Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia Won't Bow to Chinese Censors
truthsearch writes "Jimmy Wales has defied the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive Wikipedia entries. He challenges other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing. Wikipedia has been banned from China since last October. Whereas Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo went into the country accepting some restrictions on their online content, Wales believes it must be all or nothing for Wikipedia. 'We occupy a position in the culture that I wish Google would take up, which is that we stand for the freedom for information.'"
Considering China's regulations I don't think it'd be possible for Mr. Wales to accomplish censoring all of Wikipedia from what's on the list from China's Article 19 of censorship policy. This that China requires to be censored:
- violating the basic principles as they are confirmed in the Constitution;
- jeopardizing the security of the nation, divulging state secrets, subverting of the national regime or jeopardizing the integrity of the nation's unity;
- harming the honor or the interests of the nation;
- inciting hatred against peoples, racism against peoples, or disrupting the solidarity of peoples;
- disrupting national policies on religion, propagating evil cults and feudal superstitions;
- spreading rumors, disturbing social order, or disrupting social stability;
- spreading obscenity, pornography, gambling, violence, terror, or abetting the commission of a crime;
- insulting or defaming third parties, infringing on the legal rights and interests of third parties;
- inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations, or gatherings that disturb social order;
- conducting activities in the name of an illegal civil organization; and
- any other content prohibited by law or rules.
That last one (#11) is my favorite. Kind of open ended, eh? Frankly, it'd be absurd to ask anyone to censor dynamically changing information such as a Wiki with those kinds of rules.In other news all Chinese residents will see a new homepage for Wikipedia. Just another reason why Tor should stay up and the recent news about it being used as a child pornography shield is terrible.
*All information in this post was gathered via irony.
My work here is dung.
They simply believe that access to some information is better than access to no information. It's as if you had a choice between eating crap for the rest of your life, or eating nothing. Some people would choose to eat crap and maybe live a while, while others might choose to eat nothing and starve to death.
The companies named are businesses which by definition are in it for profit. Wikipedia, as a foundation has the luxury of standing for a good cause without having to explain it to its shareholders.
There ARE some things are more important than money.
Why would China ban Wikipedia... When they can just edit it?
The irony here is that the Guardian is blocked by my work!
Those folk in China are really experiencing the gift of freedom of information right now, aren't they? We're so uptight about upholding an ideal that they get *nothing*.
I'd sure call that freedom of information!
I'm willing to stand up and cheer reservedly for Wikipedia if this continues.
My only concern is that, once Wikipedia makes its stand, the Chinese government decides that, well, yes, in the interest of freedom of the Internet, it will let Wikipedia continue to operate - and then start "correcting" Wikipedia's entries to the point of anything that disagrees with "official" truth is useless.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
Man, he must be leaving *billions* in potential revenue on the table for this. His shareholders are gonna be so pissed. I can't imagine why Microsoft, Yahoo, or Google don't do the same thing. His testicles must be ENORMOUS.
Wikipedia is non-profit, where the others (Google, Yahoo, etc) are profit seeking organizations (at least, they're listed on market exchanges).
So while wikipedia can take the high ground and just not exist in China, for-profit companies have to justify this to their shareholders. If you were invested in Google and heard they decided not to expand into the large & growing market of China... well you can see how one could begin to question if the company's leadership had the shareholder's interests in mind.
While I don't like the fact that places like Google and Yahoo allow censorship, I do understand the reasoning. Censorship by default is hard to do on the internet. There is always information popping up in new places, and it takes time to find, review and finally censor it. So by providing the Chinese ppl w/ access to a good search tool, they can use their ingenuity to find the information they want. It also would be unfair for them not to have access to simple, non-controversial material that they benefit from, and which they would have a difficult time finding w/o a good search engine.
However, Wikipedia is more than a tool for finding information. It IS information, and one of it's highest goals needs to be accuracy. (let's not debate accuracy vs. Wiki's here tho)
If they were to censor information that is valid... well it would be incredibly wrong. You can't have just a 'little' bit of censorship of information in an encyclopedia, it violates the whole spirit of the thing.
Its real easy for a charitable organization such as Wikipedia to dictate moral terms to a money making business like Google.
Now does anyone have any rational suggestions?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Someone asked about patent law. Apparently, the Chinese only recognizes patents that have been filed in China. And it's first to file. And they only recognize patents from other contries for universally known entities like Mickey Mouse, although Mickey Mouse gets pirated like crazy.
"Everything that Mao Zedong says is the truth; every statement he utters is worth 10,000 sentences."
Rate: Double-plus-good.
I'm not doing anything whatsoever. How is this news? Wikipedia is business as usual, yet somehow this is "standing up to the Chinese." Wales is a ridiculous narcissist.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
With over 1 billion people, if every chinese did their part, there's no way the rest of the world could keep up with their entries into Wikipedia.
...the mountain cannot bow to it.
(sorry, I have a 4 year old. These damned disney films just burrow into your mind even after a few partial viewings)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I never expected to live in a world where librarians and encyclopedists are the guardians of civil liberties.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
I remember reading an article where google decided to stop bowing down to the censorship. Was that in a dream? I thought they already stopped working with the chinese government.
Its real easy for a charitable organization such as Wikipedia to dictate moral terms to a money making business like Google.
Now does anyone have any rational suggestions?
Hmm... more charitable organizations, less reliance on money making businesses? Especially where free exchange of information is the goal?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
It's much easier for Wikipedia to take the high moral road when they are donation driven as opposed to a public profit driven company. Perhaps it is even necessary to keep their image clean. China is one of the fastest (is it the fastest?) growing economies in the world. It has a staggering population of would-be customers. For them to take the high road and refuse to do business there would probably not go over well with investors--especially when their competition is entering the market there.
I think the original article is more of an editorial piece than a news article, as I doubt the Chinese government would be hassling WikiMedia to make Wikipedia available to China but censored, I'd imagined after they were first banned he made these statements and nothing has changed since. What is definitely interesting is the growing suggestions from Wales is that advertising could be coming to some wikipedia pages which would definitely change it from a service to a business and I wonder how quick they would be to welcome to the droves of Chinese traffic they can monetise after that, or whether they would continue to stand their ground in the face of losing revenue.
Business Voyeur
First against the wall when the revolution comes.
It's easy to be heroic when you have nothing to lose. It's like instead of rescuing the princess from a fire-breathing dragon, Jimmy is rescuing her from a field mouse.
I mean, yes, it's the right thing to do to rescue princesses, but lets not be throwing the word 'heroic' around for no good reason.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
I wonder if a bit of encyclopedia competition in the Chinese market would make Jimmy agree with Google's compromise... If Google ducked out of China completely, and M$ and Yahoo! did not, then billions of Chinese people would be lost by Google to their less-idealistic (or moral) competitors.
Lets see how much he'd like a Chinapedia...
