China Calls For Even Firmer Internet Control

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Calls For Even Firmer Internet Control

Posted by Soulskill on Friday September 2, 2011 @07:04AM from the you're-doing-it-wrong dept.

eldavojohn writes "Chinese state media has published a long article detailing why China needs to take even firmer stances on sites like Twitter and the internet as a whole, or risk backlash to the Communist Party from 'Internet opinion.' The commentary warned, 'Unless administration is vigorous, criminal forces, hostile forces, terrorist organizations and others could manipulate public sentiment by manufacturing bogus opinion on the Internet, damaging social stability and national security.' China seized upon the London riots recently to justify tighter internet censorship. The article, of course, ends with the conclusion that 'Clearly, in the future when developing and applying new Internet technologies, there must first be a thorough assessment, adopting even more prudent policies and enhancing foresight and forward thinking in administration.' While this provides China with their Emmanuel Goldstein and his Brotherhood, it should be noted that the People's Daily is often over the top."

119 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Fair enough by inflamed · 2011-09-02 07:07 · Score: 0

It's not like the US government isn't trying to subvert foreign governments worldwide. It's a reasonable concern. On the other hand, banning things like twitter isn't going to fix the problem.
1. Re:Fair enough by the+linux+geek · 2011-09-02 07:10 · Score: 2
  
  Yet again, the US bogeyman is used as an excuse for censorship by brutal and repressive governments.
  
  No, the US isn't perfect.
  
  That doesn't excuse mass censorship. Ever.
2. Re:Fair enough by prisoner-of-enigma · 2011-09-02 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like the US government isn't trying to subvert foreign governments worldwide.
  
  You make this statement as if the U.S. has a monopoly on such tactics. I'm sure you think China is above this kind of stuff.
  
  --
  In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
3. Re:Fair enough by EllisDees · 2011-09-02 07:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  We all have to give a big thanks to the previous and current presidents for completely giving up the moral high ground on things like domestic spying and secret prisons. Who knows what these Chinese apologists would point to without your help.
  
  --
  -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
4. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  How difficult would it be for an organization to create 100,000+ fake submitters to sites across the network to sway public opinion?
5. Re:Fair enough by ge7 · 2011-09-02 07:15 · Score: 2
  
  It's a matter of preference. Most Chinese want that the government controls those that oppose it or try to cause trouble. Same thing as the whole thing with terrorism in the US. China had a troublesome 1900's. Now there's finally peace, and Chinese want to maintain it. They support government with that. Why does US think they can dictate what other people choose?
6. Re:Fair enough by halivar · 2011-09-02 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Because they aren't choosing.
7. Re:Fair enough by the+linux+geek · 2011-09-02 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  "Most Chinese?" When was the last genuine competitive election held in Mainland China?
8. Re:Fair enough by ge7 · 2011-09-02 07:25 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, they are. Have you actually lived there? It's the same thing here on slashdot always when talking about countries little bit different than US. I've lived many times and many years in Thailand, yet every time there's some slashdot news about internet censorship in there, whole slashdot goes on a knee-jerk reaction telling how the government is being abusive. The truth is that the people want it. Same thing when talking about how it's unlawful to talk badly about the Thai King. Somehow in slashdot it's viewed somehow as that he made the law. It was the people who wanted it.
  
  Do whatever you want in your own country, but don't go telling other countries how they should be. Let their people choose. If you want to comment about it, do get some actual own experience.
9. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  "Most Chinese?" When was the last genuine competitive election held in Mainland China?
  There's really no way to know for sure. However, most older and less educated Chinese are rather thoroughly brainwashed, as are a lot of the more educated ones that became part of the system. There is certainly dissent, but it seems to be sporadic, and largely tied to events rather than general principle. It still seems like there is a fairly sizable majority that either like the government, or at least have no incentive to oppose it.
10. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:26 · Score: 0
  
  When was the last genuine competitive election held in America?
11. Re:Fair enough by ge7 · 2011-09-02 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  And you could say exactly the same about US. It's always the students who oppose government and as people grow older they understand the issues. It's the same in China, it's the same in US, and it's the same pretty much everywhere in the world.
12. Re:Fair enough by causality · 2011-09-02 07:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, they are. Have you actually lived there? It's the same thing here on slashdot always when talking about countries little bit different than US. I've lived many times and many years in Thailand, yet every time there's some slashdot news about internet censorship in there, whole slashdot goes on a knee-jerk reaction telling how the government is being abusive. The truth is that the people want it. Same thing when talking about how it's unlawful to talk badly about the Thai King. Somehow in slashdot it's viewed somehow as that he made the law. It was the people who wanted it. Do whatever you want in your own country, but don't go telling other countries how they should be. Let their people choose. If you want to comment about it, do get some actual own experience.
  Sure, and a crackhead quite sincerely wants more crack. That doesn't mean this is good for him to have. Sometimes people want things that aren't good for them to have and don't serve their best interests. This is nothing new. There is nothing wrong with being opposed to this in principle.
  
  Having said that, I agree that sovereign nations should be left alone as much as possible. The only justification for interference is when they directly and unambiguously threaten us. The whole problem with the US is that it loves to meddle. All or nearly all problems the US has ever had with terrorism or with attacks against Americans who are overseas or with its terrible reputation in many parts of the world is because we simply refuse to leave other nations alone. The US is a domineering empire that tries very hard not to call itself that.
  
