake "server not responding" message.

So yeah, it's lame that MS is doing this. But why do they have to? Because Cisco and other American companies provided router, firewall, and filtering tech to China, showed them how to set it up, and still maintain an active role in restricting the browsing of 100 million internet users. What MS is doing is a symptom, not a cause -- follow the money.

Advocating the devil...

[stdstd]

The words democracy and freedom ,have in the last years been used as part of a threating vocabulary the US Goverment uses in its foreign policy.Al Goverments (even the Nazis ) have always claimed to be fighting for freedom...A goverment baning a word such as freedom is obvusly in despare,it is unable to twist it towards its own interest. To me this proves that China is faling apart in terms of media power..

Re: It's all about money.

[Anonymous Coward]

To be more precise, it's all about companies ensuring their survival -- getting to and locking in a source of profit before anyone else does.

Companies, societies, governments are all the same -- ensuring survival will always trump obedience to morality when the two imperatives are in conflict.

Remember the ST:TOS android episode? 'Existence! Existence overrides programming!'

Well, you know what they say...

[Anonymous Coward]

"When in China, do as the commies do."

What the fucking hell

[mcc]

A country that materially represses dissent, has no free press, no internal checks on corruption, no limits on police power or abuse, and in a larger sense is the most successful fascist nation on earth... is equivalent to some other countries which just happen to have imperfect democracies.

Guess what. Just because you dislike someone doesn't make them equivalent to the fucking CCP. If the press is trying to make the impression that China is somehow worse than other countries, then good, that means at least on this one tiny issue they have a sense of perspective. Frankly I tend more to see the press taking a disturbing tack that China's government can't be all that bad, because after all they're a U.S. ally.

Re:What the fucking hell

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance is bliss.

Re:What the fucking hell

[a whoabot]

Okay, I'll ramble more.

Sometimes when I post my opinion I do ramble on, explaining further. Then I get called pretentious, word-drunk, whatever ("yeah, sure, you're smart, but shut the fuck the up; no one cares!"). And sometimes I just speak more straightforwardly. Then people take my words to imply something I don't mean to imply ("how can you defend that idea?"). I can never seem to please everyone: always one of two pains for me whenever I open my mouth. This seems to be no exception.

I of course don't mean to say they're equivalent: if I meant that I would just say it. I meant only to answer the question: why does MSN report on this issue?

Just like you see the press taking a position that the PRC can't be all that bad, which I would agree with(no contradiction here), I see the press taking a position of making "China"(as distinct from the more technical definition of the "PRC") out to be a sort of enemy. The press does whitewash and skip over the atrocities of oppressive governments like the PRC. The press also makes "China"(a vague political entity useful for the identity politics the press plays) out to be an enemy of "democracy" or "freedom". These are just essentially names for us (the West, America, etc.). We are democracy, we are freedom, or, at least, freedom in contingent on us or needs us. As opposed to us needing it, which is true. It needing us is completely false and just used as an emotional/religious rallying point to further some agenda for someone.

So, I disagree with you that it's good that the press make "China" seem worse than other countries. It's just identity politics to make the people who read this emotionally associate "China" with, well, corruption and to see "the West" or "America" as somehow better: when really the ruling parties in the West are just as rotten, even if this rotteness doesn't materialize for the intended audience of the propaganda.

Does that make it any clearer? (I'm a tad fumbly with words after all the wine tonight, and I guess it's late too.) I wouldn't mind explaining more either...

Re:What the fucking hell

[mcc]

In your initial post you strongly imply that it is somehow wrong to imply china is "corrupt above and beyond" the democracies elsewhere.

But then you say "I of course don't mean to say they're equivalent"?

So you're saying they're not equivalent, they're ... just not any worse? And then you say that western democracies are "just as rotten"? But "just as rotten" is different from "equivalent"?

when really the ruling parties in the West are just as rotten

No... really... the CCP is worse.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "the west", the media, "identity politics", or "propaganda"; this is just about you entirely lacking a sense of perspective. The greater of two evils is still a greater evil. Being "bad", or "rotten", or containing nations which abuse prisoners of war, or whatever it is you're upset at contemporary western democratic systems over, still doesn't come even with executing 89 people a day without a legitimate trial.

Re:What the fucking hell

[Hal_Porter]

I see the press taking a position of making "China"(as distinct from the more technical definition of the "PRC") out to be a sort of enemy. The press does whitewash and skip over the atrocities of oppressive governments like the PRC. The press also makes "China"(a vague political entity useful for the identity politics the press plays) out to be an enemy of "democracy" or "freedom". These are just essentially names for us (the West, America, etc.). We are democracy, we are freedom, or, at least, freedom in contingent on us or needs us. As opposed to us needing it, which is true. It needing us is completely false and just used as an emotional/religious rallying point to further some agenda for someone.

But freedom does sometimes need us - e.g. when it was under attack by the Nazis in WW2, or the Communists in the cold war, or the PRC in a future Taiwan/PRC war.

There are degrees of freedom, and we have more here now than people had in Nazi Germany, or Communist Russia or the present day PRC. It's that greater freedom which puts a lower limit how rotten our rulers can be compared to the totalitarian alternatives. And it would be a tragedy if Western society was ever supplanted by any of those alternatives.

Have a look at what happened to civilisation in the 1000 years after the Roman Republic fell if you don't believe me. It's seriously scary - pretty much a total collapse of art and science.

Microsoft teh Google

[Mulletproof]

So, did the people flaming microsoft today also note that Google the Wonderchild Company basically did the exact same thing a few months ago? Somehow, i don't think you'll see half the outrage over THAT incident, if only because this one involves "M$"

parent is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent got no results for "tiananmen square" because he searched in english. I just searched using chinese characters and got 400,000+ results

Tiananmen Movie?

[Tablizer]

I don't know why nobody is making a Tiananmen Square movie. I think Hollywood is chicken of angering China.

It has everything need for a good movie:

1. Romance - College students were involved, and college students are horny as hell.

2. Pending doom - Titanic like

3. Visuals - The image of the lone student in front of the tanks is already a classic

4. Moral conflict - Many soldiers were ambivolent about firing on people they knew.

5. Great Escape - Many of the students were chased and hunted down. The second half could be about a student who (barely) escapes to Hong Kong.

Re:Tiananmen Movie?

[Tusaki]

Well, here is a documentary/film about tiananmen, although not a hollywood blockbuster.

http://www.tsquare.tv/index.html

Wait...

[rudydog]

Wait a tick...

banned the words 'democracy' and 'freedom'

But democracy and freedom are in english, why would they be on a Chinese site?

