Slashdot Mirror
Google Asks US For WTO Block On China Censorship
An anonymous reader writes "Google is asking the US government to petition the World Trade Organization to recognize China's censorship as an unfair barrier to trade. The US Trade Representative is reviewing their petition to see if they can prove that China's rules discriminate against foreign competition. At least it's something worthwhile for the US Trade Reps to do, rather than secretly negotiating ACTA."
I'm really quite proud of Google for taking on China over this issue. I understand that China is a big search market and Google is just trying to ensure that it gets every last click out of it, but having uncensored access to Google search is something that Chinese citizens really should have. It's one of their only ways to find news and information that hasn't been filtered through the government's propaganda machine. Obviously, that's why China doesn't want them to be able to use it.
Internet based trade barriers are everywhere, what immediately also comes to mind are the US block on gambling websites.
The problem here is that it won't be easy to figth this one when we're not smelling like a rose, either.
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
well, no balls means no point in pulling out. (oh yeah... i went there)
Total, utter unmitigated uninformed bullshit. When have the WTO ever said "Sorry"?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
If you could not point out an error unless you are yourself completely free of any error no-one would speak up for anything.
In other words: You can never really counter any argument by proclaiming the other party also does things wrong... While it might feel morally right to do so it makes no sense logically, the argument still stands and everyone is just as flawed (or even more because of it).
Then again, this is really the pot calling the kettle black... And it can become annoying and more important unproductive, so I do agree with you.
China must have called their bluff and won the first round. Now that "we'll leave if you don't change your ways" is off the table, Google's hand is a lot weaker. At this point I expect them to run around for another few months, pretend that they're actually trying to do something that will work, eventually declare "victory" and continue on in China like none of this ever happened.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Gentlemen, you can't just do whatever you want, this is free trade!"
Set your phasers on "funky"!
So when we start working against censorship in Italy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Italy#During_Berlusconi.27s_era_.281992-present.29
> why does everyone keep telling the Chinese what to do with their country? Didn't you guys believe in freedom or something?
Clasically, international law recognized the state's right to do whatever it wanted within its borders, but even then the creation of international law had to do with the problem of human rights, in a way. The thirty years war had wreaked havoc on Europe, and hundreds of towns and cities across the continent were burned or otherwise scourged by the war. Starting around 1648, after the Peace of Westphalia, nations could not longer do whatever they wanted.
The connection to human rights remained largely latent until WW2, however. Then we had the holocaust. War Crime prosecution at Nurenberg, the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR, and then the formation for the first time of transnational organizations (Amnesty International being one of the early starters) for the advancement of human rights, led us into a world where everyone agreed that it mattered what people did within their own country. Some things are illegal. Slavery, piracy, and aggressive war are the most obvious.
In our society, individuals have certain freedoms so long as they don't break the social contract, express or implied. In international society, nations have freedom so long as they don't break the social contract among nations, express or implied. In both cases, it's easier to get away with breaking the contract if you're bigger, you're stronger, you have more money, or nobody finds out about it.
As to your last point, if we knew how to fix our country, we would. We're trying, and we'll keep trying. But we still live in the world. We still have obligations--and so does China--not only on a moral level and arising out of our duty to our citizenry and our species, but also arising out of treaty obligations under the WTO. If China agrees to be part of the WTO, then it can expect to have a complaint filed against it if it violates WTO rules. The same is true for the United States, or Canada, or any other signatory to the relevant treaties.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
The WTO is certainly among the lesser evils. In the old-old days, when the uber-wealthy wanted to protect their property rights, they had to hire mercenaries. It was cruel, but at least it was honest.
Later in history, the developments of religion and nationalism enabled those on top to use mere rhetoric to convince the poor to die protecting business interests. Protect the King's land from the godless invaders! Fly under the stars and stripes to defend the fruit company's interests in the banana republics!
With the advent of conscription, however, those who owned the world could merely summon slaves to make sure their property remained under their control (Korea, Vietnam).
But the Owners didn't entirely control the new phenomenon of mass media, and popular opinion turned. Slavery wasn't an option, so we tried espionage (CIA) and even old-school mercenaries (Gulf War I) to protect businesses interests .
The uber-rich aren't going to stop trying to protect "their" property, but with the Internet turning media upside-down, it will be harder than ever to get the poor to agree to conscription, crusades or even merc work. Using trade embargoes via the WTO is probably better than outright war for this purpose, so long as they don't embargo to the point of mass starvation.
(For the record: I'm not anti-capitalist. Humanity just sucks when it comes to war and money. A progressive capitalism in which you can get rich but you can't take it with you [high inheritance tax to fund education of the poor] sounds most appealing to me.)
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.