Adopt a [Chinese] Blog

malorkus writes "Here's a great way for bloggers and others with decent web hosting to help fight internet censorship in China and other restrictive countries. Adopt a Chinese Blog aims to match up censored bloggers with volunteer hosts."

Comments

Block

[turtled]

Wouldn't their government then just block access to certain servers / sites / blogs?

Re:Block

[Crimson Dragon]

Yes, but the point of this seems to lie in the fact that enough people doing this will hassle the powers that be and bring attention on a larger scale to the rights violations going on there.

Re:Block

[tomhudson]

that, plus if they post in chinese and you can't understand it, you may very well be hosting a government "agent provocateur".

... or, if they post in english (or ingrish) then they aren't really communicating very effectively with their own countrymen, so it becomes just another political statement w/o much impact.

IOW, a cute idea, but not very practical or logical. Perhaps we're being trolled?

Re:Block

[wrf3]

And therein lies the tale of moral relativism. Freedom isn't better than tyranny; life isn't better than death; bravery isn't better than cowardice; and truth isn't better than lies. So let's stand for nothing, since we have nothing on which to stand.

Re:Block

[dkf]

They wouldn't need to once they found out who it was and did away with the subversion personally.

I thought it was Visual SourceSafe that we wanted to do away with...

Re:Block

[AKAImBatman]

There are no rights violations. It is Chinese law that is, in our opinions, flawed, but what gives you or I the right to say so?

I thought the same thing, but several very intelligent posters pointed out that there *are* rights being violated. Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution states:

Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Now I realize that the Chinese Constitution may not be worth the paper its printed on (I know of many violations of the constitution, including friends who fled China due to religious persecution - read: arrest/jail - directly in contradiction to article 36), but that shouldn't stop the Chinese from fighting for rights they've been explicitly granted.

A good writeup on the situation from a Chinese Law Professor is here, with a well reasoned rebuttal here.

Let's hope the Chinese people are able to fight for their constitution. If only it was as easy as taking the case before the Chinese Supreme Court. :-/

Re:Block

[Intron]

Nobody gives you rights. You have rights. There are only people trying to take them away.

If all people exercise their right of free speech, free press and free association then those rights will persevere. If you back down, then you will cede your rights. Its easy to promote a popular cause. Its the unpopular ones that define your character.

Anyway, I'd like to help, but my ISP won't let me host a blog on my server. And I have to wash my cat this weekend.

Re:Block

[Khuffie]

And the US constitution isn't being violated by the Patriot Act?

Re:Block

[Ryosen]

So what you're saying is like "I enjoy chocolate, I'm just not entitled to it". Being a bit literal, aren't we?

From dictionary.com:

Enjoy:
v. tr.

1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of: enjoys good health.

I believe that the intent of the Chinese Constitution is under definition #2.

Re:Block

[Wieland]

That's a valid point on a philosophical level. When there's no universally recognized moral authority (such as a supernatural being of some kind), there's no way to tell right from wrong that is beyond contestation.

From a more down-to-earth political viewpoint however, there are such things as universal human rights, which include, amongst others, freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Chinese law is in violation of those human rights, just like law in nazi-Germany and Japan during WWII, or laws in the former GDR that allowed people to be shot on the spot if they tried to flee the country.

Since WWII, the international community has developed an international legal framework to protect basic human rights independent of national law. There's, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Although it remains a controversial issue, human rights related international law is increasingly considered jus cogens, meaning it applies universally, regardless of a countries national laws or whether it has actually signed a human rights treaty or not. This is especially true for issues like slavery or torture, that are illegal in all cases. Regretfully, censorship law is probably in a somewhat greyer area, though.

Apart from all that legal mumbo jumbo, the question what gives the Chinese government the right to decide what's to be published and what's not, is just as valid as yours.

Re:Block

[kfg]

I submit an article to a magazine. The magazine decides to publish it.

How does this constitute the magazine forcing its values on me?

KFG

Re:Block

[Belial6]

"plus if they post in chinese and you can't understand it, you may very well be hosting a government "agent provocateur"."

That should be just fine with the adopters. Free speech is free speech. If you start deciding that only certain kinds of speech should be allowed, then your no better than the government censors.

Re:Block

[NamShubCMX]

And I have to wash my cat this weekend.

Seems like a very good idea for a blog!