  Can you imagine how the US would react to a foreign nation that wants to establish a military presence within its borders and dictate how it should be governed? Or a foreign nation that uses its secret agencies (CIA equivalent) to try to cause chaos and disrupt its election processes? I have the funny feeling they wouldn't like it one bit. Why, they might even want to get back at anyone who tries it.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
13. Re:Fair enough by Nursie · 2011-09-02 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Err, what people say out loud in a totalitarian state is not a good indicator of anything at all.
  Your comparison fails because the people in China do not get to choose anything. Thailand is at least democratic.
14. Re:Fair enough by betterunixthanunix · 2011-09-02 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like the US government isn't trying to subvert foreign governments worldwide
  Not the Chinese government, as it turns out. Unlike the USSR, the Chinese are such an important trading partner that we cannot afford to watch China go through any sort of revolution. Sure, when it comes to countries that are not big trading partners, the US government is gung-ho about pushing for "regime change" and "democratization," but I don't think China has much to worry about.
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
15. Re:Fair enough by jamiesan · 2011-09-02 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Because they aren't choosing correctly.
  FTFY
16. Re:Fair enough by prisoner-of-enigma · 2011-09-02 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  The only justification for interference is when they directly and unambiguously threaten us. The whole problem with the US is that it loves to meddle.
  
  This "meddling" you abhor is intended to head off the germination of groups and governments that can eventually "directly and unambiguously threaten us." And by "threaten" I mean militarily, politically, or economically. The alternative is to allow a potential threat to grow unchallenged until it's so big that it can't be stopped without massive casualties, consequences, or costs (or all three). The last time everybody sat around and let a threat grow unchallenged, about 60 million people died in a war that lasted the better part of six years. Isolationism's been tried before. It doesn't work very well for the defender. It does, however, work very, very well for those planning to do harm to others.
  
  --
  In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
17. Re:Fair enough by interval1066 · 2011-09-02 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Well, I think good old Chinese style FUD is much more effective than the America style anyway. It takes a certain panache to machine-gun down 2000 of your own citizens and then deny it ever happened (Tienanmen Square? remember that little tea-party? But this is the good stuff; (from the article in peopledaily.com.cn:):
  
  Certain international observers cannot find an answer to this question: How did China make such remarkable progress in such a short time? "The socialist system with Chinese characteristics, which fully embodies the distinctive features and strengths of socialism with Chinese characteristics, is a fundamental institutional guarantee of the development and progress of contemporary China," Hu Jintao uncovered the reasons for China's remarkable progress in his speech marking the Party's 90th birthday on July 1.
  
  Of course manipulating your own currency and ensuring your workers make sub-standard wages with a little dose of ignoring certain building standards when making bridges (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6945301.stm) and acting like usurpers and counter insurgents are poisoning your international baby milk products for export (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1841535,00.html) does a lot to spread FUD. Those poor, misunderstood commie bastard Chinese.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
18. Re:Fair enough by drodal · 2011-09-02 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  oh and yeah, we can say the US isn't perfect here without reprisal.
19. Re:Fair enough by drodal · 2011-09-02 08:09 · Score: 2
  
  2008
20. Re:Fair enough by vadim_t · 2011-09-02 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Right, it heads off horrible things like democracy in places where it'd be inconvenient.
21. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:19 · Score: 0
  
  . If you want to comment about it, do get some actual own experience.
  You don't have to be a baker to know the bread is stale.
22. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:30 · Score: 0
  
  "could manipulate public sentiment by manufacturing bogus opinion" sounds a lot like the US media/government to me. One man's propaganda is another man's truth. Works both ways.
23. Re:Fair enough by izomiac · 2011-09-02 08:35 · Score: 1
  It's a real threat, but China's problem is their approach. An idea that goes 'viral' can easily damage "social stability" and a government. There are three ways to defend against such attacks.
  
  First, censorship. This is only effective if it's absolute, which isn't practical, and promotes the spontaneous generation of such ideas from within the population, thus ineffective.
  Second, the government could be completely open and have no dirty baggage, so they can quickly shoot-down any negative accusations. Obviously this doesn't work in the real world as governments are a necessary evil (unless you're an anarchist, but I won't get into that as the imperative word here is "evil").
  Third, give the appearance of a clean, open government and do your own information manipulation to maintain that illusion and drown-out or discredit any ideas to the contrary.
  China is a bit unusual as they haven't given up on the first approach and adopted the third like almost every other state. Perhaps they realize that their state couldn't maintain the illusion of an open and clean government by western ideals, and that free flow of information tends to normalize world views, so even the Chinese would start questioning their government.
24. Re:Fair enough by causality · 2011-09-02 08:42 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The only justification for interference is when they directly and unambiguously threaten us. The whole problem with the US is that it loves to meddle.
  This "meddling" you abhor is intended to head off the germination of groups and governments that can eventually "directly and unambiguously threaten us." And by "threaten" I mean militarily, politically, or economically. The alternative is to allow a potential threat to grow unchallenged until it's so big that it can't be stopped without massive casualties, consequences, or costs (or all three). The last time everybody sat around and let a threat grow unchallenged, about 60 million people died in a war that lasted the better part of six years. Isolationism's been tried before. It doesn't work very well for the defender. It does, however, work very, very well for those planning to do harm to others.
  Yes, that's the fear-based orthodoxy preached by those who wish to justify the imperialism err I mean meddling. You make this mistake of thinking I don't understand it when in fact I simply disagree with it.
  
  And naturally we're either complete meddlers who have no respect for anyone else, or we're totally isolationist and have no input towards the rest of the world at all. You know why isolationism failed? Because it was practiced in its extreme form. All I want is for us to stop bullying other nations, to stop using the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments, to stop things like the mass murder of South Americans so we can have a fucking fruit company, and to understand that there is a definite, positive connection between treating other nations as playthings and having lots of people who desperately want to harm you.
  
  Wanting to trade with other nations in an equitable fashion, having ambassadors and engaging in diplomacy with them to try to reach mutually satisfying agreements, and respecting their decision when they tell you "no" is not isolationist, at least not the definition of it you seem to have been taught. It's really amazing the way you can go a whole decade without a pointless overseas war when you do things this way. You know what really harms others? When you actively create your own enemies just so you can justify continuing to feed your military-industrial complex.
  
