Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Users Rage Against China's 'Great Firewall'

Posted by Zonk on from the try-throwing-stones dept.

slugo writes with a CNN article about young professionals increasingly aware of the small part of the internet they're allowed to play in. Intelligent and internet-savvy, these users are frustrated by China's overactive concern for internet health. "Yang Zhou is no cyberdissident, but recent curbs on his Web surfing habits by China's censors have him fomenting discontent ... Yang's fury erupted a few days ago when he found he could not browse his friend's holiday snaps on Flickr.com, due to access restrictions by censors after images of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre were posted on the photo-sharing Web site. "Once you've complained all you can to your friends, what more can you do? What else is there but anger and disillusionment?" Yang said after venting his anger with friends at a hot-pot restaurant in Beijing. The blocking of Flickr is the latest casualty of China's ongoing battle to control its sprawling Internet. Wikipedia and a raft of other popular Web sites, discussion boards and blogs have already fallen victim to the country's censors."

62 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. Joke by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mr. Jintao, tear down this (fire)wall!

    1. Re:Joke by tcbent · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you mean Mr Hu. They put their family names first in that part of the world.

  2. Well... by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's the last we'll ever hear of Yang Zhou. Pity, considering he had a good point.

  3. Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Once you've complained all you can to your friends, what more can you do?

    Post very angry comments on all news sites! Arghhh!! I'm pissed off about censorship!

    As anonymous, of course...

  4. So this is how tyranny dies! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Funny

    To the sound of thunderous whining from a bunch of Youtube/Flickr/blogosphere addicted yuppies.

    Off to Digg articles about Zhao Ziyang.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:So this is how tyranny dies! by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, the reality historically has usually been that the contentment of the "yuppies" (or their *rough* historical economic analogues) is much more important to propping up any given regime than that of the lowest classes. As a "yuppie", the individual in question represents a class of people who collectively wield tremendous wealth and influence. When measures taken to repress the plebes start to piss *them* off, you have the makings of societal tensions and pressures that can fuck all sorts of shit up. Think about it this way: China is trying really really hard to produce lots of people like the subject of TFA -- people who are well educated, technologically literate, affluent, and so on. Yang Zhou would at first blush seem to be a major benefactor of the current direction of Chinese society and government -- and yet the very forces and culture that produced him are now, from his point of view, restricting and limiting him! Contradiction...and pressure.

      Of course, I'm not saying this represents the beginnings of some sort of middle-class uprising against the evil Party! Tensions are tensions, and change is change: who knows where this sort of thing will lead? To greater freedom; greater repression; or something that doesn't fit neatly into either of those paradigms. But I do believe stories like this one are significant.

    2. Re:So this is how tyranny dies! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I just think it's ironic. I don't much like people like him in the West because they seem shallow, self obsessed and self important. But I really hate the Chinese Communist Party and it seems that people like him will eventually grind it down, even though the CCP seems hell bent on producing lots of them for economic reasons.

      Mind you, my favourite post 1949 Chinese politician, Zhao Ziyang was criticised for being a yuppie too. It's almost as if the CCP was right to fear "peaceful evolution" and "bourgeous democracy". But the weird thing is that the consensus is that prosperity has made the CCP more secure in the short term, so I guess they're in some kind of trap where either path leads to doom.

      I used to think that would happen when Hong Kong went back actually - that if they allowed it to stay relatively free the freedom would spread and destroy them, but if they clamped down the money would leave and then they would be ruined by popular discontent. But HK is a special case like the treaty ports in imperial times. The Emperors managed to keep foreign influences confined to them before and the CCP could do the same. But they can't do that inside China as this story seems to tell you.

      Actually, come to think of it the Chinese Emperors didn't quite manage to keep foreign influences confined, since the Empire eventual fell. Unfortunately the evil CCP and KMT ended up replacing it, but with a bit of luck the CCP will be replaced by something more liberal when it goes. I suppose that practically that's up to the Chinese anyway, the best the West could do is to provide resources to nascent political parties that seem to be committed to democracy like it did at the end of the cold war. Anything more direct is likely to lead to WWIII.

      But the idea that you can achieve this sort of change by giving Hong Kong and Macau back has a certain twisted appeal to it, given that the CCP was obessed with regaining territory lost to unequal treaties. It would mean that it was good for China to be reunified as they thought, just not necessarily for them personally.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:So this is how tyranny dies! by digitig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I used to think that would happen when Hong Kong went back actually - that if they allowed it to stay relatively free the freedom would spread and destroy them, but if they clamped down the money would leave and then they would be ruined by popular discontent. But HK is a special case like the treaty ports in imperial times. The Emperors managed to keep foreign influences confined to them before and the CCP could do the same. But they can't do that inside China as this story seems to tell you.

