I second this comment, having made the experience myself. When I left Paris, where I had a cable connection, to New York in 1999, I decided not to take a broadband connection since the unpleasant sensation of having the clock ticking was not there. I went back to Paris in 2001, and resubscribed to cable immediately.
I fail to see a clear relation with the exercise of free speech. Behind your message and others, is the assumption that a post in a discussion forum must be treated like a journal article, or a book. Behind my message is the assumption that such a post must be seen as an almost real-time reaction taking place in an informal conversation, that is, must be seen as the equivalent of an oral impulsive reaction which happens to be in a written form for purely technical reasons.
Frankly, when I contribute to a discussion forum, I'm in a relatively frivolous state of mind, and I think it is the case for most of us. Therefore I believe that my assumption is closer to the truth. A post in a discussion forum should not be considered as engraved in stone like other writings are.
Last, you mentioned that I was already an adult seven years ago. True, but, had I been 15 years old in 1995, the problem would have been the same.
As far as I'm concerned, I've written many things six or seven years ago, especially on discussion forums, which I now find stupid, immature, wrong, and very embarassing.
I was 23 by then, I am 30 now, and I have changed. Not least when it comes to politics, for example. I would like to be able to ask Google to remove these relics of the past which misrepresent me today, and I can't.
I have nothing against de Icaza, but, boy, there's quite a difference of class between this interview and De Icaza's interviews. Finally, Gnome has a spokespersion who actually takes the time to think before giving an answer, and to provide long and thought-out answers when necessary.
Besides, no provocative statement, no unjustified arrogance, no fake enthusiasm... I'm impressed.
However fascinating may Edison's Lab be, the truth is that no significant invention came out of it, in decades of work. All the major discoveries made by Thomas Edison were made before the existence of this lab (which was built, logically, after he had already made a fortune).
The most significant discovery coming from Edison 's Lab is the lab in itself, that is, the concept of the modern research laboratory, which appeared for the first time in the US, not long after Louis Pasteur's labs in Paris.
My point is that it takes a very strong reason for an industry to move from the US to China. Most industries will choose to stay in the US and comply with new environmental regulations rather than to move to China, because the US have hundreds of other overwhelming benefits to offer that China or other 3rd world nations don't have.
Ah, yeah, the good old lowest common denominator argument... Be worse than your neighbour, or your industries will move.
Now, guess what, the US has many other qualities to retain its economic activities, and does not need to allow excessive pollution/supress all welfare programs/lower taxes down to zero/carve to any lobbying/etc... to remain competitive.
I agree with you on the nuclear issue, but the rest is bullshit. Using poor, overpopulated, sometimes highly corrupted and dictatorial nations (China) as an excuse for not doing anything is hypocritical and stupid.
...economic freedom does not have much to do with actual freedom.
Hong Kong is regularly hailed in business newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal as the freeest place to do business. And before Hong Kong, countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia and other asian despotic nations with a democratic facade were high on the charts.
> I don't think that companies should be deprived
> of their right to complain about theft simply
> because they advertise their products. That
> doesn't make any sense.
Of course, if you use this formulation, this does not make sense, but formulating the problem this way is already cheating: the line of defense of these companies is that, if 3rd world countries are allowed to produce low-cost, life-saving generic drugs, these companies won't have the money to make their research. If these companies were a little more honest, they would reckon that they would have the ability to cut enormous costs in order to favor research spending, if research spending were their true priority.
The main consequence of money spent on marketing, in the wider sense (that is, not just "advertising", but lobbying, corruption, press, etc.) is not more efficient research and better drugs, but overconsumption and strong-arm tactics against smaller, better competitors.
> Just because software patents are patents on
> math & therefore stupid doesn't mean all patents
> are stupid. Pharaceutical R&D is intensely
> expensive. Screwing the companies that fund
> research is a bad solution to what is at heart a
> political problem.
There is some truth in this, however these companies would have more credibility if they did not spend much more on advertising, public relations, lobbying, sponsoring sports events, etc., than on research.
There is currently a bill which is about to be passed in the EU which would allow advertising on prescribed drugs, as it is already the case in the US. I hate this idea. It encourages overconsumption of drugs, it diverts billions and billions of dollars (or are they euros?) from more useful tasks, and it encourages pharmaceutical companies to focus on comfort-oriented drugs, made for wealthy retired in Florida or in the south of France, rather than on life-saving drugs.
