Western Software Used to Support Censorship

just_another_sean writes "The NYT has an interesting summary of a study done by the OpenNet Initiative about Western software companies developing and profiting from censorship and Internet filtering tools used by repressive regimes. This particular study focuses on censorship in Myanmar, a country that is currently under American sanctions. Are these software companies simply selling a product and should not be concerned with how it is used or are they contributing to the problems of these repressive regimes?"

Comments

Restrict Software Sale!

[Manip]

What we should do is restrict these evil companies from selling such software, or 'censor' the software companies if you like... That would solve the problem and the world would be a more free and happy place.

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[mordors9]

I agree that we can not (or should not) make the selling of any software illegal (although we have done it before, just ask the PGP guy). I think a company like this should be publicly shamed. It should be presented to the public that they are cooperating with these regimes in assisting in the enslavement of their people.

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators: Parent should be +1 Funny, not +1 Interesting. "What we should do is... 'censor' the software companies... the world would be a more free place"

Yes, because censorship is certainly the path to freedom.

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[Richard_at_work]

Peer to Peer applications can be sold or used for both legal and illegal purposes, ethical and unethical purposes. Same goes for word processors. Webservers. Ftp servers. Linux. Anything. Why should we concern ourselves with whether one particular subset of products are being used for ethical or unethical purposes? We shouldnt restrict these companies at all, what we should do is raise the concerns to a public level and let the individual decide if they want to do business with these companies in any form. The western world is after all a capitalist one.

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[GigsVT]

Guess we should shame Linus for creating software that lots of oppressive regimes use.

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[k3s]

Would it be better if the Repressive Regimes used Open Source Software?

It would be easy for them to modify existing application to censor.

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[JustADude]

That's completely different, and you know it. This is software specifically created for the purpose of denying information in a controlled manner. The issue isn't whether the software is being used by regimes we dislike, it's the purpose of said software, which is a horse of a different color.

That said, I'm not sure trade embargoes help anything, though I do agree with another poster who suggested a public shaming of these companies. People of conscience wouldn't support American companies building torture devices or weapons for oppressive regimes, but we'll turn a blind eye to the censorship of their people? Why is that?

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[eSims]

How is public censorship more acceptable then government censorship?

I am not saying I support what these companies are doing, but bully censoring is still censoring...

Slashdot: Food for Thought, Stuff that Incites

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[hunterx11]

How is public censorship more acceptable then government censorship?

One (public "censorship") is an exercising of rights, whereas the other (censorship) is a denial of rights. It's more acceptable in the same way that freedom is more acceptable than slavery.

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[fireweaver]

You have to understand the first three rules of business:

[1] Make money.
[2] Make more money.
[3] Fuck everything and everyone that gets in the way of making money.

let's do an abstraction of this to a individual level:

[1] Get what "I" want.
[2] Get *more* of what "I" want.
[3] Fuck everything and everyone who gets in the way of "me" getting what "I" want.

You know what the last set of rules sounds like? The mental attitude of a psychopath[1] - a person with no conscience and no restrictions on thier behaviour. A person who does things "because he can". And that is very descriptive of corporate behaviour since the beginning of corporations.

[1] aka "sociopath", "antisocial personality", etc. I.e., basic motherfucking sonofabitch.

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[GreyWolf3000]

What if there isn't such a distinct line of software designed to assist oppressive regisems and software designed to be useful?

What if I sell software designed to filter web pages based on content (i.e. squidguard)? What if Myannmar (sic) buys the software and uses it to filter web pages containing information critical of the current leadership?

Re:Restrict Software Sale!

[sl3xd]

It's a classical trap of using censorship to abolish censorhip. "If we censor the software makers, we'll get rid of censorship in these regimes."

It comes down to this: Many a hacker consider code as a form of free speech, and that they have the right to excersize their right of free speech how they choose.

If these companies aren't forbidden to write (and sell) their wares and views as they choose, how is it any different from censoring inflammatory political speech and propaganda?

It's not illegal for somebody to use their right of free speech to make a case for censorship. Sure, its paradoxical, but it's not illegal.

Here comes the flame war...

[goldspider]

...and allow me to fan it with an analogy:

Are these gun manufacturers simply selling a product and should not be concerned with how it is used or are they contributing to the problem of criminals?

