Chinese Ban on Wikipedia Prevents Research

An anonymous reader writes "China has banned access to Wikipedia for the third time, outraging students and intellectuals." From the article: "The latest blocking of the website, the third shutdown of the site in China in the past two years, has now continued for more than 10 weeks without any explanation and without any indication whether the ban is temporary or permanent ... Others said the blocking of Wikipedia has been a major blow to their research projects and even to their prospects of passing civil-service exams. 'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website."

Comments

Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[eldavojohn]

I guess we wait for another Tiananmen Square to happen again. It kind of makes one wonder what exactly was accomplished in 1989 when 100,000 protesters marched in Beijing. Appearantly not much.

While the U.S. is concerned with this, maybe we should instead be concerned with that?

Either way, if you're interested in what the U.S. is concerned about, maybe you should read documents made available by the Freedom of Information Act.

What are people supposed to do if they cannot free themselves from a suppressive government? It's not worth violence to be able to read wikipedia but it's clear that non-violent protests in the past did very little.

Re:Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[biocute]

I believe China has had its fair share of violent protests (which usually led to revolution and overturn of a government) throughout its history.

What I'm trying to say is, What shall be can be the is of what was - Lao Fu Tzu

Re:Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[edunbar93]

It kind of makes one wonder what exactly was accomplished in 1989 when 100,000 protesters marched in Beijing. Appearantly not much.

Oh no, there was *lots* accomplished by this protest, and the massacre that ensued.

The Chinese government proved to its citizenry that There Are Certain Things You Will Not Talk About.

The Chinese government proved to the rest of the world that it doesn't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about how They Run Their Country.

The American (and Canadian, and probably others too) government proved that they will walk on eggshells around the issue of free speech and human rights with China in order to get lucrative trade deals.

The Chinese government basically proved that not only can they crush dissent in *their* country, but in others too.

Re:Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[BewireNomali]

Agreed. Even more, in New York, marchers need permits from the city. How's that for non-violent protest. The bureaucracy has to pre-approve your protest before you can gather en masse. lol.

Marches might have worked for somebody way back when, but not today.

Re:Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[Stargoat]

"The Chinese seem to be okay without civil rights..." Tell that to my family, you sunvabitch. And there have been people like you before, "They don't need civil rights, they're black." Or "They shouldn't rush things like this, getting civil liberties is a process that takes time."

There can be no happiness without freedom. You have no idea what it is like to know that if the police come knocking, you need to hand over a thousand yuan or a loved one disappears. You don't know what it means to have classmates beaten so badly they leave police stations brain damaged and half dead, with no recourse. You don't know what it's like when the state owned company you worked for for 30 years decide that it is not going to pay the heat in the winter and the heating company turns it off and will not turn the heat back on for any amount of money. You have no idea what it is like to be required by law to work 80 hour weeks because the company you are at has decided that it's employees can produce more. You don't know what it's like to listen to your daughter call, worried about the riots in your city, only to be told by state run media that there are not any.

You seem to forget just how oppressive a Communist regime and a dictator can be. There is economic growth in China, and it is not trickling down. A few have become rich; most Chinese were better off sixty years ago under the KMT. All property and all rights in China are illusory.

There is no freedom in China. There is no happiness in China.

Re:Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[The-Bus]

I guess we wait for another Tiananmen Square to happen again.

I would like to know what this "Tiananmen Square" is, but alas, your links lead to Wikipedia.

Signed,

An Inquisitive Chinese 'Net User

Re:Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[susano_otter]

China has the power to plunge the world into violent chaos, if it does not get its way, and if its needs are not met.

What would you have the U.S. government do? Forsake peace and prosperity and an incremental approach to reforming China, in favor of cutting them off, putting their backs against a wall, and taking us all straight to World War IV?

I mean, it's an option, of course. Is it your option?

The fact is, China has been reforming incrementally even since before Tiananmen Square. They know what's going on. A lot of their policy is guided by a desire to meet their citizens' growing demands for freedom without plunging the country into the state of mafia-ruled anarchy that plagues the former Soviet Union today. They've learned a lot from Russia's rush to reform. The main lesson being: take it slow.