They need to google "False Dilemma"
Belief is the currency of delusion.
to the ban list in china. The chinese government killed alot of people in Tiananmen square, and it was wrong. Also, they suck. There. I've done my civic duty.
-- http://www.criticalassets.com
Apple never ran their "think different" ad with the Dali Lama in China.
I guess they bow to high and mighty over there, too
He challenges other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing. Wikipedia has been banned from China since last October
Yeah, I think the second sentence pretty much gives him the answer to the question in the first.
What if I'm invested in Google and I hear that they decided not to expand into cultivating opium poppies in Afghanistan? How much money am I losing by their decision not to produce heroin? Can I sue?
There is no requirement that a public corporation must do anything it can to maximize its profit. I cringe every time I see this argument used here.
It really irritates me how people in america impose their values on people in other countries. Believe it or not, our system may not be best for China. Just as there is no best parenting style there is no best method of government. I have been to China and they all seemed really happy living in the society THEY have created for THEMSELVES. Do you really think that China would be happier in a society WE create for them?
The rule is *very* simple:
none can walk into your home and dictate. Period.
Ah, but Mr. Wales is american, so no news here... (saddened)
...publically traded company? ;)
It's easy to take the moral high road when you're not responsible for anything or anyone.
Loading...
Wikipedia's main goal is, unlike companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, not to earn money. I am certainly against any kind of censorship, but I see why Google, Microsoft and Yahoo accept it: They are capitalistic companies, Wikipedia is not.
Foxtrot tells it as it is: http://www.gocomics.com/foxtrot/2006/09/07/
So do the wikipedia guys equate no information with freedom of information?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
There are 5 billion people educated by their governments out there in our world, and they just hate what their government hate and love what their government love. Including 1 billion Chinese speaking Chinese.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
In the article, he says he doesn't know why China would block Wikipedia, given their position on neutrality.
t ests_of_1989a ng=zh-CN&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=T iananmen+Square&spell=1e =UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
I'm not if he's being intentionally dense, or if he honestly belives that the Chinese government is interested in neutrality.
If so, I'd ask Mr. Wales to compare the following three links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_pro
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&ie=UTF-8&inl
http://www.google.com/search?q=Tiananmen+Square&i
Just a thought...
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
For all this talk of shareholders shying away from a company refusing business opportunities, and therefore it's "easy" for a non-profit to take the higher moral ground ...
Donaters shy away from a non-profit that DOESN'T take the higher moral ground.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
The US government has censored Hezbollah websites by forcing the provider to shutdown the website. For the Chinese governement Falun Gong is a religious fundamentalist organization so they want to shut them down. However its human rights violation when China does it but "supporting our friends" when the US does it. Talk about double standards.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Yes it is. I noticed the catholics did not speak up in a past time, when IBM and Dow were making all sorts of money during another immoral act. Of course, now, we have Halliburton, ch2mhill and other profits making all sorts of money while a number of non-profits esp the catholics look the other way on new, but same old, immoral acts.
The modern nations are producing millions of wiki entries every year.
It might be a good Idea to start the worker comunes on producing wiki entries 24/7 to compete.
Surely this is the key to modernity.
Hello Cruel World
Let's here it for community driven public endevours which are not bound by the necessity to make money. Corporations almost have to give in to censorship if the want to make money. Take money out of the equation and freedom wins.
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
It's easy to take the cash when your principles are nothing more than lip service.
Access to censored information may be seen as worse than access to no information. At least when you're getting no information, you're not being mislead. However, the very act of censorship is done to mislead the reader. It's to provide the consumer with information, but the information is crafted in such a way as to promote a certain viewpoint, reaction, or misunderstanding.
Suppose there were a situation like this:
Person A was told nothing about Linux.
Person B was able to gather information about Linux from multiple, independent sources.
Person C was given a summary about Linux, written by Microsoft.
I think we can agree that Person B is the best off. They have the most widespread knowledge, gathered from what may be a large number of sources. Person C knows about Linux, but they have likely been presented a biased and twisted idea of what it is. Person A knows nothing about Linux, but at least they haven't been fed misinformation, or at best information that is omitting necessary details.
yeah, and they thought the Manhattan project's test at Trinity might spark a chain reaction consuming the entire planet.
Reminds me of the episode on Lexx where "type 13" planets invariably destroyed themselves while attempting to determine the mass of Higgs boson particle (the experiment inadvertently results in the planet being collapsed into a pea-sized object).
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
(disclaimer - I am singling out the Microsoft/Google approach to China, it is in no way intended to represent the overall efforts of American businesses in China, especially the loathsome actions of Cisco and Yahoo.)
The problem here is that Wikipedia's approach accomplishes nothing - although neither does it compromise the organization's stated principles. Microsoft and Google's approach of censoring on request has still created a raging torrent of information within, into, and out of China, one that the Chinese government can only barely police. Wikipedia's outdated reactionary protest model will not coax China to change anything, after all, China has the resources to churn out competing products with ease. Microsoft and Google are showing China the rest of the world, and giving Chinese dissidents great, albeit limited, tools for proactively attacking totalitarianism.
It's easy to be heroic when you have nothing to lose. It's like instead of rescuing the princess from a fire-breathing dragon, Jimmy is rescuing her from a field mouse.
While in the other valley, Tommy tells the dragon where the knight is hiding out, and tells the princess he had no choice, it was the only way to be able to access the dragons's hoard... er I mean to slowly convince the dragon of the error of his ways...
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
I was in China 2 months ago and was able to search for Tianamen Square and access google.com (US Version) without any problems. Anyone in China that can attest that the censorship policies actually work?
On the contrary, if I see that a company with my investments is aiding government censorship, I'll withdraw those investments.
"for-profit companies have to justify this to their shareholders"
I think what you're really saying is that for-profit companies, in order to gain the maximum potential investment from the most sociopathic investors (who may very well be those with the most money to invest on average), must engage in sociopathic acts to increase stock value. This may be true, but it's far from a justification -- if anything, it's a Machiavellian rationalization.
When then Google should drop the "Don't be Evil" motto if they are not in the position to do so.
I see our freedom's fading and will continue to fade until everyone is less paranoid about the world.
[%] Cingular Ringtones
I second this. Isn't it sad that basic ethical stances require justification, not based on whether they are truly ethical, but instead based on whether ethics are truly good for business? All hail the free market!
I'm just sayin'.
If there are less money making businesses, where is the money for the charities supposed to come from?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
The Mouse isn't patented. It's copyrighted. There's a difference.
Let's face it, the fact the Google is great for finding things online is where they started out, but it's not what they're in business for. The business is to sell advertising space. Pure and simple. All other services they provide are to maintain brand loyalty and keep you using their website.
Google is a glorified advertising business.
Wikipedia is in it for the information. They want to share knowledge by leaveraging the power of the masses.If the billions of people who are online visit and read Wikipedia and find something that is missing or wrong they can edit or add to it.
