Slashdot Mirror
China Blocks NYT Over Critical Article
Taco Cowboy writes "The New York Times has become the latest target of Chinese censorship. Censors of the People's Republic of China, in an almost unheard of, truly remarkable feat of neck-breaking speed, blocked the (paywalled) website of the New York Times, all because of one news article. That particular article was about the enormous wealth of the family members of a very prominent figure in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao. The wealth in question totals some USD 2.7 billion. "
(Also covered at the BBC.)
They're gonna have a hard time.
For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
Iranian PressTV has been recently banned from UK. Does West really differ so much from China in this regard ?
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
-Animal Farm
When pressed for an answer by Australian news reporters, a Communist Party spokesman responded,
"We can try to understand the New York Times' effect on man. Whether you're a brother or whether you're a mother, you're stayin alive. Stayin alive. Ah ah ah ah stayin alive. Stayin alive."
There must be at least a dozen. Will they get their money back?
"If you post an article we don't like,
We will, we will, Block you! Block you!"
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
How wealthy do you think he'll be after 8 years? Take into account that he's a businessman.
Sounds to me like this is part of the ongoing war of doing business in China - "Play nice or we'll lock the playground."
But isn't the point of Viral Media that it blossoms into a nice fireworks display of public recognition?
So what is stopping the NY Times of *altering* the content rights and making that report something like Public Domain and then power-posting it to 100 Chinese news agencies? Would China call that an act of aggression or something?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
As with all dictatorships, the chinese communist party will eventually collapse. It's simply a matter of time. These repressive actions are becoming more and more desperate. It's telling.
I can just see the headlines on CNN, Sky, Al Jazeera: former communist leaders being dragged naked, bloody, through the streets of Beijing.
tick tock mother fuckers. tick tock.
yes. for example: roger hayes was arrested, tried and imprisoned in true nazi-style *without* the right to representation or even the right to speak. the "judge" merely spelled out his "crimes" and then passed "sentence". i'm amazed that his case hasn't been taken up by human rights activists and made headline news. http://www.ukcolumn.org/article/roger-hayes-arrested-tried-secret-court-imprisoned
actually, i'm not surprised it hasn't made headline news.
the censorship by china isn't the big story. let's look at what's going on, recently. we've had huawei blocked from sales of equipment in the U.S. citing "bugs and vulnerabilities"; ZTE just got banned from being supplied with Cisco equipment; very VERY large ISPs responded by cancelling orders and removing Cisco's routers citing "bugs and vulnerabilities" - this is just *some* of the background.
there appears to be an ongoing series of retaliations, and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest bit if there's a dirty tricks unit in e.g. the CIA tasked with coming up with absolute lying-through-their-teeth shit pushed as "news", in order to discredit China's politicians. if that was the case, can you at all blame a country which has access to censorship equipment from using it to cut out such complete rubbish?
Yah.
If you have citizens (or whatever you call them) who live in shacks with dirt floors, and you have other people with the equivalent of billions of dollars, YOU DON'T GET TO CALL YOURSELVES COMMUNISTS ANYMORE Them's the rules. You don't have any species of socialism if the rich have more than about s thosand times the wealth of the poor.
Just 40 years ago China was a strange and mysterious foreign country, closed off from the majority of the world. Today, more and more it's leaders are gradually dragged into this free(er) modern life, being forced to grant more and more human rights to it's people, and more truth is emerging thanks to a free press in other nations. Eventually spreading to all parts of the world. It makes me wonder what life will be like for humans on Earth in one or two centuries. It looks promising, thanks to instant communication via the W.W.W. That genie cannot be forced back into it's bottle, not permanently.
So what is stopping the NY Times of *altering* the content rights and making that report something like Public Domain and then power-posting it to 100 Chinese news agencies?
They've pretty much done that, more or less. They released a PDF translating the article to Chinese. This was obviously meant for people to disseminate without having to worry about getting through the Great Firewall to directly access the NYT website (even though it is easy with a VPN).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/business/global/family-of-wen-jiabao-holds-a-hidden-fortune-in-china.html?pagewanted=all
Of course they have this great wealth as they are leaders of a great communist nation. Remember, some pigs are more equal and thus deserve more.
"That particular article was about the enormous wealth of the family members of a very prominent figure in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) — Chinese Premier Wen Jia Bao. The wealth in question totals some USD 2.7 billion."
