Slashdot Mirror
Google's China Problem
Wraithfighter writes "The New York Times has a rather lengthy, but informative, piece on the origins of Google's current Chinese search engine, as well as a very informative look at how censoring is actually done in China. From the article: 'Are there gradations of censorship, better and worse ways to limit information? In America, that seems like an intolerable question -- the end of the conversation. But in China, as Google has discovered, it is just the beginning.'"
Google is not "censoring" the chinese.
These websites are blocked in china anyways, so instead of having the first 3 or 4 pages of results blocked, google removed the results do delivery more accurate search results. Google isn't censoring the internet for the chinese, they are optimizing it.
Are there gradations of censorship, better and worse ways to limit information? In America, that seems like an intolerable question
Oh come on, very few in Amertica would argue against any limitations on information.
From trade secrets to copyrights to defamation to classified documents to pornography laws, restrictions on information are inherent in our whole legal system. How about court sealed documents? Furthermore, atatcking "propaganda" stations has long been considered a legitmimate aim of our military in waging wars.
Of course there gradations of censorship. The debate has ALWAYS been about which information can be restricted. Pretty much everyone agrees that some should be. Prentending otherwise is unhelpful and it's dishonest.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
like you haven't give a lot of your rights away recently.
Username: jpmorgan
Password: chastise
courtesy of http://www.bugmenot.com/
One thing that irritates me about this whole debate is the implicit assumption that China being Communist is just a technicality and not a big huge mega problem. People just pretend that the issue isn't there and just hope it will go away if they put their blinders on. They just go about "trying to do the best they can" while completely ignoring the nature of the big ugly hideous beast breating down their throat.
How do I know that all this talk about giving Chinees the "most freedom that we can" is all bullshit? Because the people saying it are not only censoring, but they are lying. None of them call it like it is, none of them dare say "hey your government is a piece of shit" for fear of offending the Chineese powers that be. Basically, it is a policy of appeasement and to see how it will play out - Chineese history shows very clearly, it will end in disaster.
Near the end of the first page, Lee sums up the attitude on both sides of the Pacific pretty well: "I don't think they care that much. I think people would say: 'Hey, U.S. democracy, that's a good form of government. Chinese government, good and stable, that's a good form of government. Whatever, as long as I get to go to my favorite Web site, see my friends, live happily.'"
It's nice to know the Chinese are as apathetic about their government as we are in the U.S.
What?
before the Chinese government gets its hands on this technology anyway.
Make way for zhoogle!
Monstar L
The same URL from the same editor with a differente blurb: only in slashdot.
--
Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
According to the article the chinese internet excutives' point of view is that censorship isn't an issue sinse chinese aren't interested in the censored content anyway. Makes you wonder why there's so much effort put into censoring it in the first place...
Having some experience with eastern European countries during their communist regime, I can tell you it really is just a technicality for day to day live.
On one hand, people first and foremost are interested to live in peace and comfort and want to see their children doing the same. If they can achieve this, the philosophical aspects of the current emperor of the land is of no importance. On the other hand, if they can't they will damn whatever emperor makes their live miserable and at some point will seek to improve their lot by exchanging emperor.
For the less philosophical level this means: If you starve or are terrorised by the killer squads, you don't give shit about if those responsible are brandishing little red books or are the stoutest supporters of free capitalism.
This all leads to the simple conclusion, that communism (as much as capitalism or all other -isms) are just minor technicalities only mostly happy people with nothing better to do can worry about.
Shouldn't the title read: "China's Google Problem"?
I realize that Google is trying to enter a new market, but I wouldn't be surprised if China really wanted Google there too -- on their terms of course.
Proof by very large bribes. QED.
A recent PBS|Frontline documentary covered how the Chinese government has gone about censoring one major event from its past including on the internet, it's free to view online:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/
This all leads to the simple conclusion, that communism (as much as capitalism or all other -isms) are just minor technicalities only mostly happy people with nothing better to do can worry about.
Philosophies like "statisim" and "libertarinisim" are not just some nice little philosophies that sit on the clouds. They involve belief systems, and these belief systems lead to chioces, and these choices have conesquences. If people don't care, it is only to the extent that they don't realise the consequences of their choices. Do the leaders at google, yahoo, and cisco really understand the consequences of their choices other then beyond the next quarterly report? It sure seems like they don't care, which means that we as customers must - or else.
