Slashdot Mirror
Chinese, U.S. Condemn Censorship
More reactions both at home and abroad to the censorship issue. picaro writes "According to the BBC, 'party elders' in China released an open letter decrying the current state of censorship in China, and suggesting that 'history demonstrates that only a totalitarian system needs news censorship, out of the delusion that it can keep the public locked in ignorance.'" LWATCDR writes "The US government is upset over restrictions of freedom of speech on the Internet. The United States, has 'very serious concerns' about the protection of privacy and data throughout the Internet globally, and in particular, some of the recent cases raised in China."
wouldnt the 'protection of privacy and data' be 'censorship' ?
China is now looking for a more "fair and balanced" way to report the day's headlines.
One of those countries is being hypocritical in their remarks. The other is in Asia.
Who is this letter being addressed to? Who will it reach that have the power to change the status quo?
I'm wondering what purpose this announcement serves. I'm glad to hear this, but is this just lipservice or a precursor to some real action?
I'm at a loss as to how such a major policy change can be brought about in China aside from a sudden onset of mass altruism. Part of it stems from a very poor understanding of the Chinese government structure. I'm sure I'm not the only one in the U.S that doesn't know.
Can someone fill in these information gaps?
Or double-speak. It's hard to tell them apart if done correctly.
It would be trivially easy for the Chinese leadership to appraoch Google, Y! et al and say "Just serve up the same search results as you do in any other country. We won't throw anyone in jail or kick your servers out of the country if you do. We welcome the internal discussion this would provoke because we want to support free speech."
Let's see if in fact they do that. Nothing short of that exact approach is likely going to cut it.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Sadly, the writers made the unfortunate mistake of pointing out important parts using the infamous "black highlighter." They could not be located for clarification.
Paul Grosfield - the quicker picker upper.
If China censors free speech, that's bad.
But if fundamentalist religious zealots threaten us with violence for exercising free speech, we're okay with that.
Seriously - WTF?
What?
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland all tied for 1st place.
The USA ranked 44th. (Fell more than 20 places)
China ranked 159th.
Now "Party Elders" really means "former party officials", so this isn't indicating change from the inside. Still a stunning statement. The close ties of the people signing the letter to Mao seems significant... Though the cynical part of me notes that at least two of them were explicitly propagandists, implying this may simply be more of the same (but to what purpose, I don't know). Yet the statement "only a totalitarian system needs news censorship" is one of those things that is so true it doesn't matter who says it.
The enemies of Democracy are
...but I can't shake that there are a number of implicit "of courses" in play, e.g. "Of course, no-one should even want to print the opinions of the reactionary remnant in Tibet Province and their revanchist terrorist partisans abroad, so severe psychiatric treatment would be indicated for those who do."
There's also this history of letting one hundred flowers bloom...so you know which ones need cutting-down.
I'd rather be wrong about this but.
ConsultingFair.com
In my view the Chinese censorship is ultimately doomed to failure. The internet is so dynamic that there will always be "sensitive" content that slips through the net. Also it is fundamental human nature to be curious. If you see a big red button labelled "do not press" - your immediate thoughts are "I wonder what would happen if I did?". Similarly if you censor content the natural reaction is "I wonder what I am not being told?". With that curiousity added to human ingenuity, it means that people will always find ways around the censors. Sooner or later the Chinese will realise this and censorship will end.
The day those in government stop accepting Chinese money to fund our historic spending is the day we can start taking our government seriously when it makes value judgements against China.
If they're so evil, stop accepting the money, it's really simple
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
It's all just talk until things change. I'll ignore the public statements and wait for change before altering my opinion, thank you.
Developers: We can use your help.
So, first they model their cencorship policy on our "model", then they criticize it. And apprently, we agree with them..
I'm so confused...
All I'm going to say is that actions speak louder than words. I'll believe it when i see it.