Re:Block

[Rakishi]

Why not, answer me. You claim that because they're value system is different we cannot interfere. However, by saying that you're forcing YOUR value system onto me since there is no universal right or law preventing me from interfering with someone else's value system. Why can't I condemn them? Why can't I interfere? What are you basing my actions as being "bad" on? They have no inherent universal right to anything as you claim, which also includes the right to keep me from interfering.

You're a hypocrite, attempting to use a line of reasoning without following it through to completion.

You also ignore the fact that the very existence of such dissidents means not everyone subscribes to the Chinese governments moral system, so you cannot use the government to claim I am interfering. You talk of moral systems, and as such you must compare the Western one to the Chinese one not to the Chinese government's one. If some people do not agree with the government then they are no longer covered under its moral system. If you're going to use the governments actions as a basis for morality than at least use it for both sides, and don't compare apples to oranges.

Re:Block

[AKAImBatman]

If you're a product of the US education system, go ask for your money back, because you didn't get what you paid for. Rights are not granted by a constitution. Rights are inherent (at the 'certain inalienable' ones).

Man, I'm glad I didn't go to your education system. You have a pretty warped view of history.

Our declaration of independence says the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

1. You'll note the suspicious lack of "Freedom of Speech".
2. Our founding fathers recognized that while rights are not granted by a government, it is the governments job to ensure the rights under which the people will live.

Something else to note is that the US Constitution went into effect in 1789. Yet the First Ammendment (the right to free speech) was not added until 1791! The exact origins of the ammendment are complex, but they stem from the desire by the early American government and populace to provide a method for the general public to keep tabs on what their government was doing. Thus protection was set up to provide for freedom of speech and press. NO OTHER COUNTRY RECOGNIZED THIS FREEDOM. In fact, many governments went as far as to explicitly censor the newspapers of time.

So the origins of the freedom of speech are nowhere near as simple or "inalienable" as you make them out to be. If I were you, I'd ask for my VAT back.

Re:Block

[bnenning]

You'll note the suspicious lack of "Freedom of Speech".

Gosh, and it doesn't say anything about the freedom to eat chocolate either. It does however say "Liberty".

Something else to note is that the US Constitution went into effect in 1789. Yet the First Ammendment (the right to free speech) was not added until 1791!

Statist fallacy #43. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grants rights to citizens. They grant powers to *government*, and in theory government can act only in accordance with those powers. Sadly, the delineation of certain specific rights had led many people to believe that they have *only* those rights, and government can do anything as long as it doesn't infringe them. Alexander Hamilton warned of this:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575-581, 28 May 1788)

Sadly, he was correct.

Re:Block

[marianne1017]

I can't say I've read EVERY comment but I've read a lot, and I'm surprised no one yet has quoted John Gilmore: The Internet treats censorship as damage, and routes around it. To me, the Internet isn't owned or controlled by any government or corporation (allowing that the mysterious forces that control ICANN are, well, mysterious; does anyone else remember the NSA conspiracy theories re: DNS control?) - it's possibly the best instance of distributed anarchism that works for good (most of the time) and for ill (some of the time, bearing in mind human nature). I like to hope that if anything can combat totalitarianism, it's the Internet.

In soviet Russia

[farker haiku]

Hrm... so,
In Soviet Russia, Bloggers host you!

Adopt...

[British]

*Sally Struthers walks on*

For just 5 megs a month you can adopt a Chinese blog. You will recieve letters, a digital camera picture and more from your sponsored blog. Your blog will recieve bandwidth, FTP access and encryption...

Just 5 megs a month. Isn't that worth it?

Why not?

[ch0p]

What's to stop the government from arresting people who are trying to get around their censorship?

Re:What is their major malfunction?

[Curtman]

"Leave China alone for Christ's sake. You're not going to change things, especially if you are NOT IN CHINA!"

No way. This has gone way too far.

If there is truth to these accusations that the Chinese government is intimidating citizens of my country in any way for something such as practicing Falun Gong, then we have a serious problem that need s addressing.

I'm in no way in favour of military action, but this is clearly and act of war on their part if it is true.

Punishment?

[OverkillTASF]

Is there some law in China against circumventing the censorship laws? Like.... What is the potential punishment that you are probably incurring upon whatever China-person you "help out"?

Re:Punishment?

[Neurotoxic666]

Both persons should agree on something like this:

1. The blogger (in China) pretends he just sent the content of the blog in a personal email and that

2. the host published the content of said email without permission.

IANAL and IANC (Chinese), but this seems to make some sense. This or something similar...

Re:Punishment?

[Nos.]

