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..."
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!
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.
A lot more information on this story can be found at Rebecca MacKinnon's RConversation.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
when companies who claim to take pride in living in a "free" country facilitate repression abroad.
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?
"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.
1 9newworldofwork.asp
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-
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
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.
...on the same site? What happens if the Chinese govt. decides that a US blogger is violating their laws?
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.
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.
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.
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!
Nothing could be more true!
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.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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?
Furthermore, who decides what is moral?
Killing and imprisoning dissenters is a Bad Thing. There is no discussion needed.
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
Is Microsoft killing and imprisoning dissenters?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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"!!!
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."
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
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.
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 ]
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.