The U.S. is as concerned about "privacy rights" as casinos are in letting you win. The quote comes from State Department flunky Josette Shiner, a 15-year veteran of the Washington Times and a member of the cult known as the "Unification Church". When a Moonie tells you, on behalf of the U.S. Government, that the government is interested in personal privacy it's time to run in the other direction as fast as possible. FWIW Shiner got her appointment from Bush to the State Dept. as a political favor to the Moonies for their support.
When a woman who has spent the majority of her adult life in service to Rev. Moon there's very little credibility there.
Yeah! We don't care much about privacy, but we'll be damned if we let censorship stand!
...unless we deem something immoral.
But seriously, it's harder to monitor what someone thinks, if you've got them buttoned down tight with censorship.
'party elders' found dead.
We're censoring contraceptives now? The far right in this country is really taking things too.. what's that?
Oh, heh.. nevermind.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
In all fairness, the US openly and actively participates in content Censorship. That is, copyright controlls. While it may not seem like censorship, the fact is that there is no technology in existence that can automatically distinguish between free spech content and copyright content. In the information age, you can not have individuals or corporations controlling media content chanels to the end user unless they will also have the power to controll speech content.
For those who don't think this is a possibility, governments (blacks law dictionary) and religions (think scientology) and corporations (think diebold) already routinely try to use copyright controlls to controll speech, research, and opinions. Unless society kills copyright, this problem will only grow exponentially worse.
INHO, copyrights are some of the biggest censorship tools ever created. It is hypocritical to point to China when we have such a huge gaping problem ourselves.
For instance, they're [REDACTED] about the [REDACTED] insofar as [REDACTED] is concerned, and yet they continually [REDACTED] the [REDACTED] for as long as they can [REDACTED].
I wish they'd address those issues as well.
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
many say the prophet mohammed cartoons were a direct provocation of muslim sensibilities. and they would be correct. and equally true is that many muslims are rightfully deeply insulted by the cartoons... but most of them they stew in their anger in silence, or wage peacful protests. and some say the western media only focuses on the most violent of reactions. there is some truth to this too.
however, the problem is that, even with all of these mitigations, there is still a worrisome, large segment of the muslim world that thinks their reaction, violence, is appropriate. in other words...
1. the muslims were provoked: true
2. most muslims react peacefully and appropriately: true
3. western media shows a disproportionate amount of violent reaction: true
and yet, after all of those mitigations, there still really are a lot of muslims, a disporportionately, worrying large amount, who reacted with violence. and this points to a real problem in the muslim world, that haters of the west, and apologists for the muslim world, or anyone else for that matter, would be foolish to think they can ignore as a serious issue.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1) There are only a few top post in China that provide policy direction. Most of it currently filled by Hu, a civil engineer by trade (thus all the rail road, dam and other civil projects got a lot more funding.) 2) There is also a people's congress full of semi-elected people (some of them are appointed by local governments, some elect by villages, some by state companies). They mostly just rubber stamp what the top people want to do. But sometime they don't. 3) There is also a mass of state and local governments. The major cities' governments are controled closely from the top. But small cities and villages local government mostly ignore what ever the top tell them and do their own thing. 4) For a non-elect government, they still respond closely to the needs of the poeple. Like when the difference between rich and poor became an identified problem. The state abolished tax for the bottom 20%, lowered gas price for farmers and removed residency requirment to work in most cities. 5) To get to the top in Chinese Government, you would start in some government office. Then work your personal relationships, or prove yourself.
Does that mean their propaganda will be presented in a "no spin zone"?
FanFictionRecs.net
I'm not a Chinese citizens, but I have friends who are. They tell me that the way it works is that most dissidence is basically punished in economic ways. So a college student who protests might not be throw in jail, but he/she will find that they are unable to get a job for the rest of their lives. Other transgressions can be handled similarly. For example, having more than one kid can land you in similar trouble.
Those writing the letters might feel that they are safe, since they probably have enough saved up for retirement. It's still kind of dangerous for their families though.
The United States, has 'very serious concerns' about the protection of privacy and data throughout the Internet globally...