Only in this country, censorship is not done in the name of the government. It's done almost solely to "protect" children or those with weak sensativities. I don't necessarily agree with the idea but I am saying that it does exist here.
Is it 5:30 yet?
Not only is google participating in censorship in China, they are also involved in some activities in the U.S. which are disquieting. For example, they have been documented (see link http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_goog le_censoring_story_again.htm on at least two occasions not indexing important alternative news stories, such as the one on Charlie Sheen's 9/11 comments above. Insomuch as they fail to index an important story which has been heavily visited and linked to, it is clear that they are engaging in de-facto censorship.
Censoring is a red-herring. If the citizens can not get to the info, then Google is only focused on what they can get to. In addition, Google notifies them that it is censored, where MS and Yahoo do not even bother.
The real problem is the use of the services for finding and punishing citizens. Microsoft and Yahoo have been turning over any and all information to govs. with a glee in their eye and $ in the checkbook. In fact, in the most recent episode, Yahoo turned over a DRAFT of an e-mail. This is not something that went out to the general public. It was not used anywhere. It was simply thoughts that are now being used against ppl. Yahoo/Microsoft will hang their head while crossing their fingers and winking their eye.
In contrast, Google has so far fought against American Gov ( and other govs. including chinese) about releasing any information that can be used in this way. Google did release info concerning ONLY child porn, but nothing that allowed a witch hunt by our admin. And so far, it does not appear that Google is releasing info about what individuals do.
But I have to wonder, how soon before Google does turn evil and starts releasing. Once they do, they will be heading down a very slippery and steep slope, that will force them to join the likes of Yahoo, Microsoft, Enron, etc. in names that are now synonymous with evil.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
> Do the leaders at google, yahoo, and cisco really understand the consequences of their choices other then beyond the next quarterly report?
I know this is a tech forum, but please don't forget companies like MacDonalds and KFC, which are really (negativelty) effecting the health of the population. Get rid of them first, since they can't possibly do any good to anyone.
(IMO)
Max.
I've got a an extremely smart female chinese friend who goes to MIT. We agree on most things in life but the one thing we totally disagree on (I used get slightly fumed about it) is that she supports her government fully. "The chinese population is far larger", "You need a government like this", "It's run more efficiently and there is less fighting in the government", are things you'd here from her.
I am far from being in agreement but I can after a year almost come to an understanding of why she feels this way. I was initially surprised as she did move here during about middle school.
Hmmm... Pie...
This isn't flame bait, it's just an opinion , and he didn't elaborate.That's all . ,using the tools developed in the US"
Flame bait would posting
"The US administration protects it's citizens' rights of free speech and privacy , while China practices censorship and personal surveillance
My Starcraft 2 Blog
>> I know this is a tech forum, but please don't forget companies like MacDonalds and KFC, which are really (negativelty) effecting the health of the population.
Eating some fried chicken now and then never hurt anyone. It's the people that go to KFC and McDonalds daily that are hurting themselves.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
From TFA:
I expected [famed political blogger] Zhao [Jing] to be much angrier with the American Internet companies than he was. He was surprisingly philosophical. He ranked the companies in order of ethics, ticking them off with his fingers. Google, he said, was at the top of the pile. It was genuinely improving the quality of Chinese information and trying to do its best within a bad system. . . . Yahoo came last, and Zhao had nothing but venom for the company.
"Google has struck a compromise," he said, and compromises are sometimes necessary. Yahoo's behavior, he added, put it in a different category: "Yahoo is a sellout. Chinese people hate Yahoo." The difference, Zhao said, was that Yahoo had put individual dissidents in serious danger and done so apparently without thinking much about the human damage.
A useful perspective from one of the internet celebrities in China. I hope Yahoo appreciates all the good publicity its actions in China are garnering.
Do two quick searches to see for yourself, the difference between google.com and google.cn. These links refer to the image search on the U.S. and Chinese Google pages, respectively.
http://images.google.com/
http://www.google.cn/imghp?hl=zh-CN&tab=wi&q=
Search for "Tiananmen" on both sites and notice the *significant* difference in content returned by each.
Did anyone note that a feature of the censorship system itself is that the censored system is not accessible from the outside. So the censorship is not visible (=censored) to visitors outside china: this goes both ways and prevents an evaluation of the censorship itself. If you try to access google.cn from outside china, back you are to google.com. Smart, really.