  You know why so much of the world hates Americans? They think the American government represents the wishes of the American people. It's hard to blame them. We definitely like to preach about how our government is "by the people, of the people, for the people".
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
25. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  I have a feeling that if the tables were turned and there was an uprising in the US, the 'rebels' would be reported as terrorists and the full-force of the government would come down on them. It's all a matter of perspective and who, at the time, rules the roost.
26. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  And you could say exactly the same about US. It's always the students who oppose government and as people grow older they understand the issues. It's the same in China, it's the same in US, and it's the same pretty much everywhere in the world.
  Not really. The degree of brainwashing, aided by China's strict control over the media, is far greater than you see in most western countries. The older people don't favor the government because they understand the issues. They favor the government because that's how they were raised and it's all they've known their entire lives. They actually believe the propaganda, even when it's quite obviously false. I've talked to some of them myself. Yes, you see some of that everywhere, but it's not nearly as widespread in places without the kind of media control that China has.
27. Re:Fair enough by AngryDeuce · 2011-09-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Right, it heads off horrible things like democracy in places where it'd be inconvenient.
  Hey now, British Petroleum needs to get it's oil somewhere, doesn't it? So what if it involves orchestrating the overthrowing of a democratically elected leader for an ineffectual puppet monarchy that abuses it's citizens? That's the price you pay for freedom!
  America! Fuck Yeah!
28. Re:Fair enough by cavreader · 2011-09-02 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  "Can you imagine how the US would react to a foreign nation that wants to establish a military presence within its borders and dictate how it should be governed?" Not well. Of course the US has no need for any foreign military bases unlike quite a few countries in the world. If any foreign military wanted to force the issue they should remember that the US public is armed better than the military when it comes to ground fighting. The governments currently hosting a military presence usually denounce the bases in public but in private beg the military to stay. If any country in the world demanded that the US leave they would. All this would require is an agreement between the hosting government and it's citizens to make the request. The US would have no choice and would leave. Of course any country that did this better hope they don't need any US military support in the future because chances are the only assistance from the US would be a friendly worded diplomatic note wishing them good luck and future prosperity. "we simply refuse to leave other nations alone" 100% horseshit. The US gets hammered when it gets involved and gets just as hammered when it doesn't get involved. I am personally rooting for a military non-interference policy for any situation located more than 500 miles outside of the US borders. Let the rest of the world take care of their own problems for a change. If nothing else it would be highly entertaining to see what happens.
29. Re:Fair enough by bucky0 · 2011-09-02 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  But they're not choosing! I had a conversation related to this about countries implementing sharia law. If a country wants to implement sharia, they can knock themselves out, I have no big deal as long as the whole country gets a choice about it. If people want to implement a system of government where why have a cadre of hand-picked leaders working without accountability to its people to try and preserve peace after several hundreds (thousands?) of years of strife, then that's their choice.
  The problem ends up that usually the people who get to make the choices aren't the ones who end up with the short end of the stick. Slaveowners in the south probably loved the system they had going on, but the people who didn't like it didn't get a say in the matter.
  
  --
  
  -Bucky
30. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  It takes a certain panache to machine-gun down 2000 of your own citizens and then deny it ever happened (Tienanmen Square? remember that little tea-party?
  It takes a lot of gall to keep lying about it, as you are doing. The Chinese government has never denied that some blood was shed in the 1989 Tiananmen incident. What they have been consistently saying was that no blood was spilled in Tiananmen Square itself, and that has been confirmed by Wikileaks. But go ahead, keep lying about it if it makes you feel better.
31. Re:Fair enough by bucky0 · 2011-09-02 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  Reminds me of a fun story:
  A while ago, I a friend of mine's grandmother (who grew up in china and moved here during the deng xiaopeng (sp?) era) was cleaning out her place and came across her little red book from forever ago. She got really mad and wanted to throw it away, so naturally we were curious why/ To her, Mao was led astray by the gang of four and all the writings in there weren't actually Mao's but was from the GoF trying to corrupt the state. She really sincerely believed it, which from what I've heard is the view of most people from that era.
  
  --
  
  -Bucky
32. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  It takes a certain panache to machine-gun down 2000 of your own citizens and then deny it ever happened
  Gee, I wonder how many got mowed down in the American civil war (remember that tea-party?).
  And your concerns about sub-standard Chinese products is arguably the very reason tighter controls are necessary, would you not agree?
33. Re:Fair enough by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-02 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  I think his point is that US meddling in affairs of foreign countries (including China) is certainly a reasonable concern for those countries. Chinese meddling in affairs of other countries is also reasonable concern for those countries, but that isn't China's problem.
  So, basically, defense against potential propaganda war is a logical pretext for Net filtering (ignoring other issues, such as human rights), and not necessarily fake.
34. Re:Fair enough by zoloto · 2011-09-02 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  wikileaks? I saw it on the goddammed TV broadcasts!
35. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 15:16 · Score: 0
  
  wikileaks? I saw it on the goddammed TV broadcasts!
  No you didn't. You didn't actually see any shootings or dead bodies in Tiananmen Square, did you? You didn't because there weren't any. According to Wikileaks, the U.S. embassy in Beijing confirms that there weren't any.
  You heard American networks say there was a massacre -- a very different thing. These same networks said there were WMDs in Iraq. In both cases, the networks were lying. And if you keep saying it, you will be lying too.
36. Re:Fair enough by kdemetter · 2011-09-02 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  We are talking about 2000 innocent people being gunned down. It doesn't matter that it was on Tienanmen Square or not it . It happened.
  Indeed they don't deny it , why should they : fear serves them well.
  
  --
  Slipping shoelaces ?
37. Re:Fair enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-03 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  I guess the Americans shot a few native featherheads in the drive to win the west.
  And obviously each one of them redskins were wickedly guilty.
  Indeed they don't deny it , why should they : fear serves them well.
38. Re:Fair enough by ultranova · 2011-09-03 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  I've lived many times and many years in Thailand, yet every time there's some slashdot news about internet censorship in there, whole slashdot goes on a knee-jerk reaction telling how the government is being abusive. The truth is that the people want it.
  