Today, drug companies fight against each other with marketing, lobbying and politics: millions and millions are poured into "lobbying" (read: corrupting, but legally, the typical American way) drugs-regulation authorities, to make sure that competing drugs are not approved, or that the approval is delayed, to make sure that their exclusivity on a product is extended, etc...
Inventive, good-for-humanity research is secondary. These companies will be allowed to complain on what is going on in Brazil when they have changed their ways.
Hehe. It's always a source of wonder for me to realize how brainwashed and ignorant good American patriots can be.
FYI, this whole hysteria about encryption laws in France is only due to the fact that France was 8 or 10 months late compared to the US in liberalizing its encryption rules. And this delay basically corresponds to the delay in the development of the Internet. Today the encryption rules are more liberal in France than in the US, and the French legal system about encryption is the most comprehensive in any developed country.
It's not really your governement, by the way, which is intrusive. This childish pseudo-libertarian American mistrust against western democratic governments which have basically become harmless to their citizens, hides the real point: more and more preposterous, anti-freedom and "unAmerican" laws are passed because many industries pour billions (literally) into lobbying. Americans are strange people: they cherish the idea of freedom, but most of them never think about defending themselves against the enormous servitudes enforced by their form of capitalism (oh, I forgot, regulation is against freedom, right?).
For all the smoke and bluster, the main reason why Deep Blue beat Gasparov is simply that Gasparov played very poorly, I mean, amazingly poorly. For one reason or another, he was terrified and destabilized by the peculiar "personnality" of his opponent (playing chess against some sort of HAL is not the most comfortable situation one can imagine).
Had Deep Blue been a real human made of flesh and bone, there is no reason to think that he could have won playing the way it did.
The elements of the Versailles treaty which specifically originated from the French were the huge amounts of reparations. Otherwise, you're right, the rest of the treaty was the work of the allies. It is taught in French schools that the Versailles treaty was considered as an excessively harsh "diktat" by the Germans, and this, in part, fueled German frustration and Hitler's rise. That is correct, but I really think that the Versailles treaty was just a medium among others for Hitler's rise, which would have happened anyway. The point on which I disagreed with the poster above was not the fact that the Versailles treaty fueled, in the long run, Hitler's rise, but that, more specifically, the amount of reparations did: the impact of the reparations was really strong no later than 10 years before Hitler seized power. It is reasonable to consider that the two things are only very loosely connected.
Otherwise, on the respective responsibilities for WWI... you're right of course, that all the belligerents have a significant share of responsibility. Still, the Austrian empire and Russia are more responsible than others. For years, there had been numerous Balkan crises in which the Austrian empire was involved, and the Austrian empire (and to, a lesser extent, the Ottoman empire and Russia) was for a large part responsible for the constant instabilities in this area.
When the Austrian empire declared war on Serbia, this crisis looked no different than the previous ones. But this is where Russia plays a key role: in the name of "Slavic solidarity" with Serbia, it declared war to the Austrian Empire without consulting its British and French allies. Then, because of the two alliance systems which had been put in place, the generalized war becomes unavoidable: Germany has to declare war to Russia, and in turn France and Britain have to declare war to Germany.
So, to put it short: the Austrian Empire was the main responsible for the constant regional instability, and Russia pulled the trigger that transformed this instability into WWI.
Actually the French had quite modern weapons and could have used modern tactics too: De Gaulle, among others, had advocated them, but had not been taken seriously.
The Maginot line made more sense than it is thought today. Many people think that it was designed to stop the Germans, which is not the case: it was designed to make sure that the Germans would have to go around (via the North and a more difficult natural environment), so that the French would know where to wait for them. Indeed, they did go around, but not exactly where expected, and the French did not stop them anyway.
To me, the key mistake in French's strategy has been to send large, mediocre, non-professional troops, while the Germans had sent small, elite, highly professional units. Sending professional units was the right strategy because neither the German nor the French populace were motivated and willing to fight: the memories of WWI (read: by far the most horrible butchery in the history of the world) were fresh.
On a side note, this kind of situation is typical of a fight between a democratic country and a despotic country; the first battles, as Tocqueville predicted, are always lost by the democratic country. And then the democratic country can win if the conflict lasts. But, well, because the memories of WWI were too fresh, almost nobody in France wanted the conflict to last: peace was all what mattered, whatever the cost.
On your aside #2: I disagree that the Versailles treaty (which specified the amount of German reparations) is what led Hitler to power. It's a myth popular among francophobic, but it's just a myth.