      I think people tend to underestimate just how rapidly China is changing, just because it didn't turn into a western-style capitalist democracy at the flick of a switch when Hong Kong (or Macau) was handed over. A few years ago when my wife went to Beijing the first thing that met her as she left the arrivals gate was a huge poster of Mao; now it's a Kentucky Fried Chicken. On that visit she was issued with tourist food vouchers; now one just draws cash from a cashpoint with an ordinary bank card and spends it in an ordinary shop or cafe. My mother-in-law hadn't seen her sister for over 35 years, even though they lived just a few miles apart, because the borders were closed. The borders opened and they had an emotional reunion a couple of years before the HK handover. Just after the handover, my wife brought back some dried lychee from HK; it turned out that they were from a tree in her aunt's garden in Mainland China, and that these were from the first crop she had ever been allowed to keep: previous years the crop had belonged to the state. We ate them like a sacrament.

      Yes, those changes are social and economic, not political, and there is still a lot of change needed, but the pace of change is breathtaking.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  5. Counterproductive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Aren't people in China going to ask the question "Why is Flickr not working for me?" and then discover it is due to "controversial imagery of the Tiananmen Square massacre". Hence interest and discussion of this topic the Chinese government is trying to censor is exponentially increased.

    If they really wanted to censor what went on at Tiananmen Square, they shouldn't draw attention to it by blocking half the internet. Instead they'd just have to spread disinformation within their own country, while still allowing people to read the "outrageous remarks of terrorist conspiracy theorists on the other side of the world". Little attention would be drawn to the issue: it'd get forgotten about. Blocking half the internet in the name of erasing history is DEFINITELY counterproductive to the cause.

    1. Re:Counterproductive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not really. A Chinese censor was recently investigated for allowing a newspaper ad dedicated to the victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre (just using the date). When questioned, the censor didn't know about the massacre so he didn't realize that the ad was a problem. He was cleared and the advertiser was arrested. Chinese censorship works better than they even intended.

    2. Re:Counterproductive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the censor and two other journalists were fired.

  6. King Canute springs to mind. by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The Chinese people will be free, and probably sooner than any of us expect. The Tienanmen square uprising was crushed by troops who were brought in from far away, and had no idea what was happening in Beijing. Eventually, the power of the party to control communications will be overwhelmed, and they'll be made accountable for their crimes against China.

    Today, most Chinese have no idea at all that Mao not only killed more Chinese than Tojo, he was the greatest mass-murderer in history.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:King Canute springs to mind. by jcr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, Mao killed about 77 million through his starvation policy, and Stalin only managed about 20 million.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  7. lesson for those that bash USA by boguslinks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For those that like to call the US a "totalitarian" state, that crushes dissent and is destroying long-cherished liberties, you don't have too look too far to find real, live totalitarian governments. Like China, or Cuba, or Iran, or North Korea, etc.

    So please stop crying wolf about the US, and I say this as someone that has voted Libertarian in the last three elections and is not thrilled with all the actions of this government.

    1. Re:lesson for those that bash USA by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thank you. As a former US Marine I so often get discouraged by the hatred so many Americans have fostered for their country.

      When in reality, I think they have little to no appreciation for what we have here.

      We're very much imperfect, and I greatly frustrated by some aspects of our culture, but we are very much a free nation. Perhaps sometime people should see what it is to live in nation without civil liberties.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:lesson for those that bash USA by ZenShadow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So I should keep quiet until we look like China? I'd prefer to stop it before it starts, personally.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
    3. Re:lesson for those that bash USA by ubernostrum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps sometime people should see what it is to live in nation without civil liberties.

      Some of us would rather never get there in the first place ;)

      When you see the President daily working to concentrate more and more power into his office at his personal control, when you see an eight-hundred-year-old institution like habeas corpus thrown down and spit upon, when you see our constitutional protection against unreasonable searches thrown out because getting a warrant is just too darned inconvenient, when Congress feels the need to pass a law clarifying the fact that the United States should not torture people (and the President attaches a signing statement saying he'll disregard that if he feels like it), when you see the White House arguing that it should have the power to detain any American citizen indefinitely, without charges or legal due process...

      Well, when you see all that you start wondering how much further we really have to go. And you want to stand up and fight it while you still can.

    4. Re:lesson for those that bash USA by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that China is far worse than the US does not forgive the crimes of the US government and does not mean that we should sit down and shut up about the violations of civil liberties here.

      --

      Technoli
    5. Re:lesson for those that bash USA by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Let me be clear to avoid an argument. I agree that we should fight to protect the Constitution and civil liberties.

      However, I feel the need to make some clarifications.

      First off, the Constitution can only be altered through a clearly defined Amendment process. It has not been Ammended. Thusly, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are valid. Any lawyer or judge with any sense of decency shouldn't have trouble upholding basic Constitutional rights.

      Secondly, both the office of the President and Congress under many different administrations have failed to uphold the liberties the Constitution is supposed to protect. The failures lie both with the President and Congress. These should be brought to light, but not as a means of partisan politics, but rather as a means of upholding civil liberties.