On another note has any one noticed that the rss feed has not been updated sence 3pm?

Re:Wait...

[t_allardyce]

Attempts to input words in Chinese such as "democracy" prompted an error message from the site: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item." Other phrases banned included the Chinese for "demonstration", "democratic movement" and "Taiwan independence".

rtfa?

WELL DUH!

[Anonymous Coward]

anything to boost their corporate pride! Knowledge that no god goven right stand before emperor billy.

Seriously, I send these things to an ex-friend at microsoft, and the fact that microsoft reports on itself is a matter of pride to him.

they are all too far gone... if you live in seattle, and have a brain, you just stay away from the twit boys in their audi TT's.

Re:Mercenary Taiwanese Scum

[Anonymous Coward]

Realize, most Americans actually don't know how Starbucks exploit the environment and coffee workers, about the Nike sweat shopts, etc.

No, most Americans don't care. Or they think it's just the "liberal media," at it again. Just like how they don't care about the impact of driving their SUV alone to and from work every day, etc...

Such nonsense get modded up??

[Fossilet]

No. The Chinese language does have an 'l' sound (Shaolin monks?). 'l' in Chinese and 'l' in are similar more or less; I am not a phonetician.

Re:So... Does that mean we can invade Microsoft no

[l3v1]

China is the real threat to democracy and freedom

Ok, so they're terrorists now and you can go and erase them too while you're at it.

Yes

[sopuli]

Here, if the Chinese govenment blocks it, Google returns no hits for it. Of course since this is Google and not Microsoft, this is perfectly ok.

Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag developers

[AHumbleOpinion]

To be fair and equitable why don't you ask Linus and Stallman to ask the Red Flag Linux developers to stop their work unless the Chinese government allows the word "democracy". They might be naive enough to do so but even they will know it is nothing more than a symbolic gesture that will amount to nothing. Red Flag developers will continue and the Linux community will embrace them even though they do nothing to further "democracy" in China, and that same community will criticize MS for not putting their head on the chopping block in a futile gesture.

Rather than tell MS how to put its ass on the line why don't you put your wallet on the line? Need to buy socks, don't by socks made in China, try to find something domestic. Same for that screw driver you need, try spending an extra couple of bucks to buy something made locally. That is how China you get China's attention, that is the only sort of action that they will respond to.

Re:So... Does that mean we can invade Microsoft no

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, all you people just laugh about the Soviet Russia. But it was actually a dictatorship with not much fun. Maybe this 'failed-joke' attempt will make you think what really a 'Soviet' means. Cuz China is Soviet, yes.

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[HishamMuhammad]

To be fair and equitable why don't you ask Linus and Stallman to ask the Red Flag Linux developers to stop their work unless the Chinese government allows the word "democracy".

Remember that, according to the story, there is no Chinese law against the use of these words. Microsoft is doing it "proactively" (eh).

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[AHumbleOpinion]

Remember that, according to the story, there is no Chinese law against the use of these words. Microsoft is doing it "proactively" (eh).

The story is naive. How much business have you done in China? When a representative of the government expresses concern over some issue that is as significant as something on paper. Reality is far more complex than academic arguments.

Re: It's just business

[Anonymous Coward]

If oppressing free speech (or helping doing so) is 'just business' then the businessmen and/or businesswomen should cease the business. Because it is not my business but it is my freedom. Keep your 'business' away from me.

Tinfoil Hat

[Bob9113]

Everyone don your tinfoil hats for this one. Suppose Microsoft, salty about Red Flag Linux and the new gov't edict to shift towards Chinese software, decided to start a smear campaign against China. What would be the best way to whip America into an ideological furor? Report that the Chinese gov't hates Liberty and Democracy.

I'm not saying that is what did happen; clearly China is pretty big on censorship, and it is entirely possible that China did lean on MSN China. It's just amusing to think that the tinfoil hat explanation is really quite possible.

Unamericanisms && spread democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not an american but european. Here when we hear that something is "un+", we usually find it suspicious. It either doesn't mean anything to anyone else or means different thing to different people. It's like the "but what about the children!?" - it's not an argument at all. A better reasoning would be that it's unethical, against free speech, repugnant practise, whatever.

By the way, to spread democracy over the world is just the same. If you want to defend human rights of people living in other countries there are other ways, the OTAN and the like. The legal ones. Something that you think is spreading democracy can actually mean that there other hidden interests. It can be seen as an attack from one nation to another. Many real people could (and cretainly will) die because of your unilateral decision. I wouldn't trust anyone saying that he is spreading democracy over the world, because, he's probably more intereested in oil, in creating the state of constant emergency, in aproving laws like the patriot act, in winning the following elections, in justifing billions spent in weapon, and what not.

Re:Mercenary Taiwanese Scum

[LostInTaiwan]

Actually, I live in Taiwan right now and what you described is not what I see everyday. Most Taiwanese see China as a threat to Taiwan's political, social and economical future.

20 years ago Taiwan was rule under the one party system of the old KMT and it took a while to achieve the sometimes . . . okay, okay, quite often choatic democracy of today.

I feel quite sad that even the US does not want to recognize Taiwan as an independent nation...despite everything that was tought in grade school history clasees.. but then we also elected George Bush so. . . anyway, Taiwan does not teach its kids that Tibet is "rightfully" a part China because Taiwan itself is not a part of China.

Trust me, plenty of Taiwanese companies boycott Chinese products/labor otherwise everyone would have moved to China by now. . . .donno how long the remaining companies can last. . . haha, maybe I should do my part by buying another CMV lcd monitor. . . unfortunately, most people in the world cares more about prices than freedom.

We want to blame corporations for investing in China but in our capitalistic economy the corporations are really just a refection of their customers. I do my best to avoid products made in China which usually means paying a little more and getting by with a little less items and I can only hope others will do the same. . .

John

Grrr those words are ruined.

[minus23]

As you know... "The peoples liberation Army" is called such... and the DPRK "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" is actual aswell.

The "Patriot Missle" is a missle. Hmmm so is the patriot act. ;)

Grrrrr..... I know this shit because the internet gives me the info to confirm. I *Really* hate it when I see regulation that limits this medium that is, by nature, global.

Definition

[DarkDust]

MSN China says it must comply with local laws, but there is no Chinese law against the use of these words.

Well, I guess "law" here means actions to not anger the government. A government (not only the Chinese) can always find a real law to cause you trouble with if they think you deserve a little punishment for some offense. Or they just pass one ;-)

"paradoxically"?

