Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Censors Chinese Blogger

wooppp writes "Microsoft has admitted to removing the blog of a Chinese journalist from MSN Spaces. The censored site has been re-hosted elsewhere after a short down-time, but is no longer accessible to the folks in China." From the ZDNet article: "MSN is committed to ensuring that products and services comply with global and local laws, norms and industry practices. Most countries have laws and practices that require companies providing online services to make the Internet safe for local users. Occasionally, as in China, local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements..."

462 comments

  1. Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Occasionally, as in China, local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements...

    Like the suppression of independent, free thought? Way to support 'em, Microsoft! Sleep well at night!

    1. Re:Yeah... by lucifig · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it were Google or Apple, it would be "the cost of doing business in China". Since it is Microsoft it is "suppression of independant, free thought."

    2. Re:Yeah... by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Occasionally, as in Großdeutschland, local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements...

      ...therefore, we at Microsoft's German subsidiary have turned over to the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, as required by law, the names of all Jewish employees. Microsoft Germany has been assured by no less than Heinrich Himmler himself, that our Jewish employees will be peaceably resettled in the the East.

    3. Re:Yeah... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 0

      Occasionally, as in China, local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements...

      Like the suppression of independent, free thought? Way to support 'em, Microsoft! Sleep well at night!


      While I may not like some of the laws as laid out in China, I am not so sure that its up to a company to break laws, even if it is in the name of 'free-speech'. I don't think going in front of a judge and claiming you broke the law because you didn't believe in it would be good sense. Imagine another scenario: going up to a judge in the USA and saying the reason you did not pay your tax is because you don't believe the state has the moral right to them. While just as absurd it gives you an idea of what that would be like.

      We have laws in our own countries that companies and individuals are expected to abide to. If we don't believe that those laws are right, then it is up to us the people to motivate our respective politicians to change those laws. Until then you have to play within the bounds of the laws, or face the consenquences as described by them.

      The internet is a special place since your site is international, even without trying, so national politics and laws come into play. How you deal with those issues is up to you, but the solution is not necessarily one that you would like the most, or at all.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    4. Re:Yeah... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Like the suppression of independent, free thought?
      > Way to support 'em, Microsoft! Sleep well at night!

      While it is rather smarmy for a corporation to do, if you have a problem with it, talk to your own government.

      Foreign policy is one of the functions of the government, and currently, the strategy is balls-to-the-wall capitalism with China, presumably in the hopes it opens up their nation.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    5. Re:Yeah... by B'Trey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Did you bother to RTFA? Questions still remain over why a site believed to be hosted in the United States has to comply with Chinese law.

      If the blog were hosted in China, then Chinese law might be applicable. The 'blog was hosted here. MS took it upon themselves to delete the 'blog so the Chinese government wouldn't be offended. By your logic, nothing other than Disney should be hosted on the Internet, since it might be against the law somewhere. Your "don't pay taxes" scenario is silly because it's not at all the same situation - MS is under no obligation to obey Chinese law on servers located in the US.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    6. Re:Yeah... by GodLogiK · · Score: 0

      no it wouldn't it would still be suppression of independant free thought now i definitely won't consider buying m$ though i used to be on the fence about microsoft, now i've definitely chosen a stance against them.

    7. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      However Microsoft is under some obligation to its share holders, a 1.6 Billion person market is a lot of change in someones pockets. Besides Billy would have fits is Red Flag Linux became the defacto OS for all of China.... I am all for Free as in Freedom, but.... Money sometimes out shouts the voice of Freedom

    8. Re:Yeah... by vertinox · · Score: 1

      If we don't believe that those laws are right, then it is up to us the people to motivate our respective politicians to change those laws.

      You mean the corporate lobbyists, right? Lord knows the people can't be trusted to make the right decisions when influencing members of congress.

      Until then you have to play within the bounds of the laws, or face the consenquences as described by them.

      Secondly, laws only apply to those who get caught or can't afford to hide behind a corporate charter or a good lawyer.[/sarcasm]

      But seriously, in China the only thing they've got going for them that the US has a serious problem with is that their government isn't setup to be affected by potential abuses by money interests.

      It may eventually happen, but they authoritarians usually aren't influenced by money when they control the system. (Although, give me a shoddy special interest pork barrel overkill US system anyday over an authoritarian system)

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    9. Re:Yeah... by Marsmensch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Indeed, at least google does the exact same thing. There was an interesting article in Salon a while back about the way in which foreign IT firms play a big and subservient role in chinese official efforts to censor the net. You can find the article here.

      --
      Slashdot: news from nerds.
    10. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Did you happen notice this part: "The censored site has been re-hosted elsewhere after a short down-time, but is no longer accessible to the folks in China."
      Guess who happily sells chinese the hardware and software that makes up "the great firewall" they're using? In fact, if you followed your logic, you should start boycotting pretty many companies, including non-techonology businesses. It just might make your life little hard, so perhaps you don't even want to know.

    11. Re:Yeah... by GodLogiK · · Score: 0

      how can I sit here doing nothing and let these shitheads in China do this to their own people? No fucking way. Something has to be done. Microsoft, Google, Apple and all other companies supporting the censorship of the word 'freedom' from the chinese vocabulary should be tried for treason immediately. Let's see Bush put his tough talk about freedom and democracy into action at home. Censoring the concept of freedom abroad is the gravest act of intellectual terrorism against Americans I can think of especially when it's happening within America's own borders. Most of the Chinese are good people, let's start considering ways to save them from the assholes who are trying to run their lives.

    12. Re:Yeah... by arieswind · · Score: 1

      By your logic, nothing other than Disney should be hosted on the Internet, since it might be against the law somewhere. If youve ever looked close at disney films, youd know that not even they would be allowed by that logic, seeing how many "potentially offensive" things have slipped through in disney films

    13. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd agree, however what's odd is that i can see the web site without a problem in hong kong, CHINA. i think this is more of propaganda than anything. Maybe if you are using the People's ISP to connect to the internet than yes you might get filtered, but no problems here in china. If anything America is currently worse off than the rest of the world when it comes to freedom of speech. Wow. Way to go guys, i feel safe knowing that american's free speech is based soly on american companies supporting "american's" agenda (good agenda) and not the pussy government ran by some fuckin' religious loony. Microsoft isn't the US government nor is it the State Department, if you want to force the rest of the world to step in line in terms of freedoms it should be the government that should do it.

    14. Re:Yeah... by greginnj · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Money sometimes out shouts the voice of Freedom
      No, bro, money just shouts. It can shout for both sides. Microsoft is free to act as a thug for the Chinese government by censoring content hosted on servers in the USA. I am free to let my money shout when I refuse to buy any MS products.

      Is China using its money to shout for oppression? Then use your money to SHOUT LOUDER.
      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
    15. Re:Yeah... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The answer to that is really, really simple. If you do business in China, and wish to continue to do so, you have to obey their laws, even in the US. I have seen several people fired from my company for saying anti-China things (not anti-Chinese mind you, it was aimed directly at the gov't not the people). In an effort to conduct "consistent" business processes, and "comply with global standards" however, even our US facilities are regulated China-style. We're not allowed to discuss politics or religion, and our email is monitored.

      The day is going to come where the bill of rights is going to have to be forced on the corporate world the same way it is forced on the government or it will stop meaning anything. It's not useful if 10-12 hours a day you're under the rule of an oppressive foreign government.

    16. Re:Yeah... by GodLogiK · · Score: 0

      yeah i do want to know. that's why it keeps happening, because it might be 'inconvenient' for a lot of people to do something about it. i'm definitely going to make a priority of this issue for myself.

    17. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to start from the beginning, the purpose of a corporation is to increase shareholder wealth.

      Does pissing off China by allowing a blog criticizing them increase shareholders wealth? I would say "no". Did we even give M$ props for allowing these blogs in the first place? Not that I have seen.

      Does M$ gain anything by shutting this blog down? Probably a few brownie points with an overpowering foreign govt.

      Why does people seem to think it is M$ responsibility to affect social wrongdoings? It's not IMO. There only job is to make money.

    18. Re:Yeah... by sgt_doom · · Score: 0, Troll
      Of course, if Microsoft (or Google or Yahoo) existed around World War II, they would have lovingly welcomed a visit from Adolph Hitler to their respective campuses in the hopes of doing business with him.

      The corpacracy is running the show and is to be despised. If any vestige of human freedom is to remain they - the corporations - will ultimately have to be destroyed - along with all other dictatorial entities. No person should have power over another - and no person should come under anyone else's power. The "Holy Bible" is the widest and longest selling publication of S & M. With the Old Testament being the sadism and the new testament being the masochism.

    19. Re:Yeah... by Ced_Ex · · Score: 0

      You can start by boycotting google then. Since they conform to China laws by excluding certain sites deemed illegal by the Chinese government.

      You can also add Yahoo to that list as well.

      Good luck finding a usable search engine.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    20. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your logic, nothing other than Disney should be hosted on the Internet,

      Donald Duck doesn't wear pants!!!!! ;)

    21. Re:Yeah... by insomniac8400 · · Score: 1

      You can't blame a company for following a countries laws. Companies follow our laws all the time.

    22. Re:Yeah... by Crilen007 · · Score: 1

      I dunno...even Disney has its moments.

      From http://snopes.com/disney/films/films.asp:

      Letters spelling the word S-E-X are formed by a cloud of dust in The Lion King.http://snopes.com/disney/films/lionking.htm
      Photographic images of a topless woman can be spotted in The Rescuers.http://snopes.com/disney/films/rescuers.h tm
      Mischievous animators drew Jessica Rabbit naked.http://snopes.com/disney/films/jessica.htm

    23. Re:Yeah... by Opie812 · · Score: 1

      I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning.

      Smells like victory.



      some day this wars gonna' end. *sigh*.......

      --
      I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
    24. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there a technical issue to the limits of the domain from any nation into cyberspace? Is the the movement by Microsoft a result of a reaction to control new frontier? China wants to control the moon, but do they also wants to control cyberspace? Cyberspace seems like it qualifies as its own nation seperate from U.S., China, or any other physical country.

    25. Re:Yeah... by jdbartlett · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read carefully, there's a disclaimer: MSN is committed to ensuring that products and services comply with global and local laws*...

      * Except in Europe

    26. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your name perfectly describes your incorrect analogy.

    27. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure microsoft will... Since when is it the duty of private enterprise (whose only motive is profit) to enforce any one particular morality? The size of a company is no reason to expect it to uphold the standards you wish.

    28. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft still calling Linux people communists? Dont remember Apple or Google making that sort of statement.

    29. Re:Yeah... by neomunk · · Score: 1, Interesting

      To me this is the perfect example of why capitalism != democracy.

      And by the way, has anyone noticed China setting up a capitalistic communism? Did they just look at the U.S. And U.S.S.R. during the cold war and say "Yeah, a little of both please" and pick out the worst of both worlds?

    30. Re:Yeah... by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      If it were Google or Apple, it would be "the cost of doing business in China". Since it is Microsoft it is "suppression of independant, free thought."

      you are absolutely right. i do however think that MS is in the unique position to basically threaten to immediately pull the rug out from under their feet if they dont like it. though im sure MS would be scared of them going to linux which i dont think could happen without major headaches and some serious security holes within their own government computers. while they could patch this for a while with a fix, they would definately be screwed on the moving everything to legit software as the illegal use of software is frowned upon in the international scene, yes, even if it is microsoft. the difference is that google is already fighting a local china specific search engine (with im sure with censorship up the wazoo). in the end, MS has serious weight to throw around, so why not use it for a good cause instead of scapegoating hackers to draw attention from the fact that hey have serious problems with their OS?

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    31. Re:Yeah... by russint · · Score: 1
      No, bro, money just shouts. It can shout for both sides. Microsoft is free to act as a thug for the Chinese government by censoring content hosted on servers in the USA. I am free to let my money shout when I refuse to buy any MS products.
      Is China using its money to shout for oppression? Then use your money to SHOUT LOUDER.


      One vote/dollar is a really fucking great way to run a democracy..
      (insult removed)
      --
      ^^
    32. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Einhverfr here. Posting anonymously so as not to undo my moderations.

      There is a *big* difference in what Google is doing and what Microsoft is doing. With Google, this censorship extends only to their Chinese subsidiary. This is understandable because as a Chinese business, one would generally expect the subsidiary to comply with Chinese laws. This is *not* what Microsoft is doing. They are extending this policy to their US corporate services, essentially helping reduce the choice of hosting providers for this sort of thing. Essentially extending this censorship to one's services that are *provided* by subsidiaries other than those either of the country which is home to the main corporation (in this case, the US) or the specific subsidiary (in this case the Chinese subsidiary) is problematic. Note that each subsidiary is usually considered a separate legal entity (but wholey owned by Microsoft Corp in the US).

      This is also worse than Cisco selling supplies to China that enable them to censor the net from the perspective of their own citizens. I.e. this is a purely commercial transaction and what the Chinese gov't does with the equipment, they will do.

      Having one subsidiary provide censorship for a foreign government in services provided in its home country is a dangerous way to go. Were this trend taken to its conclusion maybe Microsoft would remove blogs that refer to Taiwan as a country or a nation even if they are not written by citizens of China?

    33. Re:Yeah... by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      MS is under no obligation to obey Chinese law on servers located in the US

      It depends by who's set of laws you go by. There is nothing to stop a counry indicating what sort of content can be served to their country. Most companies will simply filter out the country as necessary to avoid any problems. I never said that it was the right thing to do, but that is just the way the game is played.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    34. Re:Yeah... by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      " The day is going to come where the bill of rights is going to have to be forced on the corporate world the same way it is forced on the government or it will stop meaning anything. "

      Never has a truer word been spoken.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    35. Re:Yeah... by B'Trey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is NOT Microsoft's job, or any other corporation, to decide what laws they should and should not obey.

      But that's exactly what they did here. They decided that, on their servers here in America, they should honor laws in another country that violate US, UN and every other legitimate standard of human rights.

      A global corporation will be expected to enforce local laws of nationals who are using its service. ...

      In the absense of US law then they are required to follow local law and that is as it should be.


      Horsefeathers. In some countries, it's illegal for women to seek an education. Is it your contention that all information sites are responsible for identifying women from such countries and refusing to allow them to access their site?

      If MS had servers located in China, then you might very well be right. If you're IN a country, you follow that countries laws or face the consequences. MS wasn't in their country. Their laws are not binding here. MS choose to censor someone so that they would not risk offending the Chinese government.

      the American people can feel free to elect leaders that will require US multinationals to treat every person on earth as though they are US citizens. If that were the case then MS would not only not have to obey the Chinese government but they'd be breaking the law if they did.

      Actually, rightly or wrongly, America already has laws against discrimination. If the blogger were here and able to file a lawsuit against MS, he'd very likely have a strong case that MS was discriminating against Chinese nationals. But of course there's little danger of MS having to face that. The person in question is in a distant country and already facing persecution from his government. Filing a lawsuit against MS probably isn't very high on his agenda.

      Personally, I don't think MS should face any legal repercussions for what they did. It's MS's server, and MS should have the right to refuse to do business with anyone they choose, for whatever reason they choose. But having a right to do something doesn't mean it's right to do it. US citizens have the right to join the KKK but that doesn't justify doing so. MS deserves to be soundly and publically lambasted for what they did. MS should have a right to deny controversial Chinese bloggers access to their servers. But I also have a right to tell them that I think they're a piece of crap for doing so.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    36. Re:Yeah... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "If you do business in China, and wish to continue to do so, you have to obey their laws, even in the US."

      As soon as companies in China that sell goods in the US are forced to obey US laws, that will be fine.
      However, Having an anti-chinese gov't blog hosted in the US removed becasue of business concerns in China is wrong.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    37. Re:Yeah... by TrevelyanL85A2 · · Score: 1

      i agree. Servers located in the US should follow US law and international standards, but not other countries' laws because they are not covered. God damn when the fuck are we going to war with the fucking chinese.....

    38. Re:Yeah... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When in China, I expect to follow the laws in China. When in the US, I expect to follow US laws. That is perfectly sensible to me.

      The content was in the hands of a US corporation, operating in the US. It seems to make no difference where the citizen or his terminal was physically located. US entities should not be in the position of refusing services based on nationality, period. If China does not like what their citizens are doing, they need to enforce their laws locally.

      Personally, if I owned MSN, I'd feel dirty for even thinking of removing that site. They'd have to pry it out of my cold dying hands. I'd instantly make it public, put it on my news network and start a big fight. Of course, I have no financial interest in our continued dealings with China.

    39. Re:Yeah... by Archangel_Azazel · · Score: 1

      Well, look how well it's worked for the United States. Wait...it hasn't. The value of a human life has scarce been lower than in recent years. Companies that push out garbage products have laws passed for them that lower the cap on product damage lawsuits at the same time that they ship their production overseas to factories that don't have quality standards that are up to par. The average citizen pays many times more taxes than the big corps, with less rights to show for it.

      It took hundreds of years for black people to come to be recognized as citizens. The "Corporation" was recognized in a few short years. Somehow, that sickens me. Human rights violations are still widespread all around the world, including in the US. When we start valuing people over pieces of paper, maybe we'll step ahead in evolution.

      A.A

      --
      Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
    40. Re:Yeah... by kiatoa · · Score: 1

      I hope someone mods the parent post up. For me the only morally acceptable policy would be to tell the Chinese Government to please block my site from access in China. Of course if you are beholden to shareholders (who seem to tend to lean more to the financial side than the moral side of these choices) then the behaviour we are seeing in Microsoft is what will happen.

      --
      90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
    41. Re:Yeah... by DavidHumus · · Score: 1

      Foreigners are expected to be very sensitive to Chinese feelings, but don't expect the same in return. A common belief is that "you as a barbarian owe China something for past transgressions." McGregor says that the Chinese love to kick off negotiations with an "it's-all-your-fault" preamble and follow with a "you-don't-understand-China" refrain when they want to reject your proposals.
      from this book review: ahref=http://online.barrons.com/article/SB11359882 5320735233.html?mod=9_0030_b_this_weeks_magazine_c olumnsrel=url2html-20454http://online.barrons.com/ article/SB113598825320735233.html?mod=9_0030_b_thi s_weeks_magazine_columns>

    42. Re:Yeah... by E++99 · · Score: 1
      even our US facilities are regulated China-style. We're not allowed to discuss politics or religion, and our email is monitored.
      Holy crap! Where do you work??? Or are you allowed to say??? Are you aware of monster.com? dice.com?

      The day is going to come where the bill of rights is going to have to be forced on the corporate world the same way it is forced on the government or it will stop meaning anything. It's not useful if 10-12 hours a day you're under the rule of an oppressive foreign government.
      I don't think you understand the point of the Bill of Rights. Anything the government can do to a corporation, it can do to a person. If the government seizes the power to force the bill of rights on corporations, then it seizes the power to force the bill of rights on firms, s-corps., partnerships, contractors, private schools, churches, households, and individuals. Therefore, at the whim of the Judicial Oligarchy -- oops, I mean the Supreme Court -- regious schools could be outlawed, as could any establishment of religion in a home or a church. Any attempt you make to abridge someone's free speech (e.g. telling your employees to stop talking and get back to work... or making a no shouting rule in a library) could land you in jail. The point of the Bill of Rights, is that since it's only with extreme difficulty that we can swap out our government for a new one, and since the legitimate purposes of government are extremely limited, the power of government should be similarly limited so as to keep it from unnecessarily interfering with the free pursuit of happiness. If the government can start enforcing these limitations on its subjects, it's then that the Bill of Rights would lose its meaning. Since there is no similar difficulty in swapping out your job for a new one, the company you work for is your choice, and part of your free pursuit of happiness, and of those who own and run the company. Put in perspective, it is rediculously easy in this country to find a new job.
    43. Re:Yeah... by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      I could not have said it better myself. All the talk about respecting people's rights, caring about the community, the environment or any morality at all is absolutely nothing more than PR when it comes from a corporate spokesperson.

      I think you forgot to mention the addendum. The Quran.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    44. Re:Yeah... by DM9290 · · Score: 1

      You imagine that your elected representatives even have the power to control the corporation. Thanks to various international trade agreements, governments are in modern times generally obligated to compensate corporations when they do anything that takes away their God given right to profit at the expense of others.

      The solution to the problem of chinese censorhip is to impose harsh tariffs on all chinese imports.

      When corporations are allowed to merge without end and grow to any size, democracy is swallowed whole.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    45. Re:Yeah... by bnenning · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have seen several people fired from my company for saying anti-China things (not anti-Chinese mind you, it was aimed directly at the gov't not the people). In an effort to conduct "consistent" business processes, and "comply with global standards" however, even our US facilities are regulated China-style.

      I don't suppose you'd want to name that company, so I can avoid buying from such spineless bootlickers.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    46. Re:Yeah... by EDOX25 · · Score: 1

      Man this is just one reason I quit working for microsoft. Way to go MSFT!

    47. Re:Yeah... by slackartist · · Score: 1

      I don't think this is over the top at all, but rather speaks well to the point. World history is real and there are parts of it which *should* make you uncomforatble. Every deliberate action we take has a moral component to it and considering how much effort and time we spend in the workplace, the impact we have on the world is largely measured by our professional efforts.

      I think a software company should say, "We don't provide content hosting to China, because our on-line services support freedom of expression. You can oppress your people, but you'll do it without our complicity. Go write your own software if it's that important to you." Thus the regime feels pain and is motived to change.

      To make it personal, if you are an employee of Microsoft and it's your specific job to delete material which the Chinese government finds unacceptable, just don't do it. Quit, if necessary. Thus the company feels pain and is motivated to change.

      I'm a 10-year veteran software developer and I am very selective in the work that I pursue. We all have to put food on the table, sure, but acknowledge your options honestly and completely is what I say.

    48. Re:Yeah... by spectecjr · · Score: 1

      Indeed, at least google does the exact same thing. There was an interesting article in Salon a while back about the way in which foreign IT firms play a big and subservient role in chinese official efforts to censor the net.

      Well, they have to. The Chinese Govt. has a nasty habit of arresting officers of companies who don't toe the line on censorship and political issues. Microsoft employees in China have been thrown in jail more than once - the last example I know of was because of a bad timezone boundary (indicated that Taiwan was a separate country).

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    49. Re:Yeah... by Zork+the+Almighty · · Score: 1

      I.e. this is a purely commercial transaction and what the Chinese gov't does with the equipment, they will do.

      The creed of every arms dealer.

      --

      In Soviet America the banks rob you!
  2. No Problem by jdub712 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have no problem with not pissing off the chinese. Have you ever seen a Bruce Lee movie? I ain't f'n with those peeps.

    1. Re:No Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Haven't you seen Rambo I, II, II and IV? We can f'n kill China!

    2. Re:No Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nine hunderd million of them in the world today,
      You better learn to like them, that's what I say.

      (Chorus)

    3. Re:No Problem by wed128 · · Score: 1

      They're always happy and ready to please

    4. Re:No Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you seen Rambo I, II, II and IV? We can f'n kill China!

      Actually, those films adequately explain why the US army cannot hold Iraq.

    5. Re:No Problem by n00tz · · Score: 1

      They'll Love-you-long-time(tm)

      --
      I had college once, but I drank some fluids and got a lot of rest and eventually it was cured.
    6. Re:No Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, Rambo is why we have that "Army of One" thing.

  3. Should MSN obey the law? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you believe that Microsoft and MSN should obey the law and avoid illegal practices?

    If so, doesn't that apply just as much in China as in America?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Prospero's+Grue · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Do you believe that Microsoft and MSN should obey the law and avoid illegal practices?

      If so, doesn't that apply just as much in China as in America?

      If they respected Chinese law and American law to the same degree, then they wouldn't have so enthusiastically pulled down the offending post, would they?

      Not without a long, drawn out court fight.

      Or could it be...just maybe...that this isn't about law & order, principles, or anything more noble than the pursuit of economic interests.

      --
      The opinion above is fiction. Any similarity to real opinions, including facts and logic, is purely coincidental.
    2. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Caspian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the law is immoral, it is the duty of any moral individual to ignore the law.

      There was a time when slavery was legal, and helping another person's slaves escape to freedom was theft.

      China's laws regarding freedom of speech (or, specifically, the lack thereof) are not moral; thus, no, MS should not obey them (nor should anyone else).

      Of course, this is all philosophical. Corporations don't care about what's moral or immoral, they care about what makes them money (and/or "market share"/power). This is true not only of Microsoft, but of essentially every other for-profit corporation.

      --
      With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
    3. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What? No no no, you have it all wrong!

      It's all quite simple. American law always applies, everywhere, all the time. Freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, legal process, religious conviction, Microsofts business practices within the EU etc. All of these laws apply to the entire four billion population of Earth.

      Accept, of course, when it's something Slashbots don't like, such as the DMCA, USAPATRIOT, MPAA or RIAA lawsuits, censorship (Apart from the naughty-sex kind!). Those sorts of things are right out and the US has no right imposing it's laws on others!

      It's called "Hypocritical sheep like mentality combined with a poor grasp on reality."

    4. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read this quote (in the article) from a Microsoft representative:

      "Most countries have laws and practices that require companies providing online services to make the Internet safe for local users. Occasionally, as in China, local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements"

      Make the Internet safe for local users?!? Sheesh, give me a break. It sounds like Microsoft went out of its way to support and agree with the Chinese censorship.

    5. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem is Microsoft has always had trouble obeying the laws and avoiding illegal practices in the US and Eruope so why now suddenly start being all law abidding in china?

        It's like the pot thats calling the kettle... well you get the idea.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    6. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I believe that it is unethical for a company to operate in a nation if the laws of that nation require them to behave unethically. They don't have any overriding need to operate in China. The only reason to do so is for profit.

      So, they are violating this blogger's human rights (as defined by the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights) in order to make a profit.

    7. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by HomerJayS · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Or could it be...just maybe...that this isn't about law & order, principles, or anything more noble than the pursuit of economic interests.

      Pursuit of economic interests is exactly what one would expect from a publically traded corporation (which has an obligation to maximize profit potential for its shareholders). Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is the law of the corporate jungle.

      If I were a shareholder, I would expect nothing less from Apple, Google, or <your favorite benevolent corp here> under the same circumstances.

    8. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Death penalty is violating "human rights (as defined by the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights)". So according to you all companys should stop operating in the US? Brilliant.