If the billions of people who use Google continue to use Google they use make Google more money, whilst hopefully finding what they were looking for (as long as they're not in a country with censored results searching for sensitive keywords).
How long is it going to be before Google and other companies like them are forced to turn over search records for the population to governments on a regular basis. Just think, merely searching for 'falun gong' (or whatever it's called) in China could get you locked up if they can match the IP, time and date with a person. Google have been forced to hand over search data by the USA for anti-terror purposes.
The root of the problem is the entire concept of what the purpose of a publicly held corporations is. I don't know a whole lot about what the principles behind the "official" purpose of incorporation are, but I thought that the trade off was that in exchange for certain benefits to the corporation, somehow there was a benefit to society beyond the shareholders. But today, a corporation having good returns and staying in the green, developing worthwhile products or services, it's not enough. Wall Street demands that corporations achieve obscene profits at all costs, over all other objectives. This is simply wrong. Profits are certainly important, but part of the equation should include the perpetuation of a quality product that people want, and the health and welfare of the employees, who should be rewarded with a comfortable living for their dedication and loyalty. Maybe this has never really been true.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
Google also didn't have anything to lose (they were not already in China) - yet they still decided to subvert themselves and their company's ethics out of greed. What does that make them? I'm pretty sure it's the opposite of heroic.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Wikipedia. 3 of these entities exist purely to make money.
So, the logical conclusion would be that the stock market is evil, or at least makes people do evil things? That's not much of a justification.
... and then they built the supercollider.
A corporation acting ethically is not going to cause the world economy to suddenly come to a screeching halt. Labeling non-Ayn-Randian philosophies as "irrational" may make you feel smart, but it's just an ad hominem.
is, amusingly, this.
While I do applaud Jimmy Wales for taking the moral high road on this one, I also have to acknowledge that it looks like his decision was much easier to make than the decisions that Google, Yahoo, and others have faced.
How could Wikipedia comply with anyone's demand for censorship, even if it wanted to? Its core structure makes that impossible. What, would each article have a little NFCNNN button that any of us could push? ("Not For China No No No")
Another issue that I assume would come up is what is valid. Encyclopedias aren't just numbers, there are facts that would be viewed as perfectly true by some and totally false by others. China might say that communism is a certain way while others say it's not, that Taiwan should be under their rule, etc.
May the people rule the world.
For pity's sake, people, do you even read what other people say or do you just post. This is like the bajillionth time somebody has made this same comment AND it has been fairly well rebutted already. Read. Think. Post. In that order.
I think the analogy you use is a bad one and the argument you make is not a correct one. Most of all, I cannot agree at all with your definition of censorship. It seems to me that you're confusing censorship (witholding information) with propaganda (feeding "convenient" or misleading information). While censorship is one of the tools employed by propaganda, they're not the same thing.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
American.
We need to develop an app that takes any web page and converts it to a jpeg on the fly. We could then each provide a proxy like to Wikipedia on ALL of our web pages! This CGI would scrap any wikipedia page and tranfer it back to a session in China as a jpeg, so a censor can't determine what it contains. If the url and header are from every web page participating, how can they fight that?!
Going to SourceForge.net right now. Project "Chinese TakeOut".
RE: Business vs. ??? --
Let's stop this rather useless split -- in the end we're talking about some address on the Web. Although the sources of funding can be different, they are ultimately irrelevant; each site will make their own decision about what policies they will take with regard to censorship. The bottom line is that Wikipedia has chosen not to provide a "Chinese government compatible" version of their encyclopedia. That is their (the Wikipedia Foundation) prerogative. I personally support this position as well. Why? simple really: fighting the common denominator forces that would have Wikipedia stripped of all useful content (or nearly all). Chinese say "make this stuff appease us" Country X says: "while you are at it put that stuff back in about the flat Earth" Religious group Y says: "re-edit Wikipedia to denounce Evolution as part of the devil's conspiracy", and so on. Wikipedia has made a decision to fight the forces of non-education. If this is part of some "American policy of forcing their way of life into other parts of the world", stop thinking that way: 1) you DON'T have to use Wikipedia. 2) If you don't like what Wikipedia says about X or Y then contribute edits. Don't be surprised if there are those in the world who don't agree with you. Such is life.
RE: Some vs. No information:
I can understand those who would like to see a more "compromising" position on in the China vs. Wikipedia issue, but there really is no practical way this would work. Since anyone could edit (and they [Wikipedia] are NOT about to change that policy, thank goodness) eventually even "approved" content would "slip" into disapproval status. It would be a nightmare to manage this. Not to mention the likely moral dilemma of having to lie to millions of Chinese citizens (there may be a billion plus Chinese, but only a few million have Internet access). Some may say that editing article in Wikipedia to conform to Chinese censorship rules is not "lying" to the Chinese people, simply creative editing. You are all free to think that way, I don't and I will call you on it. In the end there is no truly happy middle here: the pressures are always going to be on expanding the information presented to the Chinese people. Wikipedia would simply be cut off again.
RE: Country X's views trampling on the "needs"/"wants"/"desires"/"morals"/"ethics" of country or group Y via Wikipedia:
To those who take this position: speak for yourself, only please. Let those around you decide for themselves if they find Wikipedia useful or not or an "encroachment" of some form or not. If you don't like Wikipedia, don't use it. For those of use who use Wikipedia we have no obligation to see things "your way". If you don't like an entry in Wikipedia, make an edit. If it gets reversed, sorry, others may disagree, leave a comment on the page discussion, be vocal. But the ludicrous idea the Wikipedia should be stripped down into version that please the senses of N different groups is unthinkable. In the end there will be entries you won't like, but there will be many entries that you DO like. The important thing is that Wikipedia is there collecting this information in the first place.
Firstly, if you see a $100 on the ground and don't pick it up, isn't that basically the same as losing $100?
Secondly, I didn't make any assertions about Google's behavior.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
It's a simple calculation, really. Is good measured more by changing things in China or by keeping oneself unstained with contact with a despotic regime. If good is measured by changing China, then the Google/Microsoft/Yahoo approach is morally superior because the more contact with the west that China has, the more China will change to be like the west. But if moral good is measured by keeping oneself `pure' of contact with evil, then the Wikipedia approach is superior.
but could you source that? All these other arguments are baseless without proof of the original statment.
Well known net-kook jeff merkey got wales to drop any negitives about merkey eaisly enough. A combination of bribes and threats, as I understand it.
never travels to China. He might be arrested for promoting gambling ^h^h^h^h^h^h freedom.
He's responsable to his users & the truth. Seems to be doing a good job.
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
Source, please!. Maybe in some cases it is the other way around, governments like what people like. Who knows maybe 99% of Chinese LOVE CENSORSHIP and a tiny, vocal 1% minority make all the noise.
