Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Official Vows to "Purify" the Net

Sleeping Kirby writes to tell us China's Communist party leader, Hu Jintao today announced the intent to leverage the economic potential of the web while seeking to "purify the internet environment". He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "'raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

7 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. The Register isn't qualified to report on this. by It's+a+thing · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone who confuses the Web and the Internet isn't qualified to report about either.

    And anyone who puts a ® at the end of an entire article as if it was a copyright symbol isn't qualified to copyright or register as a trademark anything.

    --
    Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
  2. Re:They're going to what? by User+956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't know, but it's ironic that they want to "purify the internet environment", while their actual environment goes to complete shit.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  3. And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...the Bolshevik state would prevent you from agitating in the first place by limiting the set of stimuli that comprise your world...


    And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? Controlling the media to present a picture of fair and rational government has been the aim of almost every government/state/ruler in history and it continues to the present day. You need to hit the books if you think fascists (or democrats - small "d") don't practice this too...
  4. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by Jerf · · Score: 4, Insightful
    You missed Article 51:
    Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.
    And guess who decides what interests the state?

    For all the bitching about the United States you see on Slashdot, at least our government actually has to try to subvert the Constitution, and we have ways of fighting back. The US Constitution doesn't have an "Oh, and everything we promised you you have, you don't have." escape hatch built in. Technically, we have the exact opposite, whatever our dear Attorney General may think. (The closest thing to an all-purpose escape hatch is the Commerce Clause, and that's not without controversy, nor is it total; the Supreme Court has interpreted it more broadly than I'd like but they have rejected some uses of it.)

  5. Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All that Commmie ignorance and the Russians still managed to put a man into space before anyone else.

    People seemingly nostalgic for the Red Bear seem to love to belabor the "man in space" point, but also seem to avoid noting that the Soviet Union failed the ultimate intelligence test, when it neglected to ensure its own survival.

    If the system was that good, obviously it should have easily managed to hang on -- obviously that would have been the prime national priority. And yet it did not. Perhaps the take-away lesson is that while the system worked admirably on concentrating a lot of resources on a few key problems, it was unable to manage the delegation of a lot of resources, to a lot of smaller problems. (This isn't particularly astute or surprising; control centralization allows for concentration, but at the expense of flexibility.)

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  6. Re:Actually no by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This will continue until automation helps reduce the number of hours people need to work (and people will be paid more as they work less because the amount of work needed to afford a good lifestyle would be reduced).
    Ah yes... 1950's optimism... with the advent of the automatic dishwasher, laundry machines, improved automobiles, etc. people will no longer have to work 8 hour days! What's that? 50 years have passed and you work an 8.5 hour day now? You can't work an 8 hour day because then you won't be competitive with the people working 8.5 hour days, and you won't be able to keep a job to support yourself? How is that possible, when you live in a country with such a massive food surplus?
  7. Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Where have you been? Here in the good ole US of A we have hundreds perhaps thousands of laws that are blatantly unConstitutional. Virtually all the forfeiture laws related to drug possession and sale are illegal. Many parts of the Homeland Security Act were obviously unConstitutional. The Supreme Court excuses them as being for our own good but the founding fathers made no such exceptions. Rationalizing exceptions to Constitutional Law are very scary in any society. The Supreme Court should not be allowed to change the Constitution through interpretation only the States have the power to change the Constitution.