[cahiha]

I don't understand the use of the word "paradoxically" in this context. Microsoft is doing what every corporation needs to do: they are maximizing profit. If in China that involves collaborating with an undemocratic regime and restricting speech.

Corporations generally do what they can get away with legally and what governments require of them. If we don't want them to do something, we, the people, have to impose regulations and requirements on them. So, if we don't want Microsoft to monopolize the market, then we have to use laws and courts to prevent them from doing so. If we don't want Microsoft to restrict free speech in China, then we have to impose regulations on them that keep them from doing that.

Corporations aren't people. They don't have a conscience or morality. They aren't "good" or "bad", and notions of social responsibility, duty, or morality are foreign to them. They are rational agents that respond to risk and regulation. So, if you don't like this, don't blame Microsoft for this, blame US regulators for it if they continue to permit it.

I find it funny...

[edunbar93]

Isn't it odd that a gung-ho American company that's all for free market capitalism can so very easily make itself look like a soul-crushing, freedom-hating, communist-friendly entity by just removing a couple of words from all its websites?

Kind of says something about the state of affairs in America these days.

Re:I find it funny...

[shanen]

Isn't it odd that a gung-ho American company that's all for free market capitalism can so very easily make itself look like a soul-crushing, freedom-hating, communist-friendly entity by just removing a couple of words from all its websites?

Uh... Monopolistic strategy is not the same as free-market capitalism, but I'll give Microsoft credit for being gung-ho about it. You're characterization of the Chinese rulers is probably too kind. Unfortunate that BushCo is selling America's future to them, isn't it?

Kind of says something about the state of affairs in America these days.

Your "analysis" certainly does.

Re:I find it funny...

[shutdown -p now]

First of all, (relatively) free market doesn't always go together with political freedoms. A good example would be the current situation in Russia.

Then, there's that issue with most successful players on the market desiring to preserve their top position by political means - that is, by restricting the market to their advantage. Obviously, this is easier to get in a dictatorship. The resulting state of affairs is what we call corporatism aka fascism (quite surprising to many people, who think that it is about concentration camps and killing Jews).

Re:I find it funny...

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Since when is MS all for free market capitalism? Don't you remember that they are a monopoly? They only support the free market when it benifits them, else they go crying to the government. They're a coporation, they'll do whatever brings them more cash. And free market capitalism in the US is something they probably want less of at the moment; the less free the market is (in certain ways), the stronger their monopoly is.

Coporations are dictatorships. Also, I'm no fan of capitalism, but coporatism is capitalism with even less responsibility for society and the environment.

Re:I find it funny...

[kindbud]

It's not odd at all. Who actually believes Microsoft is for free market capitalism? If they could get the government to force everyone to buy Windows, I have no doubt that they would do it. Same thing goes for most big corporations. Hell, the insurance industry has already done it!

In China, they have just such a government. Seems completely in character for Microsoft to get in bed with them.

Fundies hate Liberty

[infonography]

Don't expect help from them.

Stupid...

[tcdk]

... they could just use other words... like saying, hm... say "french" instead of "freedom" and "dubya" instead of "democracy"...

Welcome to 1984...

Unamericanisms && spreading democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not an american but european. Here when we hear that something is "un-<some nation>", we usually find it suspicious. It either doesn't mean anything to anyone else or means different things to different people. It's like the "but what about the children!?" - it's not an argument at all. A better reasoning would be that it's unethical, against free speech, repugnant practise, whatever.

By the way, to spread democracy over the world is also a fallacy. If you want to defend human rights of people living in other countries there are other ways, the OTAN and the like. The legal ones. Something that you might think is spreading democracy can actually have other hidden interests. It can be seen as an attack from one nation to another. Many real people could (and certainly will) die because of your unilateral decision. I wouldn't trust anyone saying that he is spreading democracy over the world, because he's probably more interested in oil, in creating the state of constant emergency in his own country, in passing & extending laws like the patriot act, in winning the following elections, in justifing the billions spent in weapons, and what not.

Re:Unamericanisms && spreading democracy

[rscrawford]

When I use the word "un-American" I am almost always trying to be ironic. In this case, my main goal was just to point out the blatant hypocrisy which the current American administration is engendering in our society.

I don't trust anyone whose goal is the "spreading of democracy" or "making the world safe for American values" or similar nonsense. I'm all for defending human rights throughout the world, and I agree that working through OTAN and OAS and other organizations is the way to do this. I'm not in favor of unilateral action by any organization. And trust me, I am deeply ashamed of our country's recent actions throughout the world.

I was also using "un-American" in a very idealistic sense. As a nation, the US supposedly stands for the ideals and virtues of liberty, justice, and human rights throughout the world. Very high ideals, indeed. Any actions which are in opposition to these ideals I consider "un-American" because they undermine those ideals. In this sense, I believe that George W. Bush and the current administration are just as un-American. I do recognize, though, that there is baggage attached to the phrase; but, I figure, if Bush & Co. can play Orwellian games with the language ("No Child Left Behind", for example, or "Clear Skies Initiative") then I can try to do so as well.

Innovative NewSpeak technology

[exa]

MSN China today displayed a superior technology built on the .NET framework dubbed MS NewSpeak (TM). NewSpeak prevents any hits from search terms with sensibilities like "democracy" or "freedom". The spokeswoman for MSN search group told the journalists how the system also automatically detects dangerous words used in anti-establishment sites and then rapidly removes them from the search engine, in addition to a hand-picked blacklist of words. This allows the system to handle new monikers the Chinese people might use instead of nasty words like "democracy", as well as new dangerous names, such as the name of a website that promotes independent thought (For instance the notorious "Brotherhood of Free Thought"). Not only are the queries modified, but the system also extends its list of dissident sites and removes them from all indices. Therefore, the anti-patriotic, immoral sites appear in no search result. The spokeswoman noted: "It is as if these documents are completely removed from the history. Now, there are no documents that use the word 'democracy'. This is only the beginning of NewSpeak's feature list.". The process then invokes cleaning jobs in other components of the system, e.g. the dictionary which is used in various web and desktop applications throughout MS/MSN products. "Of course, an up-to-date list of suspicious web sites is communicated daily to the Chinese security officials" the spokeswoman concluded.

During the demo, we were told that the system has already banned 56 generic words, 1948 compound namess, special terms and names, whereas the number of pages banned exceed two-hundred thousand.

The company CEO Ballmer seemed extremely pleasant with the innovation of his engineers. Ballmer reminded that these technologies would be valuable in the future of USA. He then jokingly added "Even George Orwell could not have imagined this far.", with which he obviously hinted at their classified contracts with the US government.