Bottom line, it's not in Google's shareholder's interests to take a pro-freedom stance that excludes their products from the largest economy in the world. Rather, it's most definitely in their (the shareholders) interests for Google to make concessions to the Chinese government to be able to do business there. This is neither good nor bad (though some, including myself, would argue it's "not good"), but a product of being a company owned by stockholders. The great thing, especially in this case, is that if you disagree with such corporate policy, you can refuse to use their products and utilize those of a company whose actions are more in tune with your beliefs.
Wikipedia, obviously, by its nature is not beholden to these interests.
There is too much sleaze and propaganda on the net already, I would hate to see a trusted resource like the wikipedia give in and start hosting propoganda for dictatorships and other oppressive regimes.
I think Microsoft Yahoo and Google would all sell their own grandmothers for hard chinese currency.
This is the best stand this dude has taken so far. Say what you will about Wikipedia (and almost anything you say will indeed be true), but at least they're not kowtowing to Beijing.
(Oh, and Beijing-- We still know what you did at Tiananmen Square. We'll always know. Fuck you guys.)
It would be completely against wikipedia's moto of freedom of information to censor. Way to go wikipedia!
While I'm happy to see such a stance taken by Wikipedia -- it's better than Google's "do no evil, unless it's the lesser of two of them" stance, and Cisco's "anything for a buck" stance, for sure -- I'm a little conflicted on a couple of points:
First, that their stance of "freedom of information," rather than of individual liberty. Accept the latter, and the former can only follow. Accept the former without the latter, you live in a paradox where an individual can be expected/obligated/forced to make disclosures of information about something or another; he has no freedom to keep that information (or its benefits) to himself if he so wishes, (This is also my problem with "Free Software," Richard Stallmin [misspelling intentional. Think "Stalin."] and the GPL, but that's another discussion for another time) or a person is forced to keep his mouth shut if what he wishes to share (or not) doesn't fit the political agenda or dogma of the day.
Second, given the tug-of-war that most articles of a political nature on Wikipedia face, that is, with leftists and rightists engaged in a constant back-and-forth to spin them to suit their agendas, most articles are effectively controlled by a tyranny of the majority, or at the very least, a tyranny of the last person to change it -- rather than articles having a basis in fact. On such articles, I would argue that Wikipedia is only playing lip service to "freedom of information", much less to "freedom."
If Wikipedia has a stance to take, it _should_ be a belief in individual liberty and freedom to do whatever he chooses to better himself (without placing any obligation on others, of course) -- including learning the accurate, honest, objective truth as it's known about any subject available to him so that he can make his own best decisions about them.
It makes no difference if the information's free, but people aren't.
ERZ
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Quoted "How long is it going to be before Google and other companies like them are forced to turn over search records for the population to governments on a regular basis. Just think, merely searching for 'falun gong' (or whatever it's called) in China could get you locked up if they can match the IP, time and date with a person." So could looking up Fellatio Dong very likely. While I'd be first to tell you we ain't the best I don't see many people going to jail over what we search for. If encyclopedia britannica "etc" is sold in China is it censored and all truth's the whole world knows blocked and taken out?
Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
Labeling censorship as evil is qualitative... I'm in no position to say whether it's right or wrong. I only argue that not entering the Chinese market is a bad business decision for companies like Google, MSN and Yahoo.
Players in the market must let government decide things that "should" and "should not" be allowed (although they can lobby the government to change). For the most part the players in the market don't get to make up the rules, they just follow them. In China that means censorship. If it's "wrong" to censor information the (Chinese) people & government should decide so, not big corporations.
I (personally) think it'd be a horrible idea to let big corporations and market forces dictate our morals...
That being said; any corporation which foregoes profits due to their morals/opinions will (all else being equal) be overtaken by a competitor who takes the profit.
Almost every country only recognizes patents filed under their system. The US for example only recognizes USPTO filings. Even PCTs must be filed locally to be recognized.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
What does it say about things that your investors are the fire-breathing dragon you need to be wary of?
emt 377 emt 4
Not at all. I'm not sure how you are able to equate two obviously different things.
... and then they built the supercollider.
If the people educated by governments where so in lockstep
with that education, then why would the Chinese govt be
worried about Wikipedia?
emt 377 emt 4
:coughs
That's quite chilling. The government should decide for us what is right? We should relinquish our own moral/ethical choices? I can't agree with that. People (and that includes companies, which are legal "persons" and run by humans) should do what is "right" above and beyond any laws or government intervention.
I (personally) think it'd be a horrible idea to let big corporations and market forces dictate our morals...
When the government is largely run by large companies, that's exactly what we have. Ordinary people go to jail for stealing $100. Corporate executives get to meet with the President and are called "upstanding citizens" while they embezzle billions, and kill/harm people in the process.
That being said; any corporation which foregoes profits due to their morals/opinions will (all else being equal) be overtaken by a competitor who takes the profit.
So what? There are more important things than making a profit. Allowing profit to be one's guiding force is about the most "evil" behavior one can indulge in. You may as well go and sell heroin to 12 year olds if you believe this philosophy of profit. After all, if you don't do it, someone else will, and they will overtake you!
Seriously, what's the big deal about not making as much money as you possibly can?
... and then they built the supercollider.
Not vague recollections of events that may have happened. Your response makes it clear you don't have an example. If you did, you wouldn't have hesistated from ramming it down our throats in a stupid attempt to equivocate.
I don't think the problem is that a bunch of corp.s have "Do a bunch of evil" as their motto. It almost always boils down to decisions between 1) a short-term profitable "play" that can add profit to the book; or 2) a long-term business growth strategy that isn't flashy and doesn't pump up the share price, but generates solid values for the customers. Enron and friends choose 1, over and over again. There are still plenty of corps that choose 2).
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
So if you walk by the ATM, and it has $10,000 inside it, if you don't steal it isn't that basically the same as losing $10,000?
Thank goodness someone has the balls to take a stand for free speech. Its as simple as that.
All the nay-saying comment posters should try living in China for a while before posting their whiney crap.
I'm interested to see if the PRC comes back with some sort of counteroffer to Jimmy Wales; it would be consistent with their negotiating style...
Remember the future...
So does this mean Wikipedia simply won't be available in China? Seems to me that not bowing to the censors is a short ride to a permanent ban in the great firewall of China.
I read the internet for the articles.
That last one (#11) is my favorite. Kind of open ended, eh? Frankly, it'd be absurd to ask anyone to censor dynamically changing information such as a Wiki with those kinds of rules.
Thanks for that list. I think the whole thing is pretty damn open ended... so basically in china you can't say anything critical of the government, can't say anything critical of any 3rd party or "disturb the social order". You basically can't express an opinion that would be at all controversial.
And it all is okay under the so called Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Sure you have Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
But then you go ahead and follow it up with the disclaimer in Article 29:
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
Chinese censorship is perfectly in line with Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Which is the problem. You can't say that people have a freedom and then give blanket cover for governments to take away those freedoms with whatever laws they see fit.
Chinese censorship, along with any other censorship you can think of, are perfectly justifiable under Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is the problem with the Declarations.