Granted, the Versailles treaty is for a large part responsible for the collapse of the German economy and the hyperinflation of the early 20s. But these problems were basically solved in 1923-1924. Hitler came to power ten years later, and would have come to power anyway, with or without a Versailles treaty. Germany had been on an "experimental" mood for 130 years (i.e. since Fichte's speeches on the German nation) on how far it could push the idea of "one people, one nation" (and later "one people, one race, one nation"), and HAD TO, at some point, try an extreme experience.
The French behavior in 1919 is indeed shameful and revenge-inspired; Germany was not the real responsible for WWI; the Austrian empire and Russia were. But the Austrian empire had been destroyed, and the Communist Russia of 1918 was not the Tsarist Russia of 1914; Germany was the only one left, and somebody had to pay... The French behavior in the 30s, after Hitler seized power is also pathetic. Not to mention the absolute incompetence of its military leadership in 1940. But, still, the French cannot be considered responsible for the election of Hitler. The Germans were deeply antisemitic, even more than the rest of Europe (France included), obsessed with their vision of "one nation, one people, one race, one culture" and were doomed to put Hitler's vision in practice one way or another.
Otherwise, I do think that the USSR would have crushed nazi Germany even without the USA. But that's exactly the reason why I'm even more grateful to Americans to have invaded Normandy: at the end of the day, the US did not really save my country from Hitler, but it saved my country from Stalin. Hitler would not have lasted for long anyway, but the USSR did. Had France been part of the Soviet block, its "decline" and sufferings would have been much, much worse than what it endured during WWII.
You can buy MandrakeSoft's shares if you're American, you fucking moron. This stuff is just legalese put there by lawyers because of complex regulations, but of course that does not prevent you from buying shares on the French stockmarket.
By the way, please allow me to be as stupid and nationalist as you are: we bailed your ass twice (independence and 1812) against the Brits, and that did not prevent you from adopting a fully protectionist trade policy against us during the whole 19th century, until 1914. So I really don't see your point.
Latin America today has mostly a geographical sense... Otherwise, one other reason may be that Quebec is not a country, and is part of a country which is in majority protestant and English-speaking, that is, not latin.
Oh, give me a FUCKING BREAK, will you? Germany is in majority a country with a protestant background, speaking a germanic language (obviously), and as such is culturally "classified" in the norther Europe category. France is in majority a country with a catholic background, it is considered as a latin country, it is in contact with the mediterranean sea, it speaks a roman-type language and was part of the roman empire (Germany was not), and as such is culturally "classified" in the southern Europe category.
Ok, 1st, socialism is not "government controlling people's private affairs". Socialism is when means of production are socialized (that is, owned by the collectivity, typically via the state).
"Government controlling people's private affairs" is really not a French thing. The French have strong anarchist and individualist tendencies, and they actually tend to consider that the people in the US are much less free than they are, on such matters as alcohol, nudity (classical example: can your girlfriend show her breasts on the beach?), sex and strong language regulations on various media, tobacco, etc... now, THAT is "Government controlling people's private affairs".
There are absolutely no quotas nor protectionnist measures on movies in France; it is a myth, period. There are just subsidies for French movies, and nothing more. The only quotas there ever was were on some radio stations which were asked to broadcast at least a certain percentage (quite low) of music in which the lyrics were in French. Everybody in France made fun of this law, which was quickly abandonned. This was around 1994. However, this was enough to create these preposterous myths on French cultural quotas. These myths fit so well with Francophobic prejudices that they haven't disappeared yet, after many years.
Last, there is absolutely no censorship on language on the French Internet.
I spend half of my life in the US, and half in France. I strongly advise you to come live a few months in France to realize how far from realities your prejudices can be. By all means, don't always trust what is written in the NY Times editorials or in the Wall Street Journal. In the meanwhile, you can read these quite good articles on contemporary France written by Americans (one conservative, one liberal). It may enlighten you on various issues for which your prejudices (economic, cultural, political, whatever) have no ground:
Yes, read above, I mentioned the Minitel as one of the reasons. Otherwise, FYI the Internet is much less regulated in France than in the US (especially on sex and use of company-owned trademarks for parody and other uses). France has got a bad reputation on this because:
1- Francophobia is fashionable.
2- France was a few months late compared with the US in liberalizing its regulations on the use of cryptography (today these rules are more liberal in France than in the US).
3- A bunch of bigots have found a sympathetic judge for the Yahoo! ruling.
I should also mention that your "national socialist" qualification of the French government was truly unnecessary.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, that's good timing for a business.
