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.
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.
That's what power is all about -- thuggery getting in the way of the productive to extract a fine lifestyle for themselves.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
Well, VW is not looking so good right now, so perhaps. ;)
Their ads will be blank over there.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
It's called "communism".
Granted, we have stupid laws and stupid judges also, and so are not entirely immune, but at least we have more ways to challenge such, including blogs and the press.
Table-ized A.I.