Hey, there's some progress. Next thing you know, the US will be voicing it's "very serious concerns" about warrantless searches.
Yes, censorship and government control of popular mentality are inherently totalitarian, but I've got a feeling that the condemnation has nothing to do with this, and everything to do with the fact that China is a rising world power. Not to say that I don't want freedom for the Chinese people and conquered states, but I believe that this is not really about Fascism at all.
I do not believe Google should get out of China, since their presence is serving the Chinese people, and that their withdrawal would cause less, not more, information to be availiable to the Chinese people. I am getting the feeling that the US is more commited to it's own dominance to the Chinese people, or they would have understood that Google China is better for the Chinese people.
My new blog
> If China censors free speech, that's bad.
>
> But if fundamentalist religious zealots threaten us with
> violence for exercising free speech, we're okay with that.
Find a single person who is "okay with that."
The whole cartoon situation is two problems, one much worse than the other. First, printing something that is offensive (shouldn't be a big deal, it happens every day, but it is still offensive). Second, reacting violently - which is completely inexcusable.
"To think that someone can stand on their soapbox and rant on about something that infuriates others and not have their ass kicked shows a severe lack of common sense."
if someone attacks you violently for what you say, they are wrong. the punishment for a crime cannot exceed the damage caused by the crime. otherwise, you have an escalation of violence. you cannot blame someone for inciting you to do a crime which is worse than the crime you are resonding to
if i slap you, and you shoot me in the face in return, me slapping you has not justified your reaction. meanwhile, if i slap you, and you slap me back, that's totally justified. but you cannot blame me for you choosing to escalate the violence in a situation. escalating the violence is entirely your fault. if you escalate the situation, even if someone attacked you, then you now share the blame. your response to an insult cannot be greater than the insult, or you are creating your own insult, that is your own responsibility in totality
if you sleep with someone's wife, it is common sense that the husband might be pissed about that. but it is also true that if the husband kills you for sleeping with his wife, he did a crime worse than the crime he is punishing
in other words, your understanding of common sense is wrong. common sense dictates that the punishment for a crime should not be worse than a crime. in a society where the punishment for a crime is worse than the crime, you only perpetuate crime. common sense does not side with the guy who will torch a store because they overcharged him, common sense does not side with the law that says you should have your hand cut off because you stole some fruit... or any punishment for a crime that is greater than the crime itself
free speech, no matter what the contents of the words, is no justification for violence, whatsoever
what is that weird wacky concept?
it's called common sense
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
with the recent coverage of google bowing to their censor-happy asses and such, it makes this topic a hot one for those interested in information-distribution and dissimination.
/. readers.
I think that makes it more than relevant to
it is like an online flamewar, except that in real life, real flames are used
;-P
it even started, ironically, with a danish troll: the cartoons. trolls being a nordic invention, i think, that makes sense?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Muslims are rioting in response to the cartoon. Other people are criticising the cartoon for being culturally insensitive. No western state has censored the cartoon.
Also, self censorship does not equal state censorship. The consequence of violating social norms by saying something offensive (e.g. spouting racist ideology at a public KKK rally) are not the same as the consequences of speaking on a forbidden topic in a country with extensive state censorship (e.g. writing and talking about democracy in China). In the first case the U.S. police will protect your speech no matter how offensive they find it and in the second case the Chinese authorities will throw you in prison.
To equate state sponsored censorship with social pressures (e.g. political correctness) that encourage self censorship is just plain wrong.
A group of former senior Communist party officials in China have been arrested.
Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
It's strange for you guys to think that China(or Chinese) has a single mind. Or even the Chinese government is somehow unified under the same ideology and the whole nation is being ruled by one central government.
What you don't hear about is the riots in the countryside and local government officials (mostly even more corrupted than the central officials) gathering warlord-like power and basically dickslap the orders/directives from the central government.
