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..."
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.