      One such minor example was the Telecommunications Decency Act of (94 or 96?) that clearly trampled on free speech. The then Speaker of the House even publicly said it violated the Constitution, yet the House passed it.

      Thirdly, the Constitution could use a good Amendment clarifying our rights to privacy. Currently, they aren't really defined. The Constitution states that we can't be forced to self-incriminate, and that is where unlawful searches and such come from. But there have always been exceptions. For instance, if you have reason to suggest that evidence is time sensitive, or will be destroyed, you can search without a warrant. If you have probable cause, you can search without a warrant. Warrant-less searches have occurred for ages, and should not be made to be appear as a recent or partisan issue. Again, this is an issue that should be more clearly defined in legislation and hasn't been.

      Fourthly, the second our security is in question, people panic and demand that the government know everything that is going on, and be omniscient in their ability to defend us. This conflicts with our personal desires to not have the government look over our shoulder. Again, this line should be more clearly defined, but it is not.

      Lastly, I have not seen a single statement from the White House or any US government official requesting the ability to detail American citizens indefinitely without either charges or due process. There was a controversial provision about detaining immigrants deemed terrorists basically without due process, but it made several clear provisions against applying to American citizens. If you have clear factual evidence that any government official intends to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges or legal due process, that would be very clear grounds for impeachment.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:lesson for those that bash USA by grcumb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, the Constitution can only be altered through a clearly defined Amendment process. It has not been Ammended. Thusly, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are valid. Any lawyer or judge with any sense of decency shouldn't have trouble upholding basic Constitutional rights.

      I think I'm beginning to see where the problem might be.... 8^)

      Secondly, both the office of the President and Congress under many different administrations have failed to uphold the liberties the Constitution is supposed to protect. The failures lie both with the President and Congress. These should be brought to light, but not as a means of partisan politics, but rather as a means of upholding civil liberties.

      The latter is not possible. Politics is partisan, by its very nature. The moment you oppose a policy, a statute or a platform, you find yourself on the outside looking in. Once entrenched, vested interests are not interested in being divested of them simply because someone else has a better idea. It's so much easier to throw mud than to actually address matters of substance that the political battle quickly descends into a shin-kicking, name-calling contest, rather than a sober discussion of the merits of a particular idea.

      Politics is ugly, stupid, dishonest and ultimately boring. Partisanship is a fundamental element of the only means by which large numbers of people can be moved to act, let alone care. We don't have to like it, and we don't have to stop striving for better manifestations of popular government, but we would be blind to discard anyone's political message simply because it's partisan.

      Of course it's partisan! But is it any good?

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    7. Re:lesson for those that bash USA by ubernostrum · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lastly, I have not seen a single statement from the White House or any US government official requesting the ability to detail American citizens indefinitely without either charges or due process.

      Jose Padilla is an American citizen who was first detained as a material witness, then deemed -- by administrative fiat, not by any due process of legal action -- an enemy combatant and transferred to military custody; when his attorney filed a habeas corpus petition, the administration fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, finally winning at that level, and was then challenged again in a different jurisdiction, where a an appeals court deemed Padilla's indefinite detention lawful. Just to be extra safe, last year's Military Commisions Act, helpfully passed just before the Republican party lost its control of Congress, then proceeded to explicitly and absolutely strip away the power of civil courts to hear habeas corpus petitions pertaining to "enemy combatant" detainees, and further stripped the jurisdiction of any civil courts to hear appeals of a military comission's decisions or constitutional challenges of the use of such commissions.

      There is no bloody way that's constitutional, but Bush and the former Republican Congress did everything they could to ensure that challenges will take years at the least. Any effective challenge to a detainment would have to begin with the arduous task of getting the Military Commissions act struck down (habeas corpus is guaranteed by the Constitution, and power to hear cases arising under the Constitution is granted to the courts directly by the Constitution with no ability for Congress to take that away), a process which would likely take the rest of this decade and might not even succeed, given the current makeup of the Supreme Court.

    8. Re:lesson for those that bash USA by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Informative
      the administration fought it all the way to the Supreme Court, finally winning at that level, and was then challenged again in a different jurisdiction, where a an appeals court deemed Padilla's indefinite detention lawful...There is no bloody way that's constitutional

      Excuse me, but if the Supreme Court ruled it was lawful, the it is EXPLICITLY CONSTITUTIONAL. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled on it makes it Constitutionally correct, for that is what those 9 judges do. They weigh cases on the merits of Constitutionality. Having a second appeals also found in favor of the administration further highlights the Constitutionality of their actions.

      You may not like the rulings, but inherently they grants Constitutionality to the actions you're railing against. That is the role of the judiciary, to determine the Constitutionality of laws and actions of the other two branches of government. Given that it's been found so twice - and once by the highest Court of the land - means the administration is on pretty solid ground here.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  8. Raging Against? by mushadv · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fuck you, I won't browse where you tell me!

    Oh god that was lame.

  9. Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have no sympathy for them.

