Slashdot Mirror


Google+ Unblocked In China; President Obama's Page Flooded With Comments

An anonymous reader writes "Google+ has recently been unblocked in China and Chinese netizens have found their way to President Obama's G+ page. The result is that topic after topic has hit the limit of 500 comments, most of them in Chinese. Some express political views, but many are just everyday banter or showing off."

50 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. China unblocks Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    China unblocks Google+ Figures no one uses it anyway. Myspace is next to be unblocked.

    1. Re:China unblocks Google+ by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 5, Funny

      If the Chinese completely took down the Great Firewall, many other sites would start to howl in pain. Think how useless lots of corporate feedback pages would become (e.g. on Facebook). Consultants would make a fortune implementing anti-Chinese firewalls all over the place...

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    2. Re:China unblocks Google+ by Errtu76 · · Score: 2

      Hm, so actually what you're saying is that the Great Firewall of China is protecting us from the Chinese?

    3. Re:China unblocks Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      G+ has ~54mil daily users. Nothing to sneeze at, but still small compared to FB's 400+mil daily users.

    4. Re:China unblocks Google+ by biodata · · Score: 2

      >small compared to FB's 400+mil daily users. which is nothing compared with China's 1.3 billion people

      --
      Korma: Good
    5. Re:China unblocks Google+ by PDF · · Score: 5, Funny

      Fortunately, Slashdot lacks Unicode support, so we're already protected.

    6. Re:China unblocks Google+ by exomondo · · Score: 2

      >small compared to FB's 400+mil daily users. which is nothing compared with China's 1.3 billion people

      G+ has about 13% of the number of users of FB, FB has about 30% of the number of Chinese citizens.

  2. Widespread interest by sdw · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interesting how much of the world is interested in our politics.
    Several years ago, I was walking around Porvoo, Finland, taking pictures. I talked to a few teenagers doing skateboard tricks. In their perfect English, they were very curious how we could have elected Bush II twice. It's all they wanted to talk about.

    --
    Stephen D. Williams
    1. Re:Widespread interest by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's more interesting is how little interest we have in our politics. At least, little interest in finding out for ourselves what's going on rather then blindly following our parties marching orders.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Widespread interest by Nerdfest · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US now seems to treat politics like just another reality TV show.

    3. Re:Widespread interest by surgen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you trying to say ignorance of foreign issues and jingoism isn't a the best way to form opinions on international matters? You're such a communist.

    4. Re:Widespread interest by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's even more interesting, is how little interest our politicians have in us.

      As opposed to their own careers and their paymasters.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Widespread interest by apt142 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I blame this on only having two political parties. Since each party only really has one competitor, it boils down to us versus them rhetoric.

      With a viable third or fourth party, I think we'd see less "that party wants to eat your children" attacks and more stands on what they believe in. Because it's much harder to go on the attack against two or three opponents, the merits of a particular stance would have to take center stage or least get out of the back alley behind the concert where it's drinking it's cheap whiskey and crying itself to sleep.

      But, for that to happen we'd need to have less of a winner takes all approach to our election system.

    6. Re:Widespread interest by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      As if the population in other countries don't actually make decisions in exactly the same way.

    7. Re:Widespread interest by Leafheart · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can only speak for me, but I wage that it helps to a lot of other Brazilians. Your politics reflect on ours.

      Recently, one of our center-right parties renamed themselves Democrats (yeah, you read right, center-right) and have tried to mirror the Democrats politics here. And even without taken them into considerations, a lot of politics and companies keep an eye on what is going on there to try to mirror it on national legislation. Thing about things like SOPA, had it passed, there would be a hard push to implement similar language here. So your politics directly influence ours indirectly. And also directly.

      Let's say for example that Grinch becomes president and he works on his campaign promise to invade Iran. Suddenly it is a new Middle East war and again we are thrown on the Iraq war cycle of problems on the international scales. So yeah, we need to pay lots of attentions to your politics.

      --
      --- "When you gotta do something wrong. You gotta do it right. (Fighter)"
    8. Re:Widespread interest by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2, Funny

      To a certain extent that's true. However, the US raises it to high art...

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    9. Re:Widespread interest by JimCanuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No mod points, so commenting, if anyone saw the debate yesterday you'd have realized how right Nerdfest is.

    10. Re:Widespread interest by divisionbyzero · · Score: 2

      Interesting how much of the world is interested in our politics.
      Several years ago, I was walking around Porvoo, Finland, taking pictures. I talked to a few teenagers doing skateboard tricks. In their perfect English, they were very curious how we could have elected Bush II twice. It's all they wanted to talk about.