I think a lot of their current crackdown on the Internet has to do with limiting their people's access to outside information that will whet their appetite for reforms: An appetite that cannot be swiftly fed, and that, once awakened will lead to violent uprisings if not immediately sated.

I dunno. Maybe violent uprisings are the answer. And it's certain the people in power in China have their own best interests at heart, with the incremental approach.

But I ask you, what would you do? Would you rather put China in a position where they have nothing to lose? That leads to war--nuclear war, most likely. Or would you rather use international commerce as a tool for applying both carrots and sticks to China, to encourage them to join the free world at their own pace, but join it nonetheless?

If China was still relatively powerless (like, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq), then I'd be all about a forcible regime change, and the sooner the better.

But they're not.

The fact is, you have no idea what kind of pressure is really being brought to bear on the Chinese government. You have no idea what kinds of things get discussed in those trade negotiations. You have no idea what kinds of factors come into play, that might influence Chinese government policy on a broad spectrum, as a result of engaging with them economically instead of isolating them.

And you obviously have no idea what the potential ramifications of an isolationist policy with regard to China would be.

Or do you? Maybe I have you all wrong, and you're some kind of expert Far East Asia SocioPolitial Analyst, who has it all figured out. If so, please point us to your scholarly papers, detailed analysis, and/or personal blog full of insightful commentary on the subject. Enlighten us, please: how do we go about isolating China to force a faster rate of reform, without forcing them into war, instead? In what material way would it differ in appearance from what the western powers are doing right now? Don't forget to account for all the other constraints, influences, boundaries, and assorted limitations that western politicians must work within, in order to bring this peaceful reform of China about (including, of course, the sad fact of human weakness both in elected officials and in the masses that elect them).

Re:Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[Gulthek]

I've seen happiness in China. I've seen happiness in Tibet. I've seen happiness in Xinjiang. I've seen happiness in Yunnan.

I've talked to people on the street, I've talked to people in hutongs, I've talked to people in high-rise apartments.

Maybe you should talk to them too.

Things aren't perfect, they aren't even great in many places, but it certainly isn't a cultural revolution type situation over there anymore.

The 20th century was brutal for China, but change doesn't happen overnight. In fact, a great deal of the problems came from change happening overnight.

Would you really want China to go back to the chaos that she saw in the 1910s after the collapse of the Qing dynasty?

Re:Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[MillionthMonkey]

Agreed. Even more, in New York, marchers need permits from the city. How's that for non-violent protest.

That's so they can set up a fenced-in area and call it a "First Amendment Zone". All protest is required to take place inside this fenced-in area. You still have your First Amendment rights, but only inside the fence. They are usually set up a considerable distance away from whatever event is being protested, and reporters are forbidden to speak to or take pictures of anyone inside.

It's what the Framers intended.

Re:Back to (Tiananmen) Square One?

[metternich]

China has had several thousand protests a year for the last few years and they're getting more numerous. They're only getting scant attantion in the Western media though, since it's mostly poor people protesting poor wages, unsafe working conditions, corrupt officials, government abuses, etc., rather than media savy students fighting for democracy.

Wikipedia may not always be the best choice

[erick99]

I do enjoy using Wikipedia for day-to-day use but I would not have used it for either of my Masters Thesis' as I don't think either oral defense committee would have accepted Wiki as an authoritative source. Perhaps that is different from school to school. Still, I wonder about the student puzzling how he/she will finish a thesis. I would suggest using mostly journal articles.

Re:Wikipedia may not always be the best choice

[MoonFog]

I found Wikipedia to be an excellent starting point on several issues when I was writing my thesis, but I did not use it as the source itself. The explanations on wikipedia are often very good and will give some insight into a topic you can explore further with more indepth research papers.

They're just mad

[Anonymous Coward]

That wikipedia blamed John Seigenthaler for the Tiananmen Square conspiracy.