  "Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything."
  That's the problem with censorship: after it goes to effect, you can't really say anything about what people want, because the information you would need to do so is being manipulated.
  
  Do whatever you want in your own country, but don't go telling other countries how they should be. Let their people choose. If you want to comment about it, do get some actual own experience.
  
  Western countries do have quite a bit of experience with dictatorship and tyranny. On the other hand, China has no experience with freedom and democracy. So I'd say that we have every right to comment on China.
  In any case, I think there's a certain period in history where transition from tyranny to freedom is possible; specifically, when mass communication first starts to develop through printing press. Before that, there's no way to educate the masses; soon after, technology advances to the point where communications can be easily monitored. At that point, if democracy hasn't taken firm enough root, it's too late, and dictatorship will continue, possibly forever. Time will tell if us Western democracies survive the current test; but China missed its chance and will remain a hellhole forever.
  All of which, of course, means that we should start systematically severing our economic ties to China. We can't help them up - and, according to you, we shouldn't even try - but they can bring us down.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
39. Re:Fair enough by slick7 · 2011-09-03 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's not like the US government isn't trying to subvert foreign governments worldwide. It's a reasonable concern. On the other hand, banning things like twitter isn't going to fix the problem.
  Yeah right, like China is the last bastion of freedom and free speech.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
40. Re:Fair enough by slick7 · 2011-09-03 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Yet again, the US bogeyman is used as an excuse for censorship by brutal and repressive governments. No, the US isn't perfect. That doesn't excuse mass censorship. Ever.
  Just because America is the best country on this planet, it doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement.
  
  --
  The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Oh crap! by WeeBit · 2011-09-02 07:12 · Score: 1

It's already a police State. Leave China's people alone!
China will soon find... by gestalt_n_pepper · 2011-09-02 07:23 · Score: 0

that the worldwide million geek army disagrees. If they should choose to fight them, well , good luck.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
1. Re:China will soon find... by Ranguvar · 2011-09-02 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  that the worldwide million geek army disagrees. If they should choose to fight them, well , good luck.
  A million geeks versus ~619 million "fit for military service" in the People's Liberation Army?
  Sorry, but I'm buying Chinese on that one, despite my personal feelings about their government.
2. Re:China will soon find... by drodal · 2011-09-02 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  they can't swim or have a navy.......
3. Re:China will soon find... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  That's ok, they can always defeat us in PVP in WOW.
4. Re:China will soon find... by Ranguvar · 2011-09-02 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  Not when they can't even compete due to continually being an expansion pack behind while they take the time to censor out culturally offensive crap!
5. Re:China will soon find... by LongearedBat · 2011-09-02 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know... a protracted internet guerilla war could make the Chinese lose alot of face, while giving the People's Liberation Army no cohesive army to fight. This "firmer stance" is intended to prevent exactly such a war.
  So I'm not sure who I'd bet on.
Logical Opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:25 · Score: 0

This totally makes sense from the Chinese governments point of view. They want to maintain their power and an open internet is one of the easiest ways for them to lose it. With traditional media its alot easier for them to control what stories get out.
But if people start complaining too much on the Chinese twitter and other social media it could become a big problem for the government.
1. Re:Logical Opinion by 0123456 · 2011-09-02 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  If even 1% of the population hate them then whether those people can rant about it on Twitter is basically irrelevant... ten million Chinese can kick out the government at any time.
  Oh, but hang on: if those 1% who hate the government are spending their time ranting about it on Twitter then they won't be out in the streets burning things down. So the government should be encouraging people to use Twitter rather than get angry in the real world. Maybe this is reverse psychology where they talk about the evils of Twitter so that anyone who's anti-government wastes that energy ranting to their friends?
2. Re:Logical Opinion by badboy_tw2002 · 2011-09-02 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Its only 10 million strong if the 10 million know about each other. Banning communication channels like twitter takes away an avenue for organization.
3. Re:Logical Opinion by Opportunist · 2011-09-02 08:15 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Have you ever played Paranoia? If not, it's a really funny RPG. Ok, it was a funny RPG until it became kinda too close to home.
  One of the fun parts is that everyone is a mutant. And being a mutant is illegal. Everyone hates the Computer. And hating the Computer is illegal. Everyone is a member of a secret society (but they're all out to sabotage the Computer in some way, essentially, they have the same goals). And secret societies are illegal. What makes the game a riot is that everyone tries his best to hide his mutation, hide his loyalty to his secret society and pretends to love the Computer. Why? Because everyone does it. And everyone is trying to prove that someone else is a mutant, a member of a secret society and hates the Computer to rise in the ranks so they get more leeway and are under less surveillance, as well as getting better equipment. Of course, with the goal to hide their mutation, help their secret society and secretly sabotage the Computer's work.
  It stops being a fun game when you notice that there are people who play it in real life. It's usually the game people play at work.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:Logical Opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  Replace "mutant" with "bright", "Computer" with "senior management", "secret society" with "alliance", and you see the politics of many companies.
  Sometime directors take on extra staff, because they were available at the time and throw them into whatever group has the most tasks at the time, and then pulling them out when they are needed somewhere else.
  Everyone is jostling either to get into the interesting engineering work or up the management ladder.
  Depending on their philosophy, this is achieved by forming alliances, schmoozing up to senior management, going to trade shows, joining profession bodies, being at the office early or staying late, pushing to get involved with interesting projects, or throwing spanners into someone elses project by assigning them extra staff or changing code in sub-modules.
  If you have found a project you are happy working on, you are desperately trying to keep your head down trying not to be noticed in case you are pulled off and reassigned elsewhere.
5. Re:Logical Opinion by Osgeld · 2011-09-02 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  yes because no human has ever organized a massive event without twitter ...
6. Re:Logical Opinion by bucky0 · 2011-09-02 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that in china, they probably have as many people watching the internet for traffic about meeting up as there are "revolutionaries". Remember at the beginning of the arab uprisings when people tried to organize flashmobs? Wherever they decided to meet would be FLOODED with police beforehand.
  Hell, my friends in shanghai have to get a permit to have an expat book-club meeting because they have more than 30 people who show up.
  