Testing if the article is right

[Morgor]

I thought I might test the thing, to see if the article is right, and I decided to write about the process here while I do it.
First of all, my chinese isn't very good. I study chinese, but I started last september, so I don't read that many characters...

But first off when trying to create a msn.com space, is the passport account. So I decided to create a chinese hotmail account, with the data of a young student living in Beijing. That was only a little tricky. The two obstacles I ran into was finding the zip code of Beijing, and finding out what I had to do in the text box on the last page next to the email address I just created. The zip code was quickly solved after finding the homepage of European Centre For Chinese Studies at Beijing University, and their address... The text field, I found out after numerous tries, was just a reconfirmation of that same email. Having the email address and passport account created I was sent back to the My Space creation page.
I decided my space should be called 'ziyouheminzhu', being the words 'freedom' 'and' 'democracy'.
Just to check, I entered that in Chinese characters as the name of the blog and clicked continue. A fat red text popped up saying "You cannot use forbidden words!".
So the article is right, but for the sake of maintaining a critical view to journalism, I thought I had to prove it...

China: a corporate dream

[curious.corn]

I have this horrible feeling; I'm sorry if it sounds xenophobic or racist, over here in Italy there's an ongoing campaign to blame chinese imports for our faltering economy and I don't want to sould like I'm supporting it. China's economic relevance is growing at great pace, huge amounts of investements pour into this country and nascent market. Corporate executives visit China and literally break into tears at the discipline and chockedness of the workforce. In the early '900 Italy's capitalists experimented with going without a liberal government; they chose fascism. A totalitarian regime that while touting a better form of socialism essentially used brute force and liberty suppression to coerce the population and stamp out dissent in favour of the priviledged. Today, I read about China, about our investors moving their operations in China, about these condescending corporations; I can't get this idea out of my head, that the CCP and investors from all around the world are trying the same trick. "What if there is a more efficient system, a social organization more attuned to corporate operations instead of this old, kludgy and costly democracy?" I hear them asking. Corporations have gone supernational for many years, during the Cold War they had a political restraint on how much they could go without breaking ties and embrace the "enemy". Today there's no such thing; the world is a giant supermarket where these amoral entities can choose what best suits their business plans and are now voting with their feet. It's depressing to see a billion human beings made to bear part in a global experiment without benefiting from it, and to fear that sooner or later we'll be told to live by the same rules...

Re:China: a corporate dream

[kindbud]

...discipline and chockedness of the workforce.

Hmmm... Not sure what quality "chockedness" is trying to refer to. But it's an interesting post.

Did you mean chocked ness?
Suggestions:
chocked ness chocked-ness hookedness Pickedness
wickedness Forkedness Childness chickens
chicness Chubbedness Shaggedness chicken's
chickens' cheekiness chickadees chickadee's
chickadees' nakedness Shockingness chasteness
doggedness markedness

Would you like to search the Web for chockedness?

Re:China: a corporate dream

[curious.corn]

Excuse me for inconveniencing you to the point of replying to me. As you may have noticed by the sig and the first sentence of the post I'm italian. Shure, I undersand spoken and written english rather well for the average italian, to the point that I'm better described as bilingual. Yet English is not the language I use every day and often I have an unpleasant feeling like having the right word on the tip of my tounge but not finding it. So I'll have to resort to my own language in saying:

"Ma va' a morì ammazzato, va'!"

I'm shure you'll understand... if not, ask Google

Re:China: a corporate dream

[kindbud]

I wasn't intending to be insulting, and I realized from the context you weren't a native English speaker when I replied to your post. I was just making a little joke, mimicking the online dictionary. I am sorry I caused you offense. I honestly don't know what word you were thinking of.

Re:China: a corporate dream

[kindbud]

"Ma va' a morì ammazzato, va'!"

"But va' to it died killed, goes '!" ;)

Re:China: a corporate dream

[curious.corn]

Ok, fine ;-) /. is full of grammar nazis always pestering anyone making the slightest mistake so I assumed your comment was one of them. Peace, but learn the use of smileys... they help a lot, especially in these cases. I was thinking about a word expressing something being "choked" as in restrained from a vital attribute of human social interaction.
the italian "ma va' a morì ammazzato" is roman slang (but understood all over Italy) that literally means "go get yourself killed" but has the gravity of a lesser "get lost"; so it's not particularly offensive or rude and it's use is not considered provocative.

Re:China: a corporate dream

[kindbud]

I was thinking about a word expressing something being "choked" as in restrained from a vital attribute of human social interaction.

Aha! Now I get it. Some words you might have used instead could be "provincialism" or "parochialism" or even "insularity."

[b]"Corporate executives visit China and literally break into tears at the discipline and parochialism of the workforce."[/b]

In America, we call such people "red-necks." :)

Re:China: a corporate dream

[curious.corn]

No I mean a workforce that has no knowledge whatsoever of it's fundamental rights and happily slaves away 147/day 7days/week, no unions, no medical care, no sociality other than the other slaves living in the chicken pen next to the factory building. Like those building the pharaoh's pyramid. The most depressing thing is that these people keep living under the same stranglehold even as (illegal) immigrants over here; some of these sweatshops got busted and these pour sould were sleeping on the same sewing bench they spent 18 h/day. It's more like Stockholm syndrome I believe.

Where do you want to go today?

[Magickcat]

Q: Where do you want to go today?
A: Re-education camp

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[professionalfurryele]

They cant. And it would sort of defeat the point of F/OSS software to do so. More importantly the Chineese move to embrace F/OSS is a desperate one. They need a software industry but are embracing a Libitarian or pseudo-Libitarian philosophy to build one. That sets a dangerous precedent in China (from the perspective of the Chineese government). RMS and Linus can do far more to improve things in China by making the Chineese dependent on F/OSS than they can by modifying the GPL to discriminate against specific nations. In addition by including the Chineese developers in the F/OSS community things can improve here as well as bugs are fixed faster, localisation support is improved, etc.
Sometimes the best way to fight an opponent isn't to give them a black eye, but to make them utterly dependent on your way of doing things.

Since when did communism become a religion

[Mascot]

Communism is an ideology, not a religion. Of course, people can still be fanatical about it, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Re:Since when did communism become a religion

[Doc Ruby]

Communism is a religion because it is based on faith, on unproveable principles. And most people who live under it are indoctrinated into it as part of a complex of beliefs, provable but never actually proven. It is taught in the vacuum it creates by destroying traditional religions, which it replaces. Which is why its trappings of ceremony, ritual, and heroic leaders is so effective. Communism, as it is practiced, is a religion - very different from the historical/economic/political theory developed by Marx and Engels, which was scientific (even if not entirely valid). Science itself is a faith, its consistent practice a religion, but that's a topic for another post, with its inevitable debates about Logical Positivism and inconsistency.