    9. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by richlv · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      shareholders might, just might, have some ethical principles.
      few do, though.

      --
      Rich
    10. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Asm-Coder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amen.

      Which is something everyone here at /. should be doing, standing up in their communities for what they beleive in. Standing up for our online rights for example. Sure the only legal thing we can do directly to stop the restrictions of our rights is using our brains when we go to the polls. But we can also use whatever influence we have to educate the public and motivate others.

      And we need to start doing this BEFORE it is too late.

    11. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by gonzo-wireless · · Score: 0

      Too bad they wont follow EU law. I wonder how much China were going to fine Microsoft a day.

    12. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can follow the law, however unethical it may be, but do you think they shouldn't be criticized for it?

      It's important to contest these infringements on rights as publicly and loudly as possible.

      The free market only works as long as its participants are informed, and people will only stop supporting malicious corporate practices when they're aware of the practices. Let Microsoft censor people because they "had to do it," but don't pretend it never happened, and don't forgive them just because they were following orders.

    13. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by LainTouko · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Pursuit of economic interests is exactly what one would expect from a publically traded corporation (which has an obligation to maximize profit potential for its shareholders). Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is the law of the corporate jungle.

      If I were a shareholder, I would expect nothing less from Apple, Google, or under the same circumstances.

      Which is why it is the duty of we, the public, to intensely criticise any corporation when it does do something unethical, so that the ethical choice becomes the most profitable one.

    14. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that also apply to the USA's equally immoral laws on Net censorship? At least China's "Great Firewall" is administered by the government, which is theoretically accountable to the people, and watched by other governments around the world. The Internet filters required by law in US libraries are controlled by random private corporations that aren't accountable to anybody at all.

    15. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Problem is Microsoft has always had trouble obeying the laws and avoiding illegal practices in the US and Eruope so why now suddenly start being all law abidding in china?

      China has deep pockets and is growing in economic development at a STAGGERING rate. The EU is not. So you had just as well get used to these sorts of stories, because corporations are going to be sucking up to the Chinese government for a very long time to come.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    16. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by GlynDavies · · Score: 4, Funny
      Do you believe that Microsoft and MSN should obey the law and avoid illegal practices?
      Absolutely. It'll make a nice change. ;-)
    17. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's called "Hypocritical sheep like mentality combined with a poor grasp on reality."

      Most slashdotters would like to call it "Common Sense".

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    18. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only if they're required to carry out the death sentence.

    19. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by JustOK · · Score: 1

      ALL shareholders have ethical principles. It just that money is more important that human life and rights in their system.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    20. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by BVis · · Score: 1

      Said it before, I'll say it again:

      What color is the sky on your planet?

      Expecting people to think of anyone other than themselves is un-American.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    21. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Slashbots wouldn't know Common Sense if it came and shat in their breakfast cereal. Which is exactly what "poor grasp on reality." means.

    22. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA also has state-sponsored Net censorship, in the form of the "Children's Internet Protection Act". I daresay that's part of why Americans love to hate China - they see their own shortcomings reflected there.

    23. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

      Ummm... Last time I checked, Microsoft wasn't an individual. It is a corporation owned by stockholders. Let's hold a vote of Microsoft stockholders to see if they think Microsoft should obey foreign laws. Do you seriously think they would want Microsoft breaking the law here?

      Furthermore, who decides what is moral? You? I personally don't think people should drink alcohol, but that doesn't make it OK for me to drive around to all the local bars and set them on fire.

    24. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      What about General Electric? They supply variously; the chair, the straps, the wire, the generator plants, the damp cloth, the TV cameras, the paper, the pen, the ink, the telphone line to the Governer, the telephone, the software, the lights, the plasterboard, the gum and the banks loans to pay for it all.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    25. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      And that is even more disturbing than MS being able to follow the laws of a communist country when it can't for democratic one's.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    26. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Prospero's+Grue · · Score: 0
      If I were a shareholder, I would expect nothing less from Apple, Google, or under the same circumstances.

      Which is why it is the duty of we, the public, to intensely criticise any corporation when it does do something unethical, so that the ethical choice becomes the most profitable one.

      Agreed, and this is how I think our discussion of this should proceed. I don't fault Microsoft's behaviour any more than I criticize what Yahoo did, or what other corps would do (I might hold Google to a slightly higher standard only because they proclaim their "do no evil" mantra).

      If you do not wish them to do these things, punish them economically so that they don't consider this kind of behaviour in their economic interest - then they'll make different choices.

      To cloak this around legal principles, considering Microsoft's track record, and considering their proactive actions in this matter, is smoke and mirrors at best - plain bull at worst.

      --
      The opinion above is fiction. Any similarity to real opinions, including facts and logic, is purely coincidental.
    27. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by dnoyeb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually I think most shareholders have ethics. Its just those shareholders we also call 'executives' that screw over people for an extra buck. Its not done for the shareholders, its done for themselves.

    28. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by lbrandy · · Score: 1

      If they respected Chinese law and American law to the same degree, then they wouldn't have so enthusiastically pulled down the offending post, would they?

      Not without a long, drawn out court fight.


      They did get a "long, drawn out court fight" by Chinese standards. They were taken into a room and told what to do. End of trial.

    29. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't a single individual, though, it's a large group of them in the form of a company. While Bob from the legal division may personally care greatly about democracy and free speech, his primary professional aim is keeping the company on the path of least legal resistance.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    30. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least China's "Great Firewall" is administered by the government, which is theoretically accountable to the people, and watched by other governments around the world.

      "In Theory, Marge!! In Theory!" Dude, the Chinese Communist party is about as far from accountable to the people as any modern, bureucratic government has ever gotten!

      The Internet filters required by law in US libraries are controlled by random private corporations that aren't accountable to anybody at all.

      Except of course, to the contracts under which they were hired to do the job. Not to mention the librarians. And their shareholders. Oh, and the laws of the land.

      The Chinese Government is accountable to none of these things.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    31. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Furthermore, who decides what is moral?

      Killing and imprisoning dissenters is a Bad Thing. There is no discussion needed.

    32. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by zxnos · · Score: 4, Interesting
      riddle me this caspian, what makes a law immoral? who is the judge?

      i believe in speaking out against laws that are immoral to me, but one has to be willing to accept the consequences.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    33. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by m50d · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I'd imagine that'd get the US to change its stance pretty quick.

      --
      I am trolling
    34. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by scottennis · · Score: 1



      Governments don't care about what's moral or immoral either. Governments and corporations are alike in the fact that they owe allegiance to something or someone other than the individual. Only individuals are moral creatures, because only individuals have free will.

    35. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the law is immoral, it is the duty of any moral individual to ignore the law.

      Just wait for a Chinese communist to apply what he thinks is moral to US laws. Osama is already doing it, and he feels just as righteous as you do.
       
      Morality is a flawed concept grounded in nothing but history. It is the residue of pre-scientific religious laws, just like ID is the residue of creation myths. Morality can do nothing, except excuse your disrespect for Chinese law, but it is itself the only reason why you feel you should excuse that.

    36. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      The parts of it they supply that are directly involved in the death penalty make them an unethical company. If you consider the death penalty to be unethical, then any organisation that is directly responsible for carrying it out is unethical. If my company was asked to provide the lighting for a death chamber, then I would decline. If I was told I was legally obliged to do so, I would stop operating in that country.

    37. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by aardwolf64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Is Microsoft killing and imprisoning dissenters?

    38. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slavery(very very cheap "wages") is still pretty much legal is china and I think we support it every time we buy "made in china"

      China is following the same pattern as the US did by building it's country on the backs of slaves.

      It makes me sick to buy "made in china" when I don't have a choice ... esp as a geek who uses computers for work

      Anyone have any soothing words out there on this dilma?

    39. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Furthermore, who decides what is moral?

      Do you believe there are any universal moral truths? If you do not then there is never a moral justification for resisting the immoral laws of a human government.

    40. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      Right and you happen to have a very firm grasp on reality yourself their now don't you sparky!

          And it's not sheep it's sheeple geeettttt iiiiittttt rrrrriiiigghttttt Baaaaaa! :D

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    41. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Six and a half billion, not four.

    42. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by lbrandy · · Score: 1

      Hey now.... easy with the rational thought... Clearly you've lost your Karma Whorer's manual. Even if Microsoft gave money to dethrone Bush, got some lobbying for patent reform, and announced that the new Vista would be disabled on all military/spying computers, and the splash screen was Jack Thompson getting reamed up the ass by Tux... slashdotters in need of karma would still be honor bound to decry the great Satan.

    43. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Do you believe that Microsoft and MSN should obey the law and avoid illegal practices? If so, doesn't that apply just as much in China as in America?

      As the article points out, the blog physically resides on American soil. So Chinese law doesn't enter into it. Would you, personally, like to be held accountable by every law of every nation on Earth at the same time? Including theocracies, dictatorships, and socialist republics? And since when does M$ give a thin damn about American law (anti-trust, for instance), else it would obey it a little more carefully?

      How did you forge that 4-digit ID? Nobody that old is that dense. Give it back, thief!

    44. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by jandersen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This kind of comment only serves to display your ignorance (as well as scoring easy points on /.)

      First of all - have you actually read any Chinese laws? No? You can get them in translation, and they are not really all that draconian; in fact I suspect the average American could subscribe to them with no problems at all. But just like in USA, it is the way that the law is practised that matters. Is the police heavyhanded? Are the judges fair etc? And perhaps the Chinese are no worse off than the Americans in that respect either.

      Secondly, what do you actually know about whether the Chinese feel free to speak their mind? I suspect you've never actually been there and spoken to ordinary Chinese. I have, many times, and I can testify that they are not in the least afraid of having an opinion or speaking it in public. I suspect a lot of the American ideas about this come from the time of the cultural revolution, where people were widely persecuted, not only for having the wrong opinions, but also for lots of other things, more or less at random. China has moved on from that - this is a common thing in the world: societies change over time; well, maybe not America, what so I know, but certainly China - how could anyone doubt that? Also, are you absolutely sure that you can get away with having the wrong opinions in America?

      Thirdly, it sounds grand, all this drivel about 'ignore immoral laws'; just you try to do that in America. Or perhaps you don't fancy an unlimited holiday at Hotel Gitmo?

      A very sound rule of thumb is, if a society is stable over time, then the population is by and large happy with the way things are. This is true not only for USA and Europe, but also for China and many other countries. The ordinary feel quite happy with the way their country is run, and if you actually believe in freedom, you should leave it to them to decide whether they like it.

      I think a lot of you Americans need to revise your prejudices. As far as I can see your attitudes towards other countries, and in this particular case China, is caused by a combination of ignorance and simple jealousy - China is doing better and better, while America is going the opposite way, so they are simply 'evil communists' who persecute pious religious practitioners like Falun Gong, American style 'evangelicals' and other representatives of the worst in mankind.

    45. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Slipgrid · · Score: 1

      So, where's the MSN spaces server located?

      If the server's in the US, then they have no legal reason to take the blog down.

      If the server's in China, then maybe they should move it back to the US, and then not take the weblog down.

      Keep the Internet open... and don't use products from companies that will censor you.

    46. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      So all electric companies should stop doing business in the US then? At least in states that use the electic chair as an execution method.

    47. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by cryfreedomlove · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why does every conversation about China on Slashdot include some posters who point out immoral behavior in the United States? Are you trying the justify immoral behavior in China? Didn't anyone ever tell you that two wrongs don't make a right? Isn't that a level of emotional maturity we all master by the age of 9? I'm against immoral government behavior no matter which government is doing it. There are examples I can cite in both the United States and in China. USA: Death Penalty. China: Fearful censorship meant to stifle peaceful dissent.

    48. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Crizp · · Score: 1

      Not to be pedantic or anything, but the world actually has close to _six_and_a_half_ billion people... 6,484,183,002 as of today according to geohive.com.

    49. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Caspian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A law is immoral if it denies a person their right to conduct their life as they see fit, with no exceptions except where their actions would harm another.

      In other words, you should be allowed to do anything except for intentionally, knowingly or maliciously harming another human being without a valid cause (e.g.: self-defense, the defense of others, etc.).

      A.k.a.: The Golden Rule, The Wiccan Rede, etc. etc.

      E.g.: Killing another person is wrong, except when in self-defense or defending another. Spreading lies about another person is wrong. Spreading someone's secrets is wrong except where necessary for the protection of the public (e.g.: spreading "Joe Smith is gay" is wrong; spreading "Joe Smith is a convicted child molestor" (assuming it's true) is alright).

      This really isn't complex.

      Someone else brought up the concept of alcohol; they don't think people should drink, so they said [paraphrasing] "but that doesn't mean I can burn down bars". This is true. However, the morality of drinking really isn't that difficult to discern: It's not immoral to drink except where it would harm another person. Example: It's immoral to drink before driving, because then your driving could harm another person. It's immoral to drink excessively (to the point of drunkenness, poor job performance, etc.) if you are supporting a family, because then your drunkenness could impact your ability to earn a living and feed your kids. But it is not immoral (although it is arguably incredibly stupid) for a single, non-driving individual to get completely piss-drunk, pass out in a bathroom, and puke their guts out into a toilet.

      Although there is a strong emotional element to morality, at its core-- if you remove the arbitrary superstitious elements introduced by various religions-- I believe morality can be wholly logical. The Wiccans have it right-- "An it harm none, do as thou wilt" is a nice capsule summary of morality.

      --
      With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
    50. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by luvirini · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually some shareholders do require integrity to invest in a company. Many small time shaheholders do and then few really big ones. One example of a really big one that does is the Norvegian state investment arm that invests the oil incomes. They have for example recently pulled out of companies that are involved in nuclear weapons work and have before pulled out from others with chilf labour and such.

    51. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Shoten · · Score: 1
      When the law is immoral, it is the duty of any moral individual to ignore the law.


      Actually, no. It is the duty of any moral individual to seek to change that law, and to resist it in the meanwhile. But in real world situations, that gets a little more complicated. If Microsoft refuses to comply with Chinese laws concerning censorship, do you really think it will affect those laws? I think it unlikely that Microsoft will be kicked out entirely, but there are a lot of other ways that China can enforce their will; the simplest one involves applying pressure to individuals who work for Microsoft in China to do their bidding, and would just as quickly/effectively censor without letting Microsoft have a say. And, in the meanwhile, Microsoft would almost certainly lose traction...traction which can later help in influencing laws when there's a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing anything on that front. It's all fine and good to sit back here and quote half of a statement relating to peaceful resistance, but in the real world it gets a little more complex, and you have to think about the results, not the intention. Morality is not a formula you just follow by rote and feel good about. Microsoft can't do a damned thing about the Chinese government's oppression of free speech and they know it, so their next duty is to avoid doing harm to themselves, their employees, and their stockholders all in the name of futility.
      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    52. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by IngramJames · · Score: 0

      China's laws regarding freedom of speech (or, specifically, the lack thereof) are not moral; thus, no, MS should not obey them (nor should anyone else).

      I disagree. Who are you (or me, or anyone else) to break another country's laws when in that country? I don't like that law, so I'm not going to move to China (and I pity the people who are being oppressed). But saying that a company should break laws in a foreign country it is operating in because they don't like the law is plain wrong.

      In The Netherlands, marijuana can be sold quite openly, and it could well be legalised at some point. If that happens, would you support Dutch companies who bring weed into the USA and sell it there? By your reasoning, this would be acceptable, because the laws in the USA (and the UK) making it illegal are plainly immoral in my view. What about pr0n sites? If (say) the Vatican City owned an ISP, should we insist that the ISP cannot remove a pr0n site specialising in Nuns, because pr0n featuring Nuns is legal where I live? OK, that's a bit far fetched, but it illustrates my point better than a bit of pot :-)

      When you operate in a country, you obey their laws. All of them. Or you stay out.

      --
      'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
    53. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Just wait for a Chinese communist to apply what he thinks is moral to US laws.

      Well he can if he's voted in. That's what democracy is all about.

      Osama is already doing it, and he feels just as righteous as you do.

      You are only half correct. Osama Bin Laden has had a huge influence on US law. Possibly more so than anyone else in the last 50 years. However, I don't see how you feel he is applying his morality to US law. Unless you think, that Osama thinks it is moral to capture him, photograph his anus and then try him before a court martial in Cuba.

      Morality is a flawed concept grounded in nothing but history. It is the residue of pre-scientific religious laws, just like ID is the residue of creation myths.

      Actually morality seems to be based in large part on natural human behaviour. Just like murder, love, commerce, etc... Many argue that we have evolved to be moral creatures in response to the evolutionary benefits it provides. For example, almost all human societies believe that murder, theft, lying and rape are wrong. Even those societies without written history have various oral traditions that reinforce this.

      As a counter example to your point, even societies with histories can be highly amoral. I won't mention any lest a certain law be invoked.

      Morality can do nothing, except excuse your disrespect for Chinese law, but it is itself the only reason why you feel you should excuse that.

      Morality can do many things, chief amoung them is to provide societies with a basic working framework. Morality can also be the foundation of law, but in many cases, such as in Chinese law, this is not the case, and in fact the law itself is immoral. The long term effects of this can be readily observed by Googling "The French Revolution".

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    54. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Death penalty is violating "human rights (as defined by the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights)". So according to you all companys should stop operating in the US? Brilliant.

      Yes. Stopping all economic activity between the US and the rest of the world would propably force the US government to perform its duty to protect its citizens by stopping them from being murdered by the state. As an added benefit, it would force the rest of the world to cut its dependency on US economy. So in short, both US citizens and everyone else would benefit.

      Death penalty is not only barbaric, it is also a threat to everyone, guilty and innocent alike; after all, wrongfull judgements happen. Lifetime imprisonment is sufficient to keep dangerous criminals out of the streets, and revenge is insufficient justification for risking an innocent getting executed.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    55. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right and you happen to have a very firm grasp on reality yourself their now don't you sparky!

      Don't argue the point or anything, just go for the useless (& very poor, by the way) ad-hominem. Attempting to negate my point would involve actual thought though, wouldn't it?

      Still, you seem to be the ad-hominem kind of person, so now it's my turn: My grasp on reality is far stronger than your grasp on punctuation and grammar.

    56. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by luvirini · · Score: 1

      Indeed.. thus thank god the whole world is not american yet.. as in some places of the world people are still told about and believe in of things like responsibilities to other people.

    57. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Of course, this is all philosophical. Corporations don't care
      > about what's moral or immoral, they care about what makes
      > them money (and/or "market share"/power). This is true not
      > only of Microsoft, but of essentially every other for-profit corporation.

      Of course, this is all philosophical. Governments don't care about what's moral or immoral. They (politicians) care about what gains them power (and/or control). This is true not only of China, but of essentially every other power-controlling government, democracy (abstraction of might makes right) or not.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    58. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Aim+Here · · Score: 1

      Not yet, as far as we know.

      Yahoo, on the other hand definitely is, and the main reason that Microsoft and Google haven't followed suit is probably just that China hasn't asked them to, yet.

    59. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by digeratess · · Score: 1

      Companies must comply with local laws, but companies do not have to do business in localities with immoral laws. A plethora of profits does not pardon MSN, Yahoo, Google, Cisco or any other company assisting China with tyranny.

      This reminds me of Edwin Black's book about how IBM's early database technology enabled Nazis to so efficiently exterminate Jews during the Holocaust.

    60. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying the justify immoral behavior in China?

      Not at all. Just pointing out the hypocrisy prevalent in the "Land of the Free".

    61. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yes. Does that clarify my opinion?

    62. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that Microsoft and MSN should obey the law and avoid illegal practices?

      Get serious. MS violates US law if it will make them money, and China has never had the rule of law.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    63. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Renaud · · Score: 1

      Killing and imprisoning dissenters is a Bad Thing. There is no discussion needed.

      This why governments usually call them "terrorists" instead.

    64. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thirdly, it sounds grand, all this drivel about 'ignore immoral laws'; just you try to do that in America.

      Many people have, and they've changed the country for the better. The underground railroad, the civil rights movement...

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    65. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Most Slashbots wouldn't know Common Sense if it came and shat in their breakfast cereal.

      Most Slashbots don't eat breakfast, so this is a moot point.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    66. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by pyrotic · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting idea. I doubt it would be practical for most non-US companies though, let alone multinationals. Boycott Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, Sun, IBM, Oracle, Intel, ATI, and AMD as suppliers and your IT infrastructure options look pretty slim. As for customers...

      I have nothing against the death penalty in theory. It's just that when lawyers get involved, I get kinda nervous.

    67. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by jcr · · Score: 1

      Oh, and I forgot the most important one: overthrowing King George III and founding our country.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    68. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by luvirini · · Score: 1

      Yes, one should stand up to any Censorship including the US ones.

    69. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by zxnos · · Score: 1
      couldnt have said it better myself, seriously im not that eloquent.

      i think, in situations like this, business has an opportunity to change the world more than governments. but everyone seems to bow to the pressure.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    70. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by BenjiTheGreat98 · · Score: 1
      I can testify that they are not in the least afraid of having an opinion or speaking it in public



      Then why do the people who are there on missionary trips have to speak in code when communicating back to people outside of China and vice versa? If you were to get off a plane in Beijing or some other city, would you be fine with holding a Bible in your hands?

      --
      :wq
    71. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1, Interesting

      E.g.: Killing another person is wrong, except when in self-defense or defending another.

      So it is okay to kill abortion providers, if one believes that abortion == murdering a human being, and that by killing the doctor they're saving lives?

      This is why the law isn't open to individual interpretation. Everyone's got a different idea of what is moral and what isn't.

      (And now I bet I get modded flamebait or troll :D)

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    72. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Thirdly, it sounds grand, all this drivel about 'ignore immoral laws'; just you try to do that in America.

      File sharing, anyone?

    73. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Killing and imprisoning dissenters is a Bad Thing. There is no discussion needed.

      I agree 100%! Imprison them first, THEN kill them. Cause if you kill them and then imprison them, that leads to a very stinky situation.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    74. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5-0!

      Phht fucking chinese secret police again. Who modded this pig up?

      -TatBastid

    75. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Corporations don't care about what's moral or immoral, they care about what makes them money (and/or "market share"/power).

      Ironically, linux may be to blame here. Microsoft may be more willing to stand up to China if China had no choice. But they always have Red Flag Linux to wave in front of Microsoft.

      OK, there's your pessimistic thought for the day.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    76. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by keraneuology · · Score: 0
      Which is something everyone here at /. should be doing, standing up in their communities for what they beleive in.

      Seriously. Why bother? Any token victory today will be immediately eliminated tomorrow. Consider the way congress repeatedly attempts to sneak the broadcast flag into being. Most Americans don't care. Being an activist is more likely to get you on covert surveilance lists and spark warrantless searches and wiretaps than actually accomplishing anything. In America the masses don't care. The masses don't want freedom, only beer, unlimited sex and to never be held accountable for or offended by anything.

      Standing up for our online rights for example.

      Your rights are wholely contingent upon the will of the ISPs and the backbone owners. And the government. And the United Nations. You get the crumbs.

      Sure the only legal thing we can do directly to stop the restrictions of our rights is using our brains when we go to the polls.

      For every individual who actually uses a brain in the polling place there are 50 who vote as a bloc and 500 lawyers ready to sue. In Chicago you can expect your vote to be competing with several dead people. In California and Texas you can expect your vote to compete with thousands of illegal aliens. Brains are irrelevant during elections - money and corruption are the only factors.

      But we can also use whatever influence we have to educate the public and motivate others.

      I'd thank you for your sense of humor, but you're being serious.

      And we need to start doing this BEFORE it is too late.

      You're several years too late for before it being too late.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    77. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Only indirectly.

      There have been some alleged leaks of information that Lenovo computers are assembled by Chinese prisoners, some of whom are political dissidents. Some of those prisoners would be loading Windows onto said computers.

      I wish I had any hard evidence about this, but at this point it's mostly several "I know a guy in" reports. Such is the status quo about information on Chinese dissident prisoners, and I'm not willing to go undercover as one to find out. Any links to support or disprove appreciated though.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    78. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Lummoxx · · Score: 1

      Is Microsoft killing and imprisoning dissenters?

      No, but China is, when they're not just skipping the whole transporting them to prisons part, and shooting them right in the streets. That was the point of that post, as I'm sure you're aware, but chose to ignore, since it's always more fun to be disingenuous.

      The question is, are you going to support companies that support the policies of oppresive governments. If a company does business with the Chinese, will you do business with that company?

      Ideally, the answer should be no. However, in the real world, in which we all (theoretically) live in, ideals are rarely lived up to, and that applies to non-Americans, as well (that's my subtle, gentle way of saying to our resident American-bashers to get off your high horses. Your holier-than-thou, sweeping generalizations make me alternate between chuckling and up-chucking).

      I think most interesting would be a comment from someone who actually lived someplace like China. Maybe we've been so free for so long, we just can't imagine what it's really like to live in fear of simply saying the wrong thing, especially when the best outcome you can expect for even an accidental infraction is imprisonment, but at worst, torture, the arrest of your family (sympathizers can't be tolerated, you know), or even the death of you AND your family, and just in case, maybe a neighbor or two?

      Companies that do business in China, should abide by the laws of the Chinese, that is a no brainer. However, the companies should also realize that by doing so, they condone the actions of the Chinese government.

      --

      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.

    79. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You relativism people are all full of shit. China is not as free as the US, or for that matter, any country in the West, and people are going to damn well say so, and they'll be right, no matter what you say about it. China's government is extremely repressive of any cynicism in the press about its practices - the examples of this are numerous. Sure, the average person on the street might not give a shit about any of it - because they're not in a position of influence, the government naturally doesn't care about them or what they say either.

      I hesitate to make a tired 1984 reference, but do you remember how the proles in that book were allowed to speak their minds without repercussion? The woman who flips out in the movie theater doesn't get a rat cage strapped to her face - they just throw her out of the place, because she is unimportant and no one cares what she says.

      So yeah, maybe most people in China don't have a problem with their government, but anyone who does is sure as hell going to have a rough time of it if people start listening to them.

    80. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      First, unthinking one, when the criminals define the crimes (i.e., laws), your comment is completely arbitrary and nebulous at best. No further comment is required.

    81. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hotel Gitmo is a lot nicer than say...getting run over by a tank.

      And if things were so nice over there, how come the blog had to be in this country? Can you say, freedom of speech?

    82. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps there is overgeneralization here, and that isn't very helpful. The laws may not be that all that bad, China could be the coolest place ever, blah blah blah.