If this guy's thesis depends on Wikipedia...

[winkydink]

then one has to question the quality of Chinese degrees.

Quit Whining!

[Shadow Wrought]

They may have blocked wikipedia, but they still have the uncyclopedia as a backup, so they should be good to go on their research- especially considering today's WotD;-)

Chinese need a Satmodem

[digitaldc]

Using a satellite modem or Satmodem, you can bypass the censors.
Read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_modem
Or, maybe not.

For anyone who can read this in China...try http://www.zensur.freerk.com/

Major blow to research??

[truthsearch]

Wikipedia has been a major blow to their research projects...

Unless their researching social networking and open content systems that's really sad. I can't believe the content on Wikipedia should serve as a very significant source to any research other than to it's social influences. That would be like saying Britannica was a major source for a research project... that couldn't possibly be taken seriously.

It's certainly a blow to free speech. But if this hurts any unrelated research projects those projects should find much better sources anyway.

Other sources of research

[khaledh]

How can I do my thesis now? a university student asked on another Chinese website.

How did all grad students complete their theses before the Wikipedia era? As a matter of fact, grads don't refer to encyclopedias when doing research. They refer more often to the literature (books, scientific journals, conference proceedings, etc.)

There's even sites dedicated to research literature. Try CiteSeer http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/, or even Google Scholar http://scholar.google.com/.

Of coures Wikipedia can help a lot when you want to have a quick reference on subject matter, but there are also much more comprehensive avenues of research that can be used.

Re:Advice: Revolution.

[tomhudson]

Others said the blocking of Wikipedia has been a major blow to their research projects and even to their prospects of passing civil-service exams. 'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website."

Soap, Ballot, Ammo; yes, of course.

Unfortunately the first use must often be in reverse order.

There is a more peaceful solution - just go to the friging library and READ (oh, but that's too hard. I can't just google for the "good bits" - I'll have to read everything IN CONTEXT!)

"Research" is not the same as a quick google or yahoo. Anyone caught depending entirely on cut-n-paste citations from the web deserves a zero, and only because you can-t award a lower mark.

Do any of you understand the research process?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is a great source of information for research papers, specifically the Wikipedia citations. Wikipedia allows a broad overview of a subject, which is helpful in guiding the author, but overall its principle value is a collection of relevant, human-verified links, many of which lead to primary authorities on the subject matter.

I almost always head to Wikipedia before Google when doing research, for this reason. (I work in SEO, by the way)

Imagine, if you will...

[Billosaur]

Every government official in China editing a Wikipedia entry - talk about re-writing history! Perhaps Wikipedia should be blocking China.

Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I don't know if China as we know it is more doomed by their absurd governmental policies, or by the fact that their uyounger generation's research seems to depend on the archived wisdom of random people on the street. I'll grant Wikipedia is getting better, but (a) to depend on it as a primary source of scholarship at this point is absurd and (b) even in China, especially at universities, there are other options.

Unless one's thesis is on the Wikipedia, anyone depending oslely on Wikipedia for research needs a reality slap.

Remember the tanks

[matt me]

Excuse me, think back to that guy, standing in the path of the line of tanks, and stopping them. Even if it accomplished nothing locally, that has to be one of THE most touching images of the last century, that has inspired thousands to get up stand up for their rights.

Re:Remember the tanks

[susano_otter]

The thing about death is, the only thing you can do about it is laugh.

It's inevitable. What are you going to do? Spend your time moping about the end in store for you? Or live your life with verve and panache?

"Was he inspired by the Rage cover"? Good stuff.

Almost as good as that Fark p-shop showing the Vietnamese general holding a Starbucks coffee mug to the head of a captured Viet Cong guerrilla. That was comedy gold.

In other news...

[hosecoat]

"'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website."

China's response was to block the 'other Chinese website' as well.

Nothing beats a gumshoe

[dclydew]

There seems to be a common theme in cop and detective stories... young hero that wants to use the latest technology to solve crimes and an old grizzled cop that says something like "In the end, you only solve crimes by hitting the pavement and asking questions".

