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

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: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.

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.