      But people certainly don't refrain from complaining when these sorts of actions take place anywhere in the Americas, Europe, Africa, Australia, or the rest of Asia. What should exempt China? "They WERE bad, but they're really getting better"?

      I, for one, never have been to China. But it's hard not to come to the conclusions that they are all about censorship when one hears that they demand the enforcement of Blog censorship.

      A very sound rule of thumb is, if a society is stable over time, then the population is by and large happy with the way things are. This is true not only for USA and Europe, but also for China and many other countries. The ordinary feel quite happy with the way their country is run, and if you actually believe in freedom, you should leave it to them to decide whether they like it.

      Yeah, but they really haven't existed in their current incarnation for that long. Less than 100 years. Dictatorships have lasted longer. The fact that the country itself has existed for very long means very little, considering how many governments have passed through it. There were a bunch of Dynasties before Chairman Mao, and even now that government is in flux.

      Your argument of "China isn't bad because America is bad" at the end there is kind of... a fallacy. America has done bad things. China has done bad things. We complain about both. And in America we get to read those complaints. Maybe sometimes we get to read them in China?

    83. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by dumpsterdiver · · Score: 1

      > riddle me this caspian, what makes a law immoral? who is the judge?

      It is the duty of every thinking person to decide whether a law is immoral. It is in line with the [only] true strength of a democratic system: the ability to freely debate and either reinforce or tear down policy.

      I think the measure of the rightness of this action is this: what are the consequences to Microsoft if they fail to comply with the Chinese government's demands? As I understand, the response would be economic: reducing Microsoft's role and influence in an expanding economy, perhaps a preference for competitors' products. So, the question is whether Microsoft is correct to help the Chinese government silence political opposition in return for money.

      THAT is where the immorality lies. There is lasting controversy about World War 2 and the Swiss Bank's cooperation with the Nazi regime, about American weapons traders selling arms to weapons-soaked civil war zones, about the UN oil-for-food scandal; the question boils down to selling out human principles for cash.

    84. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

      By the same logic, companies that don't condone the US policy on Iraq have a moral obligation to not do business in America. Just playing devil's advocate here...

    85. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a grey area, but what you are describing would be considered execution, not defense.

      "by killing the doctor they're saving lives" as in multiple lives at some time in the future. The argument is to stop them before they kill again and can not be used as a justification for self or anothers defense.

      Now, if someone were to kill the doctor in the middle of the procedure to save a specific life, that could be used as a 'justification' for defense of someone about to be killed.

      Of course, like I said in the beginning, it's all a grey area, and this is all hypothetical, since abortion is legal, it's not your body and you are not the great fetus avenger.

    86. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Quixote · · Score: 1
      However, the morality of drinking really isn't that difficult to discern: It's not immoral to drink except where it would harm another person.

      So says you. I'll play devil's advocate here, but in Islam drinking is verboten.

      At what stage does "morality" move from being an individual decision to a collective decision? The Hindus consider it immoral to eat beef; you don't. The Sikhs consider it immoral to smoke; you may not. The Buddhists may consider it immoral to eat any animal; maybe you don't.

      The fact that we can sit and argue about the definition of "morality" shows that there's a lot left to figure out here. In the meantime, I'm sure there are many Chinese who would respectfully suggest that the rest of the world just back off. The Chinese people aren't dumb, you know. They can figure out ways to get their information through other channels.

    87. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Duke+of+Scarborough · · Score: 1

      Now, count all the things you're now wearing, looking at, typing on etc. that are made in China and tell us: do you think it's unethical for a person to contibute financially towards the prosperity of a nation whose laws are unethical?

    88. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      However, the morality of drinking really isn't that difficult to discern: It's not immoral to drink except where it would harm another person

      How far do you take that, and who decides what "harm" is?

      You gave a few examples where I don't think you'd get much of an argument from most people about it being wrong to get drunk in those situations. But it's easy to take another step, and another. For example, the purpose of DUIs being wrong is that it could harm others -- no guarantees. And the purpose of not getting drunk enough to interfere with supporting a family is to protect the family. However, there are few people in the world who are truly alone. Is it wrong if I, as a single male with no children, drink myself to death? It could happen. My family would be devastated. Clear emotional harm would be done. So was my drinking immoral? Clearly it would be simple to say "fine, drinking yourself to death is immoral" -- but I do not believe there is a purpose to a system of morality that offers no real guidance. I can get good and drunk, and impair my judgment (making it harder to know when to stop), but it would be immoral to die? Err... helpful.

      What about the "lesser of two evils" cases? What if I know my neighbor is planning on killing people, but I don't have any proof such that I would be able to get the police involved as anything more than a delay tactic? Is it moral to kill the neighbor to protect others? What if I don't KNOW he's going to commit murders, but I have a very strong suspicion? A moderately-strong suspicion? Where is the line? If I am 51% sure, does that mean it's moral? What about 50%? Remember now, we're not talking legality, we're talking morality. Regardless of legality, would it be the right thing to do?

      How about things that are less easy to quantify? If god descended from the heavens right now and told me if I killed every last Arab in the world, peace would reign for the remainder of the history of the world, would it be moral to do it?

      How does friendship play in to morality? If I am friends with somebody who committed a crime and he calls me for bail, should I pay it even if I know that he's going to skip out and never come back? If my friend confesses murder to me, is it my moral imperitive to rat him out or keep his secret? After all, I am causing harm regardless of which I choose. Does it matter if I knew--magically or just by virtue of knowing my friend well--that whatever he did would never be done again?

      Are "selfish" things immoral? If I own a business, is it immoral to close it and lay off my employees because I am no longer interested in running it? (Yes, in reality, the chances are good that I would sell it in that situation -- but assume for the sake of argument that I am unwilling or unable to do so.) That could cause a ton of harm to them, particularly if they themselves have families, and it's not like I'm closing it because it's hemhorraging money or anything.

      I don't expect you or anybody else to actually answer these questions -- in fact I hope nobody takes the time to do so, they're nothing but hypotheticals. I pose them all in order to make one simple comment: Morality is not always as simple as you make it out to be and (at least) in the case of friendships, I do not think it can be wholly logical either. That emotional part you acknowledge can't always be tossed away.

      (I realize as I preview this that the argument is somewhat tangent to your statement about the morality of laws, but it seems like you took a tangent of your own. That and it took me a long time to type and I'll be damned if I'm going to close the window now. :P)

    89. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      YES AND YES AND YES! By aiding the dictators in power - and M$ has been doing so considerably over the past decade, they are indeed aiding and abetting in those murders by the state.

      So to is Nordstrom, Walmart, The Gap and so many other retail outfits aiding and abetting in the brutal murders of young Chinese girls when they knowingly purchase clothing, etc., from factories in China that unlawfully (by China's supposed laws) employ underage girls and, when they are injured on the production line, their employers bury them alive to avoid penalties from the local authorities. Corporate guilt must always be acknowledged......

    90. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 1

      And you're not bothered by the people you'd be putting out of a job, the other customers who used to benefit from your service (especially if your company provided an important service like electricity), and by the fact that you're probably not causing any real change and by escaping away, you're discarding your ability to actually promote any real change?

    91. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by DocLandolt · · Score: 1

      Corporations don't care about what's moral or immoral, they care about what makes them money (and/or "market share"/power). This is true not only of Microsoft, but of essentially every other for-profit corporation.

      And this doesn't apply to not-for-profits as well? Are you really that naive? To quote a post I just read: "Which is why it is the duty of we, the public, to intensely criticise any corporation when it does do something unethical, so that the ethical choice becomes the most profitable one."

    92. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by gaspar+ilom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why it is the duty of we, the public, to intensely criticise any corporation when it does do something unethical, so that the ethical choice becomes the most profitable one.

      You've drank the cool-aide -- when issues become a matter of "personal choice" far less gets done. How else would corporations and their neocon allies want you to respond to all the various economic, environmental, and social problems to which they may contribute?

      This is a "political" issue -- so a solution is likely a "political" one that involves some machinery of government.

      For example: Perhaps it should be illegal for carriers like MSN to disciminate against which type of speech they will stifle -- which is exactly what they are doing. (whether or not that speech is on their servers -- otherwise, they shouldn't offer the service.)

      Otherwise: What if Google didn't likle what you were talking about in your private emails -- or even public discussions -- Should Google be allowed to revoke your Gmail acount???

    93. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we all know that every wafer coming out of chip factories gets stamped "Made in the USA".

    94. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You who think moral is so simple, think twice, and read more books. Tell me : what about guilt? Is a mentally retarded guy guilty of having "unconsciently" harmed someone? What about responsibility ? A strike is always a harm against someone, should it be forbidden? Read Fingarette, Ricoeur...

    95. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Wow, dude! Is /. really fortunate to have a "sophisticated member" of the offshoring industry (a k a the "Benedict Arnold industry") respond so artfully to the topic. Wow, he is so up on what's happening in his beloved China - I guess all those free prostitutes provided to visiting biz and political dignataries (Oh those lucky Bush boys) must be doing the trick (pun intended). Yup, all them slaves is happy - see how theys all be smiling, massuh......

    96. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by keraneuology · · Score: 1
      It is the duty of any moral individual to seek to change that law, and to resist it in the meanwhile.
      Thoreau disagrees.

      Ghandi disagreed. Martin Luther and Martin Luther King, Jr disagreed. Rosa Parks disagreed. Various locales in Scandanavia disagreed while the Nazis were hanging out in town. Thomas Paine wasn't all that thrilled with the concept, either.

      If Microsoft refuses to comply with Chinese laws concerning censorship, do you really think it will affect those laws?

      Nope, but it would be the morally correct thing to do. But Bill Gates values money above all else. That's the American way.

      And, in the meanwhile, Microsoft would almost certainly lose traction...traction which can later help in influencing laws when there's a snowball's chance in hell of accomplishing anything on that front.

      This is one of the dumber concepts ever posted on /. - that MS is secretly planning to effect social change in China. Ain't in the works - Bill doesn't value freedom or individual rights: if the RIAA/MPAA started to care about freedom and rights then Bill may give a rat's uvula but otherwise, never.

      Microsoft can't do a damned thing about the Chinese government's oppression of free speech and they know it

      They could always pay ~cough~ "fines", wink wink, to satisfy the officials... but they don't.

      their next duty is to avoid doing harm to themselves, their employees, and their stockholders all in the name of futility.

      Or they could pull out of the market. But that would cost MS too much money. MS is seeking money first - as corporations should do - but are helping prevent the spread of freedom. That's the choice MS made. It sucks and is wrong. Just admit it and don't try to justify Bill.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    97. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by deacon · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think a lot of you Americans need to revise your prejudices. As far as I can see your attitudes towards other countries, and in this particular case China, is caused by a combination of ignorance and simple jealousy - China is doing better and better, while America is going the opposite way, so they are simply 'evil communists' who persecute pious religious practitioners like Falun Gong

      Great Leader, is that you?

      Let's look at facts, shall we, not "prejudices"

      We begin:

      Here are some happy people being run over by tanks.

      http://images.google.com/images?svnum=100&hl=en&sa fe=off&q=tiananmen+square&spell=1

      Here are reports of hundreds of other happy people being tortured to death.

      http://www.google.com/search?as_q=falun+gong+tortu re&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq= &as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occ t=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off

      Here are images of torture victims, many of them old women. The squeamish may want to skip these.

      http://images.google.com/images?&num=100&hl=en&btn G=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_ rights=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi&q=falun%20gong%20tort ure

      Isolated incidents from long ago? Oh no, kamerad. Just last month Chinese police shot 30 or 40 villagers who were protesting their poor living conditions.

      http://www.google.com/search?as_q=chinese+villager s+shot&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as _oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as _occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=o ff

      I am glad you posted something so easy to refute with such overweening disdain for the victims. It's clear why you are such a supporter of the current regime.

      Finally, your claim that "you Americans" are jealous of china is a purile red herring meant to stifle discussion.

      Hint for you: The only way you can stifle discussion now is if you get Microsoft to do it for you. And the rest of the world is watching.

    98. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by CelloJake · · Score: 2, Informative
      I suspect a lot of the American ideas about this come from the time of the cultural revolution, where people were widely persecuted, not only for having the wrong opinions, but also for lots of other things, more or less at random. China has moved on from that - this is a common thing in the world: societies change over time; well, maybe not America, what so I know, but certainly China - how could anyone doubt that? Also, are you absolutely sure that you can get away with having the wrong opinions in America?

      From the news today:

      A blind activist in China and his family have been placed under house arrest for four months and he was beaten by thugs when he tried to venture out, after exposing forced abortions in his home province on the east coast." More

      And some older ones (last few weeks):

      Forced labor for writing an article about forced labor camps.

      Jailed for organizing a signature campaign against a textbook.

      It's obvious that the author of the parent post is either a propogandist for the Chinese government or a deranged lunatic with no grasp of reality (i.e. European). Judging by his well written English, I'll go with the latter.

      And to answer the question posed in the excerpt: Yes. I have no fear at all of being persecuted by the U.S. government or local governments for saying anything which does not directly incite violence against another person. However, if I said things like you are saying, I would definitely exepect to be ridiculed by any person who is aware of international events.

    99. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Killing and imprisoning dissenters is a Bad Thing. There is no discussion needed.

      This why governments usually call them "terrorists" instead.


      Worked against the Branch Davidians in Waco.

      (PS - heh. The "image" word for this post is "wiretaps").

    100. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We witnessed the same attitude with multinational companies doing
      business in South Africa when apartheid was the rule. Most
      companies, in their tacit support of the apartheid regime, just
      claimed to be conforming to local laws and customs. The practice
      continued until the threat of international boycotts and blacklisting
      forced the corporations to adopt an acute moral awareness. So it
      will be with Chinese policy today.

      The ONLY thing that a business can understand is loss of sales.

    101. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "aiding and abetting" might apply here. At the very least, they become an accomplice. When you think about it, all money is blood money now. It's all tainted. Every last penny. There are no innocents.

    102. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      So shareholders have ethics? What good is having 'ethics' if you do not act according to them? Why do these ethic shareholders not react when they see these evil executives do things (in their name!) they do not agree with?

      I am sorry, but phenomenologically, these shareholders are as 'evil' as you picture the bad executives.

    103. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Which is why it is the duty of we, the public, to intensely criticise any corporation when it does do something unethical, so that the ethical choice becomes the most profitable one.

      In this case the ethical choice would be for Microsoft to pull out of the Chinese market entirely, since they can't violate Chinese law without upsetting the Chinese government, and they can't remain compliant with Chinese law without upsetting human rights activists elsewhere in the world.

      Explain to me how abandoning an emerging market with 1 billion potential customers could ever be the most profitable choice to Microsoft.

    104. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      When the law is immoral, it is the duty of any moral individual to ignore the law.
      Well, we all here seem to think it is immoral, but apparently the Chinese see it differently.
      It is amazing that here on slashdot, where people complain about religious types trying to force their morals upon them, that we are more than happy to try to force our morals on a culture 1 billion strong.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    105. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Pursuit of economic interests is exactly what one would expect from a publically traded corporation (which has an obligation to maximize profit potential for its shareholders).
      Laughable. Do you really think the promulgation of Communism is in anybody's long-term financial interests? Ask the USSR.
    106. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      That is not being the devil's advocate: that's just being reasonable and consistent.

      You may find it surprising, but I know personally cases of (small) business that have stopped trading with the US because of that. I know lots of scientists that refuse to take part in anything USian, despite the fact that this may be a professional loss for them. I know people who will take a flight doing 3 hops just in order to avoid having to stop in an USian airport, and this usually means not flying an USian airline. I know personally a chilean guy who rejected a prize adorned with lots of money and even more prestige from a (semi?)governmental USian organization.

    107. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by TuneShark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I think some of your comparisons and comments are valid, they just don't add up to "things are ok in China".

      China is rising in economic importance and influence (and middle class affluence), whereas the US has perhaps peaked. Americans (US Citizens) are in danger of becoming the next France - expecting everyone to continue catering to our language and culture, while China finally spends the pent up potential they've guarded as a comparatively closed economy for - well - centuries. It's practically inevitable as long as the Chinese Government doesn't screw it up.

      However, China has a long ways to go before their government can be considered a "fair and reasonable" one by any current standard of human rights. You are correct that people tend to learn to live with the Devil they know - but I think you are guilty of trying to couch this as a competition between Chinese and American attitudes towards human rights. Even though US abuses don't affect most of us personally, many /.-ers are critical of it. And they are allowed to live in the US and post opinions to that effect right here on slashdot. Is slashdot even accessible in China or are you reading this from somewhere else?

      I notice your posting makes no negative comments at all about the Chinese Government. Comes off a little dogmatic and unbalanced if you ask me. Is that because you still have family living there that could be affected negatively if you were to express your true feelings? Not that I blame you - but it's just a bit disingenious to allege that the human rights behavior of the Chinese Government is up to even the poor standards set by our current US administration.

      The good news for China is that they may be headed in the right direction. Not as optimistic about the US. We'll see what happens after this Presidential term expires.

      Check back in a hundred years or so, though, and we'll see who has the better record. Our grandkids and greatgrandkids may all be studying the latest philosophy on human rights in Mandarin Chinese...

    108. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet filters required by law in US libraries are controlled by random private corporations that aren't accountable to anybody at all.

      Except of course, to the contracts under which they were hired to do the job. Not to mention the librarians. And their shareholders. Oh, and the laws of the land.


      You haven't been paying attention to the CIPA situation, have you? Filter makers are literally accountable to nobody. The filtering lists are protected by law from examination by librarians, shareholders, law enforcement, or anybody else, under the wonderful US trade secret and copyright laws. The "contracts" you put so much faith in, like virtually all software contracts, explicitly transfer all liability and risk to the user and eliminate any accountability whatsoever on the part of the software vendors.

      The Chinese at least pretend to have a lawful excuse for what they do. The Americans don't bother.

    109. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Caspian · · Score: 1

      A "person" is generally taken to be "a human being"; what distinguishes humans from other animals is their sentience. Take away the sentience and what you have left is not a human being. Remove my brain and the rest of my body is not a human being; it is a corpse. (Even if you keep it alive via a heart-lung machine, it is still a corpse, albeit an animated one.)

      By this (my) logic, thus, a fetus is not a "human being", and therefore not a "person". Fetuses aren't sentient. Kill a fetus and it experiences pain less acutely and on a lower level of consciousness than, say, an adult cow. And few would argue that killing an adult cow for its meat is immoral (PETA notwithstanding).

      The argument of the anti-abortion crowd is completely emotional in nature. To them, because a fetus looks similar to a baby, it is in fact a baby. This is not so; a newborn baby's brain is infinitely more highly developed than, say, a first-term fetus. The argument that a fetus looks human and has human DNA, and thus that killing it is comparable to killing a baby or even an adult human, reminds me in a sense of the old argument that the Sun revolves around the Earth because that's how it appears.

      Sometimes, appearances can be deceiving. A fetus looks human, but it lacks what makes humans human-- a highly-developed brain. Until the brain is developed and functioning, what you have is not a human. It is a proto-human, a pre-human, a potential human. Similarly, Terri Schiavo was not a human after her accident. She was an ex-human, a destroyed human, a broken human. Even retarded people exhibit mental abilities that are unique to humans, but fetuses (or people in Persistent Vegetative States) do not.

      Thus, the only moral issues involved in killing a fetus or a Terri Schiavo are [1] issues of respect for the family's wishes and [2] issues of respect for the person's potential future status as a human being (in the case of a fetus) or for their former status as a human being (in the case of Terri Schiavo). These issues are comparable to the moral issues surrounding the concept of "respect for the dead", and I place debates over the "rights" of fetuses or PVS patients into that same sphere. Killing a fetus is comparable on a biological level to killing an animal with equivalent neurological capabilities. On the evidence of more advanced neurological development, I submit that cows feel pain more acutely than fetuses, and thus that killing a fetus does not inflict as much pain as killing a cow. Nevertheless, any killing should be carried out in as swift and painless a method as possible.

      Logic, not "beliefs", should guide issues like this. It is illogical to equate a first-term fetus to a baby, and supremely illogical to equate them to an adult.

      All true morality stems from concern for the well-being and contentedness of other people. Altruism, in other words. The Golden Rule all over again.

      --
      With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
    110. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 2, Insightful
      spreading "Joe Smith is gay" is wrong; spreading "Joe Smith is a convicted child molestor" (assuming it's true) is alright...

      Really? I don't agree. Having sat on a jury where the charge was aggravated sexual assault of a child, I can tell you that people get convicted of being child molestors for things that don't pass the smell test. Here's an example (just to grab a random example out of today's newspaper) of someone arrested where the actual language of the indictment includes "...She could tell by the way (the accused) was hugging her, he was feeling her breasts with his chest,..." Excuse me?

      It takes only a few minutes googling to find kids under 18 convicted of producing child pornography because they taped themselves masturbating or having a bit of sport with a girl/boyfriend. In the state where I live, there's an active lobbying group trying to get the sex offender registry records expunged in cases where the perp and his victim were, respectively, some high school senior (18 years old) and his prom date (17 or less) who just happened to get caught. They've had some success and prosecutors can, in those cases, now choose to refrain from putting convicted people on the list but that sort of common sense is not yet mandatory.

      So if it's wrong to say someone's gay when that is intended to inflame the listener and cause them to feel ill will toward the person being discussed, why is the "convicted child molestor" tag worse? Depending on the circumstances, both can be totally innocuous observations that, frankly, are better left unsaid because they don't communicate any information of real value.

      This really isn't complex.

      Yes, it is complex. It is really, really complex. I don't think MS did the right thing. Far from it. But I do say that we need to be slow and deliberative, we need to think pretty damn hard, before we say "this is right and that is wrong." I was reared in a religious tradition that taught only God can know what is in someone's heart. I think that's true. I think when we judge the actions of others, we take serious risks. The questions are usually more complex than we can ever know.

    111. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by mikiN · · Score: 1

      Not to be pedantic or anything, but the world actually has close to _six_and_a_half_ billion people... 6,484,183,002 as of today according to geohive.com.

      "Wretched isn't it?" -Marvin the Paranoid Android.

      --
      The Hacker's Guide To The Kernel: Don't panic()!
    112. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "USian" -- is that a new tern for an Asian-American?

    113. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1
      "Pursuit of economic interests is exactly what one would expect from a publically traded corporation (which has an obligation to maximize profit potential for its shareholders). Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is the law of the corporate jungle."

      But these structures you speak of as if they were impersonal entities are not impersonal entities.

      They are people.

      And as such are subject to moral scrutiny.

      I believe it's the mantra of the mafia to say "It's only business."

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    114. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      Nop, it's not that.

    115. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I can get good and drunk, and impair my judgment (making it harder to know when to stop), but it would be immoral to die?"
      As far as society is concerned, as long as you do it on your own time, dime, and property, then cheers and bottoms up. If your personal morals dictate that taking your own life is wrong, then don't.

      "What about the "lesser of two evils" cases? What if I know my neighbor is planning on killing people, but I [snip inability to recognize other options] Remember now, we're not talking legality, we're talking morality. Regardless of legality, would it be the right thing to do?"
      There aren't circumstances that dictate you do an immorale act here, and, I believe, in an other case. If your apparent options are (A) let him do something bad or (B) do something bad to him, then you should choose (C) come up with, or attempt to stop him in a moral manner. This can involve personal intervention, family intervention, or police intervention. Your certainty only dictates the ammount of effort you are willing to put towards a reasonable solution. True, it might not work, but choosing an easy risky path like shooting your neighbor is simply an immoral choice, regardless of your evidence or intuition. If the proof exists that he would have done it, then the police could have just as well determined that beforehand as after.

      "How about things that are less easy to quantify? If god descended from the heavens right now and told me if I killed every last Arab in the world, peace would reign for the remainder of the history of the world, would it be moral to do it?"
      The argument was that morality is simple if you leave out religious complications. But IMHO, no, it wouldn't be moral to do it. What if god was testing you? Maybe I'm wierd, but my morals don't involve god's approval. If GOD ALMIGHTY told me to kill, I probably wouldn't, even if I knew with absolute certainty it would damn me to eternal torment.

      "How does friendship play in to morality? If I am friends with somebody who committed a crime and he calls me for bail, should I pay it even if I know that he's going to skip out and never come back?"
      Frendship is priceless, and he's not a good friend if he sets the price of friendship at whatever his bail is. It's entirely up to you whether to pay or not, it's only your own concious that is involved here. The court already made its decision of the risk of him leaving, and the price it would take for him to be brought back when they set the bail ammount. That's what it's for.

      "If my friend confesses murder to me, is it my moral imperitive to rat him out or keep his secret? After all, I am causing harm regardless of which I choose. Does it matter if I knew--magically or just by virtue of knowing my friend well--that whatever he did would never be done again?"
      Rat him out. His justification, punishment, and danger to society, in this world with a simple moral scheme, should be up to public judgement. Mitigating circumstances, like a criminal having a terminal illness with a week to live do actually get considered by the court.

      "Are "selfish" things immoral? If I own a business, is it immoral to close it and lay off my employees because I am no longer interested in running it? (Yes, in reality, the chances are good that I would sell it in that situation -- but assume for the sake of argument that I am unwilling or unable to do so.) That could cause a ton of harm to them, particularly if they themselves have families, and it's not like I'm closing it because it's hemhorraging money or anything."
      Again, it's just your conscious. They're working under a contract with you, under the laws of the state. If it's legally possible for you to do so, then part of their employment is with that possible risk. If you made a verbal agreement that this wouldn't happen, then that's something they can take you to court over. They can restart a business together, get employed elsewhere, or whatever. There's no societal moral conflict here.

      "I don't expect you or a

    116. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. I avoid Chinese products wherever possible. Unfortunately this isn't always possible. However, if I'm given a choice, I'll choose just about any other country.

    117. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Someone else will provide the service. They'll just be more expensive and pay their staff less. Meanwhile, I'd simplyinvest the money in another area. Sadly this would presumably be less beneficial to me, but at least I'd know the money I was making was not at the cost of people's lives. I don't know what ability to I'd have to promote change if I stayed in the area.

    118. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      I just had this argument with someone last nigh, on a different topic, and you may as well have quoted him. (Larry, is that you?)

      You are describing rights based morality which, although the most prevalent one in our culture, is not the only moral system. There are also utility based, duty based, and care based moral systems. Each one has it's issues, and each one *generally* arrives at the same conclusion given a set of conditions and choices for an individual, but not always.

