Slashdot Mirror
Xiaomi Investigated For Using Superlatives In Advertising, Now Illegal In China
An anonymous reader writes: Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi is under investigation for using superlative messaging on its website, according to a leaked document from the Beijing Ministry of Industry and Commerce. A new Chinese law states that adjectives used to promote products must not mislead consumers. The Xiaomi investigation [Chinese] follows claims made by rival Cong that the company used phrases such as 'the best' and 'the most advanced', in its online campaigns and therefore violated the country's advertising law. (The law against suprelatives doesn't seem to apply to communications by the government, about the government.)
1) Overt or covert use of national flag, anthem or emblem of People’s Republic of China or military flag, anthem or emblem;
2) Overt or covert use of the name or image of national public institute or staff of national public institute;
3) Use of words such as “national-level”, “the most” and “the best”, among others;
4) Causing detriment to national dignity or interests, or disclosing national secrets;
5) Interfering with social stability, or causing detriment to social and public interests;
6) Harming personal or property safety, or disclosing privacy;
7) Interfering with social public order, or going against good social norm;
8) Containing obscene, pornographic, gambling, superstitious, terrifying, or violent content;
9) Containing discrimination based on nationality, race, religion, or gender;
10) Affecting protection of environment, natural resources or cultural heritage;
11) Other situations prohibited by laws and regulations.
Merely sounds like another tool for the Party to deal with companies that are not state owned. Most companies will be found guilty of some section of this but they won't be prosecuted until they run afoul of the Party. In China (and increasingly in the US) everyone is guilty of something but only those that the state wants to be prosecuted will be prosecuted.
So looking at the story, we have a new law enacted a month ago and whose head is on the chopping block today? Xiaomi? Well from wikipedia:
Xiaomi Inc. is a privately owned Chinese electronics company headquartered in Beijing, China, that is the world's 4th[4] largest smartphone maker. Xiaomi designs, develops, and sells smartphones, mobile apps, and related consumer electronics.[5]
Aaaaaand there's your problem. Wake me up when a state owned company is prosecuted under these new laws. Xiaomi's true crime was probably doing better than Huawei.
My work here is dung.
This smells like one of those cases where a little used law is pulled out to harass someone. I'm thinking there must be some sort of underlying politics at work here.
I read the internet for the articles.
Interesting trivia, but I hope you're not trying to say that's a reason not to ban it.
Nazis used trains, too. Should we ban trains?
15 minutes could save you up to 15% or more on car insurance.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The Nazis did a lot of things wrong, but they also did many things right. Their wrongs shouldn't keep us from learning from their rights.
Before anyone gets confused by the headline, remember that superlatives are very different from laxatives.
Right. Laxatives are the ones that are taken orally; superlatives go in the other end.
On the contrary!
Laxatives will very likely result in shit.
Not just any shit, but the biggest, smelliest, liquidiest shit you've ever made!
This is the best, most advanced response ever!
They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
Well, VW is not looking so good right now, so perhaps. ;)
Their ads will be blank over there.
And I am sure the law would apply to negative superlatives about the government...
Communists don't believe in free speech?
Shocking.
It's not that binary. The United States has its own truth in advertising laws that, in my personal opinion, are beneficial at both the federal and state level. Slashdot readers are free to go the Libertarian route and claim the free market would alleviate these issues on its own or perhaps point out how downright pedantic it can be at times. But the truth of the matter is that, as a consumer, we only have so many hours in a day to decide which of the thousands of products we consume in a year we should spend our money on. So it does come down to federal guidelines for what is "Grade A" or "Organic" or "Green" when there is a label espousing these properties and there are consumers paying a premium for this notion. Without those guidelines those words will mean absolutely nothing and there will be no way to tell where your product was made, how much cadmium it has in it or whether it is the end result of spewing carbon into the atmosphere. Without similar laws, you wouldn't be able to trust the nutritional information at the grocery store. Is it free speech to claim that my potato chips cure cancer and lead to weight loss no matter how many of them you eat? People will know that I'm lying? Cigarettes used to sooth sore throats. Trans fats used to taste awesome.