  --
  
  -Bucky
7. Re:Logical Opinion by badboy_tw2002 · 2011-09-04 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes because that's exactly what I implied.
8. Re:Logical Opinion by Osgeld · 2011-09-04 11:40 · Score: 1
  
  yes actually it is, that somehow banning communication channels is going to stop millions of people from organization.
  news flash, we have not had much trouble doing it for the last few thousand years
9. Re:Logical Opinion by badboy_tw2002 · 2011-09-05 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  Explain where I said its going to stop them from organizing. I said it "takes away an avenue for organization". You've got a point to make, that Twitter isn't important and hasn't had any impact on modern politics or political movements, and you're looking for any excuse to make it.
10. Re:Logical Opinion by Osgeld · 2011-09-05 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  no I am not making an excuse to make it, I could not care less about twitter
  my fucking point is (since your too god damned dense to figure this out yourself) is who the fuck cares if they take away avenues like twitter, its not going to stop or change anything its not even going to make an impact cause its been done a thousand times before in our history.
  now are we done beating this dead horse?
GIRLS !! GET A BRA THAT FITS PROPERLY !! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:31 · Score: 0

Don't be like China !! Get something that fits you well !!
Seeking out the liars is tempting by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:31 · Score: 0

I do see a number of liars and deceivers in the media. I do distrust the corporations with their advertising and propaganda campaign.
Sure, people recognize it when the government does it, and think it's deplorable, but they are not the only ones with an agenda.
Even an individual can cause this kind of problem.
It's not good.
I just don't know that there's a real solution available that isn't worse than the disease.
Trouble in the hen house? by fahrbot-bot · 2011-09-02 07:34 · Score: 3, Funny

...criminal forces, hostile forces, terrorist organizations and others could manipulate public sentiment by manufacturing bogus opinion on the Internet, damaging social stability and national security.

I wasn't aware that they got FOX News in China... :-)

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
1. Re:Trouble in the hen house? by Opportunist · 2011-09-02 08:16 · Score: 1
  
  Where do you think Fox cribs its news? You replace China with the USA and you have Fox news.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Trouble in the hen house? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  ...criminal forces, hostile forces, terrorist organizations and others could manipulate public sentiment by manufacturing bogus opinion on the Internet, damaging social stability and national security.
  I wasn't aware that they got FOX News in China... :-)
  Or, MSNBC, for that matter. It's all bullshit no matter what color you paint yourself
Google| define: Chinese Internet Censorship by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-09-02 07:34 · Score: 1

v. "manipulate public sentiment by manufacturing bogus opinion on the Internet"; see Tienanmen Square

--
I8-D
Internet Calls For Even Firmer China Control by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:36 · Score: 0

Fixed that for you.
Everyone Loves Us by Jason+Levine · 2011-09-02 07:37 · Score: 1

"Everyone loves us. See? There's nothing negative said about us online."
"What about this right here."
"Hold on a second. *delete* What right where?"
"You're right. The people love us!"

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Bogus Opinion? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:40 · Score: 0

So wait.... The Opinion that is not by the Government is now bogus?
Secondly.. Twitter and other services are generally good at keeping bots down.
Thirdly... I can't help but feel that their own government is trying to force their own one and only opinion down the throats of their people..
Its too bad journalism can't be separate from state over there.
1. Re:Bogus Opinion? by KDR_11k · 2011-09-02 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  Well, yeah, that's how communism works.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
The west needs to pay attention by WindBourne · 2011-09-02 07:45 · Score: 1

It is long past time that we put on the ability to control access. If you look carefully at China's internet controls, they can be used EITHER way. It can be used to control their outbound, but it can also be used as a wall. With this approach, China is building a wall, but will have first strike capability on Western Computers. Now, if it only took out simply company and personal computers, no big deal. HOWEVER, it is not. Even our seperate networks are done virtually. Some ppl say that vlans are secure, but nothing could be further from the truth. Verizon, ATT, and Qwest have outsourced a great deal. Verizon in particular, makes HEAVY use of Chinese admins. Insane that we would do that.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Re:The west needs to pay attention by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 09:23 · Score: 0
  
  Are you saying that because China employs people to filter the content of social networks, they are somehow less vulnerable to cyber warfare? That is one really awkward connection. Do you think that because they regulate free speech, all their pirated copy of Windows are somehow less vulnerable to being exploits? You know, we have firewalls too, right? The U.S. is absolutely as capable of shutting down a DOS attack as they are. Where do you think most of the Internet backbone is located? We just don't shut down free speech with our firewalls. What exactly are you saying? Do you want our government to regulate ideas?
2. Re:The west needs to pay attention by Tomato42 · 2011-09-02 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  Internet is not considered a strategic asset.
  Quite ironic for a network that was designed to survive nuclear country-wide attack on US...
It has already been tightened by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:49 · Score: 1

I was recently trying to get some Hurricane Irene damage information from China.
It was hard to do.
An incredible number of links are blocked, often for no apparent reason.
* Any host with "blog" as a substring of the name seems to be blocked.
* Most, but not all, URLs with "video" in them are blocked.
* Youtube is blocked.
* Restricting a Google search to "past week" or "past month" somehow triggers blocking.
Note, that all this is stuff that is (presumably) unintentionally blocked. I wasn't trying to get
information that China would have any reason to restrict. It's just that they are so afraid of
other information that they block indiscriminately.
Things were somewhat more open during OL in 2008.
Where is Anonymous? by HockeyPuck · 2011-09-02 07:55 · Score: 1