It seems that the advice could apply in many areas. The Internet and its features may be great tools... but in the end, if you're trying to honestly research something, nothing beats cracking some books and reading, comprehending and putting it all together. Wikipedia should not be a critical resource for anyone but blog commenters, and then only because speed and words that sound authoritative seem more in demand than facts.

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[eldavojohn]

Unless one's thesis is on the Wikipedia, anyone depending oslely on Wikipedia for research needs a reality slap.

I don't think it's really fair for you to say something like this unless you live in China and get along fine with the suppression of websites.

Afterall, I've found very helpful things on Wikipedia. I just wrote a Hidden Markov Model using the Viterbi Algorithm and did it from scratch in Java using WordNet and this page. Am I saying I could write a paper off of Wikipedia? No, but when that's all you have to work with, it may be more important than you think.

Re:Must be pretty bad off in China..

[LionMage]

he makes us use a crummy encyclopedia that isn't checked for accuracy like Wikipedia is such as Britanica.

Are you serious?

First of all, I can't imagine a college professor letting you get away with citing an encyclopedia at all. The whole point of doing college assignments is learning to use primary sources of information. This isn't high school!

Secondly, Britannica has much better fact checking than Wikipedia. The fact that some Wikipedia articles have glaring errors that don't get caught and corrected for months at a stretch is bad; some of these errors are the result of intentional vandalism, and unless you've been living under a rock the last few months, you're no doubt aware that some of this vandalism is in fact libel. I'd link to the Slashdot coverage of the most famous of these events, but it looks like you need a refresher course in doing basic research...

Don't assume that just because Wikipedia is being scanned by a bunch of eyeballs every day, that Wikipedia must automatically be better fact-checked. Not every reader of Wikipedia is an expert, so not every reader is qualified to make revisions or write authoritatively on the "facts" presented. Furthermore, not all articles on Wikipedia are checked equally; the more popular articles get more eyeballs than the obscure articles.

Re:Does nyud.net:8090 work in china?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Of course it works. The Chinese censors know nothing of these complicated "Interweb" tricks.

You're correct of course

[flyinwhitey]

In cases like this there are always individuals that forget what's going on around them long enough to prove themselves idiots.

It always struck me as funny how often the same people bitching about American imperialism conveniently forget their previous arguments when it comes to the internet in China.

Sorry hypocrites, you can't have it both ways. China is a sovereign state, so while you may disagree, YOU have no right sticking your nose in their business, or spreading so-called "American values".

And you can thank the left for that particular argument, because I stole it straight from an anti-war in Iraq website.

What I'd like know...

[gfxguy]

I already know the answer is money, but why do we continue to do business with China when we boycott Cuba and N. Korea? When was the last time Cuba made one of our planes crash and held it captive? When was the last time N. Korea did that? Why is it so important for Yahoo, Google, and MS to continue to kowtow to China? Do these companies have no ethics?

Why do people in the U.S. buy cheap American flags made in China?

The whole thing disgusts me, and it has nothing to do with left/right, democrats/republicans - they all love the open policy towards China.

Re:What I'd like know...

[bhima]

I dare sare you've hit on one of the most fundamental flaws in capitalism

Internet censorship in mainland China (fix)

[jacoplane]

See the article on Internet censhorship in China too. It's probably articles like this that have the Chinese Govt annoyed. However, I would agree with the article that by blocking off access they are pretty much ensuring that articles such as this will have a more western-oriented tilt. Of course, Wikipedia has a policy of NPOV, which should allow both criticism and supporting viewpoints. If there's one thing I've learned about the Chinese govt from seeing how they handled SARS and the recent factory disaster, it's that this kind of transparency is something they cannot get to grips with.

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[GoodOmens]

I think your missing the point (or I'm reading to much into it). China is denying citizens access to information that it can't censor itself.