Speech used by an individual to express ideas is free speech. Advertisements -- especially advertisements representing a very large organization -- are not. Corporations should not have the same rights individuals have and I feel that free speech is one of those clear cut distinctions. There is a long history of consumer protection everywhere in the world -- learn about your own country's struggles with it. It's not a simple issue and advertisement should not be regarded as free speech.
My work here is dung.
Before anyone gets confused by the headline, remember that superlatives are very different from laxatives.
Shittiest comment ever.
No wait, I didn't mean it like...well crap, that didn't go well.
No more doge memes in China!
Such superlative. Best rights. Wow.
If you are a leftist, beating the shit out of private companies is well and good. Remember: corporations are evil! Prosecuting them is only a good thing. Are you a corporate shill?
I am neither a leftist nor a corporate shill. I believe in beating the shit out of private companies that deserve to have the "shit beat out" of them. You need only look at the lengthy history of consumer protection in the United States to find instances where this was and is necessary. Take, for example, Debt Collection Practices. Please, please, please "beat the shit out" of unscrupulous collection agencies. Please "beat the shit" out of the companies that call my grandmother to deliver unsolicited advertisements about a "warranty extension" on her car. There are plenty of private companies that should have this done to them. The issue I take with China's implementation is 1) that it will never target a state owned business and 2) the guidelines are by no means clearly laid out and can be ambiguously interpreted. Who will interpret them? When will they interpret them? Why just in time and by the same state body that made them. Please tell me, how can I prove that my product's advertising does not "Cause detriment to national dignity"?
My work here is dung.
Just a quick reminder that VW was started by hitler, operated by slave labor And cheated on emissions testing.
While they did a lot of things wrong they did do some things right.
Fanta was not one of them...
Superlaxatives should be outlawed. No one gives a shit.
Now I understand why every Chinese American store and/or product is named 'Super Happy Best for Lucky Joyful Times'.
For people of privilege the number should be much smaller before they lose rights. I think a group of three whites should have their rights reduced.
You should have been waken up indeed. Also Xiaomi is currently being promoted by Chinese leaders (e.g. Premier Li Keqiang) as a star entrepreneur to encourage more hi-tech start ups along with Alibaba.
The funny thing is that with the guidelines in the U.S. it's fine to use superlatives, at least with parity products, but you cannot claim to be better than some specific product without proof. The reasoning is that most common items are made from the same basic formula. One brand of dish soap is pretty much the same as any other and because they're so similar, they can claim to be the best, because as far as the law is concerned the products are essentially the same.
There is no need, there is already a separate law for that, they can call you a traitor. And the consequences are much worse than anything in this law. In that case, they can just arrest you and put you in jail. Why would they use this law where they have to try you in court first? And there is no prison term attached to this law, only some fines.
Perhaps people from countries that have only existed for less than 500 years don't have a damned clue when compared to Civilizations that have been around for at least 5000.
They're much better at fascism, anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Merely sounds like another tool for the Party to deal with companies that are not state owned. Most companies will be found guilty of some section of this but they won't be prosecuted until they run afoul of the Party.
What is the basis for this belief, other than anecdotes?
Certainly. Here's a text and video advertisement that does imply I can make the "most lifelike enjoyment" with a Huawei tablet. On top of that, I am lead to believe this device provides oculus-like effects during usage. When will the state prosecute themselves, pray tell?
It doesn't have to stop there as I feel that the woman in that commercial is immodestly dressed causing detriment to national dignity or interests. Do you see the problem with ambiguity in the language here?
At violating "Western-like" civil rights you mean. "Most" Chinese don't consider their human rights violated by their government. Perhaps people from countries that have only existed for less than 500 years don't have a damned clue when compared to Civilizations that have been around for at least 5000.
That covers a time when human slavery, sexual and otherwise, was not uncommon.