The purpose of a "Bill of Rights" is to have a succinct higher law which supercedes other laws when they are in conflict. Not a law which bestows rights as obligations on people, but to recognize those things which the government must not do to its people. Not to put together a feel good document that can be trashed whenever a government decides that "morality, public order and the general welfare" require it. Think of how many times the US constitution has been used by the courts to strike down Federal and State Laws, and think of what you would be able to write on this website if they hadn't.
If that treaty was a dog it would have very little bark, no bite and certainly wouldn't hunt.
Google: A) 99.99% of data for 1.2 billions people vs. B) 0% of data for $1.2 billions of people.
and 100% of data is available for 4 billions people in both cases.
Wikipedia: A) 99.99% of data for 5 billions people vs. B) 100% of data for 4 billions people.
The choices aren't really comparable, no?
well, I'm assuming that there's no cost associated with aquiring that $100. In retrospect, that's clearly not the case with google, so I withdraw the analogy.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
China may have an unlimited supply of peaseants, but there is still a premium on articulate readers and writers. The number of on-the-ball censors they would need are legion, and they can barely keep their online filtering system up to date. Reviewing and re-writing all the content on Chinese, let alone in other languages, would be impossible. Easier to just ban it.
Wikipedia is under the GFDL. They have to let China be able to make their own site where they "balance" the articles.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
+5 Troll, to Wikipedia.
...and Google is a public company and responsible first and foremost to its stockholders. Unhappy with that, blame the Google execs for selling out and going public.
Loading...
It's not just the cost involved. The $100 analogy doesn't hold up on its own, even without reference to Google. Losing $100 means that you must have had $100 that you no longer have. Otherwise, it's not a loss. Anyway, aren't you supposed to give the $100 to the police first, and wait to see if anybody claims the money?
... and then they built the supercollider.
If Google doesn't comply, Yahoo will or M$ will.
What is comes down to is hard .
Privacy is terrorism.
> Losing $100 means that you must have had $100 that you no longer have.
If there's zero effort required to aquire the $100, it seems to me that for all intents and purposes you've gained it already, so not picking it up translates to a loss. I dimly remember some economic term for this, something like "lost opportunity cost," only it's not exactly that and I can't find it in a quick googling. Any help on that front is welcomed.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Wikipedia is actually good for something! Bringing inaccurate content (written by anonymous cowards) to the poor, huddled masses of China.
Except that you haven't, in reality, gained it already. What if you get hit by a bus while picking up the note? But I don't wish to press the argument. The way I see it, you don't lose something by not taking advantage of an opportunity. You just don't gain the opportunity. And one can never predict the consequences of any such action. Perhaps the note was stolen from a bank, and leads to you going to prison?
so not picking it up translates to a loss. I dimly remember some economic term for this, something like "lost opportunity cost,"
Economists are widely known to live in a fantasy world out of touch with reality. I think the proper term for "economist" is "whackjob" or "whore."
... and then they built the supercollider.
> The way I see it, you don't lose something by not taking advantage of an opportunity.
;)
Well, at my age, I can assure you that you do.
>And one can never predict the consequences of any such action. Perhaps the note was stolen from a bank, and leads to you going to prison?
The assumption was that the aquisition cost was zero. If you start pulling hypothetical rabbits out of hats, you simply can't have a reasonable conversation. If you cross your legs, maybe it'll dislodge a blood clot and you'll have an embolism. If you reply to this, maybe you'll break your monitor.
>Economists are widely known to live in a fantasy world out of touch with reality. I think the proper term for "economist" is "whackjob" or "whore."
Well now come on. I firmly belive that economics doesn't deserve the term 'science,' but 'whore' is a little much.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
"Oh well, all right, let's all sell our souls and work for Satan because it's more convenient that way."
I really can't stand that ultra-capitalist corporate america bullshit you and so many others here are slinging. It makes me soooo sick, I'm lacking words even in my mother tongue to describe my disgust. You should be so terribly ashame of how you had your moral principles mutilated and distorted. Profit alone is not what life is all about, neither is it what "publicly traded companies" are. Fuck shareholder value - it's not a blank cheque to throw away ethics and humanity. Man exists to improve and make all our times more worthwhile, and should live up to this principle. Turbo-capitalism does not - Smith has already been proven wrong. You should probably watch the movie I cited in the very beginning of this post to get a grip on how we should live like.
:%s/Open Source/Free Software/g
YTARY!
most of them can not vote. And israel also maintains and enforces on the books racial and religious marriage rules, about identical to the racial laws that existed in the US pror to the *civil war*. And hezbollah came into existence precisely because of the near two decade ocupation of parts of lebanon by israel, and their constant murders, thefts and other war crimes on the civilian populations there, so a resistance underground movement was formed and they reacted to an invasion by daring to fight back.
Israel has the shakiest of moral or ethical high grounds anymore. The nation was formed by an invasion of european jews-not semitics-*europeans*- who immediately set out massacring arab populations and it continues to this day. All the past israeli leaders participated in mass executions and terrorist bombimgs. That state constinues to keep people under threat of death in dismal bantustans, absolutely no different from the south african apartheid bantustans.
If I lived someplace, my nation, and a group of foreign nations decided to just seize my land an import millions of them there, where they proceeded to wage continual and violent war-well...guess I'd fight the bastards too. The "balfour" decision was an obvious international theft and form of genocide inflicted on peoples militarily weaker. If the europeans want a jewish state, they should have seized lands from those nations who aided in the persecution of jews in ww2, primarily germany, italy and vichy france. israel should exist over there someplace, europeans have no racial or ethnic claim to the lands in palestine. Believing otherise is belieiving in some fairy tale. True semitic jewish people who existed in those lands are still there! Those millions of european and american jews had NO RIGHT to invade, nor do they have any moral right to keep killing arabs there.
You can tell all the lies you want, but history has shown us with 100% certainty what I have stated is pure data, fact. Israel has no moral or legal authority over those lands, except by through the use of violence, or "might makes right". And many orthodox jewish people will state exactly the same thing, and routinely condemen the secular and dictatorial mafia gang run israeli government for the crimes they commit, said gang that then cries crocodile tears whenever anyone dares criticise them and they start throwing out that "anti semite" insult, when most of them are NOT semitic peoples.
In short, most of the planet earth sees through the israeli scam state, there are only a few nations left that even give them support, and numbers who profess support inside those nations-the US and UK primarily, are dropping rapidly. The israelis have used and abused the planet for a long time now, a very long time. THEY need to change or move back to european lands, or at least quit with the moral high ground claims. A good start, how about they extradite out all the crooks who slipped away out of the US and russia and australia and brazil and new zealand and the UK and are now hiding in plain sight inside israel? If they are so morally superior, why are they shelteriong high level white collar thieves, gang leaders, drug runners, money launderers, child molesters, high tech arms transerers to china, and etc? Funny how they get to stay there untouched, isn't it?