    I have a rather more optimistic view of the Chinese. Most of them know that their government is rotten, and all they need to topple it is to realize that most of their fellow citizens feel the same way. That's why the party is so deathly afraid of improving communications. It's not traffic between China and the west that will free them, though. It's internal communications that will bring the commies down.

    Personally, I'm thrilled to look forward to what China can do when they become free. They will make amazing contributions to the world.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  10. This sort of thing is healthy by Paktu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know this is a bit OT, but bear with me... As China grows wealthier, you're seeing a gradual push towards greater freedom and democracy- free municipal elections, a rapid increase in the number of protests, and backlash against censorship as described in TFA. This is in a nation where the US has done very little to promote democracy or human rights. Compare that with nations where we have tried to promote democracy. Nigeria, for example, is hopelessly corrupt, embroiled in Christian/Muslim violence, and no better off than they were 50 years ago. Then we have the free elections we pushed for in Palestine- the nation is in a state of anarchy. Oh, and there's the "democracy" we installed in Iraq. These nations do not have a history of democracy and never established the social institutions necessary to sustain it. My point is that we ought to not get involved in trying to promote a certain form of government in countries before they are ready to accept it. If we engage in non-intervention in their affairs and peaceful free trade, as is our position with China, we'll see them gravitate towards democracy at their own pace.

    1. Re:This sort of thing is healthy by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be nice if that were automatically true. But historically there have been lots of examples of societies that have made no progress toward democracy for thousands of years including China pre revolution. But unlike the Middle East, there's lots of evidence that Chinese people in the 21st century are ready for democracy. E.g. look at Taiwan. Even Singapore seems to me to be likely to turn into a real democracy given time and a lack of strong leaders. Same with Hong Kong.

      And in Gorbachev's memoirs he quoted Zhao Ziyang as saying that there should be free elections for the head of the Chinese Communist Party in the short term, and a multiparty system in the long term. Given that he was General Secretary at the time, that's breathtaking. But if you look at Chinese history, lots of people have tried to introduce democracy and most of them ended up either imprisoned, or under house arrest or executed. Incidentally most reactionary movements in China have been strongly nationalist too and it is possible that they will lash out at America, Japan or Taiwan to distract the Chinese people's attention away from their loss of freedom.

      So I'd say that it is likely that China will democratise, and there are certainly signs that it is happening. But it's also likely that reactionary politicians will attempt to roll back the process and it's in everyone's interests that the US tries to stop them.

      Free societies shouldn't fall for the telelogical fallacy that history has a direction, or be so arrogant as to assume that all societies will end up being like them automagically. Lots of non free societies would still exist if they had been able to isolate themselves from the outside world and achieve a measure of self sufficiency, and China is big enough to do just that.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:This sort of thing is healthy by 2Bits · · Score: 4, Interesting

      China will democratise, when the conditions are riped, and one of them especially, would be when there are more city population than rural population, which is currently not the case. The other condition would be that there is a huge internal force (e.g. from a whole generation) that demands it. Think of the baby boom generation which had catalyzed a whole chain of changes in the western hemisphere in the 1960s, with a 1968 Paris manif.

      And that is only personal opinions.

      Unfortunately for China right now, the two conditions are not met. The first one is obvious. The second one is a little problematic. There are three segments of population, and I would call them "three generations" to make things simpler.

      1) The old generations, those participated in the long march and the cultural revolution, are currently either afraid of changes, or too busy to hold on to their power, and make as much money as they can, while they still can. This is the generation which has the most to lose in case of too much sudden changes. Most of them will not be able to adapt.

      2) The second generation, those who were born during the cultural revolution, and that's the generation involved in the 1989 event. But this generation is currently too fragmented to form a noticeable force. Those who are doing well are joining the first generation, they don't want sudden change. Gradual change is good for them, they are making to the elite group. Those who are not doing well (the majority) are too busy making a living, with a family to feed, etc, the ambition for a better world has kinda subsided with age too. And they are sandwiched between two generations that do not want change, more or less.

      3) The third generation, those who were born in the 1980s and 1990s, this is the generation of little "emperors" and little "empresses". No big dream, not much ambition, life is good as it is, they will inherit everything from their parents and grand-parents anyway, so why bother? This is what I call the "Life is good" generation.

      Changes are coming gradually, but don't expect a sudden movement to tear down the wall or anything. A model for gradual change, or a model for sudden change a la Berlin Wall which ripped through the whole Eastern Europe? Which one is better is debatable for now. What is good for Eastern Europe is necessarily good for China? Again, debatable.

      But the gradual change model is so far, so good. So, let's cross the finger, and let's work together toward a better world, as a whole. I am optimistic.

  11. Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please revise your comment unless you fully intended to troll.

    The Chinese Government is Communist. All "Chinamen" are not.

    Furthermore, Communism does not have to equate directly to censorship.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  12. In Communist China, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great Firewall rages against you.