We have evolved, well, most of us, in our view of acceptable treatment of humans.
"Amnesty International has documented widespread human rights violations in China. An estimated 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their grievances. [Source: http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-...
I can see why some would prefer to focus on the quantity of years the Chinese have been around, rather than the quality of the current reality.
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
"most elegant", "highest class", "most luxurious" in China?
I like Fanta, especially the grape and strawberry flavors.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"Most" Chinese don't consider their human rights violated by their government. Perhaps people from countries that have only existed for less than 500 years don't have a damned clue when compared to Civilizations that have been around for at least 5000.
Most Americans were not enslaved in 1860. Ergo, most Americans did not consider their human rights violated at that time. Yet, for those whose rights were violated -- the enslaved -- and the enlightened masses, saw it for what it was: It was a moral outrage.
You have pointed out the embarrassing fact that a 5000 year old civilization still has not evolved to the point of acknowledging basic human rights and the moral imperative of liberty. China should learn a lesson from any culture -- regardless of age -- that demonstrates a higher view of human rights. None are perfect, but most are far better. Any kindergartener is old enough to say China's current record is shameful and appalling.
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
Please "beat the shit" out of the companies that call my grandmother to deliver unsolicited advertisements about a "warranty extension" on her car.
Is this a thing now? Because god damn, this company has been harassing me non stop about a warranty extension on my car. It's the first time I've experienced this many unsolicited phones calls and junk mail since they came out with the do-not-call list. I've told them four times now that I'm not interested and they keep calling.
How can you prove your product isn't terrifying in some way?
I find this law terrifying, does that count as breaking the law?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
But the truth of the matter is that, as a consumer, we only have so many hours in a day to decide which of the thousands of products we consume in a year we should spend our money on. So it does come down to federal guidelines for what is "Grade A" or "Organic" or "Green" when there is a label espousing these properties and there are consumers paying a premium for this notion. Without those guidelines those words will mean absolutely nothing and there will be no way to tell where your product was made, how much cadmium it has in it or whether it is the end result of spewing carbon into the atmosphere. Without similar laws, you wouldn't be able to trust the nutritional information at the grocery store. Is it free speech to claim that my potato chips cure cancer and lead to weight loss no matter how many of them you eat? People will know that I'm lying? Cigarettes used to sooth sore throats. Trans fats used to taste awesome.
Okay, how about "Tasty" or "Chunky" or "Kids love it!"? How can we allow companies to just sling those words around willy-nilly without a few hundred men in Washington DC taxing and regulating everything to make sure we aren't led astray? I pay an extra 12% per can for "Thick and Chunky" stew instead of the plain stew, which must in comparison be thin and runny. Since corporations are evil and out to deceive me to trick me into giving them money, how can I be sure the Safeway-brand frozen pizza actually is "Tasty"? What happens when the can of "thick and chunky" soup only has two pieces of beef and a couple little cubes of carrots? How about when I try to serve my child the raisin oat bran cereal and not only do they not love it, they refuse to eat it?
"Green" or "Organic" are just words. They are words which marketers observed in daily use and wanted consumers to identify with their product, in exactly the same way marketers want you to associate their products with words like "Zesty" or "Bursting With Fruit Flavor!"
Design a conceptual framework which allows the government to regulate the word "Organic" which does not also allow them to regulate "Healthy" or "Very Berry!" or "Extra Bold Taste".
Speech used by an individual to express ideas is free speech. Advertisements -- especially advertisements representing a very large organization -- are not. Corporations should not have the same rights individuals have and I feel that free speech is one of those clear cut distinctions. There is a long history of consumer protection everywhere in the world -- learn about your own country's struggles with it. It's not a simple issue and advertisement should not be regarded as free speech.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
There are three classes of business in China.
1. State-sponsored or owned businesses. Short of a scandal like the melamine dog food one, they can get away with practically anything. No foreign interest can hold them accountable.