Ok so Anonymous goes after BART for shutting down a few privately owned cell phone repeaters. But does nothing against China and all of the Free Speech bs that they pull?
Protesting/hacking BART only inconvenienced the train riders that had nothing to do with the shutdown; however, Anonymous could look like they're doing something usefull by going after China...
A bit of Robin Hood if you will..
1. Re:Where is Anonymous? by royallthefourth · 2011-09-02 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ok so Anonymous goes after BART for shutting down a few privately owned cell phone repeaters. But does nothing against China and all of the Free Speech bs that they pull?
  This implies that they are American; normal American citizens stand to gain no political victories by attacking China. By attacking the US government, however, they can at least have the warm feeling of shitting on the people who are shitting on them.
2. Re:Where is Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  Ok so Anonymous goes after BART for shutting down a few privately owned cell phone repeaters. But does nothing against China and all of the Free Speech bs that they pull?
  This implies that they are American; normal American citizens stand to gain no political victories by attacking China. By attacking the US government, however, they can at least have the warm feeling of shitting on the people who are shitting on them.
  BART is a transit district. Not exactly the US government. As for the US government "shitting" on people... the Chinese government must be using dump trucks then. Messing with BART is safe and easy. A cheap thrill. The PRC might require effort and something approaching "risk". It might involve doing something "useful".
3. Re:Where is Anonymous? by Dan541 · 2011-09-02 15:51 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous opposes freedom of speech by censoring websites. Why would they be against china?
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
4. Re:Where is Anonymous? by Dan541 · 2011-09-02 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous violated the privacy of BART customers.
  They are attacking American citizens, because they can.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
China to Citizens: It's for your own protection. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 07:57 · Score: 0

"We don't want to have to disappear you if you see or say something unfortunate online, citizen. That would make us sad."
I hope to the Light that the next time some govenment twit talks about an Internet Off Switch, they get slapped by a folder full of China's abuses while getting told "No!" in the same tone a dog's owner would use when they get ready to pee on the furniture.
Never happen, though.
Here, let me translate for you.. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:00 · Score: 0

Unress administlation is vigolous, climinar folces, hostire folces, tellolist olganizations and othels courd manipurate pubric sentiment by manufactuling bogus opinion on the Intelnet, damaging sociar stabirity and nationar seculity.
Cant get much more shameless than that! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:03 · Score: 0

I like how they started the column by touting how fast they modernized. I made sure to send a comment, pointing out how it is indeed much easier to modernize after other nations spent centuries developing the technology and social theories that allow for modernization.
Because Good for China. It only took them 50 years after it was clear that our world was nicer to have enough modern facilities to propagandize in english without using babelfish.
1. Re:Cant get much more shameless than that! by Osgeld · 2011-09-02 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  heh reminds me of being a kid with video games. I would spend a week figuring something out, show it to a buddy who always came back with "whats the big deal, does not seem that hard"
  well no fucking shit dude I just showed you how to do the magic trick, maybe next time you can figure it out for your self.
Always interesting... by Darkness404 · 2011-09-02 08:04 · Score: 1

The Chinese government has always been interesting. On one hand they try to maintain an image as a normal, 21st century non-totalitarian state while on the other they are running a dictatorship. What I've always found to be impressive is that even with fairly loose travel restrictions people still return from western countries back to China.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Always interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  The US government has always been interesting. On one hand they try to maintain an image as a normal, 21st century state while on the other they are running a looney-bin catering to the ultra rich and the hyper-under-educated at the same time. What I've always found to be impressive is that even with fairly loose travel restrictions people still return from other parts of the globe back to the US.
  Fixed that for you.
2. Re:Always interesting... by Darkness404 · 2011-09-02 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  When compared to the rest of the world, the US is a lot better because the government, although nowhere near small enough, is a lot better than in most of Europe where the state itself is already bankrupt and tax rates are sky high, in Africa/South America where the state is much more corrupt, in Asia where the state gives you no freedom, or where cultural barriers make it nearly impossible to live there without being a third-class citizen (Japan), a place where the nanny state hasn't fully taken over in most places (Australia)
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
3. Re:Always interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:45 · Score: 0
  
  In other news, don't leave North Korea because the rest of the world is a burning hell.
4. Re:Always interesting... by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-02 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  What I've always found to be impressive is that even with fairly loose travel restrictions people still return from western countries back to China.
  That's because most people care about quality of life more than they do about political freedoms. Many disagree in words, but when you look at how they actually behave, it becomes evident.
  That, and - how easy do you think it actually is to emigrate from China? You can't just refuse to fly home, you have no visa. You can apply for refugee status, but "China is an oppressive state" is not by itself considered a good enough reason by any Western country (US included) - you need to demonstrate an actual threat to yourself.
5. Re:Always interesting... by kerrbear · 2011-09-03 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  What I've always found to be impressive is that even with fairly loose travel restrictions people still return from western countries back to China.
  That's because most people care about quality of life more than they do about political freedoms.
  People also like to return to their culture and families. I have met some who have stayed. I have met some who just want to go home. And I have met some who, having tasted freedom, want to go back and fight.
pay no attention to that man behind the firewall by markhahn · 2011-09-02 08:21 · Score: 1

it's nice to get a glimpse of the underlying totalitarian foundations of China. what a strange situation - sort of an inverse Potemkin village with most of the country participating in the world economy "for show", while a tiny, reclusive core of government holds all the strings. obviously, that core is not aiming the country on a path of western-style individual liberty. engagement with the West is just a practical technique to fill a billion mouths, to let the west provide advanced technology that can't somehow be withdrawn.
is their thought that some day, China will have gotten enough benefit from the West, and so will stop the charade, flip the switch and resume a normal (for Chinese history) top-down, Mao-wears-the-cap-with-the-ruby-button empire?
And that's news? by Opportunist · 2011-09-02 08:25 · Score: 1