Flame on!

Re:Here comes the flame war...

[Mistshadow2k4]

Selling a gun to a customer and selling a gun to a known murderer are not the same thing. If you sell software that can enforce censorship to countries that practice censorship, you know that they're going to use it for that. Does that make the seller an accomplice? I dunno, ask a cop about selling a gun to a known murderer and whether they could bring someone up on charges for that.

Re:Here comes the flame war...

[Rude Turnip]

Feel free to interchange "gun manufacturers" with "automobile manufacturers" or "producers of alcoholic beverages."

What about the American Sanctions

[Bananatree3]

From the article:

Myanmar, which has long been under American sanctions

If Myanmar has long been under sanctions, wtf is an American tech company doing there? I mean, aren't American companies, especially technology companies prohibited working with such repressive governments? Or is this simply a case of a company going stealth from the American government simply to make a buck?

Re:What about the American Sanctions

[supabeast!]

Sanctions are just another BS tool politicians use to look tough. They get to stand up in front of the voters and talk about how they're using sanctions to be tough on the turrists and commies, all the while taking campaign contributions from American companies which operate foreign subsidiaries and move product through third party resellers to avoid the sanctions.

Re:What about the American Sanctions

[brian.glanz]

This is where the U.S. Congress has license to go after these companies, legally. A few hearings ought to clear everything up for the American people, where the "two-tier distribution models" that pass responsibility for distribution on to resellers become front-page news and election issues. The problem here though, is one of significantly higher order than sanctions and software in Myanmar. For Congress to assert itself and American law in this one case would only belie the greater reality and delay the onset of global justice.

If we're going to live in a world of nations, then we each maintain our own law and for example, the U.S. Congress does have something substantive to say about how American companies conduct their business. If companies are to continue being considered "American" or "German" or "Japanese" at all, then the national governments must reassert themselves. Under the current circumstances, only fools believe what's written in all those books, charters, and constitutions. Americans argue over whether The Pledge of Allegiance should be said -- they ought to consider first whether any of it is relevant, anymore. Fact is, corporations are already far more nimble and powerful than countries. Nations are already unable to protect and govern their citizens, so are they nations at all?

Economics lead and politics follow. At some point, the national governments will admit their standing and, in a grab for power they can no longer pretend to have, they will coalesce with other, similar national governments. As we've seen in the EU, mergers between governments will attempt to catch up to the transnationalism of corporations. Before this happens, I think corporations will need to abuse their workers and their consumers somewhat more than already they do, and all of us will need to hear and read more about it. There will need to be significant public support for a body like the U.S. Congress to go on suggesting a merger with other governments, admitting it cannot otherwise corral American companies.

The Chinese may yet prove me wrong, but so far I'm still pretty sure that capitalism requires an overseeing democracy to maintain justice. Justice's scales are far out of balance at the moment, where the laws we write here in the U.S. are wholly ignored by American companies elsewhere. Hell, even the American government itself just outsources its torture and killing of detainees and enemies of our state. Whenever we want to break our own laws, we just go somewhere else to do it. The connection between laws and land is an ancient concept, one which bears decreasing resemblance to 21st century reality.

So yes, American companies should not be selling product there, because there are those sanctions and yes, I do think the American government could still do something to stop it, but not so long as they remain only the government of America. To really do something about it, to right the scales of Justice, to police and govern the world, we require world government. Nothing less will do, all this nonsense about being a "Super Power" and the policemen of the world set aside. Our tech and strategy and experience can't even put Iraq at peace; the U.S. and its few close friends are nowhere near the strength required of a global government.

Money knows no borders

[The Infidel]

Just another example of why we need stricter trade controls. If a US company is selling technology specifically designed to censor the public or if they provide technical support to achieve such an end, they should be fined, and if the offense continues, dissolved. Of course there needs to be clearly defined limits on what constitutes such things, but it needs to be done.

They're sticking to basic American principles:

[meringuoid]

... the profit motive rules all. What, you think our companies should worry about the lot of the ordinary citizen, the workers, the guy in the street? That's not American, that's not the Western way, that's communism! You're not a Communist, are you? Why do you hate America so much?

Re:They're sticking to basic American principles:

[Caspian]

Um, what?