American Ideals and American reality are two different things. It's easy to say "Censorship in all forms is wrong", but as we see on this site on a regular basis, just because a nation has an ideal doesn't mean it will live up to them when push comes to shove.
Google in China can't display results about democracy. Google in America can't display results about Scientology. Same shit, different pile.
It's been a long time.
Click here.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Maybe someone can clarify to me what exactly is bad about communism. My understanding is that it is an impractical and unachievable ideal: everyone works and pools his/her resources, which are doled out based on need. So, I, with my enormous geekthinking brain, would write Free Software worth, say, $100 per hour, while my intellectual weakling brethren would issue parking tickets, doing work worth $5 per hour. But they would need their three beers a day (medical reasons, of course) which they can't really afford, so the government takes from the pool of money (well, not really money but economic value) including what I generate, and assign it to them since they really need it. But that's okay! Because I don't really *need* my $100 per hour; I'm enjoying a simple lifestyle anyway, so why not give the excess to those in need?
The impracticality comes from the fact that I would actually prefer to keep my $100 per hour, because it's MINE! Mine mine mine mine! Besides, if I live in a country with no government retirement plan or health benefits (which would not be the case in an ideally communist government), then I'd want to save it away as a nest egg. The other factor is that those in control of deciding who gets doled how much, would invariably value themselves higher and say, "Those in government get more."
Even here I see only criticism of specific implementations of communism, rather than of communism itself. But the way the discussion goes on Slashdot sometimes, I get the sense that people feel that there are ideological and ethical problems even with an ideal implementation of communism, and I'm not sure what those are, so perhaps someone can explain. It's almost like communism was a trigger word, like "terrorism" or "child pornography" or the sound of a bell ringing.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
I thought that giving cheap food to the poor was a good thing...
There is a reason many people do not buy healthy food. If you want people to eat better, fix the macroeconomic problems that force them to make trade-offs in their health, instead of depriving them of choices.
The bottom line is that you should be allowed to speak your opinion. If you are commiting social suicide, don't speak? What the hell do you want to speak for if nobody takes into account what you say? But giving to the government DRAFTS? Man, I will never go there...
If you think Europeans put up with the shit you watch on TV, then you are sadly mistaken, my friend. We don't. Not on our national television, at least. And Iraq? Is there somewhere someone so inevitably dumb who doesn't know you bastards did it for the petrol? I'll stick to Europe.
Umm... Wrong article dude. This one's about censorship in china. :)
This is not a sig. This is a llama-duck. Quack.
Do the leaders at google, yahoo, and cisco really understand the consequences of their choices other then[sic] beyond the next quarterly report?
I'm sure the leaders at google, yahoo and cisco understand the consequences. It's how they act given that they know and understand the consequences that is an issue.
It don't blame google for the way they acted. If you read the article, google chose not to provide services which would require personal information and content to be stored in china and they don't reroute traffic in china from google.com to google.cn. It's china that blocks google.com. I don't have anything nice to say about yahoo and cisco though. I don't have anything nice to say about narus either.
This is one of the problems with the age of the blog/web page/snippet, and it's one of the reasons that publications like the Times aren't irrelevant yet. And it's also one of the big reasons that the half-hour television news program is a farce.
For some stories/ideas/reports, you can't boil everything down to three nicely CSS-formatted ample white space-surrounding paragraphs.
Are you suggesting that despite the informative nature of the piece that slashdotters might not want to read it because the learning experience would take too long?
Google is just having to deal with a situation brought on by decades of meddling by American business elites in the affairs between America and China China's government and American interests employ PR firms which harness former government officials like Henry Kissinger to lobby Congress and the American people in support of trade rules that result in major exporting of jobs and materials, along with turning a blind eye to Chinese human rights and environmental transgressions (also much to the delight of American business, whose interests are often at odds with democracy and the public interest). I find it interesting how Google is walking the line here...
Um, has it ever occurred to you that people just like eating unhealthy food?
You could put a Surgeon General's warning on every McDonald's meal, and force the cashiers to say "By purchasing and consuming this product you are taking 1 day off of your statistical life-span and increasing your healthcare costs by $100, do you want to continue?" and people would still eat there.
Greasy, salty, fatty food TASTES GOOD to a whole lot of people. If you're not one of them, congratulations. Go eat carrots and live a long life. But to many people--admittedly, myself included--McDonalds' french fries taste quite good. I am aware of exactly how bad they are for me, and exactly how many calories and grams of fat they have in them, and I still enjoy eating them very goddamn much.
