Chinese Portals Pledge More Self-Policing

An anonymous reader writes "A slew of Chinese web portals have pledged to self-police even more, after signing on to a Beijing plan to 'clean up the internet'. Google and MSN have not joined the group." From the article: "The firms' pledge states that the Internet has become an important source of information and entertainment in China, now the world's second-biggest market with more than 100 million Web surfers. 'At the same time as the Web develops quickly, certain sites are transmitting unhealthy news ... and uncivilized voice services, including pornographic content that can be harmful to society,' said the pledge, which was dated earlier this month in a posting on Sina's Web site."

Comments

Are you sure it's China?

[tomhudson]

At the same time as the Web develops quickly, certain sites are transmitting unhealthy news ... and uncivilized voice services, including pornographic content that can be harmful to society,

Sounds more like something Alberto Gonzales and the Bush White House would say.

The sad part is, while I'm writing this "tongue-in-cheek", if it were to be a headline in tomorrow's paper, nobody would be surprised.

Now if only the Chinese Goverment would pledge...

[Nova Express]

...never to commit genocide against its own people or against Tibetans, then maybe people would give their desires "to clean up" the Internet a little more credence. What China's Communist government wants to clean up the most is its own image, be it genocide, the Tienamen Square crackdown, it's owngoing repression of Falun Gong, or the horrific treatment of political prisoners in the Laogai (aka "China's Gulag"). I'm sure that pornorgraphy is a far lesser concern.

Concern for human rights is not a team sport

[cryfreedomlove]

Tomhudson, I'm against human rights abuses without regard as to who the perpetrator is. If human rights are abused by China, them I'm against it. If human rights are abused by George Bush, then I am against it. Those are my principles. What are yours?

Despite your tongue in cheek escape valve, the tone of your post apologizes for human rights abuses in China because you see some abuses in America. Does this mean that in tomhudson's world that two wrongs really do make a right?

Re:Concern for human rights is not a team sport

[tomhudson]

Ha ha. Come on, if you're going to troll, at least put some thought into it. Be a bit original. You put the whole Troll Tuesday concept to shame.

One country is making progress, but not as fast as some would like. The other is turning back the clock. Pointing out that a story of the US making such a statement would be believable in NO way condones wrongs by either side.

Besides, I think BadAnalogyGuy has prior art on your posting style :-)

Now, if I had wanted to do some serious trolling, I would have pointed out that most western countries, with the notable exception of the US, consider state-provided basic health care a universal human right. Funny how China shares this value, but in the US, "no money, no candy-striper."

Medical problems are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy in the US, when both direct http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/ hlthaff.w5.63/DC1 and indirect effects are factored in. And its not people who are without coverage - " 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness". - think of that - more than 3/4 of those who went bankrupt because of medical bills had insurance.

What a scam.

Talk about preying on the sick and the weak - look at your local politician, and how much they're beholden to the HMOs rather than to the voters.

So, does the person who has to go bankrupt because of medical bills get to enjoy any of the benefits of capitalism, like accumulation of private property and wealth? Nope - the trustee gets to hand over everything to the creditors, with a few basic exemptions, and even this isn't enough to keep many people off the streets or bunking at a relatives.

Some simple math - " 1.9-2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy". Multiply this by an average life expectancy of 72 years, and you've got 144 million people who will affected by a medical bankruptcy over the course of their lifetime.

That's half your population who would be better off under a "communist, socialist" system that other countries, such as that "notorious socialist communist pinko terr'rist havens" (such as Canada) have. Talk about a class structure with haves and have-nots!

Food for thought: http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/blog/canadian-and- us-bankruptcy-rates/

Bankruptcy Rates in the Canada and the US - The huge disparity is because of the health care system.

The US bankruptcy rate (6.9 per thousand) for the year 2004 is more than twice as high as the Canadian bankruptcy rate (2.6 per thousand). The main reason for the huge disparity in bankruptcy rates in Canada and the US is because of the different health care systems in the two countries.

Canada has universal health care for all citizens paid for out of taxes. The US system is based on private enterprise mainly provided by insurance companies.

A Harvard Study reported that half of US bankruptcies were caused by medical Bills (MSNBC) & (ABC News). The study was published online in February of 2005 by Health Affairs. The Harvard study concluded that illness and medical bills caused half (50.4 percent) of the 1,458,000 personal bankruptcies in 2001. The study estimates that medical bankruptcies affect about 2 million Americans annually -- counting debtors and their dependents, including about 700,000 children.

Most of the medical bankruptcy filers were middle class; 56 percent owned a home and the same number had attended college. In many cases, illness forced breadwinners to take time off from work -- losing income and job-based health insurance precisely when families needed it most. Families in bankruptcy suffered many privations -- 30 percent had a utility cut off and 61 percent went without needed medi

Hollywood and the US comics industry

[Frantactical Fruke]

Sounds remarkably like what Hollywood did in the 1930s or so and what American comics publishers did in the 1950s in the form of the Comics Code: In order to avoid being censored by government legislation, they decided to censor themselves.

Movies abided by rules such as: No prolonged kissing - never show even a married couple in the same bed - no revenge plots (the hero just happened to kill his enemies in self defence while pursuing nobler goals) etc. ad nauseam. The excision of politics was just an unwritten rule, but followed particularly religiously until the 60s.

The Comics Code was even more rigorous. It killed comics as a form of entertainment for adults up until the 1990s. Horror comics, erotic comics, realistic violence etc. ceased to exist. Nothing but spandex pap was left in its wake. And if you say now that you're a grown-up who reads Marvel comics, tell me: Just how grown-up do you feel while you're doing it? I feel about 12 years old when I dive into X-Men.