      They were probably interested because it directly impacts them. It's something I think our politicians don't think about enough. If we decide to go start a few wars around the world we bring all of our allies with us whether they like it or not.

    11. Re:Widespread interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hi, UK here.

      We had a third party, the Liberal Democrats.

      It all kind of went downhill when they did the exact opposite of the thing that they explicitly said that would do. They pretty much do everything our highly unpopular Conservative Party tells them to. In doing so, they forfeit the tiny bit of credibility that fell to them mostly by default, after our previous highly unpopular Labour government departed.

    12. Re:Widespread interest by msobkow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If your government and corporations didn't interfere with the rest of the world's nations, believe me, we wouldn't give a shit about American politics.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    13. Re:Widespread interest by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you point out that we're only give 2 choices every 4 years and those 2 choices are usually almost identical?

    14. Re:Widespread interest by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, we care who wins reality TV shows. More people vote for American Idol then for their representatives.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    15. Re:Widespread interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are only 35 (give or take one or two, I can't count) states in America.

    16. Re:Widespread interest by muindaur · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Was there another final debate?

      After the final debate?

      That followed the final debate?

      That was really just childish bickering, pointing fingers, and attacks instead of an actual debate?

    17. Re:Widespread interest by BillX · · Score: 2

      The difference being that on a reality show, even if you're not crazy about any of the contestants, voting for one and having them win is mostly harmless...

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    18. Re:Widespread interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      In Finnish election system, when electing president, we have second round where we have the only two most voted candidates from first round.

      This year top 2 candidates got 37% and 19% of votes on the first round. On the second round they got 63% and 37%.

    19. Re:Widespread interest by Idimmu+Xul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seriously, it's a form of voyeurism for a lot of us non-Americans. How badly can you fuck things up this week? Tune in 24/7 for as much as you can read!

      The really scary thing is watching our own governments follow your mistakes after :(

      --
      The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
    20. Re:Widespread interest by MagicM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you had five parties running, the winner might win with 22% of the voting population's support, and then the 22% would be able to impose their political views on the remaining 78%

      That is indeed what happens with "winner takes all". If instead the winner wins a 22% stake (say, 22 seats in a 100-seat house) then the result is representative of the electorate.

      So a multi-partisan system for Congress and the Senate would not have to be undemocratic at all. The Presidential election would, by your definition, but if the President is able to "impose their political views on the remaining 78%" then that's a flaw with the Presidential powers, not with the election process.

    21. Re:Widespread interest by therealobsideus · · Score: 5, Funny

      You guys are over near Japan, right?

    22. Re:Widespread interest by TheSunborn · · Score: 2

      What??????

      Here is how to solve that problem:
      First: don't let the people elect a president. The president/leader of the goverment should be elected by the parlement. Having the leader of a country which does have a majority of the parlement against him/he is such a problematic concept that it should just be stopped.

      Now to be the leader of the goverment, you need to form a coalision so you get at leats half the parlement not to vote against your goverment. So if the largest party get 22% of the votes, it need support from other parties in order go be the goverment. This mean that in the end you end up with a goverment and leader, which at least half of the parlement did not vote against. Seems fair to me.

      And that you are the largest party does not mean that you get to be part of the goverment. It is quite normal for some of the smaller parties to form a coalition, which together have more then 50% of the parlement.

    23. Re:Widespread interest by drawfour · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's called a run-off election. In most countries that have multiple parties, unless one candidate already got an absolute majority, there is a second election between the top two candidates, so that someone has to win by an absolute majority.

      It could easily be extended to more rounds, where the least popular candidate is eliminated in each voting round until there is an absolute majority for one candidate, but it's usually simpler to just take the top 2 winners and have one more election between them.

    24. Re:Widespread interest by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Name all EU countries? No. Name the major US allies and trading partners and their categories, yes. US states? Sure, any EU citizen can name all of the ones that are constitutionally allowed to define foreign policy on their own...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    25. Re:Widespread interest by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Seriously? So far the Liberal Democrats, with about 30% of the popular vote and about 20% of the seats in Parliament have achieved about 70% of their manifesto pledges. And yet somehow the press lambasts them for not achieving everything. Meanwhile, no one complains at the number of election pledges that Tories have broken...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:Widespread interest by alonsoac · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Part of this is because of the influence the U.S. has on our countries. I guess we need to keep an eye always looking at you to know if you are planning to sign a free trade agreement with us, change the amount of monetary aid you send our way, pass some law that makes us outlaws, try to change our style of government or just bomb us. You have the power to change our lives maybe more than even we do.