It's not like some media here are calling for the same. Along with some politicians. Usually you get to see such a test balloon every now and then, just to test the waters and see how much of an outcry it causes. If it's not too bad, proceed. If it is, wait a year before you push it again.
Or hope for some bomb to explode somewhere, some riots to break out or something else that allows you to call for more control of any medium that normal people can use to voice their opinion to more people than their immediate peers.
Because that's essentially the big threat to any government, not just the Chinese. You can silence the "normal" media. They are few, and easily controlled. Either bluntly, like my government does (calling it "media subsidiaries", and handing it out only to those "worthy", take a wild guess which ones are), or more subtly, with "media control" that turns a blind eye when line-toeing media show a few nipples where they don't belong while shutting down critical networks if they only as much as forget to bleep the "wrong" words.
Now try that with the internet. It's like playing whack a mole, you silence one and two cry out over just that silencing, let alone the rest of your wrongdoings. Plus, if everything fails, they sit somewhere where you can't silence them because what they do is in the interest of the country they blog and twitter from.
Of course, this can be done in a police state like China. And it serves as a test of our liberty. If we need to protect our liberty by limiting it by shutting down and blocking out parts of the internet that are deemed "not appropriate", we have lost it already. And we're by no means any better than China.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:And that's news? by circletimessquare · 2011-09-03 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  "And we're by no means any better than China."
  we are way, way better than china on the measure of freedom of expression, especially political expression
  i never really understood this mode of thinking where because we have some problems we are exactly the same as brutal regimes like iran or china
  it represents to me a lack of perspective or scale, and a frightening tendency to inflate hysteria and fear with reality
  i'll say it again: we are way, way better than china on the measure of freedom of expression
  if you don't understand that simple truth when you speak about the usa versus other governments in the world, your words means absolutely nothing and you simply don't understand the world you live in
  go ahead and criticize obama or the republican party on these message boards. no one's going to knock on your door. you feel perfectly free to write your criticisms. as you should in a just society
  now go ahead and criticize the chinese communist party or wen jiabao, FROM WITHIN CHINA. if you persist, and you WILL get a knock on your door
  so if you don't understand that difference, and it's implications, stop talking about this subject matter: you don't understand what you are talking about
  enough with these false contrived equivalencies. it just makes you look stupid. really
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
2. Re:And that's news? by Opportunist · 2011-09-03 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, allow me to get more precise: SOME of the politicians that pretend to work for us are by no means different from the Chinese, and would gladly get the same leeway if there weren't pesky things like a constitution in their way.
  So what they do is to ask for similar restrictions in our freedoms. If the outcry is "manageable", they push the agenda. If it's not, we'll get to hear it again in a year.
  We, that is our politicians, are by no means different from China's. They just have more obstacles to overcome in their attempt to restrict our freedoms, and we still have the right to speak our mind without fearing prison, or worse. Sadly, it seems we take that right for granted, and rights that are taken for granted are quickly revoked if they get in the way of those that can revoke them.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
3. Re:And that's news? by circletimessquare · 2011-09-03 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  i don't understand your point
  right now i can scream anything i want about obama or the republicans short of threatening lives
  the same right does not exist in china
  that means something concrete, valid, and important, and it certainly means we are better off than china
  you have to admit that difference or you look silly. if anything, to be a citizen of the usa or the west and not see the value of this difference in rights is the real failure here: that citizens are so clueless of their own rights that other people don't have, and to take those rights for granted: the failure is yours. to bemoan where the usa fails you, without recognizing where it actually does you good, as compared to a place like china, makes you look like a clueless whiner, not an intelligent commentator
  so to equate the political or rights situation in china with the usa seems to me to be completely ridiculous. you're really reaching here. i understand the point you are trying to make, but you will serve your point far better by admitting that on the questions of rights, the usa is far, far better than china
  you don't serve the point you wish to make by making false equivalencies, you just delegitimize your own voice by making it seem like you don't know what you are talking about
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
4. Re:And that's news? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-04 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you could make a movie about communist zombies. That would be great.
5. Re:And that's news? by Opportunist · 2011-09-04 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, you may scream 'til your lungs explode. The first amendment protects speech. It does not protect your right to listen, though.
  In that sense you're right. You have the right to speak whatever you want. I'd just watch out if it is not what the powers that are want to hear AND you even get an audience.
  That's what's smart about our system, compared to China's. It gives you the pretense that you may voice your opinion.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
6. Re:And that's news? by circletimessquare · 2011-09-04 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  "That's what's smart about our system, compared to China's. It gives you the pretense that you may voice your opinion."
  that's insane. you either voice your opinion or you don't. there's no pretense. you act like the genuine right to say whatever you want is some sort of fake right that has no meaning. what the hell is wrong with you?
  if we are ever going to lose our rights, it will due to people like you: people who don't appreciate their rights and discount them in the most contrived manner possible
  you have the right to freedom of expression, including and especially in the realm of politics!
  appreciate that, you idiot
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
7. Re:And that's news? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-04 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you could make a movie about insane zombies. That would be great.
Exact Same Argument... by retroworks · 2011-09-02 08:34 · Score: 1

....Made by Shah of Iran, Mubarak, Gaddafi, Stalin, Saddam... The people do indeed prefer
what they have, the system in place, to anarchy, violence, chaos, and disorder. They have been under the status quo for so long, they cannot imagine a world without the Party which isn't chaos, anarchy, and disorder.
Argument makes a lot of sense and works very well, except that you will be the first against the wall come the revolution.