  13. You know what happens when people have anonymity? by pestilence669 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They surf porn. No joke. I worked at of those dot-com anonymizer companies that marketed in China. When we looked at our logs, we saw that most outbound traffic went to porn sites. That's what people do with their "voice" and unrestricted access to information... they use their new power to look at naked chics. Knowledge be damned.

  14. Impossible by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is both irresponsible and impossible to maintain such a firewall forever.

    There are plenty of people who bypass the firewall already. China is marching into the 21st century with an eye to the future. They are building schools and focusing on emerging technologies. They are growing not only in population, but in knowledge and economy.

    I don't think it is unreasonable to assume a strong possibility exists where they are the lone true superpower in the future.

    However, you can not get to that point with discontent citizens, or backwards technological practices.

    If you want people to love their country, then you can't pretend the past never happened.

    The moment a strong Chinese political leader steps forward, admits to all the past mistakes made by former Chinese leaders, and motivates their population under the banner of a new, free China, watch the fuck out.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  15. cough cough , spit by rawdirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    nah

    they don't report disease outbreaks... SARS, pig blue ear, bird flu ... in ways
    that ensure disaster.

    the world ends with a cough and cyanosis

    tyranny sucks wind

  16. Re:You know what happens when people have anonymit by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, *most* people will surf porn, just as *most* people will watch American Idol, not PBS. Lowest common denominator and whatnot. That does not deprecate the importance of PBS, nor should it deprecate anonymity online.

    --
    Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
  17. Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Furthermore, Communism does not have to equate directly to censorship.
    Technically true, but show me an example of a communist government that doesn't have serious issues with censorship. The idea of Communist government doesn't require censorship, but the reality is that sustaining a communist government generally does.
  18. Use a proxy by MarkByers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's not like it's that hard to tell your international friends how to set one up. There are already complete solutions that can be downloaded and installed with only a minimum of configuration (such as setting a password).

    --
    I'll probably be modded down for this...
  19. One Option - Learn English by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now before someone suggests that I'm being arrogant, it seems that they don't bother to block a lot of sites which most Chinese people can't read. As I understand it the english version of Wikipedia is not currently blocked, though the Chinese version is. Add to that the fact that a majority of websites are in English, and you're going to be able to access a lot more information if you can read English.

    1. Re:One Option - Learn English by Hemogoblin · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to this site, the english version of Wikipedia is blocked. You can test it yourself here.

      Heres a sample:
      "Testresults for en.wikipedia.org/wiki/main_page
      Latest 51 results:
      03.21.2007 blocked
      03.19.2007 blocked ... etc ..."

  20. This is a waiting game by superbus1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The people that were angry at China, in China, at the official view of Hu Yaobang, went to protest against it, and by extension the way China was run, starting in May of 1989. This turned into the Tienanmen Square Massacre of June 4, 1989; it's safe to say that over 1,000 people were killed by fellow Chinamen during this event. Zhao Ziyang, for opposing the hardcore measures that his party would eventually take, was placed under house arrest until the day he died, and then allowed to nearly disappear from Chinese history with barely a mention.

    Eighteen years later, families of those that were directly affected by that dark day are given increased surveillance by China's version of the Secret Police; some are even put under a house arrest that's unlawful even by their own standards. Anyone that speaks out even remotely against the government is either put under surveillance, house arrest, or just arrested, sometimes never to be seen again. It's gotten to the point where younger people in China don't even KNOW what happened, or even that June 4 1989 was a significant day in Chinese history; remember, a person working for a newspaper was fired for letting through an obscurely worded advertisement mentioning the Mothers of 64 (64 = June 4), and she'd never even HEARD of the Tienanmen Square massacre; those that try to find it on search engines are either blocked/reported, or given China's "official" (read: lies) opinion on the days' events (essentially, that it was a public uprising that needed to be quelled). The common man in China lives in poverty, intentionally kept down by a government that uses them to further their own personal ambitions, with one or two token executions per year of "corrupt" officials. Essentially, China has become the modern day equivalent of Orwell's astute observations.

    If China can effectively whitewash one of the most brutal subjugations of all time, and essentially wipe it from history, what the hell do you think it's thinking of what the article states? They're not worried one iota over what public perception is of how they handle Flickr, or any other website that doesn't play by China's rules. The people don't know any better; they just know that "oh, this can't be reached now :(", they let it ferment, and then they go about their lives, which are usually problematic enough as it is. They do this because they are kept stupid by their government, with almost no way to get real information, or at least no knowledge of how to obtain it, and also a lack of time and resources to obtain said information should it be known how to go about it. This is the reason China's ostensibly trying to build their own fucking internet, for God's sake!

    Eventually, peoples' opinions will dull on this matter, because time fades all memories. This will not affect China in one way whatsoever. Everyone from around the world can decry their censorship all they want, but they're always going to be outsiders; China will never let them "pollute" their pool, so to speak. And when the Great Firewall of China filters out anything unpleasing, what will the people know of what the world feels about their country, and their leadership? Eventually, mention of what REALLY happened at Tienanmen will be regarded by the majority of the Chinese populace the way we in America regard anyone that feels the JFK killing was a massive CIA conspiracy; it will be regarded as a massive conspiracy theory to do nothing but get attention and revel against the Man, and the person saying it will be effectively ostracized by his peers, and be put under watch by the government (something that's unlike us here in the US).