      That being said, my coworker argued that the rights based moral system was the best one, or most correct. This I disputed, but he reached his train stop. Would you argue the same?

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    119. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1

      Example of a dissenter for western goverments (and most others) is a rapist, would it be a bad thing to inprison them? be more specific plz.

      Dissenters send to prison for saying things that are illegal is and not calling for voilence and such is bad. I think it's immoral because if the people don't decide on what laws and regulations are used in their goverment who will? The people will need free and open discussion to decide on laws and regulations. (ofcourse here is a assumption that the people are smart enough and organised to do this)

      I do dislike that microsoft abides by China's law, some of the parties involved, be it the stockholders, microsoft staff, the goverment or the people should do something about it.

      The stockholders did nothing, microsoft abided law, the goverment didnt do anything either, gues its up to the people.
      So what do we want? Basicly what we want is that companies in other countries have to obey rules we make. Basicly in this case there should be a US law that is broken when microsoft prevents free speech in foreign countries.

      Ofcourse this would put US companies in hard places (giving advantage to foreign companies sometimes), but this is intrinsic to being moral.
      If you want to live by your morals, you have fewer options, meaning the chance that they are good ones is smaller. Said differently if you decrease the set of things that you think is good, the chance of hitting something good randomly is decreased. (you have to work harder to find it)

      PS I live in the netherlands so in principle I will have to look into the EU laws for this. In principle, because i probably dont have the skill, time or patience for it. (probably the EU or its states already have some laws for this, and there may even be some international laws, but i may be a bit over-optimistic, there are for some products marks that indicate that they're ecologically ok and stuff)

    120. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by burndive · · Score: 1
      This has been effective because as long as the particular form of dissent has been 'killing innocent people in order to make the general population afraid of angering your faction,' people tend to agree with the government that the dissenters are terrorists (terrorism is a style of dissent).

      The danger is when 'terrorist' becomes just another word for 'dissenter.' The confustion takes place when people, as a form of dissent, label terrorists (who are being killed and imprisoned by the government) as mere 'dissenters' in order to associate the actions of the government with fascism.

      In all cases, it is preferable that the terms 'dissenter' and 'terrorist' remain distinct. Anyone acting to confuse the terms is trying to either (a) vilify mere dissenters to more conveniently oppress them or (b) cartoonify terrorism because they share common goals with terrorists.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    121. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by obizgnodnahs · · Score: 1

      If you read the content of the Chinese law, you will find the Chinese law uphold free speech, demonstration and all of the democratic activities. The problem is government do not enforce them and constantly violate those laws without any opposition ( no one can stop them). So Microsoft in fact violate the Chinese law in the first place.

    122. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An ethics discussion on Slashdot...at least its not as religious as a distro flamewar.

    123. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by zxnos · · Score: 1
      the difference between a rabbit and human fetus, and you touched on it, is that a human fetus has potential to be sentient.

      consider that you are aware of yourself prior to conception, but you do not know if you are going to be male/female, black/white, aborted/not aborted etc... ...would you agree with gender discrimination, racial discrimination or abortion if you dont know your own fate?

      it goes to the golden rule. if you dont want to be discriminated against because of something outside of your control, you shouldnt practice that form of discrimination.

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    124. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are missing a fundamental difference between US law and Chinese law. In the US the the citizens have complete freeedom and then cede a small amount to the govermenment in order for government to function. In China the goverment has all the power and grants some freedoms to the people. "Very Big Difference!"

    125. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by mydocuments · · Score: 1

      A law is immoral if it denies a person their right to conduct their life as they see fit, with no exceptions except where their actions would harm another.
      ...
      This really isn't complex.


      Is a laws morality only affected by it's influence on humans? What about a law that denys humans the right to kill animals just for fun? Or a law against imbalancing or destroying ecosystems? Or even a law against planetcide, albeit a planet where no human lives? These examples would certainly restrict human actions, without preventing harm to others. Err... other humans. But is that all that counts?

      Methinks this is more complex than youthinks.

    126. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Weirsbaski · · Score: 1

      I suspect you've never actually been there and spoken to ordinary Chinese. I have, many times, and I can testify that they are not in the least afraid of having an opinion or speaking it in public.

      Maybe you talked to a biased group, because the people who really are afraid of speaking their opinion in public have been incarcerated or silenced by the threat of incarceration? (I don't know that this is true, I'm just saying it's possible.)

      --

      I am not a sig.
    127. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      A corporation shall act in the way its charter prescribes, for that is its genetic code. Change the charter, and perhaps you shall get a better corporation.

    128. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by EiZei · · Score: 1

      Corporations sure are helping by providing those IP addresses.

    129. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by bnenning · · Score: 1

      Well, we all here seem to think it is immoral, but apparently the Chinese see it differently.

      Um no, the gang of murderous tyrants calling themselves the Chinese government see it differently.

      --
      How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
    130. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      I argue the same because in a world where every person has a different moral system the only way to ensure that the correct morals are ever followed by anyone is to give people the right to decide their own morality. From that the entire rights system flows.

    131. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Jrabbit05 · · Score: 1

      Not really. I mean The site is hosted in The USA. They shouldn't just follow some contry's laws for no moral issue. To me it seems they did it for buisness. I can't condone that.

    132. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by bigg_nate · · Score: 1

      Careful! Depending on your definition of sentience, a 6-month-old baby, a child with severe mental disabilities, and/or an adult in a coma (maybe even just asleep) may not be "human beings" by your definition. It's exceedingly difficult to come up with a set of logically grounded moral guidelines that imply that everything "obviously right" is right and everything "obviously wrong" is wrong. It's a bit like trying to come up with a workable definition for what constitutes life.

    133. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ATI is Canadian.

    134. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Professional+Slacker · · Score: 1

      You sir are awesome, can I start a cult in your name?

      --
      A Free Market requires informed intelligent consumers, such people are rare, we're in trouble.
    135. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you see anybody ran over by tank? NO. The tanker took every care to avoid that man. Chinese government should gave him a medal.

      In another news, American airplane just killed a family of 14 in Iraq...

    136. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I think that laws against drugs are immoral, so is a company evil for not letting people smoke weed on the corridor?

      I also think income tax is immoral, so I'm sure all of Slashdot would praise Bill Gates if he stopped paying it?

    137. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      China is a dictatorship, but is it still Communist?

    138. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is the "offending post" related to American law? America, fortunately, has no law requiring MS to post or host any blogs at all. China asked them to stop doing something that they are not required to do, and they complied. While it may be impractical for an international company to actively limit their subscribers' posts, it's not against any laws and the terms of service probably indicate that they can limit posts.

      Is everyone who posts here somehow unethical for not having flaming anti-China posts on their websites?

    139. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by cicho · · Score: 1

      Do you have a source for that last fact you mention, in bold? I've read much, but of _this_ I haven't heard before.

      --
      "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    140. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that these things and worse happen or have happened in China. All countries in the world have things in their past and present that they should be ashamed of. For every Tiananmen atrocity performed by China there is a Mai Lai that the USA have executed, or a Falluja. We can keep slinging mud around all day if you like, but it won't lead to a better world; if you begin to perceive your enemy as less than human, then you've already given away your own humanity.

      Turn it around for a moment: there's huge number of people in the world who criticize America. How do you feel about that? My guess is that you are proud of what your country is, and you feel it is the best place to live. Don't you think the Chinese feel that way? And as I say, for every person in China who feels oppressed you can find one in America who feels the same way about USA. Maybe in your view the ones in America that feel oppressed are just loonies; but then that is what the average Chinese feels about those in China who complain like that. As for a free press, weeellll, what is it you have in America? Fox News? Media controlled by ultra right wing groups?

    141. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      It appeared sometime back (around either April or May of 2005) in the NY Times and other national newspapers. Sorry, but I no longer post links to articles appearing in the popular press - to much of a hassle and I feel that if someone in my low economic circumstances can keep up on current events, others should do so as well. It's part of being a citizen (along with serving one's full term honorably in the military, which deserter Georgie Bush has still failed to do and should ultimately face a court martial - prior to impeachment - for)....

    142. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      No, what distinguishes us from the OTHER animals is our DNA. Whether or not the DNA of the other animals has led to sentience in them or not is irrelevant, and very subjective. How is it that you can reduce the importance of DNA down to mere appearances, ignoring that nothing but our DNA makes us human.

      Take away sentience and you still have a human being. Remove your brain and you are still a human being albeit a dead one. You have in no way changed what distinguishes you from the other animals. Considering that a corpse is defined as a dead body, this choice of word is also inappropriate.

      Although I have no problem with the killing of human fetuses where necessary, your justification of it using an arbitrary and subjective definition and questionable 'logic' is laughable at best. A fetus becomes an adult human being when the usual opportunities are not taken away from it.

      A cow shall always be a cow. A cow fetus will never become a human or vice versa. It is supremely illogical to equate the value of a human fetus to that of a cow.

      The anti-abortion crowd is not simply using emotional arguements. Does anyone really have to point out the religious bias in this group, and their inability to respect the freedom of religion of others? The 'looks' of a fetus is irrelevant.

      Schiavo was absolutely human even in a vegetative state. There is no need to dehumanize her in order to justify giving her a dignified death. I would argue that it was her humanity itself that demanded that she be given the dignity she deserved, and be allowed to die peacefully, without the religious fanatics and media turning her into a freak show.

      Even your imagined origins of morality are way off base. It is purely an extention to the genetic means of the perpetuation of the species. Killing animals instead of humans will generally be less harmful to your tribe and your species in general. Killing your neighbours when you are hungry will generally be quite harmful to your tribe and species. Take a look at these horribly primitive 'animals', the beasts that you would separate us from based on your arbitrary ideas of what sentience is. You will find that generally they are less likely to kill their own kind than we are.

      So, you have now seen that despite your years of boring and repetitve schooling, your supposed mastery of the Queen's English, your imagined eloquence (obvious ignorance) ... you really are a clueless dumbfuck. Your high and mighty attitudes over spelling and grammer have apparently failed to give you the ability to research and learn. I have no patience for the likes of you! hahaheheheh.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    143. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      All this imagined and twisted logic in your posts Caspian.

      All this denial of emotions and beliefs as if it was not a part of our humanity.

      I do hope you got the name of the priest you had to blow each week after sunday school.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
    144. Re:Should MSN obey the law? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

      "When the law is immoral, it is the duty of any moral individual to ignore the law" ... Funny this seems to be exactly how your president is justifying the illegal phone taps, and the many ways in which the Patriot Act breaks your constitution. Both of which have led to the harm of others.

      Since you have not stepped up and stopped Bush personally, and also have not stepped up and eliminated your constitution, I declare you to be immoral.

      So, as an immoral person, you have no business posting on what is and is not moral. Your postings must be assumed to be here with the intention of corrupting the truely moral.

      --
      George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  4. Wait so.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean, China's laws are different from ours?

    1. Re:Wait so.... by Beauty_is_the_Enemy · · Score: 0

      Only for the time being, Give it a couple of years.

  5. More information by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Informative


    A lot more information on this story can be found at Rebecca MacKinnon's RConversation.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:More information by HardCase · · Score: 1

      Slashdotters talking about politics is like fish talking about quantum mechanics.

  6. Company ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We live in an age where profit overrides everything. I think its disgraceful that M$ (as rich as they already are) would submit the chinese so easily. What's more pathethic is that MS was created in a country where freedom and free speech is the core of the belief. Is there any coporation out there that still have a thread of dignity or decency ?

    1. Re:Company ethics by BadanTheUgly · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wouldn't it be terrible if people in other parts of the world had to submit to the laws of a foreign country "where freedom ... is the core of the belief"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms-Burton_Act

    2. Re:Company ethics by dashersey · · Score: 1
      Not evil, amoral. Which in this day and age, is worse.


      When you fail to take a stand, you still are taking a stand, and the result is a lower standard of freedom for all.


      MSFT did not need to comply with this law immediately -- they could have:
      1) Ignored it
      2) Caved under intense visible pressure
      3) Sought the backing of the US State Department


      Instead we've missed another opportunity to define the Internet as bigger than any one country's limited perspective. Or maybe that was the point...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages; all alike.
    3. Re:Company ethics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

      How can the country with the highest prison population per capita be the country where "freedom is the core of the belief"? Sorry, doesn't work out.

      http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf

    4. Re:Company ethics by Aonghus142000 · · Score: 1
      "Not evil, amoral. Which in this day and age, is worse."
      Despite our legal fiction that a corporation is a person, it is, in fact, a construct. It can be neither moral or immoral but must (by its nature) be amoral: Not unwilling to make a moral judgment, but incapable of doing so. The actions of those persons who made the decision can be judged to be moral or immoral in their effect, but it is the person rather than the company who is creating the morality (or lack thereof.) As a corporation, Microsoft is no more capable of judging the morality of the Chinese law with which they are forced to comply than is a chair. Where does this lead us? As individuals, we can make the decision that Microsoft's complying with what we view as an immoral law is worthy of censure, and may use the remedy available to the marketplace (i.e. not using Microsoft's services,) or we may purchase part of Microsoft (in the form of stock) so that we have a voice in the decision and attempt to change their corporate policy. The final alternative is to attempt to get our government to invade and impose our morality on the Chinese. (Given how well the recent action in Iraq was received (and that had a much stronger moral justification), I see that going over like a lead balloon.)
    5. Re:Company ethics by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "MSFT did not need to comply with this law immediately -- they could have:
      ...
      3) Sought the backing of the US State Department"


      And why would the US State Department help MS take a stand against the Chinese government? The US economy is being propped up by the Chinese government (who are the primary financiers of our operating deficits) and the US CANNOT afford to piss off China much. We're already having problems because China is no longer buying as agressively as they were. Plus, China did us a solid by unpegging their currency from the dollar... not that it's not pegged anymore, just not solely to the dollar. We still owe them for that.

      Considering that we have issuess with N. Korea, certain ex-Soviet states, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc... the US needs very stable relations with China. Picking a fight over a blog isn't exactly working to maintain the status quo.

      Not only that, but it would look silly in the international arena. With all the international publicity of our trampling of human rights, what country wouldn't laugh at the US if we tried to take the moral high ground in re: censorship?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  7. What about PIRACY laws by MillenneumMan · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Is the Chinese government taking an equally aggressive stand within their own country to eliminate piracy of software, music, and video?

    1. Re:What about PIRACY laws by odourpreventer · · Score: 1

      Nope, this is just your usual dictatorship FUD; keep the population poor, afraid and ignorant. Since piracy can even be called anti-capitalistic one can imagine the Chinese government taking a very casual approach to the problem.

    2. Re:What about PIRACY laws by ag0ny · · Score: 1, Interesting
    3. Re:What about PIRACY laws by odourpreventer · · Score: 1

      No, I'm a Swedish citizen. I admit though, that our government is alarmingly pro-US at times.

      I appreciate your link list, but you're preaching for the already enlightened. Besides, we're discussing China right now.

  8. The Almight Dollar wins again by Ixne · · Score: 3, Insightful


    when companies who claim to take pride in living in a "free" country facilitate repression abroad.

    1. Re:The Almight Dollar wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      havent you heard? everything is for sale in America including freedom and the Bill of Rights and the Constitution too

    2. Re:The Almight Dollar wins again by WoodieR · · Score: 1

      and rape the benefits of living in same " free " country and circumstances ...

      --
      Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  9. Just getting it out of the way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords!

    Rational discussion may now resume.

    1. Re:Just getting it out of the way. by BVis · · Score: 2, Informative

      This might have been moderated "funny", but we should remember just how much money the US Government has borrowed from China. That national debt is financed by someone, remember?

      But we can always raise the national debt ceiling...

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    2. Re:Just getting it out of the way. by Marsmensch · · Score: 1

      You're joking, but you're not that far off the mark. Increasingly, global media like cnn or some major newspapers, are careful not to piss off the chineses. The reason is that if they do, they will lose out in the large english-speaking chinese market in the case of news sources, or market for trasnslated media, in the case of the entertainment industry.

      The result is that increasingly the chinese standards are becoming global standards, not just for technology, but for media content as well.

      --
      Slashdot: news from nerds.
    3. Re:Just getting it out of the way. by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      Just what kind of junk you been smokin boy!

        China didn't have even have a battle ship till they bought one from the former soviet union which they cruised up and down the cost of Taiwan in a big threatening display trying to force the people of Taiwan to vote in a pro communist leader who would hand Taiwan back to the Chinese mainland.

          China's economic situation was pitiful up till the last 5 years when they started benefiting from the free trade deal and have since used much of that money to modernize china's infrastructure so they could bring their industry into the 21st century to comply with pollution standards as well as get up to the speed and efficiency of the west. So just how have they had money to borrow to the US when much of it has gone towards modernization of their own nation?

          While true since then china's GOP has been growing in leaps and bounds since the deal they still have had to pour most of it back into their own country to bring their economy up to spec and to bring the rest of china into the game so they can make even more money off their new economic growth. I know this because I watched a show on the history channel just recently dealing with china's new economic boon and what it means for them moving into the later 21st century. Within 10 years they are expected to almost have double the GOP of the US but currently their GOP is roughly half that of the US and as I stated much of it is going towards modernizing china's current industry and expanding into the more rural and outlying parts of china so they can bring the rest of the nation into the economic picture. So while theirs no doubt china in the future will be a major force to be reckoned with and probably the new superpower of the 21st century supplanting the US, currently they still have much left to do and much more money to spend on themselves before they can afford to borrow anything like the kind of money the US likes to borrow. Their is also to take into account for how US citizens would react to finding out that they owe a communist country like china money because our leaders found it ethically ok to borrow from one.

          I'd like to see some sources for that claim especially when it would be such a hotbed topic for American citizens that owing money to a communist state would generate.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    4. Re:Just getting it out of the way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rational discussion may now resume.

      You must be new here.

    5. Re:Just getting it out of the way. by BVis · · Score: 1
      I'm not smoking anything at the moment.

      From the Christian Science Monitor: Full article
       
      As 2005 draws to a close, foreigners hold about $3 trillion (yes, that's trillion) in US dollars, Treasury bonds, and other government securities such as Fannie Mae mortgages. Two-thirds of this is held by four Asian countries - Japan, China, Taiwan, and Korea.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    6. Re:Just getting it out of the way. by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't go taking the christian science monitor as gospel their not after they published flase reports from people who's info could easily have been checked and proven false. As i recall one some time ago.

          No offence but i would like to see some other sources to back it up before i take it as the truth.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  10. Obedience? Really.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it really about obedience/compliance, or is it all about business?

  11. Slashdot editors do this by wombatmobile · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Reminds me of the message I got last time I tried to post here:

    Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, comment posting has temporarily been disabled. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner . If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org

    1. Re:Slashdot editors do this by amightywind · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And I thought I was the only one. As you well know the slashdot priesthood promotes the following political views:

      • Pro-democrat
      • Anti-Bush
      • Pro-Apple
      • Pro-stem cell research
      • Anti-religion
      • Pro-crank science
      • Pro-anime
      • Pro-Python
      • Pro-Ruby
      • Increasingly pro-Microsoft

      Others? Cross them on any of these on a regular basis and you will get that nasty message.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    2. Re:Slashdot editors do this by wombatmobile · · Score: 1

      And I thought I was the only one.

      Me too, until I saw your sig. Did you try emailing moderation@slashdot.org to enquire about your bad?

    3. Re:Slashdot editors do this by Billosaur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem becomes where does the right to free speech stop? Slashdot has rules about posting; not many, but enough. Despite the fact that the Bill of Rights guarantees your right to say what you think, Slashdot is under no obligation to promote your ideas or encourage you to speak them.

      For example, you may be a racist; you have a vaild right to be one and to say anything you like about any group that doesn't fit in your personal view of the world. Slashdot does not have to give you a forum for your ideas; in fact, it would probably be deluged with complaints about what you said and eventually forced to remove your words from the site. That's not censorship, but responsibility to the public. Because the individual has a right to free speech does not mean that society at large has to be forced to listen.

      Do the Chinese people have a right to free speech? Inherently, yes. Does the Chinese government have the right to curtail that freedom? Yes, since they are the duly empowered government of the country. Do the Chinese people have to take this? No, in the sense that there are a 1.3 billion Chinese and I dare say the number in government is not that large. Of course, the government has the guns and bombs. In the end, we may rail against the injustice we see in China, but it is up to the Chinese people to change it, as we did when we were ruled by the British in the 18th Century.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    4. Re:Slashdot editors do this by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Or maybe, just maybe, somebody made a few too many disguised links to goatse pictures.

    5. Re:Slashdot editors do this by jsight · · Score: 1

      Stop with the paranoia. It was probably someone from his IP (or area) engaging in actual abusive practices, not simply because of a difference of opinion.

      If you've followed Slashdot for a while, you'll notice that the only constant is being disagreeable. What to disagree with actually varies quite a bit simply based on the content of the article.

    6. Re:Slashdot editors do this by amightywind · · Score: 1

      Yes. My sig contains the meat of the response. I was amazed.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    7. Re:Slashdot editors do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about
      o Nationalistic
      o Jingoistic
      o French-hating
      ?

      Why did you leave those out?

    8. Re:Slashdot editors do this by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Despite the fact that the Bill of Rights guarantees your right to say what you think

      A popular misconception. The first amendment guarantees your right that the government will not abridge your right to say what you think. Congress specifically by the text, and the state governments as well by later supreme court interpretation.

      Private citizens and entities can do it all they want, however. Tell you boss off, you'll be sent packing.

    9. Re:Slashdot editors do this by wombatmobile · · Score: 1

      Same!

      Not sure what they mean by "If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down."

      When I replied "It isn't me making bad posts! What is going on?" I got this back:

      > On 4 Jan 06, at 10:07, Robert Rozeboom wrote:
      >
      >> Your last 20 posts have been modded down 28 times, so you are in
      >> timeout for a bit.

      "28 times?" That got me wondering, so I enquired further:

      > How do you figure that??
      >
      > http://slashdot.org/~wombatmobile

      Robert Rozeboom replied:

      > > By looking at your last 20 posts from this Ip.
      > > You can only see the final score to a post.
      > > Admins can see the total number of moderations,
      > > which is what we use for these bans.
    10. Re:Slashdot editors do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Actually, from looking at your posting history, it looks more like "Start putting degratory labels on the people that disagree with you, and you'll likely get downmodded."

      It's less risky to be degratory towards people that the majority think are cooks instead of those the majority think are good guys, of course. That goes with the territory. However, if you choose to be generally respectful even toward those you disagree with, you'll keep your karma and posting rights. Minority view or not.

      Eivind.

    11. Re:Slashdot editors do this by amightywind · · Score: 1

      I dealt with the same creep. It seems to me it would be useful for a user to see this information. I had no indication of bad standing until I got booted.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    12. Re:Slashdot editors do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "as we did when we were ruled by the British in the 18th Century."

      I'm as glad we are now independant as anyone else, but that statement is quite misleading. In the early years, we were a lot worse than the British.

      (Of course, now we control them!)

  12. Censorship is a Unique Element of an Oligarchy by digitaldc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "MSN is committed to ensuring that products and services comply with global and local laws, norms and industry practices. Most countries have laws and practices that require companies providing online services to make the Internet safe for local users. Occasionally, as in China, local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements," the representative said.

    I am sure George Orwell's '1984', Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World', and even Bill Gate's 2005 article 'The New World of Work' would be banned as well.

    http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2005/05-1 9newworldofwork.asp
    Quote: "Improving personal productivity: One consequence of an "always-on" environment is the challenge of prioritizing, focusing and working without interruption. Today's software can handle some of this, but hardly at a level that matches the judgment and awareness of a human being. That will change -- new software will learn from the way you work, understand your needs, and help you set priorities." (Bill Gates 5-19-05)

    Unless you live in China.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Censorship is a Unique Element of an Oligarchy by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny
      George Orwell's '1984',

      Oh come on, it's not like we live in a world where our calls our monitored, our emails read, history is revised, and our leader is a "big brother" type who makes his own law. I mean, here in America, the NSA would never silence someone just for makin

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Censorship is a Unique Element of an Oligarchy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is a complex and difficult issue," said Brooke Richardson, a group product manager for MSN in Seattle. "We think it's better to be there with our services than not be there."

      may be read as

      "We think it's better to make money there than not make money there."

  13. F@lon G0ng? by amightywind · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the interesting link. I wonder if their censorship software is smart enough to detect modified versions of forbidden language like: F@lun G0ng. You would think these kind of usages would spring up for the same reasons they have in the west.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:F@lon G0ng? by BJH · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They have. As an example, in Japanese it's now quite common to break down the (Cbinese) characters of a sensitive term into its component parts where possible and write them with separate characters, or write it with characters that can be read the same way but which have a different literal meaning.

  14. Who's censoring? by Infernon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seriously, I'm ready to step in and bash Microsoft at the drop of a hat, but MS isn't cenoring the reporter - CHINA IS. This just silly. Microsoft is obviously bound by the laws of the countries that it does business in.

    1. Re:Who's censoring? by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So why have they not obeyed the laws of the US and Europe then? It does business both here and in the EU but it has still had problems obeying the laws in both countries and has been sued and declared a monopoly in both countries, and lets not even mention Korea.

        I find it very disturbing that MS can't seem to keep itself out of trouble elsewhere but can suddenly follow the laws of a communist nation like china that's what really disturbs me.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    2. Re:Who's censoring? by Goo.cc · · Score: 1

      But that won't stop people from whining when this subject comes up, be it Microsoft or Yahoo or Google.

    3. Re:Who's censoring? by cduffy · · Score: 4, Informative

      MS isn't cenoring the reporter - CHINA IS.

      Incorrect. If you RTFM, it is MSN's employees, rather than China's upstream infrastructure, removing content.

    4. Re:Who's censoring? by HugePedlar · · Score: 1

      They've probably just made a risk assessment: The EU & US are far less likely to punish MS in any real way, no matter what laws they break.

      China, on the other hand, could ban all MS products or, hell, probably even round up their employees and shoot them.

      --
      Argh.
    5. Re:Who's censoring? by blamanj · · Score: 1

      China censors when it sets up the great firewall to deny access to big chunks of the net. When Microsoft takes down a blog (in an American .com domain, not a Chinese domain) they're doing the censoring.

      Do you expect every US company doing business with China to remove words like "freedom" from all their sites?