Sure a student could go read a regular encyclopedia, but what good is it if the goverment took all the "good" information out of it before he had a chance to read it?

Re:Advice: Revolution.

[programic]

That isn't the approach Eisenhower took with the Soviets. His idea was that to compete globally, they must educate themselves, and that would "sow the seeds of their own destruction." (meaning the destruction of communism). It did.

It is interesting to know this and see all the Chinese students enrolled in our American universities. I think it is just a matter of time--"holding the line" as Eisenhower called it.

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[dpiven]

I don't think it's really fair for you to say something like this unless you live in China and get along fine with the suppression of websites.

[...]

Am I saying I could write a paper off of Wikipedia? No, but when that's all you have to work with, it may be more important than you think.

Anyone else think this could be the Intelligent Design Manifesto? After all, if all one has is the Book of Genesis from which to teach biology... or, for that matter, videos of "The 700 Club" from which to teach Modern Western Religion...

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[pla]

I don't think it's really fair for you to say something like this unless you live in China and get along fine with the suppression of websites.

Do you live in the US?

Can you legally visit child porn sites (or if certain people have their way, ANY porn sites in the near future)?

Oh, but that breaks the law, you no doubt protest... Well, guess who writes the law? The government. And China has one of those as well, to write their laws.

But perhaps you'd prefer a more "fair" comparison? Okay...

Can you go download Grokster? Visit I2Hub? LokiTorrent? Run the original Napster client (successfully)?

All societies have taboos, and all societies believe that those taboos protect either all of society or the target of the taboo. Sometimes that holds true, and sometimes it does not.

In the US, we believe in practically ANYTHING justified by "for the kids". We believe corporate profit and domestic security trump personal freedoms. We believe we have quite a lot of rights that the courts regularly laugh out of court.

China believes certain religious, political, and economic philosophies constitute a grave danger to their society. And actually, they have that correct, in that at least on the political and economic front, those banned ideas will eventually destroy their existing government. But if you replace "democracy" with "theocracy", "Falun Gong" with "Radical Islam", and "capitalism" with "socialism", can Americans really claim themselves as so much more enlightened?

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[NotoriousQ]

Can you legally visit child porn sites (or if certain people have their way, ANY porn sites in the near future)?

No, I can not.

Is it legal for the government to place filters in place so that I can not find them?

No, it is not.

Is it legal for the government to take down those site, and arrest the owners?

Yes, it is.

Can you go download Grokster? Visit I2Hub? LokiTorrent? Run the original Napster client (successfully)?

Yes, from p2p networks, quite legally too.
Probably not any more (unless I2hub is decentralized).
Do not know what lokitorrent is. I suppose it is down.
No, it is down.

Is any of it due to government cencorship?
No.

Please be careful distinguishing government intervention and bulk censorship (as opposed to personal responsibility) with perfectly sane laws quite endorsed by the society.

Is it legal to commit murder? No
Is it legal to threaten with murder? No
Is it legal to think about murder? Yes

Cencorship begins only when that last question has to be answered with a "no".

Wikipedia Alternative

[Philip K Dickhead]

Try http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page> Uncyclopedia , a bold and innovative new way to catalogue and disseminate the knowlege of the world.

China (real name, Christina Longford) will be ready, willing and able to do the bird all night.

BTW: What kind of Doctoral candidate is threatened by inavailability of ONE general resource?

Why not use Wikipedia as propoganda?

[potus98]

Instead of blatently blocking the Wikipedia site, couldn't it be more effective for the communists to update the content of the articles to refelct more positiviely on China and their policies?

Re:Must be pretty bad off in China..

[LionMage]

Wikipedia's accuracy and Britannica's accuracy were pretty similar on well-researched and popular topics

I quoted the above snippet from your comment to amplify a point -- what about the Wikipedia articles that aren't as popular and aren't as well-researched? At least with more traditional encyclopedias like Britannica, there's a certain minimum standard of fact checking and research that goes into each article before it is included. I don't think the same can be said for Wikipedia.