Re:Since when did communism become a religion

[hermi]

Great so everything is a religion cause you can prove nothing ('I know that I know nothing' dont know the cite in English).

Re:Since when did communism become a religion

[Doc Ruby]

No, the distinction is what cannot be disproven . Testability (strictly "falsifiability") is the defining axiom of science. Statements that couldn't possibly be disproven are metaphysical, not scientific. Of course, that axiom itself isn't falsifiable, so science itself is based on faith. Of course, there is the "overwhelming preponderance of the evidence" that compels us to believe. But religious faith has no evidence. Evidence, in fact, destroys the faith, though the religion's church might thrive on it. Communism is no different from, say, Christianity, but they're different from, say, demand-curve economics. One can still say that everything is an illusion, but that's a debate worth having only with a buddhist - and a good buddhist won't argue :).

Re:Since when did communism become a religion

[hermi]

No, the distinction is what cannot be disproven

I agree with that but that's not what you've said in first place.

And a Buddhist will argue if you want him to :) not that I am one myself but thats what I've heard

Furthermore, in my opinion you can only classify the "theory" of communism since actions itself cannot be considered scientific or not, only hypotheses can.

Re:Since when did communism become a religion

[Doc Ruby]

No, the distinction is what cannot be disproven

I agree with that but that's not what you've said in first place.

Right, so I clarified. I said "can't be proven", which you accurately identified as unremarkable. By so doing, though, you put this discussion into a more rigorous context. If I lagged in achieving that level of rigor, I apologize.

In that spirit, "Communism" the theory, the ideology, the faith, is what we're discussing. The practice is protean, but it's a pattern of mass industrial transactional behavior. More like a ritual than a religion.

As for buddhists, a real buddhist won't argue with the proposition that all is illusion. And a real real buddhist (I have studied with them) won't even argue against it, because it's an illusion. Or they will, but they won't care. Really real buddhists are asymptoticly self-reflexive, like the Cheshire Cat's smile.

Re:Since when did communism become a religion

[McGiraf]

Capitalism is a religion because it is based on faith, on unproveable principles. And most people who live under it are indoctrinated into it as part of a complex of beliefs, provable but never actually proven. It is taught in the vacuum it creates by destroying traditional religions, which it replaces. Which is why its trappings of ceremony, ritual, and heroic leaders is so effective. capitalism, as it is practiced, is a religion - very different from the historical/economic/political theory described by Adam Smith, which was scientific (even if not entirely valid). Science itself is a faith, its consistent practice a religion, but that's a topic for another post, with its inevitable debates about Logical Positivism and inconsistency.

Re:Since when did communism become a religion

[Doc Ruby]

True, and consistent. Couldn't have said it better myself. Though Capitalism isn't as adamant about destroying traditional religions as is Communism, with its "scientific" basis, and slogans about religion, "the opiate of the people".

Re:Since when did communism become a religion

[McGiraf]

"Couldn't have said it better myself."

Well, you did most of the typing on this one. ;)

Cos it's in our best interests

[Lifewish]

Democracies with well-informed citizens tend not to invade each other that much.

Now, who do you think is currently the biggest threat to world peace?

On a more personal note, I empathise with the poor sods in China who get dragged off for advocating freedom of speech and the like. I prefer the version of China where dissidents' families don't get charged for the bullet used in the execution. Democracy, power to the people, may indeed be a Western idea but, speaking as one of the people, it sure as hell beats the alternatives.

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[1u3hr]

The story is naive.

No, I don't think so. It does point out the fact that MS is lying when it says it must censor to remain within the law, because there is no such law. If it said "policy" rather than law, it would be more honest. If it listed the forbidden words in its TOS, it would be in the open. Contrast Google, which when faced with legal orders to remove links to contentious sites brings up documentation of why they are doing it, and a link to another site which does have the information linked. Though Google has I think chickened out on its Google.cn version from even trying.

China has many journalists in prison on unspecified charges for breaking such non-laws. (Anything the govt doesn't want you to write about can be declared a "state secret", and you become a spy &/or traitor.) Unfortunately the US has lost all its moral authority to argue against that, and China knows it can do so with little fear of embarrassment, let alone real pressure.

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[mwlewis]

Ah, yes, because we all know that China is all about the rule of law. I'm not trying to defend MS, but this argument is pretty silly.

Parent is a troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

I almost spent a moment pondering your post and a reply to it, before realizing you're a raving lunatic.

"...media corporations have stakes in the global weapons business..."

That's paranoid rubbish.

"...the government/media corporate cartels..."

Glad to see you've got your Unified Conspiracy Theory all worked out. Mods have to recognize that just because someone can spell and create what appear to be grammatically correct sentences, doesn't mean that they're not delusional nutcases.

Re:Parent is a troll.

[Doc Ruby]

How surprising: an Anonymous Coward with a coincidence theory, unspecified as usual, but lurking under cover of hyperbolic exaggeration of the truth. And couched in squawks of "crazy", as their own insane denial is threatened by the truth.

Here's one example: NBC, one of the 3 majority American media networks, is just a subsidiary of GE, probably the world's largest corporation. GE makes nuclear weapons for the US, and all kinds of weapons systems and components globally. They're no different from their competing networks, in priorities or the news they publish.

Another example: amidst the chorus of denials that Bush was intent on invading Iraq, regardless of which necessary pretext, a British memo was leaked revealing that Bush's administration was "fixing facts around the policy". Lying about intelligence to justify war. Other evidence was produced to show that the US and British military multiplied their bombing of Iraq before the war, to goad Iraq into reaction that could be spun to justify invasion. Sure, it got published in British media. But in the US, which has almost all the exposure, responsibility and costs of the invasion (other than dead Iraqis and their destroyed country), our media doesn't cover it. The litany of politically sensitive, but extremely interesting stories our media doesn't cover is endless. Instead we get 24/7 coverage of OJ, Michael Jackson, disppearing white girls. That's our government/media cartel at work.

Let's have your coincidence theory that covers this "business as usual", rather than just empty, Anonymous Coward rants.

Re:Parent is a troll.

[aminorex]

I think you're mistaken as to why they were lying about intelligence. They were lying about intelligence in order that the people wouldn't realized that they were too stupid to live.

Another word for "intelligence failure" is stupid.

"Oh, I killed 150,000 people! Um... it's because I was stupid. Sorry. Just too dumb to know better, I guess. Can't blame me."