    6. Re:Who's censoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally agree with your post. Microsoft is doing the censoring because China can, and probably will, retaliate against them or their employees. Just because other countries don't enforce their laws, doesn't make China's attempt to do so evil. Ya, censoring is bad and whatnot, but please remember that China is a state of its own. It does not need to abide by any one elses laws or morals. Just like the US, China picks which laws it will enforce and how it will do so.

      And for those people who are saying that Microsoft is all too eager to censor, I ask you, where did you get that idea? Do you have any facts? The people who are pulling these blogs and doing the censoring are probably have the same morals are you and I. The difference is that it is their job to do so, and if they don't do it, they'll get fired.

    7. Re:Who's censoring? by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      Right and like the US and EU would stand idlely by while china shoots MS's employees.

          Well I suppose they'd have to if the employees were Chinese citizens however if they were American or EU citizens then their would be no way either the US or EU would let it happen. At the very least it would spell an end to any trade free or otherwise with china which would put china back on the same path it was on before ole' Billy boy put his X on the free trade deal with them IE the same path that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union which if you ask me we should have left happen to begin with then china would have had to change it's government as well.

        And we could have chalked one more up Democracy 2 Commie 0 instead now it's like we win one and then lie down in bed with the other which is just nasty no matter how cute she may look she still got the clap, and bird flu to.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
    8. Re:Who's censoring? by Dingbat1066 · · Score: 1
      Are you trying to imply that MSN is not under pressure from the Chinese government?

      If I hold someone at gunpoint, and force them to rob a bank, it is me that will be charged, not the person that I hold at gunpoint.

    9. Re:Who's censoring? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If I hold someone at gunpoint, and force them to rob a bank, it is me that will be charged, not the person that I hold at gunpoint.

      I was unaware that Bill Gates is being held hostage by the Chinese government. Of course that changes everything. Is the US government going to try to rescue him ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:Who's censoring? by Dingbat1066 · · Score: 1

      He is being held hostage in a sense - either he has to cooperate, or he has to exit the Chinese market. The latter option would entail a lynching in the form of shareholder lawsuits, so the comparison is valid.

    11. Re:Who's censoring? by MattWhitworth · · Score: 1

      You're not thinking like a CEO! What's the bigger market? US or China, the EU or China? Yup, it's China, and there's hardly any competition there.

    12. Re:Who's censoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do you expect every US company doing business with China to remove words like "freedom" from all their sites?

      I don't expect that, but China probably does.

    13. Re:Who's censoring? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Shareholder lawsuits are much harder to succesfully prosecute than common wisdom has it to be.

    14. Re:Who's censoring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked "I was just following orders" wasn't an acceptable excuse.

    15. Re:Who's censoring? by Dingbat1066 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but that doesn't detract from the underlying point. Whether it is a shareholder lawsuit, or institutional investors dumping MSFT stock, for Microsoft, exiting the Chinese market is simply not a viable course of action.

    16. Re:Who's censoring? by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      And thank god im not with the current crop a CEO! to model oneself after might as well thrown myself in the lake of fire before hand if I did start thinking like them.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  15. And our reporter is afraid of "outspoken" too? by ianscot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    What the heck -- anyone else notice that the linked article doesn't get around to what made this journalist "outspoken"? We're told that terms like "freedom" and "democracy" were removed from the Chinese flavor of MSN in 2005, and that previous postings on Yahoo led to someone's arrest last fall. Presumably this was comparable content... But why doesn't the article tell us?

    We report that the views were controversial for China, but apparently that makes them unreportable. What, are we hoping a Chinese audience will be able to find the story now?

    (As far as Microsoft being ever so scrupulous about adhering to international standards, it's impressive how multinational corporations cover their butts when an authoritarian state is offended. Their commitment to international practices is even more impressive when local labor standards give them what amounts to slave labor.)

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:And our reporter is afraid of "outspoken" too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Anti's last two articles were about the re-org going on at a Beijing newspaper. You can read the articles here and here. Scroll to the bottom for the English translations.

  16. What would happen if a US citizen mirrored him.... by inaneboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...on the same site? What happens if the Chinese govt. decides that a US blogger is violating their laws?

  17. But Zhao Jing... by gall0ws · · Score: 0

    don't know freenet?

    --
    | (ceci n'est pas une pipe)
    1. Re:But Zhao Jing... by 28481k · · Score: 1

      He wants his opinion openly known to the CHINESE public. It is not as if he's been banned from posting, d'uh. If he has been banned from posting he'd be in jail now. He's back online now, but regrettably gone back where he originally started in Blog City.

      Do you think it is feasible for him to ask every reader to install freenet in order to read his posts? Blog City is blocked by the GFW because of him, and people are still fuming about such consequences.

      He has to resort to ask his beloved readers to use proxies, feedburner or even email subscription in order to read his post!

      (N.B. Blogger is also TOTALLY BLOCKED by the GFW, think about the far-reaching consequences... MSN is one of the few sites which is OPEN at the moment and enjoys wide readership. In fact, the top ten blogs in China (in terms of traffic) are all hosted in MSN, go figure...)

      --
      28481k
  18. Who's laws matter on the Internet? by GamesNET · · Score: 1

    Too bad this wasn't the blog of an American citizen living in China. An American company assisting with foreign government censorship is quite ironic....

  19. And if Microsoft had acted any different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you'd all be here complaining that M$ doesn't care about the laws over there either...
    Never mind, ignore me, hate on haters.

    1. Re:And if Microsoft had acted any different... by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

      We don't hate to be haters we hate to be lovers..... Err wait it's we love to be.... No that's not right either.......

          Ok we hate cause we love MS so much we......... No i can't even say that without falling over laughing.

        Ok! Ok.... whewh! We hate so MS will relize we want them to stop making us hate them so they can act more like the company we want to love.

        In other words we want them to be ethical and moral and act on issues like this without thinking with their pocket book or with their bank accounts in mind when they should be thinking with some measure of a moral and ethical compase instead of with none whatso ever.

        So we don't hate really we just want MS to use a different set of rules for dealing with these issues than it has up to this point. Something MS has never been good at doing BTW.

      --
      Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  20. Worldwide Censorship? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The articles insn't really very clear on exactly how the blog was removed from MSN Spaces.

    Was it simply the case that Chinese IPs were blocked from accessing it, or in fact was the entire blog simply removed from MSN Spaces altogether.

    Either way is shameful, but if private companies begin to censor the web for everyone, worldwide, at the (implied) behest of autocracies, where will that leave us?

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Worldwide Censorship? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was something linked from the article rather than the article itself -- but it was made very clear that MSN removed the content themselves, rather than letting it be blocked upstream.

    2. Re:Worldwide Censorship? by 28481k · · Score: 1

      It was total blog removal by MSN itself. He was blogging about the Beijing News strike due to a takeover from a less-than-liberal paper ordered by the government. You may see the English summary by EastSouthWestNorth below.

      http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200512brief.htm#100
      http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200601brief.htm#017

      And also,
      http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20051230_2.htm
      http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20051231_4.htm
      http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20060103_3.htm

      They should give you some insight what might have happened. Also, search "Anti" in ESWN, you'll have suprise.

      The most strikingly odd thing was that Michael Anti WASN'T writing anything prohibited by the national law and regulations (see a list of banned words in ESWN: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/20040902_1.htm). He knew his fine line and wrote accordingly. However, since he's still a conscious-minded media worker, he felt the pain for the Beijing News, so he spoke up. He asked for a boycott of the paper and support to walk out. As a result, he's banned by MSN.

      Read ESWN if you want to know about what happened in China from other perspectives.

      --
      28481k
  21. I like Chinese by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

    It would be far more interesting if TFA was not in Chinese, seeing as how I don't speak it and all. So, to all of you people out there that speak both Chinese and English, what did the guy say that was so controversial?

    --
    -Arthur
    Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    1. Re:I like Chinese by liangzai · · Score: 1

      He is commenting on Chinese politics in a way that is too unorthodox. He is taking a stance against the Chinese firewall in his latest comment, declaring that those young people graduating from tech institutes and now are involved in reinforcing China's golden shield are doing the country a disservice, and that their deeds will ever be remembered in the future. He puts this censorship and monitoring, with certain credibility, on the same level as the misdeeds during the Cultural revolution.

      Technically, what he says could be interpreted as illegal ("going against the interests of the People's Republic of China"), but he is not what is normally considered a dissident; he is just having strong opinions, and as a journalist, he is believed to have more influence than regular bloggers. Thus, the Internet police (wangjing) is trying to block him. They know that he will accessible to all of those who know how to bypass the obstacles, but he will not be reached by the great masses.

      It is unlikely he will experience other forms of repression, because Beijing needs to strike a balance between how many they make examples of and how much damage they actually do; this dude is just in the average league.

  22. as quoted from his blog by jaimz22 · · Score: 4, Funny
    this is a straight quote from his blog...
    "????,???MSN???????????,???"
    Nothing could be more true!

    // yes, i know it's all ?'s
    1. Re:as quoted from his blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD PARENT FUNNY!

  23. Bill FoS? by sl0cb · · Score: 0

    Bill > FoS?

    --
    Ready for HD DVDs? http://hd-dvd.buy-on-sale.com
  24. Godwins Law by Threni · · Score: 0, Redundant

    is sometimes correct:

    > Occasionally, as in Germany, local laws and practices require consideration of unique
    > elements..."

  25. The real question is... by Hercules+Peanut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...why does MS obey the laws in China when they don't obey the laws in America?

    Perhaps we can learn something from the Chineese.

  26. Google, Yahoo, Cisco and others collaborate also.. by rmpotter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but keep bashing Microsoft as the personification of evil if it helps you forget these things:

    Google Bows to Chinese Censorship

    How about Yahoo:
    Information supplied by Yahoo ! helped journalist Shi Tao get 10 years in prison

    and there is this on Cisco and China:
    China's Internet: Let a Thousand Filters Bloom

    --
    Is this sig nificant?
  27. How is it Censorship? by midicase · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe someone can explain to me how it is called 'censorship' when a private company voluntarily block/removes content. It is my understanding that censorship is practiced "often by government intervention" according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship.

    So if someone illegally paints a swastika on my house, is it censorship for me to remove it? I hope someone could explain the difference to me.

    1. Re:How is it Censorship? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Read the writings of Justices Hand and Holmes. I suggest "In Perilous Times" by Geoffrey R. Stone. It treats the history of free speech in the US, but gives great insight into the theory behind it as well. According to US political theory, anyway, government acts that would cause people to censor themselves are acts of government censorship.

      It doesn't matter of MSN is pulling the blog voluntarily (in order to avoid negative repercussions with the Chinese government), or if the Chinese government orders them to do so. Either way, it's a government-caused limit to free speech.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:How is it Censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's censorship when the private sphere 'eats up' the public sphere so that there are no public places left for speech. Example: That big new mall killed all the shops downtown. You could stand on a soapbox in front of the old shops, but the mall is private property and the rent-a-cops will throw you out and tear up your placards. If the Chinese blogger is denied because there is no publicly-owned uncensored blogspace, and no private blogspace offers access to his chosen audience, he's censored.

      As an analog, consider how much waterfront property is in private hands. In most areas there are only a few stretches of public beach. Now imagine these public beaches sold to the highest bidder. Welcome to the corporate state!

    3. Re:How is it Censorship? by winterlong · · Score: 1

      imho, this discussion unfortunately is blurring political ideology, issues with Microsoft, and the concept of freedom of information worldwide that many people consider sacrosanct on the internet.

      Of course a private company has the right to block or remove content in this country. Of course others like Cisco, Google, etc. have done comparable things.

      Don't make the mistake of confusing capitalism with human rights. I personally find this abhorrent. However, there's no hope of a for-profit company actually taking the risk of upsetting a large source of future income. And in the meantime, almost 10,000 people were put to death in China last year. This person may help the count this year.

      So much for the idealistic wishes of the internet being a nation-free zone with no censorship...unless more sites do mirror these things, and some country or organization promotes the concept of freedom on the internet apart from laws for any given nation. Which is what I believe the internet should be.

    4. Re:How is it Censorship? by pruss · · Score: 1

      OK, so what Microsoft is doing is not censorship, but complicity in censorship. That does not get them off the hook.

    5. Re:How is it Censorship? by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      You might want to check a dictionary the next time you don't know the meaning of a word. Or even look a little more closely at Wikipedia.

    6. Re:How is it Censorship? by jenkin+sear · · Score: 1

      If you paint a swastika on your own house and the government forces you to remove it, that's censorship.

      If they hire a painting company to remove it for you, then the painting company is performing censorship.

      Microsoft is deleting content- hosted, BTW, in the US- at the behest of the government. They are the painters the government has hired to remove your offensive speech.

      --
      What a strange bird is the pelican, his beak can hold more than his belly can.
    7. Re:How is it Censorship? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      So if someone illegally paints a swastika on my house, is it censorship for me to remove it? I hope someone could explain the difference to me.

      Microsoft removed the blog at the behest or under pressure from, the chinese government. Thus this is a form of, slighly indirect Government censorship.

      Your decision to remove the swastika however, is made by you and you alone. The Government is not involved. In fact, it may be illegal for them to request you remove it.

      Similarly, if DeCSS is censored at the behest of a private company, this is a form of government censorship, as the government has sanctioned the censorship, and indeed enforces it.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:How is it Censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if someone illegally paints a swastika on my house, is it censorship for me to remove it? I hope someone could explain the difference to me.

      Do you advertise your house as space where people can express their ideas? No? Then that's one difference.

    9. Re:How is it Censorship? by josh_miller · · Score: 1

      In this case, it's China doing the censoring, and Microsoft is their mechanism.

    10. Re:How is it Censorship? by Busy · · Score: 1
      It is my understanding that censorship is practiced "often by government intervention"

      Often != Always

      Censorship is just the act of removing something you find objectionable from something you have control over. Taking a swastika off your house could be called censorship, except that I would call it cleaning up vandalism. If slashdot always switched **** for the word shit, that's censorship. If someone's personal blog does that, it's still censorship. It really doesn't matter who's doing the censoring, the word for it is the same.

      The reason censorship is "often" practiced by the government is because the government has lots of power over lots of things, and "often" has reasons to censor things, for reasons of self-preservation.

      Nothing against your question, it was interesting enough and thoughtful to a point, but I'm a little confused why mods would decide that puzzling over the semantics of the headline qualifies as insightful. Then again, now I'm just puzzling over the semantics of the word insightful so never mind.

      --
      Think of someone with average intelligence. Now think 1/2 the world is dumber than that guy.
    11. Re:How is it Censorship? by sigmoid_balance · · Score: 1
      I cant imagine how you are so naive as to belive Microsoft removed that blog by their own will.

      Do you think the Chinese government will ever do bussines with Microsoft if they dont comply to all the demands of the "revolution"? Do you think it's so hard for the Chinese to start, again, making copies of Microsoft Software, instead of paying for them?

      Even if China didnt say it explicit, I'm pretty sure Microsoft understands the implications of not going along with everything China demands. Big Brother is watching.

    12. Re:How is it Censorship? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "Don't make the mistake of confusing capitalism with human rights. I personally find this abhorrent. However, there's no hope of a for-profit company actually taking the risk of upsetting a large source of future income."

      Government action that results in private companies restricting speech is the same as government restriction of free speech. It doesn't matter that the private companies are only looking to maximize their profits.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    13. Re:How is it Censorship? by aeoo · · Score: 1

      Censorship really should be redefined to be more broad in modern days. Corporations wield power similar to governments these days. Let's say you were censored by the government of California, but were free to publish in all other states? Would you be OK with that, since it's not the federal government that's censoring? Personally, I wouldn't be OK with that. What if 10 largest corps decide to come to an agreement on a policy of censorship? How about Fortune 100? Would you be OK with that? Being censored by Fortune 100 or Fortune 500 block may be far more effective than being censored by the government in real life. So when companies like Microsoft and Google are doing it, I think it is safe and absolutely correct to call it censorship.

      Anything that governs life can be called government. As I see it, Corporations have the power to govern, and they do govern many aspects of our lives. In particular, for 40 hours a week they get to tell you what you will and will not do, more so than the state and federal governments. That's governing.

      If you tell me "well you can just quit if you don't like it", I can tell you "well you can just move out of your country if you don't like it". Being able to quit doesn't lessen the fact they they do govern many aspects of our lives. What's worse, is that Corporate government is rarely, if ever, democratic, and is indeed more like a dictatorship.

    14. Re:How is it Censorship? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      Corporate governance is as democratic as state governance... that's a fundamental flaw with both. Corporations have the same flawed system of elections with the same sets of false choices... and those doing the voting are constantly trying to decide the lesser of two unacceptable evils.

      One thing I will say about corporate censorship, it rarely lands you in a gulag the way state censorship so often does.

    15. Re:How is it Censorship? by aeoo · · Score: 1

      My point is that we should be aware of the social dynamic that is censorship. Societies change. Governance changes its shape all the time. If we restrict the meaning of "censorship" to some very specific case, then we will lose sight of the underlying dynamic of censorship.

      Gulag is bad, but so is being homeless, etc. In Japan people resort to buying fake identities in order to get an appartment. Why? Because appartment complexes will only rent to you if you have a "reputable" job. Do you see where this is going? This is a problem that coming over in a big way to modern life.

      I don't think that our contentment should be established merely upon avoiding Gulag. How would you like if the state argued like this, "hey, what's wrong with warrant-less imprisonment? At least we don't chop of your arms and legs and at least we don't put on a rack... you should be happy!" I wouldn't like it one bit. Screw that!

    16. Re:How is it Censorship? by winterlong · · Score: 1

      Ah, but I wasn't talking about the government - ours, China's, or anyone's. I was talking about capitalism, pure and simple. Money. Profit.

      Human rights are rights regardless of whatever government you happen to be subject to - at least, in the theoretical idealism that I'd like to think is an over-arching concept.

      Microsoft is using "laws" and "government" to hide behind. Their true motive is simple capitalism. Using any words like government or law to back up what they did is expedient and hides their true motive.

      And no, I'm not quite as leftist as that sounds, believe it or not....just realistic.

    17. Re:How is it Censorship? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      We should be realistic though: we can't even reliably guarentee that political dissidents won't be put in gulags at this point (or tortured, for what it's worth)...

      To me worrying about corporate censorship right now is like putting on insect repellent while you're being chased by a grizzly.

    18. Re:How is it Censorship? by aeoo · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I think the danger of the grizzly is a little exaggerated. Gulag is something that is a possibility for most people in USA, but not a reality. Corporate censorship is, on the other hand, a reality. While Gulag is so much stronger and more impressive, it is a remote chance, compared to corp censorship, which is not a chance, but a certainty.

      My take is that the person should be aware of stress and its causes at all times, uniformly. So when chaced by a grizzly bear, the person's mind should pay attention, but it should not be consumed, so that when the grizzly bear is not chacing, the person can put on an insect repellant instead of obsessing on a threat that's past.

    19. Re:How is it Censorship? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      But that's just the thing, the corporate censorship, while much broader in practice, is in many cases so impotent as to be more or less merely theoretical. Microsoft's power to censor me is virtually non-existant... even those who run afoul of them and get, for instance, their blog removed have numerous recourses, from finding another host to hosting it themselves... Microsoft's censorship is at best for this person a mild inconvenience, and certainly nothing compared to the very realistic possibility of winding up in jail for sedition or worse, shot outright for treason.

    20. Re:How is it Censorship? by aeoo · · Score: 1

      But that's just the thing, the corporate censorship, while much broader in practice, is in many cases so impotent as to be more or less merely theoretical.

      Ah, I guess this is where we disagree. It's not theoretical, but is very real. When was the last time you could challenge the practices of your executive management and still retain your employment?

      How about the constant bashing of game journalism? Everyone agrees that it's bought and paid for. Now, who cares, right? But the same thing is happening with CNN and other mainstream media. For example, it is very "uncool" to report on the number of deaths in Iraq. That's the for-profit effect of corporatism.

    21. Re:How is it Censorship? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you could challenge the practices of your executive management and still retain your employment?

      That's awful if that happens... it's not been my experience, but I tend to seek out employers I don't have major ideological clashes with in the first place.
      Do you remember the old 80's sitcom Bosom Buddies? I'm not saying this is always the case, but sometimes I get the impression that these situations where an employee clashes with management are a lot like if the characters from this show complained about being evicted when their secret was uncovered. I'm sure that's not always the case... but I don't have any personal examples to go by.


      But the same thing is happening with CNN and other mainstream media. For example, it is very "uncool" to report on the number of deaths in Iraq. That's the for-profit effect of corporatism.

      But again, how much practical harm is it really doing? CNN mentions the number of deaths in Iraq quite often despite this prejudice against doing so (and a good chunk of that prejudice comes not from inside the corporation, but rather from the government itself, who imply that the information is 'aiding the enemy'). But even if all the TV news channels colluded in some smoke-filled room and agreed not to report it... the information is out there. You could find it in virtually any newspaper.
      And I know what you may be thinking here: but newspapers are corporations too... so lets say this is more of a smoke-filled auditorium, and all the TV stations and all the Newspapers in the entire country somehow got together and agreed not to report casualty numbers for Iraq.
      It's an inconvenience, to be sure... but again, a minor one. A person who really wants this information can seek it out any number of places, not the least of which is here. And I think I can personally guarentee, without fear of contradiction from my employer, that we're not going to be involved in any behind-the-scenes deal to hide casualty numbers.

    22. Re:How is it Censorship? by aeoo · · Score: 1

      And how many people have gone to Gulag in USA for their political views, compared to say, Russia?

      Even in Russia itself, Gulag was less of a threat than the bureaucracy.

      While we shouldn't freak out by the various shenanigans that CNN and other conventional media are pulling, we should not excuse them either. We should call them "crap", and move on. But just because we have decided to move on and make something good of our lives doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize crap when it stinks. Gulag is bad, that's for sure. It's good to keep an eye out for it. But it is silly to whitewash all the nonsense the corps are doing with our culture.

      You might be lucky with your place of employment. Who knows? Or maybe you just don't care. Or maybe you even agree with some of the things that I would call "crap". There is no way for me to know for sure. All I can do is tell you how it appears to me. And to me it appears that unchecked and unrestrained greed and personal ambition is what's doing the most damage right now. And the arena all this crap is playing itself out most effectively is in economics, while politics continues further slide into irrelevance. Economics is the new politics. Corps are the new governments. It's subtle now. It's not widely broadcasted, but it sure is happening.

    23. Re:How is it Censorship? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You're right, of course, that MS is pursuing profit. No problem, that's what they are supposed to do, and that's what everyone expects them to do. The problem is that China has created a situation where not censoring is unprofitable.

      If a government establishes a profit incentive for corporations to 'voluntarily' censor content, then that government has, in effect, censored that content themselves.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    24. Re:How is it Censorship? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      I think that might be oversimplifying: it's no accident that so many of the major players in, for instance, American politics right now are former (and likely future) corporate heads. If the corporations really had so much more power than the government, why would a corporate head run for public office?

      Moreover, if large defense corporations had so much more power than government officials, why would they bother bribing Congressmen with such regularity? I mean, are they just that generous? Should someone who's just a Congressman really wind up with billions of dollars in lergesse if he didn't have some power that the corporations giving it to him lack?

      I see a major problem developing here, but rather than economics marginalizing politics I see it more as economics merging with politics into some form of ever more state regulated pseudo-market where the only reliable way to succeed anymore is with government contracts and government-granted advantages over your struggling small business competitors.

      I might be coloring this picture too much with the fact that I live in the state with the highest unemployment (and in a city so short of work that the population's been shrinking basically my whole life), watching as even large local businesses are driving out to make room for competition who treat their employees like shit, offer vastly inferior products and services for trivially smaller prices and get all sorts of state favors that the local companies never dreamed of.

      In all of this I see the state as the main corrupting influence: we watched as they granted all sorts of special favors to organized labor, allowing them to drive the cost of labor up to the point that domestic companies couldn't compete with foreign ones. Then when they were all-but-broken, we see the state in bed with the large multi-national corporations, and watch as the state seizes land for them so they don't have to pay a market price, we watch as they drive the cost of labor down so low that the average full-time employee is barely surviving.

      And lets not forget that corporations are a government contrivance in the first place. "Unrestrained greed and personal ambition" can be dangerous things indeed, but when coupled with the corporation's total lack of individual accountability it becomes downright lethal. A private company in which the owner or owners are ultimately culpable for their actions would never dream of doing a lot of the thngs that these corporations do as a matter of course.

    25. Re:How is it Censorship? by aeoo · · Score: 1

      I see. I think we are more or less in agreement then. It's just how we chose to explain the situation. Since I don't consciously come into contact with politicians as such, I chose not to rely on government as my focal point of criticism.

      My point, and I think your point is roughly the same, is that people form self-organizing bodies, but the behavior and power dynamics inside those bodies could often be improved, if people knew better.

      When I say economics is making government irrelevant, I mean precisely what you are saying -- that everything is up for sale, if the price is right. So, a lot of time the decision is more a matter of "how much bribe" cash you got, then "is it right for our people"? "Government of the people and by the people" is just a lie, because the government is a lot more sensitive to well-to-do people and hardly cares about the poor and less-than-well-to-do. Government looks at the population of USA with the eye of "What's in it for me?" But they should look at us with the eye of "How can I help you?" and "How can I help you homeless man?" Instead of scoffing and disdaining the less fortunate, we should help them. Now when I say "we" I really mean myself. I should (and do). But I am also hoping that I am not alone. And I am also hoping that our Government could reflect people like me too, and not just reflect the corps, who mostly think "I got mine... screw anything else".

      The Government is supposed to be the protector of poor and disadvantaged, but as you are saying, more and more, it is the protector of those who are already hugely successful and really don't need any help.

      I'm of two minds on the unionnization of labor. On one hand, how can people negotiate with the corps? They need some representation, don't they? On the other hand, if their power grows too high, they can shift the labor force from being a victim to being an abuser. Now, usually the labor force is a victim, because a laborer doesn't become employed from the position of power. In fact, the word "employed" already connotes just that.