Chinese central government is not as strong as most people think and they really don't have the ability to control the nation as a whole anymore. Most of the resources have been focused on developing certain areas (major cities, and costal trading zones), and most people outside of those area are not recieving any benefit from the development. If you know Chinese history, you can say that history is repeating itself(separation to unity to separation again). When the difference between country and the city reaches a critical point, there will either be 1)major riot that effects the whole nation (making the Tiananmen Crisis looking like a child's play) or 2)China in a desperate move trying to shift the nations attention by starting something big (Military action against Taiwan/Pick a fight against someone like Japan) and use the nationalism it has been developing as a tool to save its own ass.
Communism has always been about freedom. That's what they shout right before they shoot you in the head. Why is OLD Chinese misdirection making the /. frontpage like it's news?
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
The internet? no. But do you think that our current gov. does not censor? Where are ALL the pictures from gitmo and iraq that were taken? We are now to the point that the Supreme court is suppose to hear about these pixs and decide if the press has the right to print them, even though the press already has them in hand. IOW, they are being prevented from printing them.
Then of course, this national spying was squelched for a bit.
Likewise, we have GWB and the doj trying to censor Sibel edmunds. She is a whistleblower. If she is saying something that can be harmful to America (not to a politician or a party), then it should be censored. But all of what she has to say is being censored. At this time, congress should at listen to what she has to say, if not all of us.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I keep hearing about how US lawmakers don't like that Google, MS, and others have agreed to conform to Chinese law in order to continue doing business in China.
Don't get me wrong, I don't pretend to understand all the issues - or politics really.
But I don't understand why US lawmakers are giving US companies a hard time for complying with Chinese law in China. I mean, seriously - if you go to your local retailer and look at the goods for sale half say "Made in China", 49% more say "Made in Taiwan", and 1% say "Assembled in the USA". (Which reminds me, in Bush's recent state of the uninion didn't he say the foreground of the US economy was going to be our developing manufacturing industry?)
Anyway, point being - if the US lawmakers feel so strongly why are there not import/export sanctions on China rather then politcal badmouthing and epeen flexing?
Like I said, I just don't get it - but sure would like to understand more - I've googled but all I can find is fingerpointing and namecalling rather than any real pertinent information about why it's working this way. (Which I imagine someone is going to say it's political and all there is to be had on the subject is opinions, fingerpointing, and namecalling anyway.)
Ohh well, I suppose were it up to me I'd be doing my best to make sure importing goods evened out with manufacturing them here in the US. Guess that's why it's not up to me! (Kinda like I'd like to see outsourced IT end up costing US companies just as much (yes I know some would argue it already does) as having a US citizen as an employee)
As much democratic faults china has and as much censorship they apply, they still not by a long shot as hypocritical as we are. Let me remind you about the fact that 8 hours a day (or approx that), you dont have ANY freedom of speech, or any influence over your situation. Anything you say or do can render you unemployed, halt your career or in some countries it can get ya blacklisted. Try having a serious discussion regarding socialism or unions at the company of your choice [random letter]-mart, one time might pass, try doing it as a regular thing during breaks, see how long you last? Why dont you mention to your whitecollar friends at work that "Hey i'm a card carrying member of IWW, wanna join up, fight for our rights?" see how taht works out in a regular corp enviroment. You cant talk about what you want, even if it's not "business secrets" or "valuable information", you cant talk about your rights as a employee, or how you want them extended, you cannot discuss wanting an element of labour influence over production. Now, i guess some of you might go "omg a pinko commie", and you'd be 150% right, i am, but that doesn't change the fact that freedom of speech and democracy 2/3 of your day (of which you sleep 1/3) isn't enough Now, you might think that "industrial production" in the western world is a thing of the past, but the thing is that as we produce more technology and workers get more educated, the very definition of workers and proletariat has changed. Soon it will be office workers that work minimum wage, and if you worked at a call centre, you have already seen taylorism in the modern office enviroment. Taylorism hasn't gone out of style, it just has suited up.
There's something about "offensive" writing. It's up to those who are offended to become offended. There's nothing innately offensive about the writing itself. No writing is offensive until interpreted by the offended party.