People have a right to eat what they want to eat, and this means that they may do things that you and other people find inexplicable or illogical. Even if you educate them about the risks and benefits involved, people are still going to smoke cigarettes, eat french fries, and drink aqueous solutions of ethanol. It's not because they don't realize or don't understand what they're doing; on some level, they're doing a risk/benefit analysis and their results are coming up the opposite way yours (or someone who doesn't eat at McDonalds, or smoke, or drink) is.
I'm really tired of all these people, both on Slashdot and elsewhere, who think that people eat at McDonalds or Burger King because they're somehow being forced into it by the Man. There are plenty of other food choices you could get for the price of a McDonalds meal, and unless you're also implying that poor people are by nature stupid, and should be forced to live a certain way because they're too dumb to do it on their own, they're choosing to eat at McDonalds regardless.
I have this feeling that if the people who want to punish McDonalds for selling unhealthy food were allowed to run the world, I'd have to turn to my friendly local drug dealer in order to eat what I want; and let's face it, a world where Klondike bars have to be smuggled across the border in the rectum of some Mexican mule is just not one worth living in.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
If that's the case, I wouldn't expect this to slow down piracy at all...
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html
http://www.channel3000.com/news/8340048/detail.ht
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/SMOKERSA
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/Introduct
Required reading for internet skeptics
There's actually a law against filming and photographing coffins in transit dating back to the first persion gulf war because those pictures may (and probably will) arrive in the US before the bodies and they don't want familes hearing their children died on CNN before they hear it in person.
The whole thing about people not being able to photograph their childrens coffins was played off like a big Bush Jr censorship issue by the left when he had absolutely nothing to do with it, although Cheney was mildly invovled back int he day.
And France and Germany weren't opposing the war just for "the petrol"?
Maybe you should check were all Iraq's oil used to go before you answer that, not to mention where it's going now, becasue it sure as hell isn't the US.
I don't know whether you're terribly misinformed or just a troll, but that article seems to be completely incorrect. One quick google search for '"Charlie Sheen" 9/11' and hitting the "I'm feeling lucky" button and I got this story.
What is wrong with: Hey, they have something we want. We'll make a deal. I prefer it before: Hey, let's invade them cuz my oil-drilling sponsor says so.
It is ALL about the oil.
You know, the terrorist attack in Madrid? What did they do? Withdraw. You know 9/11? What did they do? Invade. I am just waiting for the next thing that happen to you and, man, am I going to laugh. What goes around, comes around.
It is offtopic. Sorry.
I agree with you, sorry if I gave any other signals. I ate a french toast sandwich at BK earlier this morning. I said that it is wrong to deprive people of their food choices.
Understood -- I didn't mean to go off at you so much as people higher up in the thread, plus more generally at the whole "McDonalds should be banned" meme which seems rather popular in some circles. It wasn't meant so much as a personal attack.
... :)
Sometimes you just pick a comment and hit 'Reply,' when it's not really much of a direct response
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
And propaganda? No such thing - yes, I am sure this one is very, very hard to decide...
...just like how the USSR never had any nuclear incidents, and the Soviet space program never suffered any less of human life. Crime, suffering? Practically non-existant! Oh, if only the glorious Communist state had survived, we would never have such troubles in Russia!
...in case my sarcasm is not perfectly clear: There's a fine line between "keeping an open mind" and "remaining entirely gullible". I think someone's crossed it.
"Is there somewhere someone so inevitably dumb who doesn't know you bastards did it for the petrol? I'll stick to Europe."
To me at least this implies that somehow Europe is above making excuse to cover their asses when oil is concerned. I was merely illustrating that they're just as two-faced as the rest of the world, even if they wont admit it.
The rest of your comment I can't even reply to, because it's a collection of statements that lack "coherence". Coherence is what strings statements together into an "argument". I'll do my best anyway.
You know, the terrorist attack in Madrid?
Yes
What did they do?
The terrorists?(As implied by the fact that they're the only subject you've mentioned) They bombed trains.
Withdraw.
Oh you ment the Spanish, yes, they did, though they continue to fight a war with Basque that has been going for decades, pacifists they aren't. You're also apparently trying to make the point that backing down is what people should do, I'm sure you've got some harsh words for the U.K., and Japan, who depsite being victims of a terrorist strike and repeated kidnappings have not backed down.