No one's saying that what the leaders of the repressive regimes are doing isn't wrong. In fact, it's BECAUSE what they do is wrong that we're upset American corporations are selling to them.

And by the way, it isn't wrong because they're Marxist. It's wrong because they're wrong.

Both sides are at fault. Them more than us. However, this is a case of "We should be better than that". American corporations should be BETTER than to seek out profits from evil, repressive regimes.

Should anyone...

[charlie763]

Should AutoCAD be concerned when it's software is used to design weapons? Should I be concerned about paying taxes when that money is used to kill people because they live on the other side of an imaginary line? Should Slashdot editors be concerned when their forums are used to copyright infringe entire articles?

Evil?

[BenjyD]

What I don't understand is how a Western software salesman can be so blinded by profit that they can do this. What do they say to their family when they ask "What did you do today?". "Not much, I just sold a complete filtering solution to the Chinese government in order to help them supress dissent and hunt down pro-democracy campaigners".

We're not talking about a few off-the-shelf copies of Windows here - these are large scale installations.

Re:Evil?

[swb]

There is no ethics in business, I'm not sure if there ever was, but at least until fairly recently there were
ethical men IN business.

I'd wager that post-WWII many businesses were staffed by people with war experience who WOULD blanche at the idea that they were getting rich by supporting the enemies of freedom they might have personally fought and lost loved ones to.

I think they were also much more likely to have secondary motivations (doing good work for the organization, etc) in addition to "increased sales" or other material motivations.

Clearly this has passed. Business is staffed by technocrats and empty, greedy people obsessed with only their own enrichment. That corporate America struggles to prevent its leaders from lying and cheating their own investors (Enron, Worldcom, etc), is anyone surprised by the fact that they will functionally sell out the very democratic, free-market values that they have?

Numerous analogies have also been drawn between the authoritarian power structures of business environments (dictatorial leadership & decisionmaking, no due process) and authoritarian governments. The parallels are obvious.

I think that in recent years they have been abetted by colleges with business departments/schools divorced from the larger academy and business students disdainful of liberal arts classes due to the wildly left-biased teachers and curriculum.

These students then enter business leadership with little or no grasp on the relationships between freedom, democracy, property, etc, and they then only see parallels between the elites of dictatorial governments and their own business elite status.

I think that to some extent business favors authoritarianism -- no messy labor problems or consumer groups to deal with.

Collaborators

[rbrander]

The "two tier model" of which the article speaks is a pathetically small fig-leaf. There is nothing remotely difficult about imposing restrictions on resellers not to sell to repressive regimes or for any use to curtail freedom of speech.

When it's your own country that's repressed by dictators, those who help them do it are called "collaborators" by the rest of the populace. When it's somebody else's country, well... ...I still call them collaborators.

Greed Kills & Censorship Stifles

[digitaldc]

"There's a cat-and-mouse game going on between states that seek to control the information environment and citizens who seek to speak freely online," said John Palfrey, the director of Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society and a researcher with the OpenNet Initiative. "Filtering technologies, and the way that they are implemented, are becoming more sophisticated."
Not surprisingly, repressive governments have been eager buyers of those technologies.

From the CIA 'Factbook' on Myanmar (Burma):
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ bm.html#Govt

Economy - overview:
Burma is a resource-rich country that suffers from government controls, inefficient economic policies, and abject rural poverty. The junta took steps in the early 1990s to liberalize the economy after decades of failure under the "Burmese Way to Socialism", but those efforts have since stalled and some of the liberalization measures have been rescinded. Burma has been unable to achieve monetary or fiscal stability, resulting in an economy that suffers from serious macroeconomic imbalances - including inflation and multiple official exchange rates that overvalue the Burmese kyat. In addition, most overseas development assistance ceased after the junta began to suppress the democracy movement in 1988 and subsequently ignored the results of the 1990 legislative elections. Economic sanctions against Burma by the United States - including a ban on imports of Burmese products and a ban on provision of financial services by US persons in response to the government of Burma's attack in May 2003 on AUNG SAN SUU KYI and her convoy - further slowed the inflow of foreign exchange. Official statistics are inaccurate. Published statistics on foreign trade are greatly understated because of the size of the black market and unofficial border trade - often estimated to be one to two times the size of the official economy. Though the Burmese government has good economic relations with its neighbors, a better investment climate and an improved political situation are needed to promote foreign investment, exports, and tourism. In February 2003, a major banking crisis hit the country's 20 private banks, shutting them down and disrupting the economy. As of January 2004, the largest private banks remained moribund, leaving the private sector with little formal access to credit.