I'm not a Muslim, so all of those various comics simply elicited a chuckle from me, the same as the numerous comical portrayals of Jesus elicit a chuckle from me, the same as the humorous portrayals of Athiests elicit a chuckle from me... None of those comics are offensive to me. On that note, actually, why is it that whenever Jesus is portrayed comically, nobody riots in the streets? When the movie Dogma came out...no rioting...right? And yet somebody writes up some cartoons where Muhammad says "Stop, stop, we're out of virgins!" and suddenly people are bombing embassies. Seriously, WTF?
That some Muslims reacted so violently to these cartoons suggests only one thing to me, that they're insecure in their belief of the prophet Muhammad. They act as if what somebody says about Muhammad is enough to make it the truth and they violently oppose that truth. They are unable to just shrug and say "shows how much they know. ha! those infidels will burn in the pits of despair!" or whatever. Why can't they just do that? Why must they be so "offended" by this? In my opinion, it's because they aren't secure in their beliefs, and that's why they can't just let it go.
This is like the classical schoolyard name-calling fight, where the bully calls a kid "stupid face" and the kid believes he has a stupid face instead of believing in himself and knowing that the truth is otherwise. In other words, it's totally juvenile and these violent reactionaries just make these violent Muslims look like a bunch of immature little kids. At least, that's how it looks to me.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Yeah, limited circumstances... like presidential elections.
The Chinese decrying censorship... didn't see that one coming.
This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
I generally just try to post supportive arguments, but... You sir are a complete idiot! Thanks for your psychological profile of the muslim religion. They're insecure in their beliefs? Are you insane? They pray 5 (?) times, a day? They are raised to revere mohamad. This is like you insulting their mother, sister, dead grandmother, best friend and everything they hold dear to their heart.
You are also an idiot because you don't understand that there are different cultures in this world. Perhaps rather than looking at them through your eyes, you look at what those cartoons would mean to a person that was raised to revere god above all else and then has to deal with some hip western journalist making a joke about that.
And to counter your counter argment: No, I do not agree that violence is the correct reaction. I do not support terrorism. But take a look at the last 100 years of their history, from the british occupation, to foreign businesses paying off their government, etc...
Oooh, diatribe. And just one more point. Western Christian fundamentalism is on the rise. And that scares me alot more than the muslims. And just one more point, with regards to the war on terrorism. Muslims have killed 5k (approx) americans. We've killed more than 100K of them in the last few years and if you go back 100 years, the numbers are much worse.
Push the button Max!!!!
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Do Americans really believe they live without censorship in their own lives ?
Do you really believe everything you see and hear on CNN is the absolute unbiased full and complete truth ?
Seriously before the US starts lecturing on censorship it should get it's own house in order.
I thought China *has* a totalitarian gov't, albeit one that has grown to wear the familiar yellow happyface also used by one of its bigger customers... what are these retired party members thinking??
Totalitarian: A political system based on absolute power of a single party or dictator.
It's really weird that most Chinese people don't bother it at all (I'm Chinese from mainland). In Chinese word, emperor doesn't bother but servant worries a lot. It's really fun to see this. Guess what? it's really danger to allow all Chinese open up their free mind and become democracy. Most Chinese have bad image about western invasion about 100 years ago. Chinese suffered so much. If China becomes western standard "free" country, the first thing they get to do is to take back Taiwan, invade Japan and probably launch cold war with US since government has to follow the mass opinion. It is actually communist party suppresses mass anger toward western world on Taiwan issue and US insulting Chinese face on various other issues. Trust me, current China government it the best one for both Chinese and western world!
First, I would strongly recommend that people listen to this clip on NPR's All Things Considered: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5206172 because it goes into a lot more depth and offers more insight than the BBC article.
1) A government for a country of that size is NOT monolithic. For example, it would be foolish to say that everyone in the US government is in favor of having troops in Iraq: there are a lot of Senators who are not happy at all. Likewise, the Chinese government has various factions. Because there is only one political party in China, political differences are expressed in the form of intra-party factionalism (whereas in the West, it is normally expressed in the form of different parties, though there are also a lot of intra-party factionalism as well). A lot of this in-fighting also happens privately, so many are not aware of it and the casual observer would think that the government was a Borg collective of identical viewpoints when it really is not.