You know 9/11?
Yep.
What did they do?
The Terrorists? The Spanish?
Invade.
I assume you mean Americans. Yes they did, your point? Even if we work on your assumption, the Iraqi war was 100% for oil, and just run with it. The American invasions convinced Libya to give up their weapons progran, fostered political reform in Sryria, overthrew the Taliban, who if nothing else are guilty of destroying the priceless history carved into the sides of the Afgan mountains, and topled the regime of Saddam Hussein. Whether it was worth its price in blood, and whther the governments of those nations with be able to solidfy and prosper is another story and up for debate, but regardless of motives no one can claim that it's been all bad.
I am just waiting for the next thing that happen to you and, man, am I going to laugh.
I don't see what I have to do with any of this, considering you don't know thing one about me other than that I'm aware that Germany and France, the largest opponents of the Invasion of Iraq were two of the three largest importers of Iraqi oil. Furthermore, why you would laugh at the suffering of anyone, me, Americans, hell the moon people, is beyond me.
What goes around, comes around.
Someone who laughes at the misfortune of others should take that to heart.
Yes, You hate censorship and tyranny. Put your money where your mouth is. Boycott China. http://www.boycottmadeinchina.org/
Unless it would be a major inconvenience, then nevermind and just wear your indignant attitude proudly.
Be heard || Be herd
The UK media is a bit better at that. When our soldiers get killed, you often see the coffins getting brought off the plane back home. It seems the right thing to do; if we're going to go to war, it's almost indecent to pretend there are no consequences. And Europe is no better: the press was proudly displaying the Caricatures of the prophet Muhammad, boasting about how they support freedom of expression. Yet how many of those newspapers would accept to publish a carricature combining the Christ, the Holocaust, and phallic symbols.
Three or four newspapers displayed those, as far as I can remember. The rest discussed them but didn't reprint them. And FWIW, (a) most of them, (b) very few of them, (c) you don't know the tabloids at all, do you?
Can we conceive that for muslim communities, displaying a representation of their prophet is just as unacceptable as using 4-letter words in the US? I wish they would not cause riots because of this, on the other hand they don't have the means to muzzle our mass media as other communities can.
Using those words may well be unacceptable in the US mass media. I'm not in the US, although this post will likely have an American readership. Let's see what we can do.
Fuck Fuck Cunting Bastard Fuck Arsefaced Shiteating Motherfucking Fuckwits, Fuck You And Your Hell-Damned Raggedcunted Daughter. And, let's get the religious angle in: Fuck Christ And Fuck His Holy Fucking Whore Mother, They Fuck Each Other Anyway.
Riots, anybody? No? Threats to behead the foulmouthed foreigner? Still no? Who'd have thought it.
Moreover, maybe as you say, in some Muslim communities, displaying a picture of the Prophet is offensive. Too bad. As far as I know, Denmark isn't a Muslim community. Neither is France, neither is Germany - although all three have some Muslims living there. Should the press censor themselves to suit every last minority sect? There are people in the world who believe all sorts of things are obscene or offensive; however, most of them just have to put up with it. I personally find Cherie Blair's face extremely offensive, but I don't riot about it.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I think most people are missing the point, i have spent half of my life in china and half of my life in the UK and i can say for sure, nation wide internet access in china can only be a gd thing. why? The main problem in china is that there is a huge divide in income, most of the lower classes have limited education due to the large divide, this has changed. information is now essentialy free in china to almost every one, call it piracy if you like but piracy of education can only be a good thing. Even some of the most remote towns in the hills and valles have a internet cafe, more importanly the whole of the next generation will be exposed to almost every bit in the internet. So what if only 99.9 of the internet will ne avabile in china it make no frecking diffrence, the sacrifice in so called freedom is minimal compared to the good effects will it bring to the nation as a whole. The effect of putting a high price on information (copyright, education), and indeed physical goods has only the effect of removing it's access from the less fortune (poor ppl). This creates a desire for people to gain more represental welth individualy. since it can be assumed if every one is worked equaly hard one man's gain is one man's loss. This creates a greater divide in both distribution of physical goods and information as a whole if one is unconnected, and not just a lack of welth... but also a lack of knowlage is created. where all the bottom level agents are simply drones. but since there must be a large number of workers the majority will always be ill informed thinking they are still free, when they are infact bounded by time and welth instead of censureship. Thus freedom is nothing when there is greed. because in a free arena greed will dominate if not regulated. thus is freedom is that state still free? every country runs differently, for china to enforce control of it's media in any other way will be almost impractical and expensive, simply due to the mass of it. to think of it in another way china's media more symbotic with its political system, each allowing the other to thrive under's it's own terms, and protecting each other activly. The internet is not yeht truely free, since the information contained within is too disorganised, and not found easily. the difference is bascily in the links in the information, it's like the difference in structure between a every large notice board and a wiki. The protocal must change or at least sites which contain large amounts of information must change. information access must become more of a two way process, allowing for more user end control and promotion of information. the information should quickly became self organising with access, and adaptive due to the userend interaction.