I wonder what the executives at companies like Microsoft, Yahoo and Cisco feel about using their technology to aid oppressive regimes? The whole idea of information sharing and transferral is thrown out the window when you can no longer criticize your goverment or those in power. You then have a dumbed-down version of the software, with no reason to trust or believe anything you read through them since they are easily monitored, and easily censored.


Do the executives at these companies have any morals? How far must it go before they will object to censorship? Is their complacency indicative of their need for more sales or that they just don't care?

Companies don't make the rules

[moz25]

The solution is quite easy: just make laws that forbid companies from supplying such assistance to those regimes. The goal of a company is to make money, preferably within existing laws. It's pretty sure they're not breaking the laws of of e.g. China and Myanmar, so people can only be surprised that companies in the business of making money are trying to make money.

If people are so concerned about democracy, freedom of speech and other bla bla, then why import so many goods from China (repressive communist regime) or import oil from Saudi Arabia (fundamentalist Islamic)? At the end of the day, it's all about the money and practically no one is even marginally innocent in this.

What about portals etc?

[SuperBanana]

What about Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc? All of which are falling all over themselves to serve the Chinese market?

Falling over themselves so fast and hard, they're perfectly happy to turn over the names of political dissidents and censor web results so the Great Firewall of China doesn't stick out like a sore thumb? Seems pretty "evil" to me.

Always amazes me that Slashdotters get all up in arms about filtering at their school or work, scream blue bloody murder about censorship...but when Google filters for a whole country, nobody gives a damn.

You Have Got to Be Kidding

[craznar]

From country that exports death in a thousand forms - you are worried about a company selling software used for filtering internet traffic.

Is this the same ideology that blanks out Janet's tits, but allows 100 people to be shot in a half hour TV show ?

Get your priorities right.

Capitalsm is not always perfect...

[ameline]

This story certainly reminds me of what V.I. Lenin said -- "The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them."

(Quote attributed to Lenin, but there's no real documented evidence to support his saying it. Stalin, on the other hand, definitely paraphrased it on at least one occasion.)

Re:Simply selling

[BenjyD]

Wrong analogy. Selling more bullets to someone you just watched shoot ten people outside your store would be more apt.

Once the rockets are up...

[jmv]

...who cares where they come down? That's not my department. -- Wernher von Braun

If we make money off it, who cares some will suffer? -- Corporate world

Priorities

[Bob3141592]

I am appalled that US software is being used to suppress individual rights overseas, when there's obviously so much more that needs to be done to suppress individual rights here at home.

Free software, anybody?

[NineNine]

And have any writers of "free software" stopped to think what terrible things their software can and is being used for? Should we stop free software makers from distributing their software to anybody who wants it? Or, if a free software program is used to commit, say, war crimes, should its creators be arrested and tried?

Re:Free software, anybody?

[BenjyD]

I see this argument posted about 30 times on this thread. I can't believe that the posters are not able to see the difference between knowingly selling software and services to oppressive regimes, often in defiance of a trade embargo, and having some anonymous person download or buy off-the-shelf software.

Cisco and Microsoft, for example, are quite happy to cooperate with the Chinese government over the "Great Firewall of China". They know who they are selling to and the exact purpose to which their products will be put, yet they still do it.

Western software!?

[91degrees]

Why aren't they outsourcing this to China?

Sellilng software

[Bastian]

If these companies are just selling a product and needn't concern themselves with how it will be used once it leaves their hands, we should be consistent and apply the same thought process to our handling of your local pharmacy's policies on selling opiates or your local gun dealer's policies on selling guns.

Unsurprising

[erroneus]

Under circumstances where money and profit are the moral, religious and primary motivation for business, it's unsurprising that they fail to account for contributing to human suffering or oppression. Look at Nike!