And, as I've said elsewhere, Britannica doesn't have a problem with vandalism.

This isn't to say that I don't find Wikipedia useful... just not authoritative from an academic standpoint.

Re:So, if it were up to you...

[truthsearch]

Since the major media doesn't regularly report on Chinese attrocities like they do Iraq's that means their not performing them? You don't know about the thousands of tortured prisoners? And the people who've killed their first born child to hide the fact it was a girl to prevent government penalties? And the children who work in practically slave labor, endangering their health?

And how about the nuclear weapons pointed at us? And the economic threat as they undercut us in production costs? But that's ok because the top echelon of wealthiest Americans are becoming richer because of it. Therefore China isn't a threat to the rest of us Americans, right?

Stop watching Fox News and start reading.

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[Anonymous Coward]

A government that would be brought down by mere public knowledge of international criticism and ideals has no right to stand.

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[pla]

Is it legal for the government to place filters in place so that I can not find them?

We'll have to wait for the rather conservative USSC to decide on Utah's most recent attempt to do exactly that, before we can say "no".


Is it legal for the government to take down those site, and arrest the owners?

Which differs how from China taking down sites and arresting people who blog about any of a number of banned subjects?

Oh, right... Because our hangups express the highest degree of enlightenment possible, while China's come from ignorance and greed. Silly me.


Is any of it due to government cencorship?

Yes, actually, three of those four shut down as a result of GOVERNMENT intervention (and the fourth just from the threat thereof), because someone, somewhere, might use them to commit a victimless civil-penalties-only crime.


perfectly sane laws quite endorsed by the society.

Forgive me if I err, but that statement leads me to strongly suspect you of trolling...

No problem

[PMuse]

'How can I do my thesis now?' a university student asked on another Chinese website.

Answer: the same way they did theses way back in 2000. Unless, of course, Wikipedia was in some way the subject of this poor unfortunate's research, in which case he is well and truly screwed. If so, he needs to pay a visit to Droz.

Droz: Okay, what's your major?
Supplicant1: - Um, particle physics.
Droz: - Ooh, that's a tough one. Let me see... Ooh. "Motion of Helium Atoms In An Excited State." Watch out. It's a scorcher.

Droz: - Next.
Supplicant1:- Uh, Sanskrit.
Droz: Sanskrit. You're majoring in a 5000-year-old dead language.
Supplicant2: Yeah.
Droz: Okay... Ooh. Latin. It's the best I can do.

Droz: - Next.
Supplicant3:- Phys Ed.
Droz: Phys Ed. Okay, you're out of my room. Seriously. Get out.

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[warkda rrior]

[...] if you replace [...] "Falun Gong" with "Radical Islam" [...] can Americans really claim themselves as so much more enlightened?

This parallel kills your whole argument.

Falun Gong has not killed anyone and, as far as I know, does not promote killing people who do follow Falun Gong. On the other hand, Radical Islam has killed people and continuously promotes killing the "infidels" who do not believe in Radical Islam.

Apples... oranges...

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[Hasai]

Why is it, do you think, that every totalitatian regime that comes along seems to somehow automatically spawn an army of apologists?

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[XMilkProject]

You make an invalid point. These things are kept secret not to keep the government from being brought down, but to keep Americans from getting killed. Do you really think anyone just feels the need to spy for their own benefit? How does it benefit them? They are spying to try to keep people alive, not to benefit themselves.

Feel free to argue that their methods are flawed, as they very likely are, but it certainly is not done to protect the government in the way that Chinese censorship is, but rather the people.

I'm completely baffled by this American feeling that no government department should keep secrets from the general public. I guess our American media has started this sentiment. But /. readers of all people should understand that much of the general public is incapable of dealing with various types of information. And apart from that, you must remember that it's not possible to just share information with Americans, anything that we are told is also told to the entire rest of the world.

Compare and contrast...