      Suppose also that I was a business owner and wanted to pay 2 dollars an hour. Union got me to pay 30/hr. Instead I went to Mexico or Thailand. Now, would you blame the Union for driving off the business, or would you say that actually I was an asshole two times -- first, when I demanded the job be done for 2 bucks an hour without any regard for the livelihood of my workers, and second, when I failed to get what I wanted, I took "my" money outside the state? Now, I put "my" money in quotation marks because it's only "mine" insofar as it has been given to me by others. It is not INHERENTLY mine, and I do not actually recognize full ownership of it -- instead I recognized a tacit agreement between people, an agreement which can change.

    26. Re:How is it Censorship? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      The only thing I would add is that for all the talk of the government being the protector of the poor, it seems to me that historical examples show 3 kinds of states (at the risk of oversimplifying): the state that's too weak to do much of anything, the state that's powerful and in bed with big business, and the state that's really really powerful and tries to become a religion unto itself. What I don't see are any examples of a state doing a lot of meaningful things for the poor, at least nothing that wasn't previously being done by private charities.

      Indeed, I wonder if the democratic system is inherently biased towards the person who gives lipservice to helping the poor, but doesn't do anything to really help them. It's similar to those politicians that run on a platform of improving state education... and 30 years later the system is little changed (except for more bureaucratic and wasteful) and they're still running on that same platform. Once you solve a problem, you can't run on it anymore... and that's bad news for the career politician.

      Also, in your union example, I think it's perfectly natural for the owner to want to pay $2... indeed to want to pay $0.01 an hour... and for the employee to want to make $30... or $100 if he could swing it. Relocating a company to a third world nation has costs of its own, and even past the initial setup costs, the employees come with their own sets of problems. If the two sides are reasonable about it (and the union realizes that the owner can't make a profit at $30 an hour) they'll come to some middle ground which is somewhat acceptable to both.

      The problem is that often the state gives the union some sort of added "advantage" which discourages them from being reasonable (like making it illegal for the owner to fire them all and hire different workers if the union's demands are too great)... and when the union pushes them a little too far... the owner is left with the choice of either closing altogether, or relocating to a different country to escape those laws. Of course the union sees this as unfair, and they're trying their darnedest to make it illegal for the owner to relocate as well. That'll leave him with one choice... and it's not any prettier for the workers, just worse for him.

    27. Re:How is it Censorship? by aeoo · · Score: 1

      Without the government you get "rule by the mob" that's hardly any better. My personal solution to all this -- raise the level of awareness of people and encourage them to be less materialistic (and I don't mean "greedy", I mean dropping the belief in matter, they way people believe in it today). As I see it, if you take a bunch of greedy people with perverted views about reality (views that do not stand up to critical examination well, and the view of "substance" is one of them), they will invariably self-organize into a body of some kind. Then, whether this body has what we may call a "big government" or a "small government" or a "monarchy" or whatever other distribution of social forces, it will be sick inside, and no system could heal it. On the other hand, I believe that if we take well balanced people who are reasonable (in the sense that they do not abandon reason, but can reason very well) and BECAUSE they are reasonable, they do not give strong preference to this or that view, and especially they do not seriously entertain the view of "substance" as we we have today, and are not greedy, but instead understand that life is not a matter of accumulation, but a matter of experience, then I suggest they will self-organize into a healthy social body no matter how it is set up inside. Even a monarchy with such people will be pleasant.

      The culture of the people is more important than the system. The system of "checks and balances" just does its best to hold back the shit-tsunami, as I see it, but it doesn't solve the problem. At least it does acknowledge the problem! So it's not so bad. But the limit to how good it can be depends on culture. And culture depends on insight (which is hard or impossible to cultivate through the traditional authoritative top-down education).

      This is just my opinion, but if you really want to see some change, instead of being anti-government or anti-big-government, you should investigate how people's views affect the way they self-organize and behave in groups. You might want to focus your effort on changing culture rather than convincing people of the danger of government, because if you take a group of people and put them together, they will invariably self-organize in some way, and there will be something there that looks like "government" even if it's not called that (unless perhaps the people are completely wise in all respects and don't even depend on each other in any way), so eliminating a government-type of social force may be a total waste of time. Instead it might be more worthwhile to investigate what can cause a more healthy self-organization within the social body. Just an idea. :)

      The problem is that often the state gives the union some sort of added "advantage" which discourages them from being reasonable (like making it illegal for the owner to fire them all and hire different workers if the union's demands are too great)... and when the union pushes them a little too far... the owner is left with the choice of either closing altogether, or relocating to a different country to escape those laws. Of course the union sees this as unfair, and they're trying their darnedest to make it illegal for the owner to relocate as well. That'll leave him with one choice... and it's not any prettier for the workers, just worse for him.

      Sounds to me like the problem might be with that law and not with the union. Personally, even with this law, I don't see why workers would not accept a reasonable settlement (rent prevalent in the area * 4). Simple formula and hard to argue with it, as that's what many economists recommend people pay for rent.

    28. Re:How is it Censorship? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      But of course this begs the question: rent of what?

      In this town, you can rent a decent house in a decent neighborhood for $550 or so a month... now almost nobody outside of a union (besides doctors and lawyers) is making four times this in this city... but then when we glance at the union workers, we see them making, not including benefits, almost twice this proscribed amount... perhaps not surprisingly this employer (Delphi) has been driven into bankrupcy by this though.

      But back to my point... you can rent a house in the ghetto for $300 a month... a decent house for $550... and I'm sure if you look in the ritsy neighborhoods (to the extent we have any) it just keeps going up and up.

      So even if you get them to agree to 4 times prevalent rent... you're liable to see them bickering then over what's the reasonable house to base it on... I'm sure the union pictures it's workers as entitled to a much nicer homes than the employer does.

      I agree with your point about changing the attitudes of people.. but I still think that government is at best a reflection of the negative qualities of people and often seems to be a motivator of such behavior... governments tend to err on the side of tyranny, to the extent that they've been given the power to do so. If we can convince the individual that he's got some moral responsibility to his fellow man (a fact which I think deep down he already knows, and goes to great effort to convince himself otherwise) then the battle is already won, and forcing a government on top of this situation is just an unnecessary complication.

    29. Re:How is it Censorship? by aeoo · · Score: 1

      I still think that government is at best a reflection of the negative qualities of people and often seems to be a motivator of such behavior... governments tend to err on the side of tyranny, to the extent that they've been given the power to do so. If we can convince the individual that he's got some moral responsibility to his fellow man (a fact which I think deep down he already knows, and goes to great effort to convince himself otherwise) then the battle is already won, and forcing a government on top of this situation is just an unnecessary complication.

      Actually, I agree with you completely on this. :) Government is a side-effect of the mental cancer that people appear to have, which is lack of insight. If people had developed their insight to the point where its depth could no longer be estimated, and treasured insight and experience above superficial aspects, then we'd not only have no use for the government, but the government would simply evaporate naturally. It would just wither, become irrelevant and disappear, just like a tumor that has nothing to feed on.

      So, maybe I am crazy...but I think it is actually an accomplishable goal! But it's not easy, because, as I see it, you'd have to be the first one to develop such insight and wisdom in yourself. You know, no one wants to be the first, and plus, it's a little scary, since the more insight you have, the more it tends to undermine our cherished ideas about this and that. Things become less cut and dry. Ideas that we would normally hold as axiomatic suddenly lose their axiomatic status. It's like a no man's land when that happens, psychologically it is difficult if the person could be somehow forced into such atmosphere. People have problems dealing with loss of limbs (witness phantom limb syndrome, post-traumatic amnesia and other coping strategies of our fragile psyches), what to say with loss of so many ideas that it would constitute loss of identity as we know it? It's hard. So it helps for someone to be couragous and go first to show that it's OK...it's not so bad out there or here (whereever). That it's livable and maybe not uncomfortable. Maybe it's even comfortable. I don't know.

      But if people have ideological positions to protect, these tend to be diverse, and conflict arises. Things are difficult when people hold some ideas as axiomatic. Should the axiomatic idea of one person conflict with the axiomatic idea of another -- can they ever live with each other without fighting? :) If people dig in and establish themselves in "me vs. them" attitude...well it will be hard for all of us, because we all will be impacted.

      I am as guilty as anyone. I will try my best to eliminate my narrow-mindedness, but I can't promise fast results. Meanwhile I am affraid we'll have to do with some type of governance. :)

  28. The alternative is a complete ban by DrPizza · · Score: 0

    Given that if MS don't do this kind of thing they will inevitably face a complete ban (forcing the use of proxy servers and so on), one can hardly fault them for doing so. A complete ban doesn't serve those other users of MSN Spaces, after all. It would have the effect of blocking every blogger on the site no matter what they said, which is surely worse than blocking just one.

  29. Nice to know that MS does obey laws... by rben · · Score: 1

    But of course, only those laws that might cause it to lose substantial business, or cooperation on reducing piracy of it's products. And hey, if those laws result in the loss of some individual's basic human rights, what does Mr. Bill care?

    As a nation, we should stand for freedom, most especially for freedom of speech, because that's the one freedom from which all the others come. As long as we can all talk, we don't necessarily have to resort to violence to bring about change.

    Any corporation organized in the U.S. has a moral responsibility to act ethically as any other good U.S. citizen. I think that involves some civil disobedience when it comes to laws that deny the freedom of speech to citizens in other countries. If Microsoft wants to cater to China, it should move there. I wonder how Bill Gates will feel about freedom of speech then?

    As the conservatives in our country are so fond of saying, "Freedom isn't Free." If we aren't willing to pay the price, we don't deserve it. That applies just as much to our corporate citizens as to anyone else. Perhaps given the special privileges corporations incresingly enjoy, they should bear a greater burden of that cost.

    --

    -All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
    www.ra

    1. Re:Nice to know that MS does obey laws... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "Any corporation organized in the U.S. has a moral responsibility to act ethically as any other good U.S. citizen"

      s/b: ""Any corporation organized in the U.S. has a moral responsibility to maximize profits."

      That is the only moral responsibility a corporation has -- to maximize profits for its shareholders. Sure, some corps have policies/mission statements that include some other form of moral code, but at the fundamental level, corporations are not citizens and have no non-fiscal moral obligations.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  30. Companies LOVE China by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Problem is Microsoft has always had trouble obeying the laws and avoiding illegal practices in the US and Eruope so why now suddenly start being all law abidding in china?

    Because China is soon to be one of the worlds largest markets, and no company can afford to lose its foothold there, lest their more unscrupulous competitors use the China advatage to squeeze the life out of them.

    Besides that, secretly, corperations love the Chinese Government. It's essentially a kind of facist state, which by and large means a corperate dreamland where workers have no rights, regulations are lax, corruption is the accepted means of business and there is stil a large enough rich people at the top to ensure that luxuries can be sold. In the case of China, these rich people often outnumber entire countires in former markets.

    I fully expect unscrupulous corperations to be hugely successful in China. So successful, that the Chinese model will be lauded as superior, and we will all be pressured to convert to it, becoming dictartorships instead of democracies.

    Greed is Good.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  31. China is MS biggest fan by wurm13 · · Score: 1

    MS has a very important relationship with China. Thomas Friedman in his book, "The World is Flat" explains how Chinese universities send MS their top students. He says that in China, Bill Gates is Britney Spears, while in America, Britney Spears is Britney Spears, and that's one of the main problems here... Anyway, I doubt MS is going to do anything to threaten their relationship with the country that provides them so many of their best employees.

    1. Re:China is MS biggest fan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in China, Bill Gates is a filthy slut?

    2. Re:China is MS biggest fan by halleluja · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates pregnant??? Awww gawd, what abomination he will now drop onto the world??

    3. Re:China is MS biggest fan by ettlz · · Score: 1
      ...in China, Bill Gates is Britney Spears...

      And — let me guess — Steve Ballmer is Courney Love?

  32. Unique elements my ass. by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

    "local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements..."

    The "unique elements" here being the fact that CCP would never be re-elected elected in a democratic election, having been responsible for the deaths of 70 million chinese nationals plus hundreds of thousands of Americans, North Koreans and Vietnamse.

    The CCP is running scared of democracy because it would mean more power to the chinese people full stop.

    --
    When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
  33. MS has given this blogger amazing prominence! by adsl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    By quasi silencing this blogger MS has now given his blog much more significant publicity than he could ever have got had MS not taken any action. It shows how "censorship" seldom works.

    1. Re:MS has given this blogger amazing prominence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... how many chinees are reading this? China is satisfied with censoring china. How many chineese (living in china) have you seen commenting this?

  34. A Good joke by thunderpaws · · Score: 1

    "MSN is committed to ensuring that products and services comply with global and local laws, norms and industry practices..."

    I haven't had such a good laugh in so long...

  35. Little Bill -The Fascist by cannuck · · Score: 1

    Nothing like a monopolist striving fascist ....eh!

  36. Re:What would happen if a US citizen mirrored him. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing, thats the whole reason they firewall the internet.

  37. microsoft does it again by (-hrair-) · · Score: 1
    I simply can't believe this. Agreeing to censor a blog because of China? They aren't exactly the greatest government in the world. You have persecution of pretty much every belief that doesn't agree with theirs. They hold that country in something of an iron fist. I just can't imagine microsoft agreeing with them. That's how you know they are truly all about money. Censorship must die! To the guillotine!

    (-hrair-)

    --
    Beware of the shining wires...
  38. Anyone not understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Does anyone NOT understand why Taiwan doesn't want to be controlled by the mainland Communist Party?
    Taiwan has it's own

    Money and currency controls.
    Stock market.
    Passports.
    Import/export treaties.
    Postal system.
    Banking system.
    Freedom of press.

    Support a Free and Democratic Taiwan.

  39. Lunacy by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

    MSN is committed to ensuring that products and services comply with global and local laws, norms and industry practices

    Good luck, then, because that's unpossible.

    Helpful tip: Laws from other countries often conflict with each other!

  40. Corps are doing what's expected - making money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations are not usually political animals - they're there to use capital to generate wealth. End of story.

    If this behaviour bothers people, the place to take it up is with the government - your government. If the actions are so upsetting and vile, then the government should implement trade sanctions or other actions as necessary to discourage the offensive behaviour.

    Apparantly, China's lack of democratic freedoms afforded to western citizens is not offensive enough to cause people to want to intervene. Money talks.

  41. Tough situation! by ErichTheRed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft is making a public forum accessible in a place where it's extremely difficult to say controversial things publically. Like it or not, with a population in the billions, China's a major market segment for any company, and no one wants to get shut out of that.

    I wonder what things would be like now had the Soviet Union managed to stay intact in the "mass media" Internet age. Surely there was some net access available to a select few behind the Iron Curtain, but I can't imagine it would be easy for, say, East Germany to control their media completely.

    I think they did the right thing on this. Our country's laws are not necessarily the world standard, and other countries are free to follow whatever policy they please. They're also free to block access to things they see as dangerous. We do this "in reverse" all the time...other countries are much more liberal in terms of what can be seen on TV, etc. To please the religious crew, we censor broadcast media and let people who want to see more subscribe to cable. The problem opens up when you inject a stateless medium such as the internet.

  42. Yet another good reason by PompousJohn · · Score: 1

    Not to buy Windows Vista

    --
    Submit and download your homegrown music on www.audiodropout.com
  43. Feh, just give them an Aspirin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not so tough then are they? Hehe. (hint: for those who don't get it, you'll have to look up how he died).

    PS. Ha! The word image for this post was "oriented":)

    If I could work in their penchant for eating endangered animal dicks and their own small members(hello, southpark), the asian references would be complete.

  44. Remember Amatuer Action? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is anyone else reminded of the Amatuer Action BBS prosecution? Back in 1994 a California man and his wife ran a for-pay BBS (yes dial-up) with downloadable porn. A Tennessee postal inspector downloaded some porn from them and when he got it, he shipped THEM some child porn and then charged them with obscenity and had them extradited to Tennessee. If I recall correctly, they were convicted and the man at least served time. All for material that was perfectly legal in California but apparently not in Tennessee.

    At the time there was a lot of concern about the net becoming regulated by the laws of the most restrictive state. Funny how that seems to be the case nowadays, except it is the corps doing the 'regulation' and not the governments per se.

    (PS, for some reason there is very little record of the whole Amatuer Action BBS fiasco in google's database, very odd for what was such a big deal at the time.)

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Remember Amatuer Action? by abb3w · · Score: 1
      (PS, for some reason there is very little record of the whole Amatuer Action BBS fiasco in google's database, very odd for what was such a big deal at the time.)

      Largely because the events are from the dawn of the WWW... although the EFF has some of the more important documents. It was a pretty depressing case from a 1st amendment standpoint. You'll find more if you do a Google Groups search (Usenet was full of it at the time; of course, folk say Usenet has always been full of it....), and if you spell "Amateur" correctly.

      And, no, I don't really think it's that good of a comparison.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  45. Fuck yankdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    piece of shit site

  46. Scoble on China by infspec · · Score: 1

    Scoble covered this a few days ago. He went into MS to try and dig up why they did this. Why shut down free-speech. While he couldn't discuss everything he hints at the reasons. What do you think?

    1. Re:Scoble on China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I preferred the funnier follow up here.

  47. Tell the truth, Microsotft! by nysus · · Score: 1

    We're committed to making money no matter the cost to human freedom.

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

  48. Free Market Kicks Ass by cj7wilson · · Score: 1

    I agree that the laws in China are bad, and that we rightly consider China to be behind the times in certain areas like wages, quality of life, and pesky "human rights". But I'm glad that Microsoft, Apple, Google and others are doing business there, because that's what will change the opinions and policies of the Chinese people and government. The more China is included in the global economy, the more it will be encouraged and required to conform to global standards. Think of glasnost and perestroika in the USSR, the Berlin wall, and others. You think China hasn't noticed the success of capitalism in Hong Kong and Taiwan? It might be changing slowly, but it is changing. In the meantime, I do think that Microsoft and others should follow China's laws, even if they are bad. As said before, it is the cost of doing business there. Also, before you condemn those companies for doing so, bear in mind that when they sell products to China they are helping to reduce the trade deficit and are bringing money back here to the USA.

  49. Learn from history, or be doomed to repeat it by CarpetShark · · Score: 0
    First They Came for the Jews
    First they came for the Jews
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for the Communists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a Communist.
    Then they came for the trade unionists
    and I did not speak out
    because I was not a trade unionist.
    Then they came for me
    and there was no one left
    to speak out for me.
    - Pastor Martin Niemöller
    1. Re:Learn from history, or be doomed to repeat it by luvirini · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well yes.. opression will happen again.. and again.. as people do not seem ever to listen to the first signs of trouble.. and wait until it is too late.

    2. Re:Learn from history, or be doomed to repeat it by GodLogiK · · Score: 0

      we see these signs of trouble, we're all here talking about it. Mainly, I think most people either don't know what to do about it, or don't think the small things they can do will actually have any effect due to the perceived hugeness of the enemy. I for one will continue not buying ms products, and I might even write them to tell them why.

  50. Two points by boyfaceddog · · Score: 1

    One: Microsoft is all about the dollars. Because this involves Microsoft, this, too, is all about the dollars.

    Two: Freedom of speech is protected under the Constitution of the United States of America, not under the Chinese version. If these people want free speech, they can either change their government or move to a country that supports free speech. It is not up to Microsoft or the USA to enforce free speech (or any other freedom) in other countries. That's what got us into Iraq.

    --
    Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
  51. Re:Google, Yahoo, Cisco and others collaborate als by What+me+a+Coward · · Score: 1

    I forget about none of it they are all on my ka ka list!

        Never use google search why should i support them.

        Yahoo same don't use any of their services nor give them support.

        Cisco i wouldn't deal with either so what's your point? We should be lambasting them here all at the same time instead of pouring it onto MS?

        Then by all means let's.. OTOH the subject of the article of this thread was about MS so you can hardly blame us for concentrating on them now can you?

    --
    Coward? Coward! Thems fighten words!!
  52. Crying "Censorship" is flamebait! by redelm · · Score: 1
    This ain't censorship. Look it up: censorship is deleting parts of a work. Effectively it steals the authors work for the censors' ends.

    This doesn't even meet the test of "banning". MSN is not trying to prevent others from publishing (although China is!).

    This is most like "refusal to publish", which the /. editurds can hardly protest given the number of stories they reject! Including all of mine so I stop submitting.

    Perhaps you don't like MSNs' possible reasons or motivation for refusing to publish. OK. I don't like /.'s either. Adjust your business accordingly. They won't like it, but you have your rights too.

    1. Re:Crying "Censorship" is flamebait! by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      censorship is deleting parts of a work. Effectively it steals the authors work for the censors' ends.

      With a struggling, beleaguered underdog facing so many hardships as Microsoft is, it's certainly heroic of you to come to their defense. However: MSN still hosts other blogs that are OK with China. A blog which China doesn't like is taken down. The Blogoshpere has been censored.

    2. Re:Crying "Censorship" is flamebait! by redelm · · Score: 1
      "The Blogoshpere has been censored". Sorry, no. The Blogosphere isn't one work, it is a mottly collection of works.

      Otherwise, /. rejecting any submissions would be censorship of /. .

      As for MSFT, they most certainly need defending. They do so many clueless things. And reasonable defense in one place makes later criticism more credible and less dismissable as biased animus.

    3. Re:Crying "Censorship" is flamebait! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      YOur just being overly pendantic.
      A member of the blogsphere(god I hate the term more then "webmaster") has been censored. It amuont to that same thing.

      MS complied with an ILLEGAL request. According to Chinese law you are allowed to speak against the government.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Crying "Censorship" is flamebait! by redelm · · Score: 1
      No, he was not censored. His work was not published with objectionable bits removed. The Chinese govt would like to _ban_ it so that it is not published at all. That is not censorship, that is banning. Nor will they succeed, because he's alraedy being hosted elsewhere.

      You may think this pedantic, but you forget that words have connotation. Or do you consider unauthorized copying to be identical to piracy?

  53. What Microsoft et al should do ... by WoodieR · · Score: 1

    what MS SHOULD do is make the blogs themselves invisible to the communists / governments, thereby ensuring freedom of speech for all and MS can just say, well we think you're catching it all that's why there is no more objectionable content on the entire web, and the entire world is now / must obviously be towing the chinese line ... the censors would not be able to view the blogs, and therefore can not object to content that they do not even know is there for others to see ... and MS can come across without egg on their face ... for a change

    --
    Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  54. Oppressive regimes by hkb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah and the nazis had "unique" local laws and practices, too. I'm sorry, but China oppressing its people and killing off dissidents goes a little beyond that. But hey money talks, and I'm sure China dumps a lot of it into Microsoft. Why would they want to lose that profit?

    --
    /* Moderating all non-anonymous trolls up since 2004 */
  55. I'm all for it too by Lifewish · · Score: 3, Funny

    The longer that Microsoft manages to stay in China, the longer the Chinese military will have to put up with bluescreens (redscreens?). Works for me.

    --
    For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
  56. Good or bad? by cj7wilson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Boy am I happy to be an American, but let's take a step back. We have certain rights and freedoms here in the USA, and we're proud of it. But we're a sovereign state and China is a different sovereign state. Should we be trying to impose our standards on another country? What if China pushed their agenda on us? YES, China's policies may be bad for the common Chinese person, but are we really encouraging those policies by doing business in China and abiding by Chinese law while doing so? Or are we helping to change the bad policies? All I'm saying is you can't be a missionary to a foreign country without GOING there.

    1. Re:Good or bad? by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      Here, Mr. Hate-Freedom-First: Say your town's church has you putting up it's community online newsletter. Somebody from a theocratic country is able to find it online and expresses objection because it supports an "infidel" religion. So we should take down your newsletter and order your home church to cease all communications, based on the laws of this other country?

      I love how you people get all red-faced waving your flag and shoot your beefy mouth off about how proud to be an American you are and how against the suppression of liberty you are. Saddam does it: bad Saddam! China does it: bad China! Microsoft does it, and you sweat bullets over your Microsoft stock and 401-K and all of a sudden Microsoft is A-OK, freedom sucks, you're burning the flag, maybe Saddam wasn't such a bad guy after all...

    2. Re:Good or bad? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "We have certain rights and freedoms here in the USA, and we're proud of it."

      You kid yourself if you think most of those rights still exist in force. We have those rights on one piece of paper, but they are limited time and time again on other pieces of paper.

      The right to bear arms? Forget it. I can't legally buy any weapon with ammo that can pierce the armor of an M1A2 tank. How else am I supposed to fight an oppressive government? Isn't that what the right to bear arms is all about?

      Freedom of speech? If they are listening without my knowledge, that will cause me to not say what I want to say, sometimes. That's an abridgement of the right to free speech. The right to assemble peacefully? Sure, as long as you don't say anything bad, and you don't assemble where it might be inconvenient to government, peaceful or not.

      The right of security against unreasonable search and seizure? This has been eroding quickly in the poast two decades. You have $10k cash in your bag when you cross a state border? Sorry, it's been seized. You have to sue and prove it's not illegally-gained cash to get it back.

      How about the right to not be deprived of liberty without due process? Gitmo, anyone?

      Maybe we should clean our own house before we try to fix someone else's.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  57. Profit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Start software company
    2) Add Blogs to website
    3) Censor Blogs that offend goverments in emerging markets
    4) ...
    5) PROFIT!

  58. I'LL BITE! by Hosiah · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Thought I'd call your bluff and actually READ the links you posted, something I'm sure you never dreamed anybody would actually do.

    The Google case: "Google omits results from the government-banned sites if search requests are made through computers connecting to the Internet in China." Not the same thing. They're only dropping results from the searches in China, and if they didn't, they wouldn't be allowed to provide search to China at all. The websites containing the search terms did not disappear from the web - people in other countries can still see them.

    The Yahoo case: "Nonetheless, it is reportedly customary for e-mail service and Internet access providers to transmit information to the police about their clients when shown a court order." Again entirely different. I would hope that anyone at any time called on to testify would step forward and tell the truth and not lies. Yahoo was doing it's common civic duty, even though the purposes of the trial were unjust.

    The Cisco case: "The Cisco routers sold to China have the ability to block not only the main addresses for websites, but also specific sub-pages while leaving the rest of the site accessible." Yet another different matter. My own computer has the ABILITY to block websites based on content (such as gross pornography on my young children's account) - that's a tool. Big difference how I use it.

    You have in fact slinged mud on three innocent companies while defending the guilty one you invested in. I hope they paid you enough!

  59. Nothing to see here by doublem · · Score: 5, Funny

    Move along folks. There's nothing to see here. The user deliberately terminated their post for humor value. No government, private or foreign agency was involved in the truncation of the parent post, or for the poster's completely voluntary relocation to Syria.