    --
    Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
    1. Re:This is a waiting game by ebonum · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From someone living here, most educated people actually do know exactly what happened in 1989. Unfortunately, the majority of people don't know the truth.

      That said, this happened in 1989. Deng Xiaoping is dead. Deng Xiaoping lived through a time when students tore the country to pieces. They tortured and killed anyone who they disagreed with, and did it on a large scale. Students protesting threw Deng's son out a 4th story window and left him a paraplegic. Students in the 1960's were inhuman and ruthless. Deng had a bad impression of what protesting students will do. What Deng did is inexcusable, but put yourself in his position. If a group of people did that to your son - and also killed and torured your friends - you might not react in a reasonable manner either.

      Either way, the leaders behind Tiananmen are dead and gone. The new leaders in China are different. They are fully aware that between the Internet, sms messaging, and cell phones, it is not possible to hide events anymore. The last time I know of police firing on and killing protesters (about 2 years ago in southern China) resulted in all the leaders in that crackdown being removed from duty within a week of the attack (not sure if they got bullets to the head themselves).

  21. Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not a huge expert on the subject, but I do believe that the former Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito was a Communist nation that didn't have problems with toltarianism or censorship. Their biggest problem was hatred across various ethnic lines within the nation.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  22. Sounds Like US Military Rules for Soldiers by gadlaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Didn't the US Military block, flickr, youtube and pretty much the same services that are blocked in China now? Everybody is blocking something from us, Google removes sites from results, Yahoo and Google help China block and censor things. Take down threats and notices for someone giving Dell consumer tips, someone criticizing some lawyers or telling you how to make your DVD play in your non Microsoft computer. It's already a Brave New Bladerunner world everywhere but go ahead and act shocked that it's happening in China now. Might make you feel better.

    --
    Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
  23. anger and disillusionment by zmollusc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, the chinese people really _are_ catching up with the west!

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  24. Internet restrictions are only a symptom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Young professionals have the means to leave China, even if they don't have the means to change the government. I'd suggest they get out while the getting's good.

    The real victims are the oppressed poor and working classes -- they aren't particularly concerned with trivialities like Flickr access, having to submit to what is essentially slave labor due to extreme poverty.

    The problem with China is the government and its political philosophy, not the predictable restrictions on information access that totalitarian governments always enact.

    1. Re:Internet restrictions are only a symptom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The oppressed working classes don't have the means to leave, but you're forgetting that they're exactly the ones who have the means to change the government.

      Unfortunately China, like almost all countries, try to drill into their residents the sanctity of human life so the general populace aren't willing to sacrifice their lives for a better future.

    2. Re:Internet restrictions are only a symptom by he-sk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you joking? What about the millions of construction workers that help build the big cities. They often move from construction site to construction site, live in crowded dorms and from the pennies they earn they send most of it back home. If they get paid for their work that is, because if your employer screws you in China you just have to suck it up. There's NO rule of law over there.

      Just yesterday I saw a report about a recent bust of migrant workers in China that were literally held as slaves (links to stories on Google News). Now, in the case, the Chinese police actually did the right thing, it happens rarely enough.

      --
      Free Manning, jail Obama.
    3. Re:Internet restrictions are only a symptom by gauauu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Young professionals have the means to leave China, even if they don't have the means to change the government. I'd suggest they get out while the getting's good.

      It's harder than you think for people to leave. I worked in the IT industry in Chian for a few years, so I was around these young professionals. China makes it a HUGE hassle to get a passport, and most countries aren't very quick to give out visas to Chinese without them already having a job in that country. Which is rather hard to get.

      Add to that the fact that unless they want to go to a LESS developed country, their well-paying Chinese jobs don't give them enough money to easily travel/move to an expensive country like those in Europe or North America.

      Believe me, most of my coworkers would have LOVED to immigrate to the "west" (or Australia), but very few had the means to do it.

  25. Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Water's wet, the skies blue, and the Chinamen are rotten Commi's.

    And you're a nerd teen living in his mom's basement, can't talk to girls, and run Linux on his MacBook!

    At least that's what it says here in my "Absurd Stereotypes" guide book.

  26. Post the picture! by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If all big sites would just post the famous picture of that tiananmen massacre on their website (just a microscopic link to the full picture), pretty soon China will have the option of either blocking internet altogether or loosening restrictions.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  27. Bashing Corruption, not the USA!!!! by Bananas · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I think you shoud have a tiny little clarification - not trying to argue further, but I think we need to separate "hating govt employees who are corrupt" from "hating the USA". They are not one and the same. This isn't opinion, it is simple logic, and can be demonstrated as such.