Because of course a government that won't respect personal freedoms will certainly respect a technicality.

Re:Fighter Censorship at Home!!

[archmagusrm]

Methinks the distinction here is censorship of information and legitimate opinion rather than censorship of trolls. We like to censor trolls, nobody wants to wake up to one in the morning...

This sounds like a good idea, BUT...

[Rude Turnip]

I'd be scared shitless to visit China if I let some dissident bloggers use some of my hosting space. The Chinese govt. is probably paranoid enough to start putting together a list of individuals who have helped these "dangerous" individuals.

Another concern I'd have is that a blogger might have lots of harsh words about some local official, but how do I know it isn't simply slander? And what would my liabilities be in such a case?

Re:This sounds like a good idea, BUT...

[Klaus Obermeyer]

Yes, sadly China is paranoid enough to "make a list of a few people and try to filter them out" out of the millions of visiting tourists every year. This is especially apparant in the case of Falun Gong where foreign citizens are currently being held without trial for speaking out against the wrongful treatment of their fellow practitioners.

American citizens such as human rights activist Dr. Charles Li have been arrested and dissapeared into the black hole which is the chinese justice system never to be seen again.

Out

[Capt James McCarthy]

I think I'll outsource my blog to India.

Outsourced

[CorporateWhoremone]

You can't outsource to the US. That just dosn't mesh with the United States' plan for global domination.

Not to rain on your parade but..

[matvei]

what's stopping the Chinese secret service (or whatever) to register with this service as hosts, collect all the information needed to snatch the blogger and make an example out of him and his family?

Re:Not to rain on your parade but..

[Uruk]

Nothing really stops them except the filtering that the adoption agency does. Since they're probably not trained in intelligence procedures, I'd guess they can't stop this from happening.

But if you're Chinese intelligence, the better method is to prevent people from getting to the adoption service in the first place. They don't want to throw people in lonely prisons after they publish damaging things, they want to prevent damaging things from being published. The best way to do that is to use the Great Chinese Internet Filter (AYB) to block the adoption service, and to block known sites that choose to adopt Chinese blogs. It's easier to make the blogger irrelevant or unheard than it is to throw them in prison.

Things like freenet have been developed to really help the Chinese out in this situation. And this is really sad to say, but true: sometimes you need someone to be made an example of, because it's the recognition of the injustice towards them that spurs others to really consider the issue critically and do something about it, since the same could happen to them.

Re:Not to rain on your parade but..

[duggy_92127]

...collect all the information needed to snatch the blogger and make an example out of him and his family?

What country/world do you live in?? You're really contemplating the possibility that the Chinese government is going to hunt you down, "snatch" you away, and do horrible things to you?

Listen, America has a number of problems, but keeping its citizens safe from foreign aggression while on their own soil is not one of them. And I'm including "terrorism", even though that's not remotely the point here.

Furthermore, "...the United States (US) lacks extradition treaties with over fifty nations, including the People's Republic of China and North Korea." So even if they asked the US politely to hand you over, our government would just laugh at them.

How paranoid do you have to be to think that not only is the government of China going to notice you, but send somebody over to get you? Wow.

Doug

Great idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would any chinese adopt my european CVS?

That would be great! If I could move my project to a free country. Reading trivial patents is so boring you know...

Other countries?

[5plicer]

This is great idea! What about hosting blogs of citizens of other countries where internet censorship run rampant? I guess the campaign does cover a lot of territory, given China's immense population.

Does anyone here appreciate the irony?

[tigre]

China is a safe haven for all sorts of internet activity which is illegal and reprehensible here, I guess it's only fair that we return the favor.

Adware hosting?

[Donny Smith]

The linked site does not exactly show how they plan to limit (ab)use to actual opressed bloggers and keep the spam and ads out.

BTW, what is wrong with opening a (Chinese) blog account on one of Western sites and emailing blog posts via some foreign Webmail site that provides HTTPS encryption of Web sessions?

Chinese gov't can adopt DMCA victim websites

[Anonymous Coward]

It's great to see efforts being made to give the people of China free speech, but the increasing level of madness and greed emanating from (corporate)America the situation is no longer as one-sided as it once was.

The Chinese government should return fire with fire by encouraging "legal" Chinese web site operators to "Adopt a patent-free website" or Adopt a DMCA victim".

They could start with the author of DVD Decrypter.

The American Government is no longer the squeaky-clean defender of the oppressed that it never was, and now that Canada and Europe have fallen,
it looks like the time has come for a kind of copyright anti-here.