-- G. Bush (paraphrased)

Re:Parent is a troll.

[Doc Ruby]

They didn't care about the intelligence, in terms of justifying the invasion to their own team. They were already committed by (latest) July 2002 (according to British officials coordinating with them, as per the Downing Street Memo). They were probably committed by January 2001 (according to Richard Clarke, and others). It just took them as much a 9 months after 9/11/2001 to be "sure" they could hijack the "War on Terror" to invade Iraq, instead of getting Osama, or destroying the Taliban, or pacifying Afghanistan, or confronting Pakistan, etc. The real turning point came in the December 21, 2002 meeting with Bush, Tenet, and McLaughlin in a CIA briefing on WMD. Tenet's famous "it's a slam dunk" remark was not at all an estimate of his confidence in finding WMD. It was assuring Bush that such a story would convince Congress, and Americans, to invade Iraq.

That's all pretty stupid, except it worked. In terms of his actual agenda (provided by his backers), Bush is a crashing success. In terms of his public agenda, he's an unmitigated catastrophe. I hope to see him impeached, and even executed for treason.

Re:Parent is a troll.

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
100% Flamebait

Sometimes I think the CIA astroturfs Slashdot, TrollModding down inconvenient facts. Or maybe it's some lamebrained chapter of "Republican Youth". Next time, punks, come with some comebacks, or punk off. While we're at it, where's Osama?

Lets try this...

[Anonymous Coward]

If we put the words freedom and Democracy in all web pages we can shut China out of the internet completely!

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[AHumbleOpinion]

No one suggested modifying the GPL.

The point is that there is a double standard that MS is expected to stand up to the Chinese government but F/OSS is not.

Regarding your argument that F/OSS is introducing radical ideas into China, well that is silly. Telling people to work collectively, that they do not own something, and that they must share is not exactly a new idea in China. Telling them that they own their work and may only share it if they wish to, that they may horde and profit from it, that is the new idea being (re)introduced. I think you are confusing F/OSS with the philosophies of some in the west. Importing the former does not open the door to the latter.

Nothing new for good ole' China

[Anonymous Coward]

This fits in very well with the overall Chinese strategy of controlling the masses as shown in this previous story - China forces web sites to register

Trade offs

[Kaorimoch]

Isn't it interesting to think that those doing business with China are sacrificing the very principles that are going into the banned word register in return for money?

MSN writes about MSN

[Meneth]

I find it interesting that a supposedly critical article about MSN is posted on msn.com. Don't you?

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[professionalfurryele]

You state no one suggested modifying the GPL, but the only way you could stop China using F/OSS software is to modify the GPL, at least as far as I can see. Unless you are just calling for a general denouncement of communism, in which case I'm sure Eric Raymond will be more than happy to help you out.
You then talk about the philosophies and fail to seperate the effects. Microsoft is a large centrally control organisation which uses marketing and ethically questionable methods to control access to information and markets, much like China only to a considerably smaller extent. F/OSS activity does the opposite. Sure the ideology that China claims to support is much like the ideology of many F/OSS contributors advocate, but the reality is vastly different.
In real practical terms (which after all is what matters) the F/OSS movement presents problems for China because by opening up protocols and methods they leave themselves open to loosing control of information flow.
Your comparison is flawed on another level. It is no use 'owning' the result of some work in and of itself. People don't want to the proceeds of thier work simply to own it, they want to own it so they can do something with it. What is being introduced to China in economic terms at the moment really changes very little. Before the government owned all thier work and they got no economic or ego gratification from it. Now a corporation can own thier work and they get limited economic or ego gratification from it.
Another revolutionary idea being introduced to China via F/OSS is the idea that you can be rewarded for your work without the state or a corporation necessarily owning it. If you made it and it's F/OSS then you can probably support it better than most, you now have economic and social power. If you contributed to a major F/OSS project you are reward through ego gratification. You introduce capitalist economics to a psuedo-communist state. Worse still you might generate a large well educated middle class which is not necessarily part of the party but is necessary for economic stability. From the point of view of maintaining control that is a disaster.
Microsoft are behaving as any business would and going along with what makes them money. However if we want to affect change in China one method of doing this is to put pressure on Microsoft to stick it's neck out. Getting RMS or Linus to stick thier neck out over China does nothing because China really couldn't care less what they think. China is short term dependent on MS and MS has leveraging power. Thats why people scream 'complicit' when Microsoft goes along with this kind of thing. If we persuade western companies that standing up to China a bit will improve sales (through good PR) we can affect change.
I still contest the only way to stop Red Flag developers is to change (read ruin) the GPL. This will neither carry the same weight nor effects the same end. Worse still it will remove the non-discriminatory aspect of the GPL which is part of what makes it so sucessful. This means if the GPL was changed in this manner large numbers of developers would insist thier code revert to the old GPL, totally defeating the point.
If you can think of a way to stop development by Red Flag without altering the GPL, I'd be interested to hear it. However I think you are rather to concerned with an ideological desire to defend Microsoft in the name of fairness rather than a practical desire to effect positive change because the latter invites one to treat F/OSS developers different from Corporate entities.

Yes but...

[teslatug]

What about the unwritten laws? In dictatorial countries we're not talking about just what's on the record, but also about what the powers that be don't like.

Before people slam microsoft

[beforewisdom]

Before people slam microsoft for this please remember that there have been articles on slashdot about google agreeing censor the Chinese version of their web site.

There have also been articles on slashdot about Google's news site using an algorithm to "randomly" pick sources for news articles that was discovered to be biased toward "randomly" picking conservative sources. There has yet to be a response from google on either issue.

I HATE M$ with a passion and I like google's products.

I am making this point because people with biases similar to my own will tend to be dismissive of google's nasty corporate behavior but they will also tend to magnify microsoft's infractions.

Re:of religion and self-censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Dahling, you look fah-bu-lous in that tinfoil hat.

sex search result ... surprise!

[_Qiang_]

how come when i search for democracy on msn.com.cn , i got a frame window that the left frame showing the result about online sex website?

hm, could it be that i am from outside china?

Re:sex search result ... surprise!

[yuting]

No - because porn site owners knows it is a popular term so subscribed to that keyword.

Re:Mercenary Taiwanese Scum

[Anonymous Coward]

Tibet is part of China", it meant "Tibet is part of the Republic of China."

Mate, Tibet is part of the peoples republic of china, whereas taiwan is regarded as simply, republic of china.

basically the word 'peoples' is the only thing stopping war in that region.

heh

[ThoreauHD]

OK, that's pretty funny.. Sadly, I think I'll probably live to see that day.