2) This letter was written by what NPR news describes to be the "liberal wing" of the party and can be considered to be more or less a dissident voice. Such opinions are not new in China, and if you ever go there, you will notice that a lot of people will express these views (the Chinese are not stupid), except that they will express them privately, and you never hear about it in the media. I was personally very surprised that this letter of published. These folks are sufficiently power and well-connected that they are able to dissent like this.
3) I think that their target audience is the Chinese people and the rest of the government. You have to understand that the whole appeal of the Chinese Revolution is that the old government was corrupt and abusive, and there are many Chinese have not forgotten that and who are well aware of the irony that China threw out a bad government and replaced it with another bad one.
So I would not view this as some sort of public press release (that was earlier today, when they justified censorship on grounds of "pornography", which is bullshit). The earlier announcement today would be like Bush telling the UN why we need troops in Iraq. This letter would be like the Democrats grumbling about Bush putting those troops in Iraq.
I didn't say they were all insecure in their beliefs. I said that the violent minority is. I made an effort to be clear about that, too.
You are also an idiot because you don't understand that there are different cultures in this world. Perhaps rather than looking at them through your eyes, you look at what those cartoons would mean to a person that was raised to revere god above all else and then has to deal with some hip western journalist making a joke about that.
lol. I'm the one that should understand that? I understand perfectly well that there are different cultures in the world, and I tolerate just about all of them almost equally (cannibalism and genocide squick me, but other than that I'm a live and let live kind of guy). Extermist Muslims, though, think that their culture is the only culture that matters and should be respected by all. I call bullshit on that. I think that they need to understand that their culture isn't the only one and they need to accept that some will not revere Allah or Muhammad as highly as they will, and they will just need to remind themselves of his high holiness instead of bombing embassies and rioting in the streets.
Oooh, diatribe. And just one more point. Western Christian fundamentalism is on the rise. And that scares me alot more than the muslims. And just one more point, with regards to the war on terrorism. Muslims have killed 5k (approx) americans. We've killed more than 100K of them in the last few years and if you go back 100 years, the numbers are much worse.
Actually, you know what's on the rise? Western conversion to Islam. I watched an interesting documentary on google video this afternoon, about the western conversion to Islam following the time of 9/11.
Here's a great example of the name-calling I mentioned earlier. You call me an idiot, but I know I'm not an idiot, so it doesn't really matter what you say and I don't need to go out of my way to make you think like me by bombing your house or something extreme like that, because I don't care what you think about me. These extremist Muslims on the other hand evidently care a whole lot about what other people think about them, but they fail to realise how they're affecting the opinion people hold of them by acting out so violently. Like I said, totally juvenile (like you, btw)...
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Does the recent upping of Chinese censorship bug the hell out of anyone else? We've had probably 5 or 6 articles on it in the past month or so. We've seen all this outrage in the comments. Yet we still do nothing. We want to wait for our governments to do something, which they can't, or we say it's too big a problem. I doubt that. All these people, with all these skills? Why not just go onto chinese websites and troll about proxying and Tiananmen, free Tebet, and democracy? Why do we sit and do nothing? Why not, for the first time, use the slashdot effect for a purpose? Sure, we may only may shake things up, but at least it's something. Sure, China may end up banning outside IPs, but that'd basicly be shutting themselves off from the internet. Why not do something, if all it takes is 15 minutes of your time?
Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
The very first thing I thought it said when I looked at the title was "Chinese, U.S. Condom Censorship" Noooooo!
Uh, "limited circumstances" like one TV interview, not exactly most or all or even a very significant part of the material relevant to a presidential election. Furthermore, if you actually red the article about the Bush case, you'll discover two crucial points. First, there's no evidence that Bush or his people had any role in this. It was NBC. Second, and crucially, in spite of the fact that NBC refused permission, the journalist in question used the clip anyway, relying on his Fair Use rights.
