Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Test New MS China Filter
earthbound kid writes "Rebecca MacKinnon at Global Voices Online has set up a test of Microsoft's censored blogs on MSN China (see previous Slashdot story) with screenshots. It seems that MSN rejected titling a new blog 'I love freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy' (in Chinese) because 'The title must not contain prohibited language, such as profanity.' MacKinnon managed to use a workaround and got a pro-freedom blog up, for the moment."
Why not use pornsites' tactics in here?
Like for example, "dmeocarcy" instead of "democracy", "frit psot" instead of well youknow, etc?
Who writes the laws then?
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
Is that everyone knows you are censoring. It only truly works, when ala 1984 everyone is convinced that it isn't happening.
Welcome to the internet China, and Microsoft, claiming you are "just enforcing local laws" is just a bad a defence of the freedoms you enjoy as the traditional "I was just obeying orders defence".
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
If I made a cartoon of Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, or any of dozens of other fairy tales that are in the public domain, do you really think I'd get them released with Disney fighting me?
Is it that different if the government blocks free speech directly or allows companies to do it?
IF YOU DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH:
* You must have a HotMail account...
Isn't writing these instructions in English a bit like having drive-up ATM's in Braille?
When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
China is a sovereign nation. China is fully within her rights to say what her citizens are allowed to say on line and what they're not.
By your logic, Afghanistan under the Talibans was a sovereign nation, and they were fully within their rights to arrest, torture and shoot any woman who dared going outdoors without wearing a huge blue tent over themselves, or men without beards, or people who owned books. Similarly, Khmer Rouges had the right to deport people to the countryside and kill vietnamese, etc etc etc...
That's so stupid I think you're actually just a troll...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
What about those kids who got in trouble with the SS (secret service) when the sang a parody of a song, containing words "kill" and "clinton", etc? Bah.
We've had 44 presidents, 4 assasinated while in office. 4 more who have had attempts on their life while in office. That's 18% of the the presidents so far.
The Secret Services job is to protect the President, his family, other high ranking officials and their families and foriegn dignitaries. They take their job seriously. They investigate ALL instances of possible threats because one of them just might be real. A guy I knew was pissed at a cop and said "I'm gonna kill the president!" The SS showed up at his door by the end of the week to find out if he was a threat or not. They found out he wasn't and left him alone.
So clarify what you mean by the kids or let the SS do their job.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Nice to see Gilmore's Law is still in effect.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
There often is a difference between what's legal and what's right in a moral sense - in other words, the "right" in "a right" is not the same as in "morally right".
China may have the legal right to do whatever it wants with its citizens, no matter what that is, but it doesn't mean that it's morally OK for them to do it. Furthermore, China *did* sign and ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - in fact, there even was a Chinese professor (Zhang Pengjun) on the commission that drafted the declaration.
That being said - as has been reported, there *is* not even a law in China that would require censorship of words such as "democracy". MSN is simply sucking up here, in one of the worst ways imaginable.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
China is a sovereign nation and has full rights to what goes on inside their borders. We in the US may not *like* it, but their laws are their laws.
Why the sudden change of heart? I don't seem to remember THAT little detail stopping US in the past 15 years while being the world's bull^H^H^H^H "policeman" and "taking charge" in Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... Or perhaps it's because the Chinese are strong enough to seriously bite the US in the ass that all of a sudden people stop to think? I think a little honesty is needed here.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Sorry for the spelling, I had to get past the slashdot profanity filters.
China is also part of the U.N. and, as a member, subscribes to the United Nations Declaratio on Human Rights.
And, as a result, they should not be censoring their own citizens right to speak freely, etc.
Google for "United Nations Declaration on Human Rights" some time, read it, and then look at what is espoused in that document and what member countries of the United Nations are actually DOING. Particularly, countries that are members of the security council.
What is "said" and what is "done" (or not done) are two differen things.
Microsoft should not be assisting the Chinese government in this, even remotely, and the fact that they are, speaks volumes to me about what Microsoft management things is right and proper, ethical and "good for all".
Either that or money. Sad but true.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
For once Microsoft is not the bad guy here. I don't understand why people are faulting Microsoft for cooperating with a government that could keep them out of a huge market. It is not Microsoft that is deciding that these things should be censored, it is China. Microsoft is just trying to make more money, just like every other American corporation would do. It is China that is trying to keep a lid on ideas that would threaten the way of life for those holding power in that country. And for all of those out there who keep saying that you would never bow to such a request, that's only because you will never have the chance to. If somebody told you if you cooperated with the laws of a country you did not agree with you could make millions or billions more dollars, you would do it. And if you were a public corporation, you would have a responsability to your share holders to do it. If you want to fix the problem, stop talking about how Microsoft is so evil because they are suppressing free speech (which they are not, that's China) and start talking about how the Chinese government is denying peoples rights, and how people and governments can influence China to change.