--
Gently reply
1. Re:Exact Same Argument... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  This would be a case in which the disease sees itself as the cure. In fact, it's self-destructive much like the Soviet Union was. The CCP is cooking the financial books and ever rational human being knows it! Have you not looked at their inflation rate? It's really bad and could turn into hyper-inflation soon. My God, the Chinese are fucked. I feel bad for them how the major cities will cope once the system implodes. It will be a good thing for sure, but not before the pain sets in first.
They are realising the power of information by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:42 · Score: 0

After the train crash about 1 month ago, there was a sentiment of distrust towards the government in some communities on the web. It's not a thing that one would think would cause an uproar -- after all it was an accident -- but I can't expect to understand the public opinion there, and I haven't seen much mention of it in the western media. The Chinese government is feeling threatened. Increasing censorship "worked" for North Korea, but if China hopes to be a part of the global trade, I can only assume that this is a step towards the collapse of the government. It really depends on whether the officials know their people well enough to not push too hard.
Dont Care by Osgeld · 2011-09-02 08:43 · Score: 1

Its their country if that is what they want why should I be boo-hooing over the loss of china twitter? what the fuck ever
Sounds Refreshingly Honest (nt) by Kunedog · 2011-09-02 08:43 · Score: 1

.nt
If your government doesn't suck..... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:45 · Score: 0

you don't need to worry about what people might say on the internet. Apparently, China's government sucks and they know it.
Savour the taste! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 08:58 · Score: 0

I find it interesting to see so many knee-jerk comments about China (esp. from the so-called nerds), yet ignore the simple fact that a) many Americans buy products made in China and b) China basically owns the US economy. Sour grapes anyone?
1. Re:Savour the taste! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 09:35 · Score: 0
  
  I find it interesting to see so many knee-jerk comments about China (esp. from the so-called nerds), yet ignore the simple fact that a) many Americans buy products made in China and b) China basically owns the US economy. Sour grapes anyone?
  I think nobody like the internet censorship actually.
The Horrible Others by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 09:11 · Score: 0

Unless administration is vigorous, criminal forces, hostile forces, terrorist organizations and others could manipulate public sentiment by manufacturing bogus opinion
I find the usage of 'others' in that sentence quite enjoyable. Nice to know our real opinion is classified as bogus from the perspective of People's Daily. Perhaps People's Daily would like to tell us what is our real, unmanipulative opinion.
Britain has not censored internet after riots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 09:24 · Score: 0

And they seem to have done a good job of rounding up the criminals and giving them their day in a court and putting them into jail. And they did it in a short time, and under budget cutbacks. And they did it all without killing people or brutal repressive violence.
Hey, China, how about looking at reality and learning from that?
1. Re:Britain has not censored internet after riots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, not interested in a huge debt and a country full of niggers and pakis running amok.
Can't stop the signal, Mal by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2011-09-02 09:26 · Score: 1

You can never stop the signal.
1. Re:Can't stop the signal, Mal by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-02 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't matter so long as you can shoot the originator.
Re:pay no attention to that man behind the firewal by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-02 10:34 · Score: 1

I don't think so. Their capitalism is not really "charade" - sure, the guys on top eye it closely to prevent anyone from straying too far away from "interests of the state", but by and large it still works as capitalism should, and the reason they have it internally is because it's better at feeding those mouths than Mao's traditionalist state-planned command economy was. This isn't some new idea - similar approaches were used with great success in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, for example.
Problem is that, for a long time, our political theory has stated that capitalism inevitably brings democracy due to the rise of educated middle class. I think that China will prove us wrong in that you can have capitalism and middle class - and all benefits that brings to your economy - while still retaining authoritarian political structure.
Banning China by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 11:16 · Score: 0

Wouldn't this mean that the Chinese government and anybody connected to them would never be able to post online?
This should probably be mentioned every time there's a conference or something about cracking down on the internet.
Re:pay no attention to that man behind the firewal by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 12:03 · Score: 0

Respectfully disagree on your stance in the last paragraph.
China Communism has bought itself time by adopting capitalism, that's true. However Maslow posits that higher order needs will become apparent as the population becomes better off.
Look at South Korea and many other regimes. Even if the people are better off materially than in the past, eventually they will ask the question: Why are we allowing these unelected, unaccountable people tell us what to do?
The Chinese system is stable right now. They can even remain so by choosing to change--the party itself can choose to change once again, just like they chose to adopt capitalism. Internal reform is a risky business, just ask Gorbachev. However it is within their grasp if they want it.
Re:pay no attention to that man behind the firewal by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-09-02 12:49 · Score: 1

Even if the people are better off materially than in the past, eventually they will ask the question: Why are we allowing these unelected, unaccountable people tell us what to do?
The problem is that, with modern communication framework, it is relatively easy to give the outward appearances (i.e. elections and so forth) while retaining effective control. Indeed, Western world has been heading that way for a while now, even if we're still a long way from China. If you let people elect freely, but filter all their communications so that they get the message you want them to get, why wouldn't they re-elect you?
Fix Baidu and robots.txt then by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-02 15:49 · Score: 0

Fix Baidu and robots.txt then. It would be cool if Baidu started following all our robots.txt settings ... or even bothered.
Oooo a Bogus Opinion algorithm? I want I want! by Deliveranc3 · 2011-09-03 01:03 · Score: 1

Oh it's the same whatever we say bullshit that other governments use.... well never mind then. I can get that from a six year old.

Plus they're willing to say what I say until I give up... that's like circular logic++!
China... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-03 01:41 · Score: 0

Maybe if they were actually communist they wouldn't have such a problem.
No "internet opinion" == worse opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-03 01:45 · Score: 0

And without the ability to form an "internet opinion", what will people do? Formulate an opinion of the Chinese Communist Party anyway. It will be even worse, because in addition to the long list of valid reasons for formulating a bad opinion of the party, people can also add "suppresses free expression of opinions on the internet".
And, yes, it's all about other interests "manipulating" opinion. It couldn't possibly be people formulating a bad opinion of the government all on their own.