But we certainly don't need more laws or restrictions on its own. What we need are more people who care about the problems and are willing to display the shameful for who and what they are. I think one of the biggest problems in today's society comes from anonymity. After all, if no one knows who you are, then no one will know what you have been doing or whether you are responsible for this that or the other. No face, no shame and somehow no guilt.

The Nike example shows that they are not proud of their approach to manufacturing and will even display signs of shame (even if through denial) for the murky areas in which they are engaged. I don't think that these other companies would be any different... the problem is how to get that stuff exposed in a way that gets enough attention. The media is now owned by the same club membership that is responsible for a lot of the activity we find so repugnant so the dilemma is clear and obvious.

The Fifth Hope had some good lectures on this ...

[un1xl0ser]

From: http://www.the-fifth-hope.org/hoop/5hope_speakers. khtml

How the Great Firewall Works
Bill Xia
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/gr eat-firewall.mp3 http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/gr eat-firewall.m3u

Cult of the Dead Cow Hactivism Panel
Eric Grimm, Sharon Hom, Dr. James Mulvenon, Oxblood Ruffin, Nart Villeneuve
http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-1.mp3 http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-1.m3u http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-2.mp3 http://www.the-fifth-hope.org.nyud.net:8090/mp3/cd c-hacktivism-2.m3u

re: supporting censorship

[jahudabudy]

People of conscience wouldn't support American companies building torture devices or weapons for oppressive regimes, but we'll turn a blind eye to the censorship of their people? Why is that?

So as to avoid a flamewar, I'll forbear mentioning my ideas as to the why, but I would like to point out that a not insignificant number of Americans not only turn a blind eye, but actively support the censorship of their own people; why should we expect them to be more charitable towards others?

Public `censorship' is not censorship

[brokeninside]

You ask how public censorship can be more acceptable then government censorship. But there can be no public censorship because the public at large does not back its censorship through coercive force short of a mob going door to door threatening individuals with bodily harm if they say certain things or buy certain products. Rather, a public effort to shame a company into modifying its behavior respects the principle of individual autonomy because it invites people to participate rather than forcing people to participate.

Consider a woman getting up on a soapbox to sing protest songs in a public square. If I turn my back on her and walk away solely because of the content of her songs, that isn't censorship. But if the police come along and arrest her solely because of the content of her songs, she has been censored. Even if I go around urging others to ignore this singer, I'm still not committing censorship. She is still free to express her protest just as I am still free to ignore it and free to attempt to stop her message being promulgated by depriving her of an audience by convincing others to choose to ignore her.

Re:Public `censorship' is not censorship

[WaterBreath]

Please forgive me using the term "public censorship". I realize that it has a built in emotional appeal, by connotation, that is somewhat intended to stifle certain arguments. I would like to avoid it, but at the moment I can't think of another term for this phenomenon.

"Public censorship" isn't okay just because it's the public that does it. It causes it's own share of problems. It can lead to prejudice, which can be just harmful to society even when not supported by legislation. It's an indirect opression that is much harder to counteract, because any opposition is seen through the same filter as that which is being censored. It's still a "tyranny of the majority", no matter how you cut it.

Which is worse... To fear expressing your opinion because you may be fined or put in jail for it? Or to fear expressing your opinion because you may be labeled, shunned, ridiculed, etc.?

The societal effect of "public censorship" is stronger, harder to fight, and therefore more dangerous, IMHO, than the societal effect of legislative/governmental censorship. If you want an example, look at the battle going on right now between the "liberals hate America" and "conservatives hate freedom" camps. Both are attempts to get their patrons not to listen to anything the opposition says. Is the unending continuation of this futile battle going to lead to a better America?

No, I'm going to have to side with Jon Stewart on this one. It can only make things worse. It fosters animosity and divisiveness, and it stifles coooperation and compromise. And no matter who wins, a huge portion of society feels like they're under the thumb of a hated enemy.

Unrestricted Capitalism

[Hoi Polloi]

Yah! Companies should never be restricted. What would have happened if these companies had been restricted?

IG Farben
Ford
US Arms Sales to Iraq
Oil Companies in Nigeria
US/UK Subversion of Democratic Iran for Oil Companies

I don't recall anyone asking for the public's opinion on these business practices.

Happens Here too!