So, as I said, the Fair Use doctrine may need clarification and strengthening, but even as it stands it does a good job of preventing the use of copyright restrictions for censorship.
The Kerry example is not good either. As with the Bush example, the entity enforcing the copyright is not Kerry or his campaign, it is the professional photographer who took the pictures. Professional photographers tend to be fussy about copyright for commercial reasons - there isn't any reason to believe that this one is attempting any sort of censorship. Indeed, one of the first comments on Slashdot was from the photographer for Howard Dean's campagin making this very point.
Here again, if these photographs were the only evidence of something of public concern, it is very likely that the courts would hold their reproduction to be fair use.
Just a thought, Why does google redirect me to a different
google front page based on my IP block location?
How do I know I'm getting the same content using google from say, France, as
opposed to someone using google from the U.K.?
The reality is, it's pretty easy to filter information when the supply
is essentially an unknown.
Then yes the U.S. is showing increasing signs of totalitarianism, one we're getting right now is that the U.S. military is increasingly distanced for the political process, they don't know why they're fighting, every single interview with a soldier shows they don't know why they're fighting and no one seems to think this is a problem.
The U.S. has a very high ratio of spending on military vs. Education.
Heck today on slashdot they have an Artical about the U.S. military using video games to train soldiers, not to train them to be effective but to train them to kill without thinking.
Admittedly it is an aspect of an effective military that they don't ask questions but is it something you really want?
The U.S. government is increasingly breaking the rules that are laid out for it, not revising them or examining them but breaking them (Wiretaps?), from an even more tinfoil hat perspective they are looking into technologies like streetside video cameras and anti insurgent technologies (Seeing through walls anyone? How about robotic soldiers?) that aren't really compatible with an open society.
People in the U.S. don't feel they have any say in their government and feel that the political parties are too close together to really be distinguishable, most citizens aren't really sure what each party's platform is.
Maybe the literature about dictatorships doesn't apply to the U.S. but if it DOES then U.S. citizens should be very concerned.
according to you, all someone has to do is bully and intimidate you into submission. i choose not to live in fear. it is true, you're right, people will react violently when they shouldn't. but that shouldn't be respected. according to me, that people react violently when they shouldn't is not something i will respect or take into account when i act. instead, when they overreact violently, they should be punished. you say i might lose my life with such a position. well, you're right. but i'd rather be dead than live in fear of those who simply intimidate and bully. life in submission to bullies and tyrants is not really life at all. so people will violently overreact. then the only response to that that makes any sense to me is that society will punish them, if society wants to continue existing as a just and moral society.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
couldn't have said it better myself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Well, you disagree with words you are "putting in my mouth," as it were, but everything I actually put in my post, you agree with.
Please don't draw inferences and then make arguments about them. It's annoying and childish.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
the pot and kettle getting together and declaring that black is now white?
No sig for you! Come back one year!
www.justacitizen.org
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You just nailed it. Muslims (and some Christians) know in the heart of hearts that their religion is bullshit, and can't countenance hearing anything that might cause them to waver in their already insecure beliefs.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
There are different cultures in the world, and some are better than others. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine where the culture that contains the people that mindlessly go apeshit over some cartoons falls in that ordering.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The sweet irony is that the BBC website was one of the very first websites blocked here in China and remains completely blocked to this day.
So the Elders offer their comments to a news source they know cannot be read in China.
A dream is good. A plan is better.
Which is better:
(chinese) you have a government censor your information but you know that it is censored and therefore not the whole truth.
(western) you have media networks censor and manipulate your information at their will and benefit but you think you have an objective view about the entire state of the world?
the first is a subset of what is happening in the real world, but it doesn't contradict the whole truth.
the second claims to be the whole truth but isn't - and people happily live believe it.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
It could be double speak for "We are not really a totalitarian regime, and our censorship is not so invasive."