    First off, the Constitution can only be altered through a clearly defined Amendment process. It has not been Amended. Thusly, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are valid. Any lawyer or judge with any sense of decency shouldn't have trouble upholding basic Constitutional rights.

    I think therein lies the problem. Many judges are turning a blind eye; and those judges that tend to pursue it do seem to have a problem upholding those rights. Here is a fine example of what I am trying to describe: the recent(!) Supreme Court decision to allow arbitrary seizure of property by private entities, a right once entitled to governments alone for the sole purpose of improvements for the public good. Clearly, someone was NOT thinking when they allowed this one through.

    Secondly, both the office of the President and Congress under many different administrations have failed to uphold the liberties the Constitution is supposed to protect. The failures lie both with the President and Congress. These should be brought to light, but not as a means of partisan politics, but rather as a means of upholding civil liberties.

    Agreed about the "failure to uphold".... But given that this kind of activity goes back decades and decades, and the American voter base seems included to do...well...nothing about it, it is for all effective purposes, worthless, as the public refuses to enforce it. Why does the public turn such a blind eye to something easily fixed? Why are they content to continue on? I highly doubt it's some form of partisan politics, as this has occurred on the watch of BOTH parties - maybe it has something to do with the stench of corruption and money?

    Thirdly, the Constitution could use a good Amendment clarifying our rights to privacy. Currently, they aren't really defined. The Constitution states that we can't be forced to self-incriminate, and that is where unlawful searches and such come from. But there have always been exceptions. For instance, if you have reason to suggest that evidence is time sensitive, or will be destroyed, you can search without a warrant. If you have probable cause, you can search without a warrant. Warrant-less searches have occurred for ages, and should not be made to be appear as a recent or partisan issue. Again, this is an issue that should be more clearly defined in legislation and hasn't been.

    Yes, the 5th Amendment allows for non-self-incrimination, but I think you're entirely missing a little gem that is relevant to your discussion...Hm, time to haul out a copy of the US Constitution....lessee here...(adjusts glasses for reading) ah yes...

    Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Emphasis is mine.

    So this whole "warrantless" concept is without...warrant? I guess you could really stretch the part about "unreasonable searches and seizures" in an attempt to justify it but the next part is pretty clear to me, "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...." Really, pretty plain English as far as I can tell. So, this warrantless search and seizure bit - just how far back are we talking about? I would like to hear your information on this, as it seems there is a bit of a conflict as to "what source is correct". I'm not so much trying to argue as I am trying to point out another example of "bending the rules" again.

    Fourthly

    1. Re:Bashing Corruption, not the USA!!!! by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you shoud have a tiny little clarification - not trying to argue further, but I think we need to separate "hating govt employees who are corrupt" from "hating the USA". They are not one and the same. This isn't opinion, it is simple logic, and can be demonstrated as such.

      I agree. As Penn and Teller covered in their show Bullshit, patriotism shouldn't be unflinchingly supporting everything about your nation without question.

      I think therein lies the problem. Many judges are turning a blind eye; and those judges that tend to pursue it do seem to have a problem upholding those rights. Here is a fine example of what I am trying to describe: the recent(!) Supreme Court decision to allow arbitrary seizure of property by private entities, a right once entitled to governments alone for the sole purpose of improvements for the public good. Clearly, someone was NOT thinking when they allowed this one through.

      Is eminent domain evil and wrong? Likely. Is it Constitutional? Well, maybe. The Constitution said you can't be denied personal property without compensation. In the case of eminent domain, I do believe you are awarded compensation. You should be happy to note however that several states are passing laws to forbid or severely limit eminent domain.

      I highly doubt it's some form of partisan politics, as this has occurred on the watch of BOTH parties - maybe it has something to do with the stench of corruption and money?

      This is exactly my point. Because these issues only seem to be brought up as a form of partisan politics, they get ignored. We file them away with all the usual mud slinging. If the media were perhaps a little bit more objective in politics, we might take a more serious note of accusations such as these, which is my desire to see.

      It should also be noted, that when we scream wolf over small matters, we ignore the major transgressions as well. This is partly why I am playing devil's advocate right now.

      So this whole "warrantless" concept is without...warrant? I guess you could really stretch the part about "unreasonable searches and seizures" in an attempt to justify it but the next part is pretty clear to me, "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...." Really, pretty plain English as far as I can tell. So, this warrantless search and seizure bit - just how far back are we talking about? I would like to hear your information on this, as it seems there is a bit of a conflict as to "what source is correct". I'm not so much trying to argue as I am trying to point out another example of "bending the rules" again.

      Please reference another post I made just above you. I'd like to see probable cause, privacy, warrants all these matters more clearly defined by legislation. Probable cause is a very broad term. For instance, alcohol itself doesn't really have an odor, but many alcoholic drinks do. If a police officer claims they may have smelled the odor of alcohol on you, they can use that as probable cause to search your vehicle against your consent without a warrant. And I've seen this stand many-a-time. You can't prove after the fact in court the officer perceived the odor of alcohol, so really if anyone ever wanted to abuse the system, all they had to do was make the claim, and boom, you get a free search of the car!