I second this comment, having made the experience myself. When I left Paris, where I had a cable connection, to New York in 1999, I decided not to take a broadband connection since the unpleasant sensation of having the clock ticking was not there. I went back to Paris in 2001, and resubscribed to cable immediately.
Frankly, when I contribute to a discussion forum, I'm in a relatively frivolous state of mind, and I think it is the case for most of us. Therefore I believe that my assumption is closer to the truth. A post in a discussion forum should not be considered as engraved in stone like other writings are.
Last, you mentioned that I was already an adult seven years ago. True, but, had I been 15 years old in 1995, the problem would have been the same.
I was 23 by then, I am 30 now, and I have changed. Not least when it comes to politics, for example. I would like to be able to ask Google to remove these relics of the past which misrepresent me today, and I can't.
I have nothing against de Icaza, but, boy, there's quite a difference of class between this interview and De Icaza's interviews. Finally, Gnome has a spokespersion who actually takes the time to think before giving an answer, and to provide long and thought-out answers when necessary.
Besides, no provocative statement, no unjustified arrogance, no fake enthusiasm... I'm impressed.
> Particularlly with Yugoslavia, France pretty much
> vetoed any military action when others like the
> Germans were ready to go.
Bull-shit.
However fascinating may Edison's Lab be, the truth is that no significant invention came out of it, in decades of work. All the major discoveries made by Thomas Edison were made before the existence of this lab (which was built, logically, after he had already made a fortune).
The most significant discovery coming from Edison 's Lab is the lab in itself, that is, the concept of the modern research laboratory, which appeared for the first time in the US, not long after Louis Pasteur's labs in Paris.
My point is that it takes a very strong reason for an industry to move from the US to China. Most industries will choose to stay in the US and comply with new environmental regulations rather than to move to China, because the US have hundreds of other overwhelming benefits to offer that China or other 3rd world nations don't have.
Ah, yeah, the good old lowest common denominator argument... Be worse than your neighbour, or your industries will move.
Now, guess what, the US has many other qualities to retain its economic activities, and does not need to allow excessive pollution/supress all welfare programs/lower taxes down to zero/carve to any lobbying/etc... to remain competitive.
I agree with you on the nuclear issue, but the rest is bullshit. Using poor, overpopulated, sometimes highly corrupted and dictatorial nations (China) as an excuse for not doing anything is hypocritical and stupid.
...economic freedom does not have much to do with actual freedom.
Hong Kong is regularly hailed in business newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal as the freeest place to do business. And before Hong Kong, countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia and other asian despotic nations with a democratic facade were high on the charts.
The equation free market = liberty is a lie.
Indeed, Internet appliances dont' stand a chance against the almighty Minitel.
> I don't think that companies should be deprived
> of their right to complain about theft simply
> because they advertise their products. That
> doesn't make any sense.
Of course, if you use this formulation, this does not make sense, but formulating the problem this way is already cheating: the line of defense of these companies is that, if 3rd world countries are allowed to produce low-cost, life-saving generic drugs, these companies won't have the money to make their research. If these companies were a little more honest, they would reckon that they would have the ability to cut enormous costs in order to favor research spending, if research spending were their true priority.
The main consequence of money spent on marketing, in the wider sense (that is, not just "advertising", but lobbying, corruption, press, etc.) is not more efficient research and better drugs, but overconsumption and strong-arm tactics against smaller, better competitors.
> Just because software patents are patents on
> math & therefore stupid doesn't mean all patents
> are stupid. Pharaceutical R&D is intensely
> expensive. Screwing the companies that fund
> research is a bad solution to what is at heart a
> political problem.
There is some truth in this, however these companies would have more credibility if they did not spend much more on advertising, public relations, lobbying, sponsoring sports events, etc., than on research.
There is currently a bill which is about to be passed in the EU which would allow advertising on prescribed drugs, as it is already the case in the US. I hate this idea. It encourages overconsumption of drugs, it diverts billions and billions of dollars (or are they euros?) from more useful tasks, and it encourages pharmaceutical companies to focus on comfort-oriented drugs, made for wealthy retired in Florida or in the south of France, rather than on life-saving drugs.
Today, drug companies fight against each other with marketing, lobbying and politics: millions and millions are poured into "lobbying" (read: corrupting, but legally, the typical American way) drugs-regulation authorities, to make sure that competing drugs are not approved, or that the approval is delayed, to make sure that their exclusivity on a product is extended, etc...