2. State-sanctioned businesses. They've paid off the right people to look the other way, but if scrutiny becomes too great, they'll be thrown under the bus -- but only after high-ranking officials cash out, of course.
3. Everyone else. They have to play on a field with Calvinball rules and moving goalposts.
Sometimes joint ventures with foreign companies can make their way into class 2. Often they're allowed to languish in Class 3, especially if they're exporting everything they make.
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Ugh, quote FAIL. The final paragraph belongs to the comment I was replying to.
Speech used by an individual to express ideas is free speech. Advertisements -- especially advertisements representing a very large organization -- are not. Corporations should not have the same rights individuals have and I feel that free speech is one of those clear cut distinctions. There is a long history of consumer protection everywhere in the world -- learn about your own country's struggles with it. It's not a simple issue and advertisement should not be regarded as free speech.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
I'm pretty sure those students in Tienanmen Square felt their rights were violated.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Of course we do. We consume many services provided by the government:
Police services
Fire services
Military services
HUD services
Transportation services (roads, bridges, etc.,...)
Social Security Services
MediCare/MediCade services
Court services
Representation services (Congress)
Education services
The list goes on. Whether a given individual utilizes a given service directly or in-directly is immaterial. The (lacking) quality of the services is also irrelevant to their consumption.
Hosts files would have protected the students from the tanks in Tienanmen Square? Wow, I wish they had your wisdom back then.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
> HUD services
The Govt provides Heads Up Displays?
No, I just thought it was interesting. Now, the Nazi's anti-smoking campaigns...
Apple's entire marketing department would collapse in on itself into a hyperbolic black hole!
Looks like you've picked up a stalker, Coren.
You must have really ticked him off. He's so mad he can't even write coherently.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Tienanmen Square? What's that?
According to the Chinese govt., nothing ever happened there.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
AFAIK, in the US you can use "the best" but not "better than" unless you have a way to back it up. Thus, "the best beer" is OK, but "better than Bud" is not OK unless you cite some specific like, "beat Bud in a blind taste test".
Having different rules for different countries is probably going to give international ad campaigners some fits. That's the beauty of sovereignty though. Different systems, and we get to see what's workable in practice and what isn't.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Capitalists believe in fraud as a God-given right? Shocking.
Learn to love Alaska
Unfortunately Americas reputation is even worse when it comes to it's corporate controlled operations of the US State Department, US Department of Defence (now that is a snark use of a word, Offence would be far more accurate and truthful), US State Department and the NSA/CIA, in other people's countries, those sub-human non-citizens. What China does to it's citizens is no where near as bad as what the United States of America does to other countries citizens to feed corporate profits under the guise of neo-liberalism/conservatism.
All advertisements should be challenge able in court for truth and accuracy. Tell lies, misinform, exaggerate and use false association, all should all be punishable and those responsible prosecuted including the company that paid for the advertisements, the advertising agencies that produced the advertisement and the broadcasters who promoted the advertisements. Get caught and the fines should be triple the profits ney the revenue earned and repeat offenders should face custodial sentences in order to be rehabilitated.
The government should also advertise against buying useless shit to feed ego because it is destroying our planet and that is the truth and totally accurate.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Hmm. Now that I think about it, the Party has been training the people to accept its claims as fact for decades. Maybe they are worried it worked too well.
...What?
Woah, hold on. Corporations are just groups of people that work together. You can't deny one a particular right without denying it to all the people who comprise it.
People don't surrender their rights by associating with others. A group of one hundred people is one hundred individuals with a set of rights. Should they choose to express one of those rights in unison, via the group, it does not change the fact that they are still individuals expressing their rights. The ability to do so is a right guaranteed by the 1st Amendment.
That's still denying three individuals their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Including their right to free association.
True but the US government does not have any laws against using spurelatives in marketing. If you aren't getting bombarded with marketers telling you that they are 'the best' then I would like to know what rock you live under so that I can join you.
Yes we should ban the trains the Nazis used
Today's time-wasting-obtuseness award goes to you. Congratulations.