Oh, poor China is in trouble and the Chinese people are suffering. Don't worry, Americans to the rescue!! Aren't we all glad that we have Americans? They're the reason why everything good on the earth happens.
And they will care about your concept of morality (or mine, for that matter) because...?
there *is* not even a law in China that would require censorship of words such as "democracy".
Another regime that looks good on paper, doesn't it? Except that the written laws do not necessarily hold in some (quite many) countries. The constitution of the Soviet Union, for instance (i'm quoting the 1936 Constitution), states that In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings; freedom of street processions and demonstrations. Except that, well, they weren't.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
First, let's look at the entire definition of "United States" as it pertains to Title 28:
"(15) "United States" means--
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States."
In other words, anywhere you see "United States" it applies to any of those things listed under A, B or C.
A) a Federal corporation, does NOT mean that the United States is a federal corporation, it means that within Title 28, any thing that mentions "United States" applies to all Federal corporations, etc.
An example of a Federal corporation would be TVA or FDIC.
Also, what exactly does law regarding the certifying of statements to be given to courts have to do with China?
Please, take more things out of context and try to draw conclusions on them, it's hilarious.
What?
And by your logic our form of government is the only valid form. Every other type of government is wrong and we should put considerable political pressure on them or just invade them right out and make it all better with 'democracy'. The grandparent isn't a troll, he's stating a fact. If you live in a country you live by the laws of that land. If you don't like the laws then move. I realize that moving isn't always possible for any number of reasons (financial, government, etc...), but that's life. The United States isn't, or shouldn't be, the big brother for every country on Earth.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech, I just don't think we have a right to put our nose in China's internal affairs and tell them that they're wrong.
--Chag
What about changing the plain text "freedom" or "democracy" to multi-part images of those words (or the characters that represent them in Chinese) that are lined up? Couldn't that get past their filters? Just a thought.
The Republic of China, whose capital is Taipei, has democracy and free speech. Those Maoist insurgents on the mainland are illegitimate. There is only One China!
United States, however, is separate from the United States of America because according to Title 28 Section 3002 15a, "United States" is a Federal corporation.
How's that tinfoil hat fitting? First, just because you see the word "corporation" used in a sentence doesn't mean that somehow it's a business being run by investors just like whatever private-sector company you love to hate.
First, the definition of the word:
1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate.
3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.
From the latin word for body, you can use the term "incorporate" all sorts of ways. As in, "This comment incorporates my thoughtful response to your not very creative attempt to perpetuate hatred for American businesses."
Think in terms of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting, or any other similar structure set up to act under a charter established by the federal government. You might also want to get to know the definition of the word federal: "Of, relating to, or being a form of government in which a union of states recognizes the sovereignty of a central authority while retaining certain residual powers of government."
Yes, the states have some rights and powers, but the federal government exists expressly because there are some things best handled by a central authority. Some of those things are agencies or organizations chartered to perform certain roles. Those organizations incorporate certain rules, limits, responsibilities, and missiones that outlive the tenure of any particular individual citizens that happen to work within those structures. They are the embodiment of their charter. That allows the organization's mission to continue without constant reinvention every time someone leaves. Sort of like the difference between a store owned by one person (which goes away when that person goes away), or a store owned by a group of people that have incorporated in order to allow the store to thrive, grow, and continue to employ its people and serve its customers whether or not one person leaves or stays. But the most important aspect of it is the charter, which defines where the authority is, and how it's applied to the organization's activities.
The sections of code you're reading don't convey anything at all like what you're saying they do, and you of course know that. What you're trying to do is increase the "evil" quotient associated with the word "corporation" just because it's fashionable to do so, and because when that works, you can then tie that word to people you don't like (politically, for example), and spare yourself the trouble of having to actually explain rationally what you don't like. It's like using the word "witch" 400 years ago - a catch-all instant condemnation (but only for other people already caught up thinking that way).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
(the following is an actual post after being censored and released for public consumption)
~April 17~
Last year, Zhyang and I went to visit New York in America, the land of xxxxxxx. We had a xxxxxx time! We learned so much about xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxx, we realized it was a xxxxxxx country. We even got so see the Statue of xxxxxxxxxx. I want to tell all my fellow citizens to xxxxxxxx as soon as they get to xxxxxxxx. There, a person will translate English for you and give you xxxxxx. They also know alot about Microsoft and their products, they even have legal copies to purchase and take home.
Come back next week and learn more about my trip to Amsterdam in Holland! You won't believe all the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx there!
-Yao
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
> Your house belongs to the government now.
After you get paid for it.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Countries do not have any rights. Countries have powers granted to them by the citizens.
Luke-Jr
No. By anyone's logic.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1