Anyway, fewer and fewer people care, eventually...well...I certainly wouldn't live there, that would be rather stupid.
Well, your analogy is flawed from the start because of the "zero effort required". The premise of opportunity cost is that while there are many opportunities available to you, you only have a limited amount of time to be able to exploit them. Ie, there is always some trade off for any opportunity. For example, that time you spend picking up the $100 and putting it in your wallet is time you would otherwise be able to enjoy your day. If it's the case that you're sufficiently wealthy, the actual act of *not* resting is actually more expensive than picking up the money (and hence the argument on why Bill Gates, for example, has little reason to pick up money he'd see lying on the street).
In any case, from an economic perspective the fact that you choosing to not pick up the $100 would imply that something else (like your free time) is worth more than the money. Ie, it's assumed that being a rational actor you will always choose the optimal choice, even if that optimal choice doesn't translate into money. So, claiming that it's a loss is to claim that either you're an irrational actor or that you want to defy the very premise of what opportunity cost is by making it possible to commit multiple opportunities when it's impossible to do such. In either case, turning to economics (especially free market economics) to try to explain this behavior doesn't bode well.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Subject line says it all.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
There are 5 billion people educated by their governments out there in our world, and they just hate what their government hate and love what their government love. Including 1 billion Chinese speaking Chinese.
Ever been to china? I don't think you have. The emergent middle class is highly aware their being lied to about a whole lot. Their just nto 100% sure which is a lie. Things about Mao are common knowledge. He's not remembered fondly by any accept brown nosing party faithfull. You might want to do some research before you spread around gross generalizations.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
.. it already bowed to catalan imperialism.
I guess millions of potential chinese readers are much more important than honestity writing articles.
Anyone who wants to know how the wikipedia can turn out should look at articles and discussions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valencian
Especially the spanish version:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valenciano
http://www.kundalini.se/eng/qigong.html
I wonder if the Chinese media is collectively considered a reliable source.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
Self awareness - try it!
Google notes that the results you are getting have been censored when that is in fact the case, so no one is being misled.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
...whether Wales is intentionally dishonest, or simply naive about the reality of Wikipedia.
Wikipedia does not stand for genuine freedom of information at all. There is a very strong, visible bias towards a particularly narrow minded brand of atheistic pedantry. I'm not going to call it rationalism, because it often seems to be more emotively than rationally motivated, and I'm not going to call it empiricism either, because while it is a perspective which its' adherents claim is empirical, the level of cynicism inherent in it goes against Wikipedia's own article on empiricism.
If Mr Wales or anyone else who is instrumental in the governing of Wikipedia happens to read this, then I have a demand to make:- Go one way or the other. Either allow Wikipedia to be something which is universally editable, and rein in the army of pedants arbitrarily reverting edits, or get rid of the universal editing paradigm entirely, and make it so that Wikipedia is only editable by a relatively small group. Given the amount of material which people have tried to add which has been reverted lately anyway, I tend to suspect that the latter scenario is in reality already here, if people were to be truly honest.
Jimbo, either stop lying to people, or get a clue about what actually happens with Wikipedia...not just what you might want to happen.
Censorship is not just the witholding of information. It can also be the modification of a document or work in such a way as to obscure the information that is to not be disseminated, while providing an alternative view or idea. We witness this sort of censorship in American television all of the time. Female nipples are frequently blacked out in movies that air on cable TV. An unsuspecting person watching such films might be lead to believe that all females have large black squares at the peaks of their breasts. Of course, the truth of the matter is that they have succulent nipples.
Various religious extremist groups have managed to convince/bribe American regulatory bodies into deeming such material "improper". So you can still watch your movie, but it's in a rather watered-down form that better appeals to religious fundamentalists. The idea of the female nipple has been replaced with that of a black square. In such an act of censorship, information was limited, but also replaced with new information.
In the end, it's often better to have no information at all, rather than censored information. Censored, misleading information will always gives you the wrong idea. At least having no information gives you no idea (which thus is not an incorrect idea).
So wikipedia will also host child porn pics, say on the article about child porn? I think that is objectively appropriate, but I think that wikipedia will bow to censorship in that case.
... why not censor things that are considered inappropriate in China? I think there is a little bias, and a little bandwagonning, and a little publicity-seeking going on. And perhaps some agenda from a political direction, that controls part of Wikipedia, .. or is it just that WP is full of non-Chinese? What would it be like if the shoe was on the other foot?
So
The settlements have few people who migrated from the USSR, actually.
The most vocal ones are religious Jews (very few from the USSR are religious) who were born in Israel, and stay in the settlements for religious reasons.
Those who are in the settlements for the money, would have no problem leaving, because the government rewards very well those that it forces to leave (As in the Gaza pullout).
Saying Israel is a "de-facto Apartheid" is a little, tad, bit, extreme. People of different backgrounds and cultures chose to live separately, and set up different residential areas. Jews and Arabs live side by side in Israel, without a forced segregation.
If you think that the Labour party and other "pro peace parties" being elected would significantly change the situation, think again. They were elected, and they tried to make peace, but there's just too big a gap between Israel and the Palestinians. Israel wants to exist in security next to a weak Palestine state that does not threaten it. The Palestinians want to exist in security next to an Israel flooded by 3 million Palestinian refugees - effectively destroyed as a sanctuary for persecuted Jews.
The "neighbourhood" will remain hostile, as Arab nations, including even Egypt are still very hateful towards Israel (even though in Egypt, the regime prevents this hate from being harmful). Syria propagates the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" joke as if it were fact, in official books. The Palestinians elected for government a movement who admitted to sending people to blow up in restaurants and buses to kill as many civilians as they could. Hezbollah's leader Nasrallah said that until Israel is destroyed and the last Jew on Earth is dead, his job is not done.
So maybe you should snap out of this illusion that peace is right around the corner, and it only takes some Israeli gut to make it. There's a lot more to do in the Arab nations for peace than there is in Israel.
I find it somewhat amusing that everyone keeps refering to Wikipedia as taking the high road as apposed to Google and Cisco. Isn't the only example of succesfully bringing down an iron curtain from the Soviet Union? And aren't Google and Cisco effectively following that doctrine e.g. glasnost?
I live in China and from what I hear when I talk about google is that they have already hurt their own reputation badly. When you enter a key word into Google.com the connection gets reset, but with google.cn you get a message telling you, you got filtered.
Now here's the thing: It is a common opinion here that this is google's fault (and not the government's). I've often heard people claim that because of this, google's service is shit. They then go straight off to use the inferior clone site baidu, which even resembles google in style.
Censorship isn't political to Zou1 average; it's a question of quality of service.
How else could I have tied a General Mao Zedong and a General Zod reference?
Any way the point is that if we allowed other entities (people, countries, corporations, etc.) to dictate what goes online, then they would start demanding us to say things about them that simply are not true. Sort of like the Stephen Colbert/Elephants/Wikiality issue. Some people just can't comprehend satire. Others get the joke but still act stupid anyway.