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[SlippyToad]

Gee, if we weren't up to our necks in Chinese-held debt, and our currency wasn't being held hostage by them, we would have something to say about this.

Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

"They are not human beings with the ability to be moral. To expect the end result of a collection of managers and paper shufflers to be concern for human liberty and dignity stretches the imagination."

Which is precisely whey the government should not accord a corporation the status equal to that of a human being.

In Communist China...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft fucks you!

OT, but the first true democracy.....

[johnpaul191]

the first true democracy where every person (despite gender, race etc) had an equal vote was on some of the pirate ships. go figure.

there were other forms of democracy going back in history, but many had restrictions, or worked more like a republic. part of the problem being to actually get every citizen (they would let vote) to be able to vote 1,000 years ago was just a mess. mix in a little corruption and it just gets worse.

Re:of religion and self-censorship

[Doc Ruby]

Ask your mom, kid. Then ask her where you got your eyes.

Replacing stuff with homogeneous crap

[colinrichardday]

Starbucks -- the Microsoft of coffee?

Re:So... Does that mean we can invade Microsoft no

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't understand why the U.S. invaded Iraq, then you have no concept of strategy. You've never been good at chess, have you?

Plus, I can tell that you get your news from biased sources instead of trying to learn the facts for yourself. You let a news anchor lead you around by the nose. How pathetic!

great move

[kervel]

this is actually a great move. by banning the word "freedom", a lot of chinese people will realize what situation they are in.

Internal crisis at M$

[Anonymous Coward]

"Do you really expect every moral employee at Microsoft to quit their jobs over this?"

No but wouldn't it be a better world if they did.

It's almost certain that they want to quit. M$ locked up employees' stock options for 2004 to encourage "retention". Now that 2005 is half over, maybe more M$ staff have cashed out and moved on. It would be on record. It could be that the increase level of noise from Redmond is to distract from a major internal crisis.

just remember

[BlindRobin]

...that the words freedom and democracy especially when used in conjuction by politicians in the United States carry very different meanings than their dictionary definitions...

Downside to character based languages?

[PotatoHead]

I was just thinking about what I would do if something similar was done here in the States. The obvious thing would be a creative misspelling of the word. Atfer all ist not too toguh to raed tihngs splled worng.

Is this sort of thing possible for them?

Boycotting uncle Fidel hasn't seemed to help Cuba

[rolofft]

How much success have we had with our embargos against Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Sudan? My impression is that economic isolationism doesn't help anyone. If isolating your economy were beneficial, Myanmar would rule the roost while Hong Kong withered.

Re:of religion and self-censorship

[Doc Ruby]

Anonymous Coward, your ridiculous comment is barely noticible. But, on the off chance that you might have a chance to think about these issues for yourself, I challenge you: what exactly is the "paranoid conspiracy" in my post, to which you allude with your snotty comment?

Re:Boycotting uncle Fidel hasn't seemed to help Cu

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

China is a bit different than cuba, iran, iraq, libya etc.

First off.. HK is a great city and the english made it so. Infact the Chinese did as well, buy not taking it over, and sticking to their agreement with England. England's handing over of HK back to China i felt was a great symbolic guesture that the world does keep its word and we can be civil.

China agreeing to not impose too many of mainland china's politics on HK was a big step in the right direction as well.

But many chinese fled HK before the hand over was complete. Many went to Australia, Canada, etc. They were in fear of China's mainland government.

Opening up China to world is certainly a good thing, but i'm concerned with what we're losing in America by placing so much emphasis on it while neglecting our own people.

Linux and the GPL

[xbsd]

What I find ironic, to say the least, is that the same company that accusse Linux and the GPL of being communist bans the word democracy and freedom across the ocean to avoid offending the most visible Communist Party on the planet.

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[AHumbleOpinion]

You state no one suggested modifying the GPL, but the only way you could stop China using F/OSS software is to modify the GPL

That would have no effect. The software has already been released under a GPL version that has no such limitations. There would merely be a fork. And as you mention at the end of your post such actions would probably end in the marginalization of the GPL as authors move elsewhere.

In real practical terms (which after all is what matters) the F/OSS movement presents problems for China because by opening up protocols and methods they leave themselves open to loosing control of information flow.

I'm sorry but your point is not practical, it is academic. The protocols are irrelevant when the government controls the wiring. The bits can't flow unless the government allows it. Read the slashdot article all of this is in response to, the words "democracy" and "freedom" are being banned from a major portal.

One Million Taiwanese Live in China

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. "The New York Times" reports that 1 million Taiwanese live and work in mainland China. They are pursuing the $100 billion that the Taiwanese have invested there.

The Taiwanese did all this voluntarily, including supporting a Taiwanese Constitution that supports integrating Tibet into "One China".

Taiwanese are scum.

Most Taiwanese view being ruled by Beijing as some sort of inconvenience. (Note the one million Taiwanese who are living in China.) Yet, the Taiwanese wants Americans to sacrifice their time, money, and lives to prevent this inconvenience. The Taiwanese really are a bunch of mercenary scum.

Democracy is anti-corporate.

[jbn-o]

Corporations are set up to be undemocratic institutions, "private tyrranies that are unaccountable to the public" as Noam Chomsky reminds us (I believe he was paraphrasing Walter Lippman here). It seems unsurprising therefore that Microsoft, one of the largest multinational corporations, would both go beyond what Chinese law actually requires of it along the line of making it even slightly more difficult to find what one is looking for, and to choose to have this to say about democracy.

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[professionalfurryele]

"That would have no effect."
Part of my point and an extension to it. Of course the situation is far worse than that since not all F/OSS software is under the GPL, so modifying the GPL alone would not have as big an affect. Your suggestion merely reinforces the point that the parent was suggesting the pointless.
"I'm sorry but your point is not practical, it is academic."
History sets a precedent which disagrees with you. Poland found technology vital in their efforts against the communist state. Sure 'democracy' and 'freedom' are here being banned from a major portal. The DDR likewise, the press and media were vital. Rudolf Bahro and 'Die Alternative', the DDR government tried to stop that getting through to the population and failed inspite of imprisoning and deporting him.
If this is the effect of conventional mass media, and publishing from the west, consider what the effect the internet is having in China. Already the Chinese are acting against blog owners. Sites outside China are blocked but listening to radio outside the DDR was banned and people still found ways to do it. Opening up the protocols and educating people about computer use is going to make matters worse for the Chineese government, not better.