Don't worry people! He's a communist so I'm sure he'll share it.
Even if they do hear about it, nationalism is all the rage in China now. Even if the people found out about the NY Times story, they wouldn't believe it.
We all need to get really serious about building citizen-controlled network infrastructure. (By 'citizen', I mean, for example, most of the people reading this - not the people who have effectively renounced their citizenship in civilized society by acting to diminish and enslave the rest of us in various ways).
Citizen-controlled networks wont't immediately solve long distance problems such as trans-oceanic data links, (and they'll still be subject to governmental and corporate interference), but they're a start. And yes, for the time being the Great Firewall and its rapidly-evolving Western equivalents still have lots of holes to be exploited in the name of freedom. But there are still a LOT of people who are unable to exploit those holes, and the power-mongers may manage to close most or all of them some day, so my point still stands.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
Please ignore this report and concentrate on something else.
You wanna play communist, you gotta share with the other billion+ citizens.
I really doubt this will allow the Chinese government to keep this news under their hats.
Speech is never a hate crime or a human right violation. What EU have done is no different than what the Chinese did, POLITICAL CENSORSHIP. Words are words not deeds. A hate crime is a deed not a description of a deed.
Hating Jews is no different than hating Chinese.
I use to think we were better than others, with free speech, free press and all. But stuff like this shows just how far we've lost our way. We can't even condemn Chinese government censorship, because we're right there doing the same!
And saying they weren't banned because their website is still available, UK has web filters for Pirate Bay. You are inches away from filtering for secondary copyright offenses which probably aren't even a crime, let along a reason to censor the web. So how long before the website is banned too?
The summary makes it seem like China's blocking the NY Times is a some rare spectacle. It's happened before, multiple times. The explanation is generally, "we don't know why your site is inaccessible," or "it may be a technical error," but it can be assumed that you've said something they deemed dangerous or inflammatory, just as they would stop you at the border and seize your materials if you were a missionary blatantly trying to promote religion in their country.
The Times has been pushing the story for a few days on its home page, which is also unusual (an indication of how important they deem the story -- if you didn't catch it one day, you'll catch it the next... Or the next). The key here is that it's basically accusing the leader of the country of supporting massive corruption at a time when the reins are being handed over to a new group of people who will be selected in the next few weeks and control China for the next decade. The timing is seen as intended to influence China's politics at this very sensitive time and push people to call for reform. If China had NOT blocked it, THAT would have been a story.
Different AC.
Wow that hit a nerve.
Whether the GP assertion is valid or not, somebody modded him down a la the Chinese.
Another words, you proved his thesis of hypocrisy by the very fact that you modded him down.
Here's a bit of truth for you. The "Chinese Times" you speak of does not actually exist.
China should simply publish a series of stories outlining Obama's gain of wealth and corruption in his last four years of office. That would be an easy an fair act of revenge. China could shut down the Obama campaign with the truth. Wouldn't that be funny?
Unleash the Chinese rhetors.
"So what is stopping the NY Times of *altering* the content rights and making that report something like Public Domain and then power-posting it to 100 Chinese news agencies?"
The fact that there aren't 100 Chinese news agencies? China has two official news agencies. Both of which are owned by the state. You can connect the dots from there.
"China should simply publish a series of stories outlining Obama's gain of wealth and corruption in his last four years of office."
Do it yourself. Got citations to support your assertion?
If yes, post them.
If not, fuck off.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The NYT wouldn't have published the article about someone in the US in the first place.
NY Times is so biased to the far left and such shills for the government that it loses any and all of its credibility. Plus, they make you pay for internet news you can get elsewhere for free? No thanks!
Logical fallacy bingo! And also Goodwins.
The Nazi's censored opposing views, thus their propaganda couldn't be cut down by reason. There is a very similar thing happening in Israel now, where to decent, is to be labelled a self hating jew, which in turn is to have your views blocked as anti-Semitic.
If they had permitted opposing views then the bogus claims would quickly be cut down by logic. Likewise after the invasion of Lebanon, Israel's started denouncing its critics as antisemitic with the purpose of shutting down criticism. Yet if the comments were truely light weight anti-antisemitism they would quickly be cut down by opposing logic.
Your appeal to emotion is rejected.
Nothing increases appetite for "forbidden fruit" than prohibition and the accompanying press about it.