Technology allows democracy to be possible and to exist without infringing upon freedom or security. Government only says that it is possible or it can exists provided we sacrife freedom for security.
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
The other companies have sold their lives to the almighty dollar and should have some guts to stand up to China. We should be censoring them! If they don't want our American ideals, then they don't need our American dollars. Where can I donate to Wikipedia?
Your analogy is flawed. If the princess needs rescuing from a field mouse, it's probably better for the citizens if she is left to perish.
http://outcampaign.org/
It's amusing yet annoying to read the comments of people "defending" Google by claiming that it has to consider its shareholders. First of all, there's no such law requiring Google to put shareholdersabove all else (as several of you have rebutted). But more to the point, why would Google ever have to consider them at all? Keep in mind that Google never has and never will pay a dividend; ownership is permanently consolidated in the hands of the founders (thanks to the stock structure); and the chance that Google will ever be purchased is extremely small. Google is revenue-positive and has oodles of cash reserves on hand. They can comfortably tell their foolish shareholders to go screw themselves, and they can do it with impunity.
My analogy -is- flawed, but lies with the dragon/mouse. The problem is that what's holding the princess is very dangerous to the princess, but Wales is immune to it. China holds no power over Wikipedia, so it's a very safe thing for Wales to get up on his high horse.
What I assume you're assserting is the incredibly offensive but oft-repeated notion that if the Chinese people don't rebel that they don't deserve what they get, in which case I'll just ask you whether you felt the Jews in WW2 or the Cambodians under Pol Pot deserved what they got.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
No, I was asserting exactly what I said: If a princess is so high-maintenance that she needs to be rescued from a field mouse, people are better off without her. There's no metaphor behind it.
http://outcampaign.org/
why doesn't the UN step in and make China stop this 1984 (the book) mass controlling bullshit? Oh and as for "challenges other internet companies, including Google, to justify their claim that they could do more good than harm by co-operating with Beijing" ummmm money = good and companies = no morals so that kinda explains it right there. If I ran any kind of business I wouldn't just not deal in China, I'd put a label on my product (software or physical) that encourages people to take any potshot they can at China, their computer network, or their government.
now stop reading and go play Dance Dance Revolution!
What on earth indicated to you that I approve of their actions in any way?
Ironically, I do NOT approve of their actions you stupid prat. I just wanted to point out that Wales has no financial responsibilities so it is quite easy for him to purport horror at the thought of censorship and take potshots at publically traded companies.
"You should be so terribly ashame [sic] of your moral principles" which apparently include attacking others without thought or contemplation. You're just another usenet/internet idiot.
Taking apart the rest of your argument would be both trivial and useless as you're obviously a zealot of some sort.
Loading...
well ok then.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
I thank Mr. Wales for defending the principles on which the Internet was founded and freedom depends, and I have donated to the Wikipedia Foundation in appreciation and support.
There's plenty of anonymous proxies that one can visit to get access to wikipedia.
Also any search on answers.com among others meta search engines usually brings up a cache of the related article in wikipedia.
There's really no point in blocking wikipedia, except the few extra seconds it will cost to re-route the request via the various proxy services.
I wonder if anyone higher up in the government will have enough smarts to realize this and drop the whole goldem condom fiasco. Maybe they can end the campagne with a big "Mission Accomplished" logo.
Good for Wikipedia! Now could you make the mass murders of Mao and Stalin more "in-your-face" so people really known what communism and the "American left" are all about.
Why is everybody framing the question in terms of Google's profits?
The matter is not what Wikimedia isn't motivated by (profits), but what it is motivated by and founded on. It's about freedom of information. Honestly, I would expect more from the Slashdot community, the majority of whom are behaving in this thread like Google's (and China's) apologists.
This "I'd rather have some information than none" bullshit is coming from the same people who blast away at Microsoft's slippery-slope EULAs.
The neverending search for profit should not be seen an excuse for for-profit corporations, but instead as what is wrong with them.
The organization I work for banks at a non-profit cooperative credit union, and the service they provide is absolutely astounding. I shop at local business that are owned by the people who operate them (not franchises; these are intellectually autonomous, too), and they know me by name and ask me for input on their products and services.
Jimmy Wales is doing the same thing for the internet, and I have the utmost respect for that. Google has decent services, but once enough people have gotten to Gmail, they've stopped asking for user input and appear to have stalled development.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
Even though I am a Chinese, I can't understand why the Chinese government would have asked Wales to censor Wikipedia.
As most of us know, the Wikipedia can be edited by everybody on the Net. It is impractical to have Wales to "monitor" all those changes made by others. It is also impossible to assign a person to delete some content that are not-so-friendly to the government, since the next editor would add it back.
By blocking Wikipedia in mainland China, the Chinese government is sorta taking out the balancing opportunity to give justified point of views in Wikipedia. In other words, their "enemies" can write what they want (e.g. give biased point of view or simply lies, which is not uncommon), yet the Chinese can't help the government to criticize / correct those.
Insightful and well-written. Best post I've read all day!
aren't you supposed to give the $100 to the police first, and wait to see if anybody claims the money?
That's exactly why every morning I go down to the police station to try to identify any lost money.
Yeah, officer - it was green and it had a President on it...
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
In 2004, servers hosting several indymedia (http://www.indymedia.org) sites were seized by order of the FBI. Some links:p
http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2004/10/660722.ph
http://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0411imc.html
No one is free anymore, especially after 9-11. Civil liberties and rights are being taken off in the name of the fight against a terrorism that is build up by many interested parts...
GO MANATEES!
Ellidi
>>China holds no power over Wikipedia, so it's a very safe thing for Wales to get up on his high horse.
Don't you think he should fear the chinese from the FBI ?
Cultivating opium poppies is illegal and so no, you cannot sue and should not expect public corporations to do that.
Yes there is. Check the corporation acts in your country (some of it is case law).
Me too, but it's not because the argument is wrong, it's because it's right. That said, just because the law is fucked up at present doesn't mean it cannot be changed. Unfortunately I'm not aware of any political parties today that have reform of corporation law as part of their manifesto.
If wikipedia is the only defender of civil liberties both here and abroad versus the terrors of unrestricted finance (which we are actively seeing more of day by day), my hat is fully off to them.
Long live wikipedia. One of the last things we Americans be truly proud of. Even though it is international, I feel we have a heavy hand in it and should be proud.
I for one won't use any google products other than google.com. Nor will I support any of their advertisers, knowingly. Same with MS, yahoo, and any other business operating against my principles as a supporter of the bill of rights.
This version of windows is pirated (TinyXP, also beats the holy shit out of all other versions of windows *I've* used). Come and get me money nazis!!!
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
I believe US law requires companies to float once they reach a certain size.