    27. Re:Widespread interest by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Show me one other country in the world with the word "America" in its name and then you'll get some sympathy.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    28. Re:Widespread interest by SteveFoerster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fairness, there are a number of eurocrats in Brussels, etc. who don't recognise this either.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    29. Re:Widespread interest by manicb · · Score: 2

      UK student here. If the tuition fees U-turn was simply a party "manifesto pledge" that they had to compromise on, that would be acceptable. Painful, but acceptable. This defence that "you can't expect us to achieve everything we want to if we don't win" is a straw man used to deflect valid criticism. The NUS pledge was a personal pledge written in unambiguous language and signed by every subsequently-elected Liberal Democrat MP.

      “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.”

      They can't reasonably claim to have been tricked into agreeing to this, and the wording clearly allows for any electoral outcome. Those who broke the pledge have no personal integrity remaining. If you can't trust them to keep a publicly-signed unambiguous personal promise, what can you believe? I'd have strong reservations about believing Nick Clegg's word even under oath in court, and he's the party leader.

    30. Re:Widespread interest by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 2

      Fair enough, I should have gone with "South Africa" or "UAE". The point still stands though. If a South African uses the word African to refer to elusively people of South Africa, I would say he believes South Africans are the only residents of Africa.

    31. Re:Widespread interest by JackieBrown · · Score: 2

      True. I remember Obama make a huge selling point over Hillary in their debates that he would never force a mandate on people for healthcare. He did a good job making himself seem like a moderate version of her.

      Debates are easy when you don't bind yourself to the truth.

  3. Obama is a communist by funtapaz · · Score: 2

    Apparently a commenter added that Obama could, and should, be a member of the communist party. It would be fun to see fox news take that and run with it.

  4. 500 is a lame limit by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (it's per post though).

    pretty nice way of "occopying" something though. one comment explaining something..

    We have no chance to occupy our president Hu. He hates Internet and has no account on any sns website, so we can just occupy Obama, forgive us.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  5. This is a good thing! by larry+bagina · · Score: 2, Funny

    Brazilians use Orkut, Chinese use Google+. Good for them, but great for everybody else -- we just continue not using Orkut or Google+.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. Not surprised. by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Informative

    I seem to recall plenty of people milling about when the Berlin wall came down. When you give people access to something formerly restricted, plenty of people will show up just to say they were there.

    The Internet will be an interesting place on the day the "Great Firewall" finally gets shut down for good.

    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  7. Totalitarian regimes today... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I feel solidarity with these chinese people who wrote to Obama just to say "we need freedom"... (This theme is also relevant to me as I was born in another totalitarian regime, the soviet one, a year before it broke; now we still have to build our country and resurrect its culture, persisting against all the pro-soviet-russian forces (i'm from Ukraine.)

    1. Re:Totalitarian regimes today... by bit+trollent · · Score: 3, Funny
  8. Re:Santorum should join KKK and be happy. by tnk1 · · Score: 2

    True. For the most part, the KKK was founded and run by Democrats.

    Yes, the Democrats were much different than what they are now, but it is funny to hear people pointing to the Republicans as the ones who would join the KKK. In the old days, it would be the Republicans calling out the Federal troops to put down the KKK. How times change.

  9. Somehow, I imagined.. by Higgins_Boson · · Score: 2

    Somehow, I imagined about 3,000 posts telling Obama where he can get "cheapest WoW goldz and Diablo III beta invites with special pet!" and lots of replies like "ni hao" and such.

    I was very disappointed in not seeing those.

  10. The Best Way to Rule a Country by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Force choices onto the electorate and make those choices bad. Many will quickly grow cynical and weary, finally giving up on the process. That leaves the few to rule, using the 'elected leaders' as front men who can easily be replaced due to their lack of credibility. Of course, that would never happen here.

  11. DOS by goodmanj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting. Half a billion people exercising free speech is indistinguishable from a denial-of-service attack.

    Our society and the way we structure our conversations, both on the Net and off it, aren't really equipped to deal with the problem of billions of people trying to have a conversation in the same room. We need a new way to think about mass communication in a way that doesn't cause information overload. I wonder if self-moderating systems like Slashcode are part of the answer...

  12. money and effort by alienzed · · Score: 2

    What I find disturbing is how much money and effort is put into this 'race' to the top. If half that money or energy was put into actually making things better, the country would be in much better order. What ever happened to people doing good things without doing so in the only way that ensures THEY get credit. What we need are more "do-gooders" and less "talkers-about-doing-good".

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!