Inventive, good-for-humanity research is secondary. These companies will be allowed to complain on what is going on in Brazil when they have changed their ways.
> encryption laws in France.
Hehe. It's always a source of wonder for me to realize how brainwashed and ignorant good American patriots can be.
FYI, this whole hysteria about encryption laws in France is only due to the fact that France was 8 or 10 months late compared to the US in liberalizing its encryption rules. And this delay basically corresponds to the delay in the development of the Internet. Today the encryption rules are more liberal in France than in the US, and the French legal system about encryption is the most comprehensive in any developed country.
It's not really your governement, by the way, which is intrusive. This childish pseudo-libertarian American mistrust against western democratic governments which have basically become harmless to their citizens, hides the real point: more and more preposterous, anti-freedom and "unAmerican" laws are passed because many industries pour billions (literally) into lobbying. Americans are strange people: they cherish the idea of freedom, but most of them never think about defending themselves against the enormous servitudes enforced by their form of capitalism (oh, I forgot, regulation is against freedom, right?).
For all the smoke and bluster, the main reason why Deep Blue beat Gasparov is simply that Gasparov played very poorly, I mean, amazingly poorly. For one reason or another, he was terrified and destabilized by the peculiar "personnality" of his opponent (playing chess against some sort of HAL is not the most comfortable situation one can imagine).
Had Deep Blue been a real human made of flesh and bone, there is no reason to think that he could have won playing the way it did.
The elements of the Versailles treaty which specifically originated from the French were the huge amounts of reparations. Otherwise, you're right, the rest of the treaty was the work of the allies. It is taught in French schools that the Versailles treaty was considered as an excessively harsh "diktat" by the Germans, and this, in part, fueled German frustration and Hitler's rise. That is correct, but I really think that the Versailles treaty was just a medium among others for Hitler's rise, which would have happened anyway. The point on which I disagreed with the poster above was not the fact that the Versailles treaty fueled, in the long run, Hitler's rise, but that, more specifically, the amount of reparations did: the impact of the reparations was really strong no later than 10 years before Hitler seized power. It is reasonable to consider that the two things are only very loosely connected.
Otherwise, on the respective responsibilities for WWI... you're right of course, that all the belligerents have a significant share of responsibility. Still, the Austrian empire and Russia are more responsible than others. For years, there had been numerous Balkan crises in which the Austrian empire was involved, and the Austrian empire (and to, a lesser extent, the Ottoman empire and Russia) was for a large part responsible for the constant instabilities in this area.
When the Austrian empire declared war on Serbia, this crisis looked no different than the previous ones. But this is where Russia plays a key role: in the name of "Slavic solidarity" with Serbia, it declared war to the Austrian Empire without consulting its British and French allies. Then, because of the two alliance systems which had been put in place, the generalized war becomes unavoidable: Germany has to declare war to Russia, and in turn France and Britain have to declare war to Germany.
So, to put it short: the Austrian Empire was the main responsible for the constant regional instability, and Russia pulled the trigger that transformed this instability into WWI.
Actually the French had quite modern weapons and could have used modern tactics too: De Gaulle, among others, had advocated them, but had not been taken seriously.
The Maginot line made more sense than it is thought today. Many people think that it was designed to stop the Germans, which is not the case: it was designed to make sure that the Germans would have to go around (via the North and a more difficult natural environment), so that the French would know where to wait for them. Indeed, they did go around, but not exactly where expected, and the French did not stop them anyway.
To me, the key mistake in French's strategy has been to send large, mediocre, non-professional troops, while the Germans had sent small, elite, highly professional units. Sending professional units was the right strategy because neither the German nor the French populace were motivated and willing to fight: the memories of WWI (read: by far the most horrible butchery in the history of the world) were fresh.
On a side note, this kind of situation is typical of a fight between a democratic country and a despotic country; the first battles, as Tocqueville predicted, are always lost by the democratic country. And then the democratic country can win if the conflict lasts. But, well, because the memories of WWI were too fresh, almost nobody in France wanted the conflict to last: peace was all what mattered, whatever the cost.
On your aside #2: I disagree that the Versailles treaty (which specified the amount of German reparations) is what led Hitler to power. It's a myth popular among francophobic, but it's just a myth.
Granted, the Versailles treaty is for a large part responsible for the collapse of the German economy and the hyperinflation of the early 20s. But these problems were basically solved in 1923-1924. Hitler came to power ten years later, and would have come to power anyway, with or without a Versailles treaty. Germany had been on an "experimental" mood for 130 years (i.e. since Fichte's speeches on the German nation) on how far it could push the idea of "one people, one nation" (and later "one people, one race, one nation"), and HAD TO, at some point, try an extreme experience.