Some clarifications:
- I am totally European
- I am not saying we should muzzle ourselves so as to not offend any community, I'm only saying it is a hypocrisy to claim that we tolerate no censorship, when "our" (occidental) media censor themselves all the time. Feel free to say that your country shall be free to impose its own standards - but don't use "freedom of speech" as a justification, as it would be a hypocrisy. A couple of weeks after that story, for example, French radio stations refused to broadcast a new Rap song entitled "Chirac en Prison".
- I remember protests and some of our theaters being put to fire when Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" came out.
- Next to self-censoring, there is "revisionism": even reputable institutions like Time magazine have been known to give into it [see at the end of http://mediastudy.com/articles/av12-11-03.html, I was able to verify the existence of that article].
- Congrats for the cursing, but it's easy on Slashdot. Make up a good story around it, and you might get airtime on a Jerry Springer-style show. But if you have strongly dissenting opinions about politics or society, it is more difficult to be heard. I am somewhat disappointed that political debate on TV has become more and more chastised over the years -- while you get more and more of the lowly and clueless "shocking" debates and reality shows. How can true democracy work if people are not adequately educated?
- Was it in the UK that more than half of respondents to a poll agreed that "Creationist theories should be thought as part of *science* classes alongside Darwin's theories", and almost as many did not believe in "Darwin's theories" ?
Again, all I want to say is that we should not forget to check ourselves in a mirror.
These rumblings were simply triggered by this quote included in the original story:
>>
No censorship in America ???
(I'm European. Heh.)
"I hope you are satisfied when your actions cause some poor Chinese person to be executed."
Are you sure this is not exaggerated? I have yet to see a mention of people being prosecuted (let alone executed) for viewing a page that links to a site that provides advice on how to do something illegal - even less so when said site is apparently blocked itself. If someone is going to take the risk (and knowingly so) of using the information, they can find it in other ways. I included the link here as a reference for the discussion.
Nothing is said about who is providing China with the technology to find (in China's opinion) internet abusers. All this publicity over Google leaves me cold when the REAL story is NOT told.
Actually, there was a specific policy decision by the Chinese government after Tiananmen Square: to appease the masses via capitalism in order to stay in power. China was far closer to revolution than most people in the West realize. Though widely reported in the West to be a student protest, Tiananmen Square actually involved weeks of protests where an estimated 10% of Beijing's population was involved. The army was actually sent in to stop the protests weeks before June 3 with orders not to shoot, but were engulfed by the citizens, unable to reach the Square, and forced to turn back ( very humiliating for a police state ). The leadesrhip realized they were on the brink at this point, and the second time around, 300,000 troops were told to clear the square at all costs and were not deterred. Most of the deaths weren't of the mainly rich students of elite professors at Beijing University ( who were largely spared ), but of the rank-and-file citizens who tried to blockade the army the second time around. ( I didn't know much about June 4 until I saw PBS Frontline's excellent documentary called "Tank Man", you can view it online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/vi ew/
===
Drawing on interviews with Chinese and Western eyewitnesses, Thomas recounts the amazing events of the spring of 1989, when a student protest that began in Tiananmen Square, the symbolic central space of the nation, spread throughout much of the rest of China. Several weeks later, when the government sent in the army to end the demonstrations, the citizens of Beijing poured into the streets in support of the students. "You had a million people on the street, minimum. ... That was unprecedented, definitely in modern Chinese post-revolutionary history," says John Pomfret, who was in Beijing at the time, reporting for the Associated Press.
===
The point is that Beijing appeared to be on the brink of mass revolution, hardly apathetic to the government. Why the change now? Shortly after June 4th, Deng Xiaoping enacted several economic reforms effectively moving China towards a free market economy.