[msauve]

China has the power to plunge the world into violent chaos, if it does not get its way, and if its needs are not met. What would you have the U.S. government do? Forsake peace and prosperity and an incremental approach to reforming China, in favor of cutting them off, putting their backs against a wall, and taking us all straight to World War IV?

-Susano Otter, 1/10/2006

We are resolved that the method of consultation shall be the method adopted to deal with any other questions that may concern our two countries, and we are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace of Europe...My good friends this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time.

-Neville Chamberlain, 9/30/1938

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[syukton]

UMass student admits "Little Red Book" Hoax:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=510754

In addition to forgetting, you also evidently didn't do any due diligence on the linked material.

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[misleb]

Is any of it due to government cencorship?
No.

Of course it is. The government censors child pornography. You can't view it, you can't dispplay it, you can't trade it. What else would you call this besides censorship?

Please be careful distinguishing government intervention and bulk censorship (as opposed to personal responsibility) .

So if it isn't done "bulk," it isn't censorship? What about broadcast TV, isn't that censored? Don't the networks have to pass their material by censors before they can put it on the air? Should we change their job title because you are uncomfortable with the fact that the US government employs censorship to some degree? You might argue that the networks hire their own censors, but what rules do you think the censors go by... the FCC, right?

with perfectly sane laws quite endorsed by the society

From what I understand, "bulk" censorship is quite endorsed by the majority of the Chinese population. Just as censorship of child pornography is quite endorsed by the majority of the US population.

Is it legal to commit murder? No
Is it legal to threaten with murder? No
Is it legal to think about murder? Yes

Cencorship begins only when that last question has to be answered with a "no".

Hardly. Even the Chinese are allowed to think about the things that are censored. They might be oppressed, but they don't quite have thought police yet.

-matthew

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[manifoldronin]

China believes certain religious, political, and economic philosophies constitute a grave danger to their society. And actually, they have that correct, in that at least on the political and economic front, those banned ideas will eventually destroy their existing government.

There goes down the toilet your whole argument - ideas destroying "their society" are not necessarily those that would destroy "their existing government". What's interesting is, it's usually a government that's afraid of being overthrown would attempt to sneak in and substitute the two words and make its citizens believe that "the government is the society."

Re:Why not leave?

[xenocide2]

Well, I'll take on your bear of a question. Keep in mind that I don't particularly favor China's administration or its policies.

First off, according to the CIA World factbook, China's population is about 1.5 billion. This is out of about 6.5 billion world wide. Their unemployment rate is about ten percent nationally, with a reported "unemployment and underemployment rate" at twice that. I think its safe to say that very few of these people have the weath required to simply leave. Also remember that few Chinese have the kind of means access to the internet you have in the first place. I don't just mean unfiltered content, but a physical computer and stable and affordable electricity to power it. Of course, this isn't the only means of censoring dissent. Newspapers are frequently accused of whitewashing and publishing only approved content. But even if 1 billion Chinese who felt oppressed and/or unserved by the current authorities wanted and could afford to migrate, it would be difficult to accomodate them. Putting these people to work, in say France, would be difficult since few would have the language skills nessecary, among other things. Shifting that many people is simply untenable in the short term.

Furthermore, even if nations had the available housing and whatnot to accomodate this, many are unwilling to accept large numbers of immigrants. The nation most able to accommodate Chinese immigrants is probably the US, as we've got plenty of land and are a next exporter of food. But I'm sure you've witnessed the backlash to border patrolling and outsourcing lately. Protectionist laws favoring the current labor pool are a large force to recon with and would quickly moblize to squash any such mass immigration bill in Congress. Additionally, the current administration seems paralyzed, in a way, by the terrorist attacks on the WTC. Because such a immigration allowance would be considered a security risk, theres no way the administration would ever propose this. Hell, even student visas are down after 9/11, as some of the attackers were here on visas. It seems some people love America's prosperity, and others love it's freedom, but nobody will trade one to give the other to everyone.