    Go back to your homes, watch some football and have a nice fast food meal, secure in the knowledge that whatever the government does, it's for the purpose of protecting your rights and ensuring your safety from TERRORIST!!!!!!!

    9/11, 9/11, You all must remember 9/11.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is talking about China. You are making humorous posts about America. There is a difference between China and the US, and here it is: In China your post would land you in jail, in the US it's just one of tens of thousands of identically lame posts.

    2. Re:Nothing to see here by NumberGod · · Score: 1

      9/11 ?

      The Ninth of November

      Oh, the fall of the berlin wall.

      Of Course.

    3. Re:Nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - bash America and get +5, Funny. Make any reference to cheese eating surrender monkies and get mod'ed into oblivion. Yet another reason to hate Slashdot....

  60. Chinese Law by belmolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't simply a case of a company complying with local law. China's censorship of Zhao's blog is actually illegal under Chinese law. It violates article 35 of The Constitution of the People's Republic of China, which guarantees freedom of speech and article 41, which specifically protects the right to criticize the government. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Microsoft acted in response to the order of a court. What we're talking about here is compliance with an illegal request. There may be an argument that Microsoft could not afford to refuse to comply, but any moral argument that Microsoft has an obligation to obey local law is bogus.

    1. Re:Chinese Law by 28481k · · Score: 1

      Well, this is the sort of inconsistency many people have to (and still have to) put up with until now...

      The Constitution of the People's Republic of China has very explicitly granted many rights (without using the word "inalienable", which is THE CATCH!) to their citizens, most of them never fulfilled until the current regime... However, what MSN is doing is also illegal even under the current rules and regulations. He has not broken any taboo words (or even if he did, he did so discreetedly) as far as I can read other than supporting the strike of Beijing News, which has NOT be banned officially although it is not mentioned widely due to the widespread consequences(1).

      That's why Li Ao has asked the audience in his second speech in his groundbreaking China tour to address the basics liberity by implementing of the Constitution. By achieveing that, the people will have the tools to fight against the injustice and illiberaity.

      (P.S. 1. The Beijing News was a breeze in the Beijing news sence and has fought a considerable amount of the freedom of press under their own wit, the CCP has decided to ask another less-than-liberal press to control over from Jan 1, 2006.
      2.I was an occational reader of his site and certainly lament of such loss...)

      --
      28481k
    2. Re:Chinese Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Too bad that same document is full of overrides.

      Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.

      Article 52. It is the duty of citizens of the People's Republic of China to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its nationalities.

      Article 53. Citizens of the People's Republic of China must abide by the constitution and the law, keep state secrets, protect public property and observe labour discipline and public order and respect social ethics.

  61. The subbtle difference is... by DrYak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The subbtle difference is that, above the countries and their specific laws, there are international laws and human rights.

    Free speech is a human right. (It is stated in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and although it isn't a legally binding document, this right is reformulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (by coincidence also article 19) which is a legally binding document).

    So it's not about enforcing american view in foreign countries (which is completly stupid, but is what the **AA are trying to do with the DMCA) or some specific weird views (your imaginary "tax are immoral" situation) in a specific country (tax must be paid in the USA), it's about trying to enforce fundamental human rights independently of local laws.

    That's the difference between finding taxes immoral and fighting for freedom of speech.

    (Note: Have no knowledge in internation laws except for the fraction we learned studying legal medicine)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:The subbtle difference is... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Free speech is a human right. (It is stated in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and although it isn't a legally binding document, this right is reformulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (by coincidence also article 19) which is a legally binding document).

      China signed this a few months ago (oct 2005) - they haven't ratified it. Or even had time to implement it, assuming they wanted to. Which is unlikely.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:The subbtle difference is... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Let's see:
      from Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

      2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

      3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
      (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
      (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

      Note the last two exceptions. They are so vague, you could justify pretty much any restriction on free speech on their basis. That's what makes the European "hate speech" laws legal in this context, but really, "public order" and "public health or morals" could be interpreted to allow death penalty for "apostasy" in a Muslim country, or, as in this case, a legal punishment for criticism of the government.
  62. What if? Why not search it? by Uukrul · · Score: 5, Informative
    If it were Google or Apple, it would be "the cost of doing business in China". Since it is Microsoft it is "suppression of independant, free thought."
    Censorship at Google on Slashdot.

    1st 4+ post: That's just business..(Score:5, Insightful)
    2nd 4+ post: No, it isn't (Score:5, Insightful)

    So you are worng, there was a discussion similar to this one.
    --
    My city: Barcelona.
  63. M$ Sensorship, no problem by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 0

    I find no problem with this. M$ blogs are not blocked for al 10,300 employees of my systems and in my home as well.

    --

    Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
  64. TO save time replying to each one.... by Hosiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those of you rushing to Microsoft's defense are doing more damage than good. Alone, this could eventually blow over as an oversight or mistake or a bad judgement call. But when the Internet's discussion is interrupted by a few "bystander" posters who each rush in to flame us all and declare Microsoft innocent, then it's only too obvious that you're the paid "clean-up crew" hired by Microsoft, and that makes the action premeditated.

    1. Re:TO save time replying to each one.... by jofi · · Score: 1

      Linux defenders do more harm than good. My real point is: Why does Slashdot bother with articles like this? More Open Sauce news, less bitching about what Microsoft does. If one must resort to personal attacks then you've already lost..

      --
      Blame the user, not the software.
  65. not so unique, nor consistent but getting worse. by twitter · · Score: 1
    I am sure George Orwell's '1984', Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World', and even Bill Gate's 2005 article 'The New World of Work' would be banned as well.

    If China asks, will Bill Gates remove all references to the above from MSN, hosted in the US, like he did this Blog?

    "new software will learn from the way you work, understand your needs, and help you set priorities." (Bill Gates 5-19-05)", Unless you live in China.

    China and the Xbox are where he's proving his censorship potential and his lack of trust in everyone.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  66. If only... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... they could censor duplicated slashdot stories...

    http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/14/12 28230&tid=109&tid=17

  67. It Can't Happen Here by Brad+Eleven · · Score: 1

    My position on Google, Microsoft, Reuters--any information provider, really--setting up shop in China is that a Truly Un-Evil Company would not comply with the censorship rules. They'd pull out, no big fuss or press release. Only an Evil company would justify the assistance of the denial of human rights with "it's just the cost of doing business". That is, the cost is too high.

    China's staggering prosperity has a big speed bump in the road ahead, and it's impossible to tell how far away it is--or how fast it will continue to grow. The speed bump is Human Rights, i.e., sooner or later, the problem will come to a head. Critical mass. The legendary Hundredth Monkey. They'll be Mad As Hell, and they're Not Going To Take It Any More.

    I find it deplorable--no, unconscionable that corporations are investing in a totalitarian government. Then again, it's implausible to me that our own government is headed in the same direction. Are we bound to fulfill the cyberpunk genre's bleak future just because too many of us have read about it?

    The United States took a cue from Israel a few years back in not dealing with terrorists. I guess that only applies to independent terrorists, i.e., if their organization is big enough, we'll not only deal with them, we'll trade with them.

    --
    "Press to test."
    (click)
    "Release to detonate."
    1. Re:It Can't Happen Here by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      You make both an excellent prediction and point. Those of us who served in Vietnam during the draft years (meaning we were citizen soldiers, not members of today's Imperial Army - no, I don't support the troops when the mission is wrong!!) will recall that our government moved closer to the government of those this country was ostensibly supporting, not that government of then-existing Republic of Viet Nam moving closer to the American government as was hoped.

      This appears obviously the case again, with the American government headed towards the fascist, dictatorial government of China, rather than China adopting all those supposed freedoms and behaviors of a capitalist system, flimsy and eternal excuses of the corporations and their trained monkeys notwithstanding. Capitalism, regardless of how restricted and skewed, is an economic system, not a political system and therefore has nothing to do with human liberty and freedom......

  68. We have a problem, Houston. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Support a Free and Democratic Taiwan."

    By going to war against China. That is to say, China is threatening war over Taiwan. Deterrance only works if you're fully prepared to go through with it, and China is prepared to invade Taiwan. So you're asking us (the United STates, because the French will just fucking surrender Taiwan in the UN) to go to war, to protect your island?

    Hay, man! Where the fuck were you when those sheet-heads ran planes into our buildings, and we wanted to fucking hit them back? Why the fuck weren't you suspending business with all the cheese-eating pussies in France?

    Don't worry about it too much. The South Koreans don't really want us over there, either. They don't want Americans in their country, but they don't want North Koreans to fucking stomp them like dog shit. "I just fucking want all the things I want, and none of the things I don't want. I don't want anything bad; just the good."

    Quid pro quo (or however the fuck it's spellt).

    On the topic of Slashdot moderation, this little post will pull -1, because Iraq had no weapons of mass destructshun, and not all sheet-heads are terrorists.

  69. Chilling Effects by abb3w · · Score: 1
    Was it simply the case that Chinese IPs were blocked from accessing it, or in fact was the entire blog simply removed from MSN Spaces altogether.

    Removed entirely, according to BoingBoing.

    MSN ought to comply with national laws, and be willing to assist in making sure a nation's citizens comply with them, even when Microsoft doesn't agree with those laws. (Would that Microsoft did that with business practice laws in the US and EU....) However, there are ways to do so, while still fighting censorship. Presumably, the Chinese were the ones objecting. They want the blog removed? Fine; but put the official objection complaint from the Chinese Government up instead. Or see if Chilling Effects is willing to expand their program, and try to have them host the official notice.

    --
    //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  70. Let's just throw ethics guidelines out the window. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let any company do whatever they want in order to make that profit. Child labor, safety regulations, unfair practices. Just allow them all. More money for the shareholders.

    I honestly think that there were would be a few people here would forgive IBM in there supposed role in the Holocaust if they had a bit of money in them at the time. Or probably not even that, since there are plenty of "that's capitalism, get over it" voices here.

    And that disturbs me. It's amazing that the sin of greed is extolled in today's society. And anything, absolutely anything is okay as long as it's in the name of profit.

  71. Ok then, try this experiment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Go in front of the white house, chant "Free Iraq", and burn the American flag, along with portraits of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and George W Bush.
    2. Go to Tiananmen Square, chant "Free Tibet", and burn the Chinese flag, along with portraits of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin.
    If you seriously believe that these have equivalent reprecussions, then it is you that is igorant, and you need to get out and experience the world.
    1. Re:Ok then, try this experiment by SeattleGameboy · · Score: 1
      Hey, here is a GREAT idea. Why don't you go ahead and do #1.

      Based on Gitmo, various renditions, detention without appeal, random "enemy combatant", and designated "free speach zones" I've got a feeling we won't hear from you for awhile if you did #1 today...

  72. Stop posting this by Hrothgar+The+Great · · Score: 1

    Everyone's seen it probably a hundred times. What is the point of dragging it out again just now? Are you saying that first, Microsoft came for a Chinese blogger, and you didn't speak out because you are not a Chinese blogger? Is Microsoft going to come for you next, and no one will be left to speak for you?

    No seriously, STOP CUTTING AND PASTING THIS CRAP ON SLASHDOT.

    1. Re:Stop posting this by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I've never seen it posted on slashdot before. BUT, it was a reply to someone who obviously isn't aware of it, or at least, isn't aware of the lesson to be learned from it. As such, it's entirely appropriate. If you can't handle that, well... tough. Actually, from your reply, I think you should read it again, instead of just having reactions to it.

    2. Re:Stop posting this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen it posted on slashdot before.

      Seriously?

  73. BULLSH!7! by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    First of all - have you actually read any Chinese laws? No? You can get them in translation, and they are not really all that draconian;

    *AHEM*

    From the RConversation blog:

    "In the final days of December, Anti became a vocal supporter of journalists at the Beijing Daily News who walked off the job after the top editors were fired for their increasingly daring investigative coverage, including some recent reporting on the recent police shootings of village protestors in the Southern China. (For all the gory details on the current press crackdown click here, here, here, and here.)

    In other words, Microsoft is scratching China's back in supporting the slaughter of innocents, and shutting the mouth of whoever tries to bring that to the public.

    If that's not Draconian, my friend, then I don't know what the eff it is.

  74. Insightful or wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wager you are wrong. People like to bash Apple and Google just as much as MS given a proper excuse, and that would be more than enough of an excuse.

    In fact, I bet there would be another round of reporting on this issue in the papers, citing the Apple or Google incident as the latest example, though they could have written the same article about MS.

  75. Godwins Law and Bill Gates. by twitter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    All about Godwin's Law.

    It's not bad form to compare Communist China with National Socialist Germany. Both are non free countries which engaged in systematic censorship and murder.

    It is bad form to co-operate with either and Bill Gates should be ashamed. Richard Nixon's policy of engagement was more a case of Machiavelli's help the weaker of two enemies than co-operating with a murderer. With the stronger of the two gone, the remaining enemy should be shunned. Co-operation with China today is a classic example of selling the rope to your executioner. Bill Gates, by shutting down a US cite at China's request, is saying that he's willing to subject US citizens to Chinese publication law. That does not make Bill Gates a murderer, but it does make him someone who's willing to violate your rights to help a lawless regime.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  76. But which laws? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trying to obey every law in every country which is connected to the Internet would be more than difficult, it would be literally impossible. Laws are varied and complex, laws change all the time, and more importantly laws from one country may conflict with requirements in others. For example, equal treatment of women vs. not allowing women to be shown on TV without a veil. For example, not supporting any particular candidate or party in an election vs. being required to promote candidates from a specific party. For example, the requirement to announce items needed for the public's safety vs. not being allowed to criticize the government.

    So what exactly do you mean about complying with laws?

    Do you really suggest we should always defer to Chinese laws, for US-based corporations doing business in the US, on hardware in the US?

  77. Please MOD THIS DOWN (Overrated)... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is the police heavyhanded? Are the judges fair etc? And perhaps the Chinese are no worse off than the Americans in that respect either.


    Since when has anyone been carted off to Cuba for pure dissent? America gets a fair share of flak, and I'm guilty of doing it myself, but, even in this time of Patriot Act and wiretapping, there is no huge epidemic of people being jailed for not believing in the government or having what they say be censored. You think a woman like Sheehan can do the same thing she pulled in Texas over in China?

    Also, for as much as crap as America gets, there's still vocal protests. The NSA taps are getting lots and lots of bad press, and that is over reportedly only hundreds of taps (likely Muslims, some terrorists).

    You are utterly insane if you're comparing our freedom of dissent to China.

    ....his is a common thing in the world: societies change over time; well, maybe not America, what so I know....


    Yeah, never mind that whole "abolished slavery" thing. Or "women's right to vote" thing. Or the "movement away from Puritan beliefs/restrictions" things. Or "civil rights movement" thing. Or "McCarthyism" America has been the same society it's been since it's inception.

    Thirdly, it sounds grand, all this drivel about 'ignore immoral laws'; just you try to do that in America.


    Yeah, god knows those crazy, so-called "abolitionists," "women voters," and "founding fathers" did, and look what at the consequences they suffered.

    No, wait...

    A very sound rule of thumb is, if a society is stable over time, then the population is by and large happy with the way things are.


    On a philosophical/literary level, I could say 1984.
    On a more realistic level, I can point you to past "stable" slavery-tolerant nations. But I'm sure the slave population was perfectly happy.

    How you got a +5 Interesting is astounding.
  78. Slavery by darrint · · Score: 1

    Not only does it smack of slavery, their use of the term "unique elements" reminds me of "peculiar institution."

    1. Re:Slavery by Caspian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that obvious euphemism stood out to me as well.

      --
      With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
  79. Thank goodness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm SO glad to find out that having sex with animals is now moral. Thank you SO much! You've really relieved a major burden.

  80. MOD PARENT UP!! by s4ck · · Score: 1

    Sometime.. not all the time.. we get very insighful comment on /. and that's one on them.

  81. Truth Truth Truth by argoff · · Score: 1

    I don't know where you come from, but in civilized societies we at least pretend to accept that just because we might not know what the perfict truth is - doen't mean that it's a feeling or opinion. The fact is that people have rights, these rights are not rocket science nor that hard to understand - maybe chineese culture says gravity pulls upward too? So what, it doesn't change the reality. Free speech is one of those rights that have been accepted as a fundamental one for a long time. This isn't some advanced imcomprehensible theory where we just don't know what the best solution is.

    Now if you want to make a compelling argument about why people should have their opinions forbidden, then fine. But I suspect you won't do that because you will logically and factually be ripped to shreds like the thousands that have tried before you. Hiding behind the guise of cultural norms for the sake of not wanting to argue the facts is intellectual cowerdace.

  82. Common carrier? by cpotoso · · Score: 1

    If MS censors some articles, don't they become automatically liable for everything on their servers? (i.e. don't they loose the protection given to "common carriers"?) Risky move, isn't it?

  83. An related BBC article by pepsi_j_cola · · Score: 1

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/446016 8.stm It makes some good points. Like how the western media doesn't care about who Chinese bloggers are and what they are blogging about, what gets censored, and importantly what doesn't. It only have a single point when talking about Chinese blogs: Censorship.

  84. Bit over the top. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it so odd. If a US company that does business with a foreign government ignores the laws in that company it gets nailed for being an all powerful multi-national evil mega-corp unless you don't agree with that countries laws?
    I happen to agree that Microsoft should not have pulled it but I often considered US centric in my opinions. How should a company act when faced with a country that doesn't respect the core values of that companies home country?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Bit over the top. by jonfelder · · Score: 0

      Countries and companies are plural forms of country and company. You're looking for the possessive form. These would be country's and company's as in:

      I find it so odd. If a US company that does business with a foreign government ignores the laws in that company (country) it gets nailed for being an all powerful multi-national evil mega-corp unless you don't agree with that country's laws?
      I happen to agree that Microsoft should not have pulled it(,) but I (I'm) often considered US centric in my opinions. How should a company act when faced with a country that doesn't respect the core values of that company's home country?

    2. Re:Bit over the top. by Lifewish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not so much a matter of laws as a matter of morality. If a law goes against my personal morality, I will not obey it. Therefore, if Microsoft obeys immoral Chinese laws then we can only conclude that either a) it has no willpower whatsoever or b) it has no problem with censorship of journalists. Either way, the negative publicity it gets as a result would, in an ideal world, cause that company some pain. That way companies will have an incentive to operate according to the morality of the world they live in, rather than acting entirely to line their own pocketbooks.

      It's not an ideal method of controlling corporations, but it's fairly effective nonetheless.

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
    3. Re:Bit over the top. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replying anonymously not to undo moderations. Einhverfr here.

      I think that there needs to be a clear distinction between one's own corporation and the various international subsidiaries that it maintains around the world. These international subsidiaries need to be respectful of the laws in their respective countries, but the main corporation as for the goods and services that it offers and hosts in its home country should attempt to be as libertarian as possible within the confines of the laws of its home country.

      Thus what Microsoft has done here is well above what Google, Yahoo, or Cisco have done. They have literally gone and allowed their US-based hosting services to be a tool of censorship.

      Now, there are many reasons why I take the position I do. Corporations are owned by shareholders and must represent their shareholders' interests in whatever way the shareholders see fit. I have generally listened to the recordings of shareholder meetings at Microsoft and there has been a growing (but to date small) movement to pass resolutions in support of human rights in Microsoft. However, this stunt is likely to accellerate this sort of movement. Such a resolution, were it to be passed, would be legally binding instructions to the board and executives to support human rights in China. In short, this was pretty short sighted on the part of the Chinese gov't.

    4. Re:Bit over the top. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If a law goes against my personal morality, I will not obey it.

      Taxes goes against my personal morality. (not kiddin)

    5. Re:Bit over the top. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Personal morality? This is a corporation who's personal morality should be observed? Should a company do business with some of the Arab states that limit freedom of religion? What about that limit woman's rights? Should a company do business with France or Germany since they limit freedom of political speech? The world is a big place and the rules are different in different places. In Germany, France and some other locations pro Nazi speech is outlawed. In the US it isn't. I disagree with idea of limiting that speech but given their history I can also understand it.
      Where does one draw the line? I mean it is real easy to pick on Microsoft but where do you draw the line between being sensitive to a different culture and being an accomplice?
      Suppose a company has an office in a mainly muslim country. Would it be wrong for them to.
      Not hire women?
      Not hire Jews?
      Not to give Christians Christmas off but close the office on Muslim holidays?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Bit over the top. by Lifewish · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that there's something intrinsically wrong with following the law (I'm a moral relativist so that would be rather inconsistent of me). I'm just saying that if a company behaves in a way I consider unethical (the Nestle baby milk thing, sweatshop labour, illegal monopoly etc) I'll tend to avoid supporting them financially where at all possible. Hopefully this will help counteract the natural incentives for them to behave in a legal yet immoral fashion.

      --
      For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
  85. ObWhere.... by sconeu · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft... Where Don't you wan't to go today?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  86. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  87. Following Laws... by sconeu · · Score: 1

    Why does MS feel a need to follow Chinese law when they don't follow US law?

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  88. Death penalty not a HR violation by argoff · · Score: 1


    Every punishment for a crime takes away somebody's rights, but the death penalty is not a human rights violation when done as justice. The people who are on death row in the US are NOT there because they have simply expressed opinions. In fact the only way to get on death row in the US is to be charged and found guilty of murder in front of a jury of peers with appropiate legal representation - this is a far cry from the Chineese system and it's disingenuoius to even compare.

    These people are not being put to death to torment them, torture them, drive fear into non murderors, or even harm them (even thought that is the effect). It is simply about removing violent people from society, and setting an example - in practice, it isn't even for revenge and is implemented in a way that minimizes personal pain. This is plain and simple justice.

    Now I personally think that there are very compelling legal cost reasons not to have the death penalty, and that there are very compelling reasons from the perspective that justice systems make mistakes from time to time - and this is one mistake that can't be undone. And even arguments that society is safer when governments don't have that power at all. But the death penalty is not a human rights violation any more than it is if I shoot someone who busts into my house and is threatening the safety of my wife and daughter.

    The UN is just wrong here and is kneejerking to some political interest.

    This and what China (and MS) did does not even compare, I challenge anyone to make such a compelling argument as to why it's ok to coercively forbid people from expressing their opinions.

  89. Or you could boycott China by cove209 · · Score: 1

    Or you could boycott China by stop buying anything "Made in China".

    But we won't do that, will we?

    1. Re:Or you could boycott China by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because we can't. It is not practical, corporations have sold us out.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  90. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  91. No Microsoft is by argoff · · Score: 1

    Maybe Chineese law says that Microsoft should hunt down bad bloggers and pop a bullet in their head too. But really, since when is anyone other than China pre-dispositioned to to enforce chineese laws for them. This was Microsofts choice, not China's.

    One more thing. Miscosoft is a US company, traded on US stock exchanges, incorporated in US terrortiroes. If they can't deal with that, then they are free to move to China, in the meantime it is not unreasonable for us and the rest of the world to expect Microsoft to act according to US norms.

  92. Capitalism is a methodology not a morality by Angry+Toad · · Score: 1

    Hopefully this kind of thing will jog people to realize that "free markets" don't necessarily tend towards personal and political freedom. This is the difference between your methodology and the moral ground from which the boundaries of your actions spring.

        Put capitalism and free markets in place in a totalitarian society and they work just as well, and will cheerfully help the local autocrat do whatever he wants. Put them in place in a society where a strong sense of personal libery exists, and the market will adapt to that.

        Capitalism is just as happy to sell you Zyklon B as it is to sell you little American flags to wave around.

  93. Why not go all the way? by nnnneedles · · Score: 1
    --
    Will code a sig generator for food
  94. More of a clarification by tnk1 · · Score: 1

    #1 Microsoft can do whatever the heck it wants with data on it's servers, unless the law intervenes in some way, such as breach of contract. Free speech does not apply to private companies. They don't even need to use the local law excuse.

    #2 What they are doing is technically legal, but is objectional from an ethical and moral standpoint... unless Microsoft does not adhere to the ethical and moral standards of a liberal democratic society. (Surprise, surprise, surprise!) Unfortunately, there's no reason that they have to have a liberal democratic conscience. Unless they are part of the government, liberal democracy generally grants the individuals within it the ability to hold any moral standards they want which are not in conflict with the law. This tolerance is also extended to corporations, for the most part.

    Conclusion and Opinion: Microsoft wants to kiss China's ass. They have every right to do so, and it may well make good business sense to do so. It doesn't matter if the blog was hosted in China, the US or in the Vatican. If Microsoft wants to accept that Chinese laws apply to their services hosted in the US, they have every right to limit themselves that way.

    I'd tell you to boycott Microsoft, but you know as well as I do that they wouldn't even notice. The only thing that will fix corporations is realizing that they are made up of people and finding a way to make sure that people in those companies are BOTH business-savvy AND principled. Good luck with that.

  95. Re:Should MSN obey the law? WITCH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's a witch!

    Who's got a duck?

  96. Dale Carnegie by von_kaiser · · Score: 1
    Microsoft is appeasing the beast: certainly for their own economic good; and "indirectly" for continuing smooth diplomacy between the U.S. and China ( whether MS did this entirely of their own volition, or under influence of U.S. government is an interesting question.) They apparently subscribe to the interpersonal philosophy of Dale Carnegie--that placing an emphasis on pleasing others is both a duty and a paradoxical route to personal success.

    I am sympathetic to the idealism expressed pertaining to the topic, however... idealism is practically naïve. For example, a cop pulls me over, as i'm riding my bicycle at 8:30am in my sleepy little town, trying to catch the city-bound bus. He's bored, and I "look suspicious" because I'm carrying a little baggage "early in the morning, in a tourist town." He asks me to show what's inside. Now legally I don't have to show him anything--and legally he can't search me without a warrant--but I open the bags on the ground, and gently sift through them as he stands watching. Why? Because I'm not willing to take one for the team, you fucks! (I'm not going to risk missing the bus while confronting the cop on a trivial matter.)

  97. I cry BS! by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Secondly, what do you actually know about whether the Chinese feel free to speak their mind? I suspect you've never actually been there and spoken to ordinary Chinese. I have, many times, and I can testify that they are not in the least afraid of having an opinion or speaking it in public

    Where, when, with what group of people? As someone who's been to Shanghai, I can tell you that my girlfriend and her friends FEAR talking about chinese politics. When you you bring up subject that even remotely come close, they just shake their head and say it's best not to talk about it. When I ask her why at least, she said "I don't want trouble, I want to be a normal citizen without troubles".