The French behavior in 1919 is indeed shameful and revenge-inspired; Germany was not the real responsible for WWI; the Austrian empire and Russia were. But the Austrian empire had been destroyed, and the Communist Russia of 1918 was not the Tsarist Russia of 1914; Germany was the only one left, and somebody had to pay... The French behavior in the 30s, after Hitler seized power is also pathetic. Not to mention the absolute incompetence of its military leadership in 1940. But, still, the French cannot be considered responsible for the election of Hitler. The Germans were deeply antisemitic, even more than the rest of Europe (France included), obsessed with their vision of "one nation, one people, one race, one culture" and were doomed to put Hitler's vision in practice one way or another.
Otherwise, I do think that the USSR would have crushed nazi Germany even without the USA. But that's exactly the reason why I'm even more grateful to Americans to have invaded Normandy: at the end of the day, the US did not really save my country from Hitler, but it saved my country from Stalin. Hitler would not have lasted for long anyway, but the USSR did. Had France been part of the Soviet block, its "decline" and sufferings would have been much, much worse than what it endured during WWII.
> I'm not denying that there may have been French
:-) ?
> help in the war (I don't know of it, but its
> possible)
Does "marquis de Lafayette" sound familiar to you
You can buy MandrakeSoft's shares if you're American, you fucking moron. This stuff is just legalese put there by lawyers because of complex regulations, but of course that does not prevent you from buying shares on the French stockmarket.
By the way, please allow me to be as stupid and nationalist as you are: we bailed your ass twice (independence and 1812) against the Brits, and that did not prevent you from adopting a fully protectionist trade policy against us during the whole 19th century, until 1914. So I really don't see your point.
Latin America today has mostly a geographical sense... Otherwise, one other reason may be that Quebec is not a country, and is part of a country which is in majority protestant and English-speaking, that is, not latin.
Oh, give me a FUCKING BREAK, will you? Germany is in majority a country with a protestant background, speaking a germanic language (obviously), and as such is culturally "classified" in the norther Europe category. France is in majority a country with a catholic background, it is considered as a latin country, it is in contact with the mediterranean sea, it speaks a roman-type language and was part of the roman empire (Germany was not), and as such is culturally "classified" in the southern Europe category.
Ok, 1st, socialism is not "government controlling people's private affairs". Socialism is when means of production are socialized (that is, owned by the collectivity, typically via the state).
t .h tml
f ra nce.htm
"Government controlling people's private affairs" is really not a French thing. The French have strong anarchist and individualist tendencies, and they actually tend to consider that the people in the US are much less free than they are, on such matters as alcohol, nudity (classical example: can your girlfriend show her breasts on the beach?), sex and strong language regulations on various media, tobacco, etc... now, THAT is "Government controlling people's private affairs".
There are absolutely no quotas nor protectionnist measures on movies in France; it is a myth, period. There are just subsidies for French movies, and nothing more. The only quotas there ever was were on some radio stations which were asked to broadcast at least a certain percentage (quite low) of music in which the lyrics were in French. Everybody in France made fun of this law, which was quickly abandonned. This was around 1994. However, this was enough to create these preposterous myths on French cultural quotas. These myths fit so well with Francophobic prejudices that they haven't disappeared yet, after many years.
Last, there is absolutely no censorship on language on the French Internet.
I spend half of my life in the US, and half in France. I strongly advise you to come live a few months in France to realize how far from realities your prejudices can be. By all means, don't always trust what is written in the NY Times editorials or in the Wall Street Journal. In the meanwhile, you can read these quite good articles on contemporary France written by Americans (one conservative, one liberal). It may enlighten you on various issues for which your prejudices (economic, cultural, political, whatever) have no ground:
http://www.policyreview.org/oct00/caldwell_prin
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95dec/france/
Yes, read above, I mentioned the Minitel as one of the reasons. Otherwise, FYI the Internet is much less regulated in France than in the US (especially on sex and use of company-owned trademarks for parody and other uses). France has got a bad reputation on this because:
1- Francophobia is fashionable.
2- France was a few months late compared with the US in liberalizing its regulations on the use of cryptography (today these rules are more liberal in France than in the US).
3- A bunch of bigots have found a sympathetic judge for the Yahoo! ruling.
I should also mention that your "national socialist" qualification of the French government was truly unnecessary.