Living in China, I can see any of these possibilities as real, at least some some context. People here think that the US government censors the news to the same extent as here...Which is not exactly true, in my opinion. The censorship in the USA is, depending on your perspective, far worse, because it caters to the lowest common denominator(the sheeple) to sell advertising.
A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
Wikinews has a story on this which could use some editing help.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
(chinese) you have a government censor your information but you know that it is censored and therefore not the whole truth. (western) you have media networks censor and manipulate your information at their will and benefit but you think you have an objective view about the entire state of the world?
the first is a subset of what is happening in the real world, but it doesn't contradict the whole truth. the second claims to be the whole truth but isn't - and people happily live believe it.
The first is sensored but you do not know what exactly censored. Government adds it's oun skewed information. ;)
The second gives your freedom to collect information from different sources. Nobody claims to own the whole truth if it's not a church
> LWATCDR writes "The US government is upset over
> restrictions of freedom of speech on the Internet.
WTF?!?!? The authors of the DMCA are worried about free speech on the Internet? WTF?!?!? My BS meter broke, and the needle shot into the wall across the room.
Andy Out!
AFAIK, nobody has said that China didn't have a totalitarian government. The Party Geezers merely stated that only a totalitarian govt would censor information. Which, of course China is, and does.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
If anyone wants to know China's views on human rights and corruption, see the article at Money.cnn.com. As long as the Chinese economy plugs along, they are more than happy to undermine Western attempts at improving human rights. I point to the Chinese devices jamming dissident radio stations in countries that provide them with oil and using the Security Council to protect the massacres in the Darfur region in Sudan.
The ironic thing about this is that the BBC, perhaps the only major English news website that is consistently blocked by the Chinese firewall, is reporting on how Chinese communist party elders are decrying censorship. I'm writing this from Beijing, and viewing the BBC article through a proxy tunnel.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
I see this quote in an article near the bottom of the slashdot page:
'history demonstrates that only a totalitarian system needs news censorship, out of the delusion that it can keep the public locked in ignorance.'
Then I see this fortune cookie quote at the very bottom of the slashdot page:
Human kind cannot bear very much reality. -- T.S. Eliot, "Four Quartets: Burnt Norton"
Funny stuff
Support the FairTax
Living in a Muslim country would make you know that this is an escalated reaction.
I am quite sure that we, as Muslims, have been trying to fix our image for so long now and it's not really working so far. Whenever things calm down for a while, something else emmerges like this stupid toon to enrage Muslims worldwide, provoking the less fortunate to act violently. This has been building up exponentially that these "less fortunate" are acting out of desperation, and hence, more are acting violently.
Haven't seen the cartoons? What are you talking about? They're everywhere on the internet.
Apparently this was shown on Australia TV. The American press has had this stuff for several years, but still do not show it (or talk about it). I assume that CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX are now all conservative press and protecting the president by not showing it?
Can you say the word censorship?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Many people who say the U.S. should not tell the Chinese what to do always have a "bag" of examples of how the United States is Hypocritical when dealing with countries like China/North Korea/Iran, ect.
It's easy bog a discussion/argument down by obscuficating details each one of which could be argued ad nauseum forever with people debating statistics and what not.
I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption to say that the United States for all it's faults and hypocracy is a better country when it comes to protections for it's citizens than China. I also don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a company based in the United States should be required to adhear to some basic American ideals. They are representing the U.S. with their business.
The United States and the Countries of Europe (along with other western democracies) are not perfect but the underlying ideas behind the U.S. constitution, declaration of independence, and other democracies like France and Britain are worth holding up to the rest of the world as something better that what has come before.
To stay quiet and not insist that we at least try to live by our own ideals is to give in, give up and abandon hope.
Today google's vice president said
"Is a half-truth better than no truth? Is it better to have results that are misleading than to have no results at all? That is a very appropriate question to ask and one I don't have an answer for you today," Schrage, Google's vice president, replied."
I have an answer. "Half-Truths" are lies. No results are better than lies.