In the long term, the best option is to reform China's pratices. Theoretically, China has democratic means to address social problems. In some ways, the authoritarian executive branch (unelected, btw) is an ally of change, and an enemy. For example, take the number from the CIA world factbook for China's male to female birth rate. 115:100 is a pretty damn high number, and you probably know why. Wikipedia suggests that a recent finding thinks its partly to do with hepatitis, but there's still a cultural bias against having a daughter. The Chinese administration has taken a couple of good steps towards solving the problem of infanctide. On the otherhand, the administration also takes very poorly to criticism of its policies, and allowing the public to hear it. I subscribe to the John Stuart Mill's philosophy that both truth and opinion are public goods, and look forward to the day in which the administration submits to the democratic process as well. But I expect that as long as their economy is doing better, there won't be any leverage for that to happen. There's still humanitarian things that could be addressed, but perhaps we should look in the mirror before preaching abroad.

Simply put, people deserve a government that acts in their own interests without having to resort to democracy of the foot.

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[neodragonslayer]

You must be new here.

The reason it was modded Overrated was because Overrated and Underrated mods don't show up in Metamoderation.

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[stor]

The government censors child pornography. You can't view it, you can't dispplay it, you can't trade it. What else would you call this besides censorship?

Child pornography (as a product) requires commiting heinous crimes to produce it.

Even if you were just a "consumer" of it and didn't produce it yourself, you'd still be supporting those who are commiting sexual crimes against children.

It's a very different situation than, say, banning a violent/sexually explicit game.

Cheers
Stor

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[misleb]

Child pornography (as a product) requires commiting heinous crimes to produce it.

Even if you were just a "consumer" of it and didn't produce it yourself, you'd still be supporting those who are commiting sexual crimes against children.

What if it is pirated kiddie porn and no money changes hands. Would it be OK then? I doubt it. Not by the law.

Look, I'm not saying censoring kiddie porn isn't justifiable. I'm just pointing out that it is still censorship.

It's a very different situation than, say, banning a violent/sexually explicit game.

Different situation. Both censorship.

-matthew

Re:Doomed. Doomed, I tell you!

[misleb]

It is not, because if I chose to do it, I can. I will be put in jail, but the government does not have a system in place to effectively prevent me.

And the Chinese have ways of getting around website blocks using proxies and such. Are you saying that if there is some way aound the censorship, it isn't censorship? Perhaps it is a little more involved to get around teh Great Firewall, but it is certainly possible. You're really reaching here. I don't know why you are so loath to admit that the US government engages in censorship to some degree.

BTW, I noticed that you conveniently snipped out my comments about broadcast TV censors. Why do you think they call them censors? Censorship doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, ya know. There are all kinds of ways to limit and manipulate information to some end.

Personal responsibility, not government censorship is preventing me from doing these things. Look at the murder example: the government is not censoring my ability to murder. I can think about it, I can accomplish it, I will likely end up a criminal. But censorship has not been involved.

Bad example. Censorship generally deals with the dissemination of information, not actions. You can't really censor an action, per se.

From what I understand, "bulk" censorship is quite endorsed by the majority of the Chinese population.

No, it is not. Otherwise, there would be no people protesting the blocking mechanism. You do not see people protesting the child porn laws in the US, do you? (Yea, there are a few nuts probably, but nothing like an actual protest)

People I've heard from who have lived in China seem to be under the impression that the bulk of the Chinese people support their government. China is a really big country. The few that are protesting represent a small minority. You might argue the people who are not protesting don't really know how horrible the government is because of censhorship and would probably be pretty disgusted if they know what was really going on, but the fact is that they support the government.

As I am sure we all we be somewhat disgusted by our government if we knew what was REALLY going on behind closed doors. But we don't know. Besides profanities on broadcast TV and kiddie porn, there are many other things that the government does effectively prevent the people from knowing much about.

Even the Chinese are allowed to think about the things that are censored.

That's the problem. They are not. Sites have been taken down that criticize the Great Firewall.

In what way does that stop them from thinking about these things? They know that a Great Firewall exists. What stops them from criticizing it in their own minds?

-matthew