      Probable cause and "unreasonable" searches are unclear. Unclear terms are subject to abuse.

      I really didn't ask, much less demand, for them to "know everything". In fact, I didn't even panic when "it" happened, although I was quite sad for a few days.

      I'm not simply talking about one incident. In fact, when any incident occurs, there is often public outcry about why it wasn't prevented, and people overreacting who want immediate, sloppy legislature put into measure. The Patriot Act is a great example. Not perfect. Not wholly evil. It is a huge, cumbersome example of overreacting by Congress.

      The recent VT shootings are another incident. Everyone

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  28. Flickr is censoring images by PerlDudeXL · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Flickr itself is censoring images for users in Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Germany.

    I'm located in Germany and I can't turn off the Safe Search. Images marked as moderate or restricted
    are not visible. If there is something like a Safe Search and moderation of images, fine. But please
    leave me (as an adult) the option to view all images.

    I guess I won't renew my pro account in August...

  29. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  30. Beware of over reliance on technology by FromTheHorizon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't want to come across as a paranoid tinfoil hat wearer, but I think that this serves as a warning against the reliance on technology.

    Everyone says that the world is a better place, because thanks to technology, we can hear about human rights abuses all of the world. We can connect with other people with similar views. We can voice our opinions to thousands of others.

    This is true, to a point. But we need to remember that technology can be easily controlled, as China is clearly demonstrating.

    I worry that we become too reliant on technology, and forget the traditional person-to-person networks. And I think that it is the person-to-person networks that will really make the difference. Could another Tienanmen Square be organized by text message? Probably not, the government would have blocked the text messages before they reached too many people. Same goes for email. I'm sure Tienanmen Square was organized by people talking to people, something which is a lot harder to control.

  31. Help spur the Chinese Revolution! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In every forum you post in add a photo of the Tienamen Square massacre to your sig...in every website you own include the same picture in an unobtrusive place. Suddenly the Chinese government is forced to block the entirety of 'teh internets'; citizens revolt; end of story.

    Of course posted as an Anonymous Coward. I could really do without disappearing.

  32. Re:You know what happens when people have anonymit by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I must add that this is the most commonn excuse for internet filtering. Chinese official say their main goal is to "protect" citizens from pornography.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  33. Re:Joke {no seriously} by Alan+Doherty · · Score: 2

    >Mr. Jintao, tear down this (fire)wall!

    better yet turn it round and block all the port 25 outbound traffic spewing from your infected machines, bot-neted and owned and trying to overload my mail servers with spam

    thanks

  34. Re:You know what happens when people have anonymit by kripkenstein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, *most* people will surf porn, just as *most* people will watch American Idol, not PBS. Lowest common denominator and whatnot.

    Minor correction. Most people watch American Idol, while some *other* people watch PBS. However, most people will surf porn, but this is *not* a distinct group than people visiting 'cultured' websites. Few people watch both American Idol and PBS; lots of people watch both porn and 'cultured' websites (albeit not at the same time, usually).

    In other words, seeing lots of people visiting porn websites doesn't mean much about the overall level of the websites they visit. Whereas knowing that most (US) people watch American Idol says something quite sad.
  35. Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm from former Yugoslavia and unlike any other Easter block countries, there was no censorship at that scale. I guess Yugoslavia was the only communist state where western TV programming run equally as domestic. We could go for vacation to any country without permission unlike other communist states where you had to ask for permission 5 years ahead and you had to have damn good reason for it. There were some restrictions though: foreign (non easter-bloc) cars were expensive, people had to be careful what they say about CP in public but that's pretty much it. I dare to say that there was more freedom in former Yugoslavia then in some democratic societies at the time or even now.

  36. The Chinaman.... by OzPhIsH · · Score: 2, Funny

    ....is not the issue here, Dude!

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

  37. Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. by bug · · Score: 4, Informative

    Unfortunately, that is not my (very limited) experience. For example, an American-educated Chinese expatriate I knew who had been living in Virginia for several years still believed that Taiwan and Tibet both clearly belong to China, and that any talk otherwise was just insanity. Oppression can be pretty powerful if you don't know any different, and the ability and willingness to unlearn things that aren't true is not exactly mankind's greatest attribute.

  38. Geez.. by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With all this censorship, how the hell is China going to deal with thousands of Europeans and Americans visiting for the Olympics? The web isn't the only source of knowledge. The sheer flow of idea (and outside knowledge) could be crippling. Granted, I believe China has tried to set up a section for the Olympics, to cut it off from the rest of China, but I'm kind of hesitant to believe that'll work.

  39. Re:And the Pope is Catholic.. by icydog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Um, I'm an American and I've never seen a map where Tibet isn't within China's borders. What are you talking about? And the US doesn't even recognize Taiwan as a country, but that's more debatable than Tibet.