Today, the masses of farmers/peasants in the countryside are pissed at hell over the government / drawing the short end of globalization but have no voice, no way to organize. But the middle class in the cities have been appeased by capitalism, just as Deng had hoped. They've seen their standard of living---and most importantly, the perception of upward mobility---skyrocket beyond imagination. Why would they want to rock the boat now? It's hard to imagine a revolution happening without the support of the middle class in the cities.
But, as time goes on, it may become increasingly difficult for the Party to maintain its identity while appeasing the voracious appetite of yuppiedom. In the early going, market reform could be largely separated from political reform, but as the standard of living rises, we get into areas that require political/legal reform in order to keep the foreign investment pouring in: in particular, clamping down on corruption, transparency of the law and trust in the legal system, removal of the fat-cat state industries that line the Party member's pockets. What I wonder is, if the Party manages to "stay in power" by ceding to these reforms, will it even look anything like the police state / bad-guy government we in the West love to hate? Perhaps Singapore provides a vision of what such a government may look like.
Like quite a few people on /. I own a domain, and manage a few websites. Because China prevents connections to certain websites, how about if the webmasters of the world somehow got themselves organised and were able to mirror some of the censored content on their website for a period of time. Then at some pre-arranged signal (I'm thinking of the lighting of the Olympic flame in Beijing in 2008 here) everyone switches their home page over to a new one where banned chinese information (pictures, words) is prominent. Also included, could be a couple of links to other sites hosting similar material aka a webring. The point being that up until the lighting of the flame, no information is available, but once the flame is lit then the whole web "lights up" with banned information. It would be impossible for the chinese to censor all these websites, even during the time that the Olympics occurs.
Somehow, a register should be set up of content providers and hosters, anyone registering for content hosting would not know of anyone else - the whole thing would be secret - and the register would allot content to hosters so that the whole thing is multiply redundant. Finally, the whole effort should be overseen by someone respectable who can report if things are going OK or if there's a shortage in any particular area.
There's a couple of years yet until 2008, should be enough time for a mature discussion and ample time to develop a co-ordinating website and distribute the required content.
Thoughts anyone?
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
and then there is a situation where if i don't eat in a certain way i get cranky so you could put a label on my shirt that says
"The Surgen General has detirmined that depriving the contents of this shirt Fat caffiene and salt may be hazardous to your health"
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
If you want to go a little further down, Abraham Lincoln publicly stated that he had no intrest in slavery either way, it was none of his business. He engaged int eh civil war to hold together the Union and nothing else. His later decision to emancipate the slaves in the area under martial law was commendable, but it wasn't part of his agenda,
That's an interesting way of looking at things, but a few facts lend itself to a different interpretation. First off, the Republican Party was an abolitionist party. It was founded to be abolitionist. Lincoln could not have been possibly been nomimated as a Presidential candidate if he wasn't abolitionist. It would be as absurd as Democrats nominating someone who was pro-life or Republicans pro-choice, it just is not going to happen.
Furthermore, Lincoln had plenty of quotes against Slavery:
http://www.nps.gov/liho/slavery/al01.htm
"The institution of slavery is founded upon both injustice and bad policy" 1837
"I have always hated slavery" 1858
"I believe the declaration that all men are created equal is the great fundamental principal" 1858
"Those who deny freedom to others, do not deserve it for themselves" 1859
So, basically, from the beginning of his career, all the way up to and including the civil war, which included being the first Presidential Candidate by an abolitionist party, Lincoln was anti-slavery.
Lincoln's civil war spin about 'preserving the union' was, well, a lie. The civil war was always about slavery. Lincoln lied to the American People about why the civil war was being fought, and he pretty much did it for his own religious beliefs. He overruled his generals, he alienated Europe, and in fact, at the height the war, one of his ex-generals actually ran for President against him, and it was only a set of victories for the Union that handed Lincoln his re-election. Fancy that. The one thing I don't get about Lincoln, is why he made his disasterous choice of Vice President.
This is my sig.
Not only do most Chinese not care about the government as long as their lives are OK, but they also were not indoctrinated with "Nothing is more important than Democracy" pap that we get from birth in the west. In some senses, the Chinese might as well be another species, as different as their thinking is from Westerners.