    Ya...she really likes to speak her mind freely. Sounds like total oppression to me!

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  98. Former Microsoftie Here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Einhverfr posting anonymously as I am also moderating this thread.

    IANAL. I am a former Microsoftie.

    While I think you have a point, I would expect that the Chinese subsidiary of Microsoft is probably a separate legal entity. I would find it difficult to imagine a situation where, say, the Peruvian subsidiary of Microsoft had to run itself as if it were, say, the UAE subsidiary in order to avoid offending, say, Arabs.

    I think that the real reason is not that this has to do much with Chinese law but with Microsoft going way out of their way to correct for previous gaffs. Indeed Microsoft has had such problems in China that this seems more like a peace offering than anything else. The two incidents that come to mind were:

    1) an interview in 1998 where Gates said that the Chinese would get "addicted" to software and then they would find a way to collect (note the parallel in Chinese thought to the Opium Wars) and
    2) Microsoft ramping up their anti-piracy cases in the courts just in time for the US to bomb the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.

    THese have not translated to problems with the Chinese gov't except insofar as the Gov't has been unwilling to crack down on pirated copies of Windows (I think largely because such crackdowns would not only be unpopular themselves but also because Microsoft has a bad image among the Chinese people).

    In essence this seems more to me like trying to buy influence with the Chinese gov't against the people than anything else. I don't like it and I used to work at Microsoft.

    1. Re:Former Microsoftie Here. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      It amounts to the same thing. The Chinese government is in a position of selecting who will and will not use their labor, and how much they will enforce laws that are not to their advantage (i.e. copyright law). In order for us to continue enjoying the profits we've become used to, we must see things their way or the deals may change. Either way it translates to principles versus lost money, not that MS feels cowed by the red army.

      Parallel situations exist in hardware companies as well. We care less about copyrights and more about the factories that we have invested quite a lot in bringing up, maintaining and educating. Of course, we're not allowed to keep pictures of those factories on our desks, talk about our visits to them, or discuss things like size, shape, locations, numbers of buildings etc.

      The only thing global corps won't do is crap in their own bed, so they will not enforce global standards requiring employment practices that are incompatible ith american law.

    2. Re:Former Microsoftie Here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Einhverfr here.

      It amounts to the same thing. The Chinese government is in a position of selecting who will and will not use their labor, and how much they will enforce laws that are not to their advantage (i.e. copyright law). In order for us to continue enjoying the profits we've become used to, we must see things their way or the deals may change. Either way it translates to principles versus lost money, not that MS feels cowed by the red army.

      I am not so sure though. My point is that MS already has huge problems in China both on a governmental and a popular level. But these stem from a bad image on the popular level, not anything really to do with the government. In essence Microsoft has let themselves be identified with the British in the Opium Wars (Gates' 1998 interview with Money Magazine) and the US bombing of a Chinese embassy (not their fault, but...) so I don't see this actually changing anything for or against them one way or another.

      They have also had a number of run-ins with the government (forced to stop calling Taiwan a country) and a number of other things. However, again, these have never caused undue issues with the government. Indeed currently the government is quite dependant on Microsoft software.

      I probably shouldn't say this because I am not sure if it violates my NDA, but when I was at Microsoft (2002, I think was when this happened), Microsoft actually provided assistance to the Chinese gov't to allow them to replace the crytographic API layers in Windows, so there is a fair degree of perceived mutual dependence and yet a very high degree of mutual mistrust.

      My problem with this is that by allowing US hosting services to become tools of Chinese censorship, they are allowing the Chinese to censor the internet rather than merely the access of Chinese citizens to the internet.

      Corporations exist to maximize shareholder value. But increasingly many are starting to see value as including a social agenda as well as financial gains. At shareholder meetings there has been a growing movement to try to pass shareholder resolutions involving support for human rights in China. I expect that this stunt will continue to accellerate this trend. If so, this may well be a pyrhic victory for the Chinese gov't.

    3. Re:Former Microsoftie Here. by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These kinds of issues are prevalent in many companies. You can't do business with a government most US citizens are trained to think is Evil, and NOT have incidents. MS just gets a lot of press because it's the evil empire, but the same disputes about the status of Taiwan, cryptography, sales tactics, labor useage, political affiliations etc. come up here and in my last job. In the end the agreement corporationst end to reach is to bow down to their government except when US law precluded it, in the interests of the almighty buck.

      The way things are set up, maybe always have been, is that corporations are OBLIGATED to maximize shareholder value, at any cost...except they can't break US laws. No US law forbids MSN behavior, to not acquiesce to China is almost certainly going to cost money, thus you must acquiesce.

    4. Re:Former Microsoftie Here. by E++99 · · Score: 1
      The way things are set up, maybe always have been, is that corporations are OBLIGATED to maximize shareholder value, at any cost...except they can't break US laws.


      They're OBLIGATED? By what???? Is there some law I'm not aware of obligating them? Granted that maximizing shareholder value is/was touted in business schools, and in the 80's was strategy of choice for managing companyies But I don't understand why anyone would suggest that companies are OBLIGATED to maximize it an any cost.

      I say that any good corporation works primarily for the customers, not the shareholders. And that such a business philosophy will ultimately produce a share holder value commensurate with any of the more nefarious business philosophies.
    5. Re:Former Microsoftie Here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Einhverfr here again.


      The way things are set up, maybe always have been, is that corporations are OBLIGATED to maximize shareholder value, at any cost...except they can't break US laws.


      Sure. Feduciary duty, etc.

      However... Who determines what shareholder value is? right. The shareholders collectively. One of my main points is that there has been a growing movement among shareholders of Microsoft and other companies to pass resolutions in support of human rights in China. The press in a case like this is likely to help accellerate this movement.

      So like it or not, a corporation must also attempt to at least appease the values of its shareholders on a collective level. If they don't they may find themselves subject to shareholder resolutions that could lead to legal issues later (IANAL) if they fail to take more aggressive stands.

      The main point is that if Microsoft said "at the request of the Chinese gov't we are not allowing computers from China to access this site" then while I would have a problem with it, I would at least suggest that the same thoughts are available for people outside China. However, if every hosting provider decided to enforce Chinese censorship requirements, then we would be allowing any country that wanted to censor the internet to do so.

      So then what about countries (like Indonesia) that have blasphemy laws? Where does this end? If I say that since Mohammed's wife lead armies into battle on the back of a cammel that Saudi women should be not only able to drive but in positions of senior military command, what then? What if I say that I think that Hinduism is hopelessly corrupt and that Mitra, Varuna, and Indra need to be recognized as the main dieties of that religion? Are companies going censor these comments on their publically offered services because somebody might be offended? If I say that Buddhism is the spiritual equivalent of autoeroticism, then that might offend the Buddhists, while if I say that it is not, then it might offend the Catholics (or at least those that believe in papal infallibility, since that is what the previous Pope wrote). I suspect that if I were Indonesian, every one of these quotes could be subject to Indonesian censorship via their blasphemy laws. Even those that negate the others.

      My point is that these discussions take place on publically offered services, and that a company such as Microsoft should take no position on them. It is really very simple.

      Now my point of view would be very different if the censorship was limited to, say, the Chinese subsidiary of the company. When they start censoring their US hosting services to satisfy the demands of the CHinese gov't, then you have a problem.

      BTW, lest one see me as purely US-centric, I am equally critical of the attempts by the Clinton administration to force Canadian and European companies that do any business with the US to enforce those embargoes that are not sanctioned by the UNSC (such as Cuba). I think that such efforts are as problematic as those efforts that the Chinese gov't is now undertaking regarding censorship of US sites. Therefore, when I condemn Microsoft here, I also suggest that the US has done the same sort of thing that China is doing and it stinks in both cases. If a Canadian company wants to sell their products to both the US and Cuban markets, let them. The US should have *no juristiction* over such activities just as China should have *no juristiction* over Microsoft's publically offered blog hosting services.

    6. Re:Former Microsoftie Here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Einhverfr here.

      IANAL, but look up the terms Feduciary Duty wrt to shareholder value and you will see that there is an obligation to maximize shareholder value without breaking the US laws, the directives that the shareholders pass, and the bylaws of the corporation.

      Of course the fact that the *vast* majority of such suits fail is an indication of how much lattitude corporations are granted in attempting to do this.

      I say that any good corporation works primarily for the customers, not the shareholders. And that such a business philosophy will ultimately produce a share holder value commensurate with any of the more nefarious business philosophies.

      I think that most individual shareholders understand that and would agree. The problem is with institutional shareholders (like mutual funds) who have a fiduciary oblication to their customers to maximize monetary value at any given point in time. So this point of view eventually creates a paradox where the company providing for the customer (a mutual fund) might be a shareholder in another.

  99. Do No Evil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google wants to be held to a higher standard, yet Microsoft still gets the press for these things...

    I think it's clear people just want to complain, and not because they want change.

  100. Another URL is at: by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapac ific/view/186885/1/.html

    While reading the article, I wondered whether ms actually "deleted" the blog, or just crippled outside access attempts. I am sure that there are archives, and if so, they would be useful for both the courts and Zhao Jing.

    It would be mind-boggling that ms China or ms *pickyourplace* would just "delete" the files.

    If the files are not truly deleted, and if Zhao Jing offers say, US$300 for their assistance (and to make up for his not keeping backups... even text archives would have been smart to have-- they needn't be actual page archives, unless there was a forensic reason to have them...), then microsoft should use one of their "technology innovations" (if they really have any, and I suspect that for internal reasons they DO have this capability) scripts to scrounge up Zhao Jing's files and deliver him a .tar or .zip file of them.

    Having him removed from the web might be gratifying for Beijing, but if he hasn't been raided and arrested or censured in other ways, and considering that others surely have copies of his works, then denying him his own copies is just an exercise in punishment. But, then, I suppose that is an internal matter.

    But this is an exercise in showing us that we need to keep backups, regardless of the material, unless your material is a jailable offence (ce vs se intentional), in which case one probably would **NOT** want to back it up. OTOH, publicly claiming to not have copies could be an attempt to dissuade heavy-handed searches. But, even here in the USA, I could claim "I have no backups" or "I never made any and therefore could not have secreted them away somewhere", but the US would have its own reasons to do a domestic "rendition" toward "finding out what it wants to find out...".

    Reminds me of the Air Force officer in the old Trek episode when Kirk was trying to find the film reels from Captain Christopher's interceptor: "We are not DUMMIES, Mister. We have ways of finding out what we want to know!"...(Of course, the funny part was to follow: "What is that? A uniform of some kind?" "What, this? Just something I slipped on/into (this morning)?", which led to "charge you with espionage, sabotage..." "Did I sabotage something"..

    And, it thickens with: "No, but what WOULD you have done had we not interrupted you?")

    And that, my fellow slashers is what ANY government would boil it's explanations down to, Chinese, Japanese, UK, anywhere, EVEN the "good 'ole USofA"... And, in the true spirit of capitalism, a goodly number of high tech firms RIGHT here in silicon valley tailor their hardware and software "offerings" (in the name of making a buck) to enable governments of whatever nation to intercept, disrupt, interrupt, off-line-scan, archive, and many other ways manipulate data traffic in to and out of their respective borders. It's NOT just mshaft, it's your video companies, voice and IP companies, routers, switching and others. Even SOFTWARE office suite companies have been found to have embedded "language assistance" "backdoor" tools in "foreign" editions of their suites, all at the benefit of US government security services. Given time, all (or almost all) companies of any country will be compelled to not only escrow over the encryption keys, but facilitate in other ways the breaking and reading and almost-traceless manipulation of files for evidence purposes.

    WHEW, I need to put a cold towel on my forehead...

    Word Image: "encircle"

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  101. heh.. by xushi · · Score: 0

    "You can do it your own way If it's done just how
    I say" - hetfield

  102. Bull by geekoid · · Score: 1

    MS is powerfull enough to change this, and in fact be a strong tool in helping people enact a democracy and strengthen free market.

    In fact, it is very short sight of MS(or any American company) not to do this.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  103. Red Flag Linux by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has no choice because China continually threatens to use Red Flag Linux, which was Slashdot's Great White Hope of 2001 (or thereabouts).

    (Of course, many here would love to see Microsoft defy China's government in hopes that it would lead to Linux' userbase instantly growing by a billion. j/k ;-))

    --
    -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  104. Re:Yeah... EAT ME! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't mind if I do!
    Mmm, anonymous coward... *drool*.

  105. Polaroid and South Africa by John+Jorsett · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember back some years ago during Apartheid, Polaroid got raked over the coals for selling products to the government of South Africa for making ID cards. All they did was sell product to a government and that got them accused of facilitating oppression. Now, Microsoft is an active and willing partner in oppression and the reaction in the mainstream media doesn't approach that earlier firestorm.

  106. What if? by Arandir · · Score: 1

    What if... What if the "local laws" mandated the use of slave labor? Would Microsoft then engage in slave labor? What if local laws forbade the hiring of Falun Gong workers, would Microsoft seek out and fire those employees? No matter how onerous and immoral the local law, would Microsoft seek to enforce it?

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  107. Big muscles by rleesBSD · · Score: 1

    It's pretty simple, really. Microsoft is letting itself be muscled because it doesn't want to jeapardize the "business" arrangement with the Chinese. China does not make-or-break the game-plan for Microsoft, so I believe that they are being needlessly timerous by backing down from the Chinese. Microsoft has just a couple of their smallest toes in China ...

    More ominous are thoughts about the kind of undue muscling one would be subjected to if one's whole leg were in China ...

    Examples:

    1 - Walmart (80 billion)
    2 - U.S. Treasury (300 billion)

    Hmmmmm ...

  108. Sometimes reading the article is important by SpecBear · · Score: 1

    Especially when the submitter leaves out the most important bit: Questions still remain over why a site believed to be hosted in the United States has to comply with Chinese law. Microsoft responded to requests for more information on this issue by stating that "Microsoft is a multinational business and, as such, needs to manage the reality of operating in countries around the world."

    This should scare the living shit our of you. This, in effect, means that the Chinese government can enfore its laws in the Unites States through any corporation that wants to do business in China.

    The irony of this is not lost on me.

    MS doesn't seem to be talking about it much, but where is the line drawn here? What if it had been an American writing criticisms of the Chinese government, hosted on MSN? For crying out loud, the American government can't seem to make MS do jack shit, but Microsoft drops to its knees when the Chinese government calls. And if MS rolls over, what are the odds any one else is going to stand up?

    Another bit of chill factor: "I have been talking to lots of people today, though, inside and outside of Microsoft. In every instance, they asked me to keep those conversations confidential. Why? Cause we're talking about international relations here--and the lives of employees," Scoble wrote.

    Here's a tip, Scoble: when your employees working in a country are at risk of death at the hands of the local government based on some comment an exec makes, maybe it's time to consider offshoring your operations to a nation that's a bit more labor friendly.

  109. The US has to suck up to China by Animats · · Score: 1
    The only thing that's keeping interest rates low is that China is buying far more low-paying US treasury paper than makes economic sense. This is part of the deal with the Bush Administration - the US doesn't erect trade barriers against China's products, and China doesn't pull their money out of the US. This deal makes possible high deficits and tax cuts without financial collapse.

    If China stops pulls their money out of the US, interest rates go up. By historical standards, they're still too low. If mortgage rates go up, the speculators who have interest-only loans with adjustable rates have their payments go up. Many will default, resulting in foreclosure. The housing bubble finally pops. Baby boomers who expect to sell their houses at a profit lose their equity.

    Also, the US stock market is overpriced by a factor of 2 or so, based on historic P/E ratios. There's too much money in stocks because debt yields are so low. If interest rates go up, money moves from stocks to bonds. The stock market collapses.

    All this is well known. China is using it, too. The position of the Chinese government appears the People's Daily: The US must "break away from the "cultural superiority" theory, which stresses a certain set of values, because we have entered a new era featuring long-term coexistence and blending of various civilizations." That's clear enough, even though written in the rather oblique style of diplomacy.

    That's why the US has to suck up to China.

  110. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  111. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  112. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  113. What idiots modded you "Insightful"? by figgypower · · Score: 1

    I can sort of see being modded "Interesting," but insightful? What the hell is this? White guilt? China is a hugely repressive and opressive country and being originally a non-American from a country, which shares its border with China, I can tell you first hand that Americans are not the only way to feel this way. Just because you visited China and things looked dandy does not mean they are. Perhaps you need to visit countries like India, Nepal, or hell China as a non-tourist...

  114. You have never been to Washington DC have you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sort of thing happens every single day; hundreds of people do exactly what I described, and do not have anything happen to them.

    Look, I'm not much of a fan of this shit that is going on in the US today. But these people that think that the level of what happens is even remotely on par with China really do not have a clue.

  115. when are we going to war with the Chinese??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be about the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Sure lets go to war with a country the a military as large or larger than ours, a population of roughly 2 BILLION (i.e. about 4 times ours), and another major nuclear power. Can anyone say global nuclear winter?!? I don't care how much you disagree with the policies of China, going to war with them is suicidal.

  116. China's Chip on their Shoulder by jgardn · · Score: 1

    I read the speech you cited. It is absolutely wonderful and refreshing. It gives me a great deal of hope for China.

    One thing I got out of his speech is that he deplores the way Chinese thought and politics is so narrow-minded. He wants the students to look to China as their homeland and then do what they should to make it better. One of the problems China has is that it is sending some of its best and brightest away to the West, only to see them never return.

    I don't fault Microsoft for bending to Chinese political pressure. It's not Microsoft's fight! If I were a guest in that country, I would bow under whatever rules they had. Not because I am a wussy and I don't believe in inalienable rights, but because I am not Chinese and it's not my country so it's not my place to criticize. (Interestingly enough, this is the only reason why I believe you can justify being against the rebuilding and democratization policy in Iraq.)

    So that's why Microsoft is absolutely correct to bow to political pressure. Bill Gates has a voice in his own country, trying to improve education, reform patents, and change the way government works. It's his right and duty to do this. But does Bill Gates have a voice in China? Absolutely not. It's up to those students at the university to fight that fight, and that's what Li Ao told them.

    Li Ao also pointed out that when you have a moral dilemna, there is usually a good way to solve it. In this case, Microsoft is actually doing far greater for encouraging democracy by building the channel by which information can be distributed than the harm it is doing for shutting down one voice to comply with the government. It would be like telling the comfort women to not accept the money from Japan but then giving them many magnitudes more money to live their lives in peace and obtain the medical help they deserve.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  117. Flamebait my ass! by Hosiah · · Score: 1
    The Google case: "Google omits results from the government-banned sites if search requests are made through computers connecting to the Internet in China." Not the same thing. They're only dropping results from the searches in China, and if they didn't, they wouldn't be allowed to provide search to China at all. The websites containing the search terms did not disappear from the web - people in other countries can still see them.

    The Yahoo case: "Nonetheless, it is reportedly customary for e-mail service and Internet access providers to transmit information to the police about their clients when shown a court order." Again entirely different. I would hope that anyone at any time called on to testify would step forward and tell the truth and not lies. Yahoo was doing it's common civic duty, even though the purposes of the trial were unjust.

    The Cisco case: "The Cisco routers sold to China have the ability to block not only the main addresses for websites, but also specific sub-pages while leaving the rest of the site accessible." Yet another different matter. My own computer has the ABILITY to block websites based on content (such as gross pornography on my young children's account) - that's a tool. Big difference how I use it.

    Oh, do bring it on! I love how we're trying to malign Microsoft competitors while declaring that Microsoft can do no wrong! How desperate can you get?

    1. Re:Flamebait my ass! by rmpotter · · Score: 1

      I didn't say Microsoft was not in the wrong here. I can see how the prospect of sacrificing the entire Chinese market (and how many $millions in investment) to protect the rights of a single blogger would be a tricky moral choice to make. This is a moral decision i (and probably you) will never be called upon to make. Microsoft -- or Yahoo -- could try to argue that by collaborating a little they at least get to keep a Western influence (and a vague promise of free speech) alive in China. Maybe they don't think that way -- or if they do, maybe that is falacious also. I dunno.

      And yes, the other cases are somewhat different, but they DO illustrate various ways big business collaborates with questionable regimes for the sake of money. Of course _YOU_ can block sites with your router. But it's different when your own governement blocks sites for you, isn't it?

      Perhaps you would do well not to make this such a black and white issue. BTW, i spent about 5 minutes Googling to find those 3 examples. With a little more effort you can find plenty more of them.

      --
      Is this sig nificant?
    2. Re:Flamebait my ass! by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      This is a moral decision i (and probably you) will never be called upon to make.

      As a matter of fact, you lying bastard, I have made just exactly that choice. I could have 1.3 billion more readers/customers for my blog-ads, but would not put my blogs on MSN in order to do so. They are on Blogger, which is banned in China. I suppose I could praise communism, totalitarian dictatorships, and revoking of all freedoms in exchange for milking the Chinese profit machine, but I'd hate to steal the spotlight from morally bankrupt degenerate worthless slimeballs such as your proud self.

    3. Re:Flamebait my ass! by rmpotter · · Score: 1

      Wow. "lying bastard" and then "morally bankrupt degenerate worthless slimeballs". Such powerful argumentation. The free world is fortunate that your blog is not available in China -- otherwise you might just cause a big ol' war. In any case, you can have the last word if you decide to reply to this 'cause I won't be reading it. Peace and out, as they say.

      --
      Is this sig nificant?
  118. it's still censored by spir0 · · Score: 1

    the whole website has been replaced with these weird heiroglyphs. wtf?

    --
    The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
  119. Potentials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate - Monty Python

    Where do you draw the line of potential to be sentient?

  120. Andrew Leonard's latest by joeyspqr · · Score: 1

    I thought this from Salon was interesting ...

    for those not intereseted in RTFA, the punchline is
    "Until we demand that corporations start acting like real citizens at home, it's a little hard to expect that they are going to be good guys abroad."

    --
    +1 fashionably cynical
  121. Define harm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    except where their actions would harm another.

    You're gonna have to do a little better than that. You've left a loophole. Who defines harm? The people going ape shit over the fact that a 37 year old woman married a 15 year old 'boy' in Georgia perhaps? It's difficult for me to figure out how falling in love and producing children constitutes harm personally, but apparently, it's enough to qualify as child abuse. On the other hand, genital mutilation of newborn boys happens routinely here in the United States of America. I can see how cutting off a portion of a boys penis would qualify as child abuse. Nope, not in the land of the free.

    Please revise your definition and resubmit. Thank you :-)

  122. <crimethink /> by MacDork · · Score: 1
    Go America, China is teh suck!!11ONE11!

    When your own "great leader" is defending himself against charges of spying on the citizenry, holding captives indefinitely without trial, torturing prisoners, and invading sovereign nations based on fabricated evidence... you don't really have any moral high ground left to shout from. You act as though journalists are free to print whatever they want here in the United States. I beg to differ.

  123. The Corporate Empires by hackus · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is not the only one.

    Numerous articles are available on Slashdot.org about Cisco selling network software to hunt down, jail or "capture and pursuade" people who dare oppose the state on the internet.

    Tanks in the Square be damned all in the name of profits.

    Even now we are funding a state, that does not recognize the freedoms these corporations must have to even exist. The Chinese will be the next super power in the 21st century.

    I only hope they consider the "serfs" who service the Chinese economy (The West) as worthy to keep around after they have economically conquored the west.

    Of course, by then the CEO and shareholders will be dead, thier shares confiscated by the Chinese government in the name of "Security of the State".

    Better start learning Chinese, the world is going to be a lot different place, thanks to Cisco and Microsoft and whole host of Western companies willing to chuck it all, in the name of a share price.

    Most of the time Free Trade and Capitalism bring great benefits, but it does have it is by no means perfect by appealing to some of the baser instincts of individuals.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  124. You must think the Dalai Lama is evil, too by ccmay · · Score: 1
    Also, are you absolutely sure that you can get away with having the wrong opinions in America?

    As regards the government, yes. I can stand on a street corner and discuss my opinion on any subject whatsoever, with no fear of prosecution.

    As regards the political correctness commissars in most large companies, certainly not. But all they can do is fire me. In Europe or Canada, the mere statement of your sincerely held beliefs on homosexuality or race relations can get you locked in prison, as I'm sure you are aware.

    they are simply 'evil communists' who persecute pious religious practitioners like Falun Gong, American style 'evangelicals' and other representatives of the worst in mankind.

    Wow. So you're saying that the apolitical, tai-chi-practicing mystics of Falun Gong are representatives of the "worst in mankind", and not the people who were responsible for Tienanmen? Will you defend China's destruction of Tibetan Buddhism too? Nobody as evil as that ol' devil the Dalai Lama, is there. . .

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  125. Written from Windows Explorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, I was thinking about the whole Microsoft thing, and censorship, them wnating to be Big Brother and all. And I came up a way to make them finally embrace open source, a idea so powerful that they will accept it no question as soon as the idea is put out there. Here it is:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>,djfei87slkdfjasdf
    wekja;sdjk_ subversive content deleted, Explorer thought tracking intellegence software in action.>

    Hope that helps. Glad to know that the current level of technology gives us all a level freedom, so we can express ourselves and save the world.

  126. Babblefish translation by Hosiah · · Score: 1
    Sorry to be so self-serving, but I have posted a Konqueror babel-fish translation of his most recent blog-city post at http://techn0manc3r.blogspot.com/ my blog, if anybody wants to try reading it (Chinese to English is icky). His meaning does mostly come through, and in places he is quite poignant.

    My thanks to Trip-Master Monkey and 28481k for ferreting out the links.

  127. Oh Well by h0nke · · Score: 1

    This is the type of thing that happens if your country is communist.

  128. Re:Yeah...Yeah...Yeah by catahoula10 · · Score: 1

    "Foreign policy is one of the functions of the government..."


    It's all about money not functions.
    When China carried less of out debt via loans, and, when our trade deficits with China were small or in the black, we had balls. So, we dictated to them about our human rights, our values and what was the "American way" of doing things. But, decades latter they finance our wars --in addition to various other pork belly spending that our leaders just cannot seem to resist voting for. So....Its simple math. We need them and their money. Our government, as well as most U.S corporations doing business in China, walk on eggshells as to not piss them off. Or they just may cut us off from borrowing our own money. Makes sense to me.

    --
    This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
    Catahoula!