[Pooldraft]

Everyone gets upset when you hear about another country censoring their population for one reason or another. It happens here all the time though. Next time you hit google up type in "kazza" now go to the bottom and you will see this "In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org." Now how is that censorship any different then other countrires censorship. You will probably say something like this: "yea but that is because of a law that congress passed." Ok but you really think that in other countries were censorship is happening there are not laws against what is being censored, bet there are. Have a nice day.

Re:Isn't it already unconstitutional?

[cdrguru]

Sorry, if a US citizen kill someone in Canada, you might get extradited to Canada for prosecution, but there is no way you are going to be prosecuted in the US.

Same with killing someone in Brazil. Or Mexico. Or anywhere else for that matter.

Now, the US Justice Department would probably look favorably on an extradition request from just about anywhere for a murderer. And, US law enforcement would probably not bat an eye at helping out in the capture of said murderer. But there is no way they would be prosecuted by a US court.

Re:Feh Old News. See IBM circa 1935

[doublem]

We clearly have different sources on the matter.

IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation

Justice Delayed: IBM 's Collaboration with Nazi Germany

Profits uber Alles! American Corporations and Hitler

What are your sources? I'd be interested in reading some alternate interpretations of the existing documentation.

It's important to keep in mind that the IBM of today doesn't share much (if any) staff with the IBM of 1935. They aren't the same corporation at this point.

Regardless of the example I chose, my point remains. Western countries providing the tools necessary to support oppressive regimes is nothing new. You can reach back further if you want to the American companies manufacturing guns in the 19th century. My point is, this is hardly news, and it's depressing that there are people so ignorant of history and how the world works that they think this is somehow a "new" development, just because it's software instead of hardware.

Re:double standard? Slashdot? IMPOSSIBLE!

[Mccavity91k]

Thus the difference between PERSONAL rights and CORPORATE rights.

A person can infringe on your rights in many ways. They can kill you, taking away your right to live, they can steal from you, taking away your right to personal property, they can kidnap you, taking away your right to liberty, or many, many other things. Not even libertarians (of which I'm not one) say that those should be legal.

A corporation can infringe on your rights in totally different ways. They can carefully calculate wages so you never make enough money to leave, taking away your right to liberty (like the mining and logging camps used to do). They can control information, and give it out selectively, or censor the information you give out, taking your right to gain knowledge of the world around you and your right to free speech. They can knowingly create hazardous products that can injure or kill you, or lie to you in an attempt to take your money.

People infringing on your rights are just as regulated as corporations infringing on your rights, they're just very different things, so they require different rules.

Enron lying about their stock to make money at the stockholders and employees expense is just as bad as if Ken Lay robbed you at gunpoint, just different methods.

Don't worry about contradictions...

[RexRhino]

I mean, yes, Casto doesn't allow his people to access the internet except with government permission, and even then content is filtered, but that is a reasonable man simply trying to protect his people from harmful ideas... BUT DAMN THOSE EVIL CAPITALIST FOR OPPRESSING THE CUBAN PEOPLE BY SELLING CASTRO FILTERING SOFTWARE!!!

Oh, wait a minute? The United States doesn't allow companies to sell to Cuba? Those egotistical, arrogant, imperialist bastards! Cuba should be free to buy and sell whatever it wants from the U.S.. How dare those evil capitalists try to force their views on Cuba by refusing to sell them stuff!

Geez... why can't people just admit that they are reactionary whankers with no real ideology... just some vauge dislike of "capitalism" (without any real consistant definition of what capitalism is... they call Stalin "capitalist" for god sakes, and in the next sentence call Western Europe "socialist")...

I mean, when the U.S. doesn't trade with Cuba, or England doesn't trade with Zimbabwe, this is considered "imperialism" (whatever that means, they don't have any consistent definition of that either)... but if U.S. or European companies trade with China or Saudi Arabia, they are guilty for "supporting oppressive regimes" (somehow it is not "arrogant" to call China or Saudi Arabia "oppressive regimes", but call Cuba or North Korea an "oppressive regime" and it is not only "arrogance", but "imperialist hate speech").

I can understand and respect people with different ideologies than me... we don't all have to agree. But please, GET AN IDEOLOGY before you start your self-rightous preaching! Enough of the self-contradictory, reactionary drivel that passes as "political correctness" nowadays!