Re:Boycotting uncle Fidel hasn't seemed to help Cu

[rolofft]

Sounds like you're concerned about "trade imbalances". I'm more worried about the broader topic of economic isolationism (i.e. sanctions, embargos, tariffs, and the like). Myanmar and North Korea are examples of how to drive your nation into the ground by cutting yourself off from the globe. I'm of the mind that sanctions against China would no more cause them to allow MSN searches for "freedom" and "democracy" through the Great Firewall than US sanctions caused the Soviets to withdraw from Afghanistan or UN sanctions caused Iraq not to invade Kuwait.

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[AHumbleOpinion]

If this is the effect of conventional mass media, and publishing from the west, consider what the effect the internet is having in China.

Again academic, the practical is being overlooked. Distributing paper is less centralized than the net. There is no *wire" that all printed articles must pass through. Radio is less centralized than the net. Again, not *wire*. The net is completely dependent on the *wire* and the government control that wire. Your points will become less academic some day in the future when we have long range wireless networking.

some empirical results...

[yuting]

Searching for 'Democracy' (Min-Zhu) in Chinese across MSN, Yahoo, Sohu, 3721 search engines -- the results are all the same:

The page cannot be displayed

The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings. (in IE)

What's even funnier, since then my IP seems to be blocked by the search engines for a few minutes.

If you try 'Democracy' in English, it works though but loads of porn sites come up.

Another interesting experience, a few years ago I was playing with Chinese version of IBM Via Voice, if you say "Taiwan Independence", no matter how hard you train the AI, it just won't type these words.

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[professionalfurryele]

You criticise my point again while in effect supporting it. The internet is a relatively new technology and is maturing fast. You point out that at present considerably (although not total) control is possible. I agree.
You state my points are purely academic then say that some day in the future they will become valid. I'm not arguing China is about to implode *now*. I'm pointing out that by embracing F/OSS technology today they making the positive equivilant of a pact with the devil. Grow the software industry now, deal with the implications later. You yourself have admitted there are consequences later so the only conclusion I can arrive at is that you agree with my sentiment and simply feel I have overstated my case. If that is so and you are attempting to restore balance by suggesting that by arguements do not amount to the eventual collapse of the Communist Chineese authority, I concur and thank you for you clarification.

Not Quite

[Master of Transhuman]

"banned the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' from parts of its website in an apparent effort to avoid offending Beijing's political censors.'"

They've got it wrong.

These words have been banned to avoid offending Bill Gates. He confuses these terms with "open source" and "communism". The word "totalitarian" and "shared source" are acceptable substitutes for these terms, according to a recent MS memo to Steve Ballmer.

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[AHumbleOpinion]

You state my points are purely academic then say that some day in the future they will become valid

Yes, your point is academic today, it may (not will) be practical in the future. That's what academic means, it does not mean you are necessarily wrong. As you said you seemed to be overstating things and being overly optimistic. Again, academic traits. Time will tell but I would not underestimate the gov't, pla, etc.

MS greatest defender of freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is the greatest defender of freedom everywhere where it serves it's business and the greatest voluntary suckup everywhere where it serves it's business.
MS is just a spineless corporation.

Luckily corporations don't have real mothers: they would screw them for profit and with the power they have over legislation in the "free world", by now it would not even be illegal.

Let's ban.....

[jonfr]

Let's ban the word "Microsoft" and "Windows" from the internet. That will teach Bill Gates a lesson.

I play an ok game of Chess, but a crap game of Go.

[Vryl]

And as far as I can see, Bin Laden has the better strategy, and the silly yanks and our arse-licking prime minister howard constantly take the poisoned pawns.

Any and all goodwill towards the west seems to have been lost and these morons (show me the WMD's please) can't spell 'quagmire'.

I find Chess easier than Go, but I think the world is probably more like Go than Chess.

Have a nice day.

In communist China....

[Anonymous Coward]

...law writes you.

Who Lost China's Internet?

[miltownkid]

Since I'm living in FreeChina (aka Taiwan) a friend thought I'd think this is intertesting, and I'm thinking someone here might think it is too:

Who Lost China's Internet?

It's not easy being the father of the Chinese Internet. Children are running by, boats are paddling, the smell of roast lamb fills the air, and Michael Robinson, a young American computer engineer, sits rigidly, facing an empty cafe on the shore of Qinghai Lake, speaking in a low voice of the crackdown. "What is better? Big brother Internet? Or no Internet at all?" Michael asks.

Read more...

Note From Friend: (The article is well-written, and I have no immediate problem with it, the only warning is to keep in mind the authorship, pnac.info).

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[Cro Magnon]

China can't become DEPENDENT on F/OSS. That's the whole point. F/OSS is not going to improve freedom for the Chinese people. In theory, the ecomonic benefits of not being dependent on a Big Evil Corporation might improve things, but I don't think the Chinese government will loosen its iron grip.

Re:So... Does that mean we can invade Microsoft no

[eeyore]

There is a difference. I doubt that Mr Saddam Hussein has ever contributed funds to the US Republican Party or their candidates.
--
AC

Re:Have Linus and Stallman asked Red Flag develope

[professionalfurryele]

China, both individually and collectively cannot become as readily locked in by F/OSS. This is different from dependent. When I say dependent I mean unable to change strategy. If China is going to build a software industry, it's best option is F/OSS because they can rapidly catch up. But once you start down that path it becomes economically painful to turn back. And the Chinese government at the moment cannot afford econmically painful.
If you are suggesting that F/OSS is not going to liberate any individual Chinese today I concur. But organising resistance is made easier by 1. A large middle class in opposition of the part line such as that found in Europe circa 1980's. 2. Improved communications technology with open standards circa the printing press through to modern day mass media, especially when assisted from the outside.
I don't think the Chinese have any intention of loosening thier iron grip either. I just think by embracing F/OSS they are giving thier citizens another tool with which to perhaps pry a pinky finger free. I doubt it is enough on it's own, but I don't think it is on it's own either.

XXXXXXX To Innovate

[Schwern]

Microsoft is just expressing its "XXXXXXX To Innovate".

Microsoft Did Good

[Shihar]

From http://www.toptechnews.com/story.xhtml?story_id=36 318/

The paper said that attempts to input words in Chinese such as "democracy" prompted an error message from the site: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech from this item." Other phrases banned included the Chinese for "demonstration," "democratic movement" and "Taiwan independence."

I personally think that this is an awesome compromise. Blatently reporting to a user that they are being censored is probably the most damning thing they could possibly do. Chinese censorship gets by because most of the time the people don't know that it is happening. They know that they are censored, but the when and where is what is in question. So, is it right that MSN is dealing with that government? No, but at least it is doing some less then subtle poking at it by blatently telling people they are being censored and writing articles about it.