I think the Chinese government's filter is silly more than it is evil. Sure there might be a few incidents if suddenly everyone was exposed to the full details of what has been hidden, but considering that we discover all sorts of not so plesant truths about the govenment almost daily in the states and do nothing, why would the Chinese?
Completely agree. They absolutely don't need us. Same goes for Iraq and anywhere else. I wish the US would stay out of foreign affairs, but it seems like these people "leading" our country have nothing better to do. Also, prove to me that Iraq threatened us with biological weapons giving good reason to go to war.
- 1) No one who does any work for the government, or any non-profit organization can hire him
- And making sure that there's a nasty mark on his permanent such that he's labeled a 'dissident' or 'terrorist' or 'communist'(ok mabye not communist), so no one else will hire him
- cause problems with the security net (whatever his country has) allowing him to fall through to the deepest depths of poverty
All of it seems his fault; "Why couldn't you just get a job you worthless communist hippie? You didn't have to starve to death"Granted I'm not sure how much of that power the neocons currently have, but there *is* a terrorist list with a LOT of people on it, including people who work at the ACLU, democrat party, and green party, and there was a law at least suggested that would allow 1) and 2) to take place(not sure if it passed or not), and 3 is just the logical extention of 1 and 2.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
I had to argue in mid-2004 with someone who honest to god still believed the earth was flat, and had no conception of the solar system. A humanities student, he was from a poor part of the UK, and happened to come from an absurdly religious family. Smart guy (though he didn't know all too much, but knew to a good extent where his knowledge ended, which is more than a lot of people can say), watched a lot of TV, and didn't get out much, and was a self-proclaimed fundamentalist. We had some interesting discussions we did.
It scares me that people like him are going to graduate and find successful careers while freaks like me get to sink to the bottom of society like rocks.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Mod this poster up.
People, when making arguments against Google's actions, conveniantly leave this fact out. They often state that Google has removed their access to these search results, when the people making the arguments know they are not being completely truthful, and are using this misconception to further their own arguments.
How can anyone know if the registrar is trustworthy?
I look in the tv show in belgium yahoo google play with china cencure !
Holy crap. Fair and balanced, indeed.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Oh you ment the Spanish, yes, they did, though they continue to fight a war with Basque that has been going for decades, pacifists they aren't. You're also apparently trying to make the point that backing down is what people should do, I'm sure you've got some harsh words for the U.K., and Japan, who depsite being victims of a terrorist strike and repeated kidnappings have not backed down.
But they got out of Iraq. They fight their own war, and they fight it because terrorists threaten their own homes. And the UN supports the Spanish on this occasion.
I don't see what I have to do with any of this, considering you don't know thing one about me other than that I'm aware that Germany and France, the largest opponents of the Invasion of Iraq were two of the three largest importers of Iraqi oil.
Didn't they pay for it? Did they kill anybody? (Saddam is as good as any other dictator USA brought to power.) Do you know how many people are victims of the war for oil? The US had no right to invade a country that 1) Didn't suport the terrorists (NOBODY has proven otherwise, innocent until proven guilty). 2) They didn't threaten US or its territory. 3) They had not attempted to create weapons of mass distruction. (THAT was proven)
Furthermore, why you would laugh at the suffering of anyone, me, Americans, hell the moon people, is beyond me.
I am sorry, I didn't mean that. I grieve for the people, and for our boys that died there (Bulgaria did send a core to secure the area around the second major city. Then we decided it sucks and withdrew). Just wanted to point out that people are dying out there because of this. The US ways are no better than pure terrorism these days. Where is the UN they created? Why don't THEY find them guilty, then attack?
I support no terrorist. But terrorism is no excuse for such measures. And no, Saddam is no excuse either. Besides, invasions always have created more problems than they solved. And they will not discourage terrorists.
Well, off the top of my head, if some "name" in opensource were to back such a scheme I for one would have no problems registering.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Who is talking about the media? Do you really think any of the 80,000+ protests in China were covered by the media? Free Speech Zone or not, I've seen more protests on TV in the last few weeks than most Chinese have seen in decades.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful. If this is true, then how can they explain their decision to support China's censorship laws? Google accepting the censorship standard by Chinese law to is a sacrifice of the people's interest to achieve business profits. This only encourages China to continue this practice by making it acceptable. If they wanted to do good they would publicly denounce this practice and state why, in good conscience, they will not do business in China. It is sad that it always comes down to the almighty dollar.