Fair enough, but they should knock off the bullshit moral justifications so. Warped knowledge is worse than no knowledge, its a poison pill that starts wars. If they want any kind of an ethical ground to stand on, they should refuse to do business there, these internet companies whose trade is the exchange and organisation of knowledge, which is the basis of the internet. Not the dissemination of whatever cracked propaganda the tinpot dictators in Beijing see fit to call reality today. By failing to do so, they are not remaining true to their core purpose. They are simply pandering to evil men in the name of profit.
However, that leaves a market space for someone else to step up and offer a better service, so I'm sure the market will sort out the problem in due time.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
I say good for Wikipedia. It's about damn time someone (or some company) didn't bend over and take China's orders. THEY are the ones that censor...not us (being USA that is).
Got to love that First Amendment we have. USA! USA!
cbmeeks
http://www.codershangout.com/
Remember, licking doorknobs is illegal on other planets.
Chinese people are not so stupid as you think, we are just weak but not stupid. We know it when the party tell a lie, but have no encouragement to tell the truth. That is all.
I love SlashDot
Wikipedia is an outrageously valuable information source. If China makes the choice to prevent access to that information source, the consequences are theirs to live with. They know this up front.
China is making a huge push to become the next dominant economic force by means of education. This will certainly hobble them to some degree.
What about Respect, the Greens, or the lefties?
Well, I checked the Greens manifesto and didn't see any mention of reforming corporation law ....
> Why is everybody framing the question in terms of Google's profits?
I'm not. I mostly simply objected to the use of the term "heroic" in this totally non-heroic context.
> Jimmy Wales is doing the same thing for the internet, and I have the utmost respect for that.
So do I. I think it's a Good Thing he's doing, I just decline to get all worked up and laud him as a 'hero' for doing what is, frankly, probably the easiest course of action.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
That's exactly what you are doing by saying "not picking it up is a loss." It's completely hypothetical.
The argument sounds a lot like the idea that the RIAA pushes - that every pirated copy of a song is a "lost sale" and money coming directly out of their pockets. Which is an unsupported assumption.
Well now come on. I firmly belive that economics doesn't deserve the term 'science,' but 'whore' is a little much.
Got any other reasonable explanations for what they choose to do, and the bizarre theories they come up with?
... and then they built the supercollider.
"Cultivating opium poppies is illegal and so no, you cannot sue and should not expect public corporations to do that."
way to miss the point.
opium is legal in some countries, so clearly they should go into that business in those countries.
"Yes there is. Check the corporation acts in your country (some of it is case law)."
Not in the US. A corporation is only responsible to it's mission statement. What they say they will do or not do.
As someone who has worked very closley with corporate lawyers in private sector, and the SEC I honestly feel I can say you are one ignorant SOB in these manners.
tah.
Why are people so passive and cater to peoples feelings. Everyone should have to right to read and write whatever they want. Communist China needs to realize that they can't controll the world
Do you fail to see that there are separate groups considered terrorist from each point of view? Obviously we are not going to blacklist those who we agree with.
One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Hezbollah may be concerned a terrorist org but to many Palestinians the party stands for freedom. That's why they won the elections. Jews, er Zionists, were terrorists in Palestine before Palestinians were. Zionists were fighting the against the British Mandate in Palestine up to Israelis independence in 1948. The Palestinians are now using the same tactics as Zionists did then.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Coca-Cola has hired death squads to assassinate union organizers [killercoke.org] in Colombia.
Coca Cola is also draining India's blood, er water, dry. Coca-Cola Arrogance and Impunity - Coca-Cola in India. Arrogancia e Impunidad - Coca-Cola en India.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I'm simply stating facts, not making moral decisions in the matter. Murder is murder, the method is not part of the discussion.
Whether or not one is responsible for greater atrocities than he other wasn't discussed - the question was regarding whether or not Falun Gong was responsible for deaths.
I don't think that deaths are what's important, what is important is whether they do it to themself or force it on another. If a member of Falun Gong wants to do a Tom Cruise and doesn't want to take a drug that helps him or herself and dies that's their responsibility. Now if they hold a gun to someone else's head to prevent them from taking a drug then yes they should be stopped or prosecuted.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Turning Lebanon into a de facto confederation rather than a single country, in collaboration with their Syrian ally, which controls much of the rest of the confederation. From which they make war against both military and civilians in Israel, in collaboration with their Iranian ally, as part of Iran's larger Shiite revolution.
This statement brings up an itch I have. Many people say how Iran, through Syria supports Hezbollah. Why in the world would Iran support Syria and visa versa? Iran is a theocracy, ruled by and for religion. Syria on the other hand has a secular, nonreligious, government with Christian, Jewish, and Mohammedans. And in the case of Syria the two are animus towards each other. Some will say then that they are both Arab countries but that is incorrect. Syria is Arab but Iran is Persian.
On a side note: Iran is also home to one of if not the oldest religions, Zoroastrianism. There aren't many but a few still practice it there.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Personally i feel the world is going the wrong way with the two state solution. We should instead be promoting one man one vote and an unified Israel and West Bank where Jews and Arabs can live together in mixed communities with no discrimination. I mean partitioning a state based on religion in the 21st century??? What will we do next have feudal lords???
While this may sound like a good idea most Israelis won't go for it as the Israeli population is much smaller than the Palestinian population.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I think you have it the wrong way around. If Israel wanted to destroy Palestine, they would have done it already instead of spending years and countless lives trying to make peace (and in the process proving you can't make peace with terrorists).
Actually there almost was peace between the two sides. In 2001 in a little place in Egypt, Taba, Israeli PM Barak and Arafat almost had an an agreement when Ariel Sharon put a stop to the negotiations by sparking the Al-Aqsa Intifada.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Zorastrians mostly live in India and North America [wikipedia.org], though started in an ancient Persia that included what is now sometimes called Kurdistan [wikipedia.org]. Zoroaster (Zarathustra) was probably a mountain Kurd. I find these details interesting, because a Canadian cabbie once told me he was a Zoroastrian Kurd, and that converting to Islam rather than accept genocide was "the worst thing we ever did". The legacy of Mideastern religious politics will probably upset humanity forever.
Yeah, most of what we know of Zoroastrianism and Zarathustra is from India. Friedrich Nietzsche used mostly Indian sources in his research as have many others. While remnants of Zoroastrianism still exist in Persian and Central Asia the people from these areas don't really know much about them. A few months ago I read a good book by Paul Kriwaczek, In Search of Zarathustra: Across Iran and Central Asia to Find the World's First Prophet. Why am I not surprised some Kurds are Zoroastrians? Maybe because they aren't one monolithic people, they've been scattered throughout the Middle East and Central, Western, and South Western Asia and don't have their own "homeland", Kurdistan. And that's just the way Iran, Syria, and Turkey want it, each having a substantial population of Kurds.
FalconShould there be a Law?
They are already working on an independent state in northern Iraq. "reason" magazine had a good article a couple of months back which is online now,
FalconThe Kurds Go Their Own Way
Can freedom flower in Iraqi Kurdistan?
Should there be a Law?