China fits the bill like no other country in the world...

Webspace

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking for a free, fully-managed, load-balanced hosting environment with unlimited bandwidth and space, free domain registration, SQL Server and the dotNet framework.

In exchange, I promise to be scathingly critical about nation you choose.

Ah, the irony...

[The Woodworker]

I've read hundreds of posts on slashdot that were wrongly modded down (censored) as trolls because people didn't like what they had to say, and others modded up as 'insightful' with content like 'MS SUCKS' and nothing else to say. Now this community is bitching about China?!! The looking glass is a mirror.

BTW, -1 as a troll. To hell with my karma.

Re:At the risk of being off-topic...

[Daniel_Staal]

The democratic or republican forms of government are not designed to be the best form of government: a benevolent, wise, dictator/king is a far better system. What they are designed for is to limit the downside. While a good dictator/king is the probably the best form of government, a bad dictator/king is probably the worst.

The point of a democratic or representative system is that the worst case is limited, because no one person has the power to totally screw everything up. Presumably, therefore, at least some people will be decent, keeping the system from total failure.

So, yes, a planned economy can outperform a non planned one, if the planners are very good. A controlled political system can out perform a non planned one, if the planners are good.

But you have to have good planners. And they have to stay good, and operate in the interest of the system, not themselves.

An uplanned system, where everyone operates in their own best intrest, works fairly well, and does not depend on finding exeptional people to run it.

(My personal feeling, by the way, is that their economic growth has been more the result of technology upgrades than anything else. The US/Europe leads the world in productivity-enhancing tech, and a country that can jump a few grades closer to us will grow a lot faster than we will because we have to develop the next steps.)

Re:What is their major malfunction?

[TummyX]

They should consider themselves lucky that the US gives them billions of dollars of weapons to fight enemies that are equiped with rocks and primitive explosives.


WTF? Do you think they use all of those weapons on the Palestinians? The best thing that can happen for Israel is for he world to acknowledge that it *IS* a war. The fact is, if they used those weapons in an all out war, the Palestinians wouldn't have a fucking change.

And to describe palestinian as poor enemies with only rocks and primitive explosives is nothing short of fuckign ignorant. A suicide bomber who can disguise himself, walk into a nightclub and blow himself up is far more dangerous than the restricted actions of the IDF. Especially since it creates a situtation where liberties (including those of Palestinians) have to be exchanged for security.

Enemies that they imposed upon, and enemies that they threaten and steal from when they attempt to expand their borders.


I invite you to read some history and get damn a clue.

A country like Israel, despite being attacked repeatedly by its neighbours, being built up of people who have had their lands stolen off them (in both Europe and Arabia) has managed to develop into the only multi-cultural, multi-ethnic democracy in the middle east. Israel is responsible for inventions ranging from the MRI to ICQ to the Pentium-M.

When was the last time you saw a Jew blowing himself up in Saudi Arabia or Germany demanding their land back? Nope, they just get on with their fucking lives and contribute to humanity instead of becoming career refugees like a certain group of people.

Communitycolo.net is the answer

[Tairan]

Community Colocation Project is part of the Online Policy Group which provides Free (as in speech AND beer) hosting to any individual or non profit entity. They're the peoeple who fought Diebold, refuse to work with unacceptable takedown notices, and in general, are here to host these kinds of sites.

Re:At the risk of being off-topic...

[ediron2]

In short, no.

Economic growth: growing from zero (china) has a better percentage gain than growth from peak (US). No news here. On the other hand, things that grow quickly have a higher risk. Put another way, a startup grows faster than GE or Microsoft. But they can also overheat/crash/fail for a lot of reasons that won't kill a stable diversified giant corporation.

Your posting also interchanges economic and political concepts. They're not the same thing, and untangling them is necessary to talk effectively.

Bottom line: In theory, maximum political efficiency comes from despotic or dictatorial control. In practice, no economically optimized dictatorship has ever existed. To paraphrase Gilmore's law, that's why regulation inevitably creates a black market: capitalism treats control as damage and routes around it.

Smart little trick

[Morgor]

When I first read about the blog censorship on msn in china, I tried it myself, and discovered that you were infact allowed to write the words "freedom" and "democracy" if you only registered yourself as not living in China. So with my fake identity of a Chinese student living in Beijing, I couldn't write the characters for democracy, but with my real identity of a Danish student living in Copenhagen, I could easily write those words, and it had no impact that I was infact using the Chinese msn site.