China Shuts Down 17,000 Internet Bars 599
Astin writes: "According to this article, Chinese authorities have shut down more than 17,000 Internet bars for failing to block Web sites considered subversive or pornographic. Out of the 94,000 Internet bars in China, 17,488 have been shut down and another 28,000 were ordered to install monitoring software soon. Of the 27 million Internet users in China, about 4.5 million rely on these bars. Foreign news organizations fall under the category of 'subversive'."
Breaking News (Score:2)
Highlights of the above report (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Highlights of the above report (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Highlights of the above report (Score:3, Insightful)
It's already here. Perhaps the largest of underreported [censored?] stories of the last decade is the growth of the corporate prison industry in America. The owners of these chains have donated heavily to "tough-on-crime" Republican candidates and in return have been given a limitless--and growing--supply of "criminals", usually people convicted of growing/manufacturing/distributing non-alcoholic drugs.
Here is how it works: the prisoner performs labor for Microsoft/WalMart/etc... for a low wage, around $1.00/hour. Part of this wage goes to pay the cost of imprisonment. If the prisoner committed a true crime, a portion of the wage goes towards a restitution fund. The remainder can be spent by the prisoner on overpriced soap/toothpaste/deodorant/etc... It's a win-win situation for the owner: the prisoner pays to be a prisoner, and the owner profits from the prisoner's labor.
The result?
Wait 'til they have finished milking the War on (Some) Drugs and start milking the War on Illegal (Open Source) Software.
And the surprise is...? (Score:2, Troll)
Why is anyone really surprise by this move by the Chinese government? It's not like they're known for being a bunch of liberals after all - just ask some of Falun Gong for instance how they treat ideas that they don't like. No, the Chinese government may like to talk about their progressive nature and "liberalising" (heh) their country, but the truth is they're as big a bunch of Reds as the Soviets ever were.
How is though that the US is prepared to kiss ass in order to trade with them when we spent close to fifty years fighting the Red menace before? Modern USia has quite simply lost any semblance of morality and ideology other than the dollar and a kind of rabid Christianity. Whatever happened to fighting the good fight against communism because it threatened the freedoms we fought so hard to win?
Are our principles now to be sacrificed because we want cheap Chinese products? Can this country sink any lower?
Re:And the surprise is...? (Score:4, Offtopic)
Re:And the surprise is...? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the people in China need to feed their families and earn an honest living. Because if the USA were to "(fight) the good fight" due to some moral docterine our economy would collapse almost instantly as we alienate Singapore, China, Vietnam, and every other "freedom hating" regime on the planet. Because, when it comes down to it, we have to make the best that we can and help the most people possible.
Helping the most people possible. (Score:2)
Fighting the good fight (Score:2)
Re:And the surprise is...? (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it somewhat odd that you speak of rabid Christian morality and ideology and then complain that the US policy towards China isn't sufficiently idealistic or moral in it its dealings with China. Which way did you want it?
RC
Re:And the surprise is...? (Score:3, Funny)
The U.S. has spent years trying NOT to make it easy for China to trade with the world (and join the WTO) because of it's human right's violations. I do not know how you can all of a sudden say we are "kissing ass" to trade with them. The ONLY reason we trade with China is to allow their people to feed themselves. Other than that, it's cheap labor... but we get that from Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Korea, Taiwan, etc (and any other countries I can insult today ;)
Re:And the surprise is...? (Score:2)
It's odd that you would include Canada in that list. Canadians do make less money on average, but not the huge amount less than people from the other countries, and 80% of Canadians enjoy a higher standard of living than 80% of Americans. It's quite a scam. What's more important, the raw numbers of currency units that you make, or the quality of life that you enjoy because of it? By your logic, Mexicans are better off than Canadians or Americans because they make so many pesos.
BTW, you might be surprised to learn that although the Canadian dollar is only worth about US$0.62 for foreign exchange, it is worth about US$0.80 for goods purchased in Canada (purchasing power parity).
Re:And the surprise is...? (Score:2)
Re:And the surprise is...? (Score:2)
Clinton sold them missile technology because he took Chinese gov't money during his political campaigns for president. Hence why they also got 'Favored Nations Status'.
Re:And the surprise is...? (Score:2)
Re:And the surprise is...? (Score:2)
Huh. (Score:2, Interesting)
?
Be happy if you live in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
You know what, I AM glad... (Score:3, Troll)
Matters of Scale (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Be happy if you live in the US (Score:2)
Most of China is not at all technologically advanced, the rural areas are still practically pre-Industrial. Perhaps you are thinking of Japan?
Normal Students? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Some youths will submerge themselves in Internet bars for long periods, playing unhealthy games and adversely affecting their development as normal students."
If porn and video games do not make for normal students, I dare say that there has never been a normal male child, ever. Sex and games occupied most of my time while I was a student.
And I'm plenty normal. Just ask my psychiatrist.
Talisman
Re:Normal Students? (Score:3, Funny)
Talisman
Be on the lookout for dyslexic special forces.
Fear the Net (Score:4, Troll)
The government wants to encourage the Internet's growth as a commercial medium. But Beijing fears its other use as a forum for political dissent.
Now let's revisit the second sentence:
But Washington fears its other use as a forum for terrorist activity.
So, Beijing mandates NetNanny, and Washington mandates Carnivore.
Yep, sure am glad I live in a society completely unlike China.
Re:Fear the Net (Score:4, Redundant)
Your comparison is wrong. Carnivore is not an idea of censorship, it is an idea of monitoring. These are 2 seperate things. You can view all the porn you want, just some guy in the FBI will know about it. There is no constitutional amendment for "privacy" and although it's a nice thing to have, no society *ever* has had the level of privacy that some of you privacy fanatics want. Again, move into the mountains of Colorado without running water or electricity and carry a shotgun... you'll get PLENTY of privacy.
While we can argue carnivore all day long, as we have on several occasions, it's nice to see that people still think the U.S. is such a bad place to live. I mean, there are plenty of other places to go. If you don't like it here, move. While our government monitors your Internet activity to protect the people, other countries like Somalia don't even have a real government. Maybe you should move there where it is "less restrictive" on your rights as a human being.
Re:Fear the Net (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you're an american doesn't mean you can't complain about freedoms and privacy being taken from you. On the contrary, I think it's your duty to stand up for your rights.
Nations must balance the rights of the people vs. the need to prevent bad people from causing mayhem. The fact that many people believe the government is neglecting the rights of the people in an (arguably misguided an ineffectual) effort to prevent crime is probably an indication that the scales have tipped too far in one direction.
America is a fine nation. I can't honestly rate it vs. other nations having lived here most of my life (the remainder being spent in Canada, which is almost identical). I believe that it is quite possibly one of the best places to live, but that does not prevent me from finding the actions of some of our "leadership" somewhat less than optimal.
Re:Fear the Net (Score:3, Funny)
running water or electricity and carry a shotgun... you'll get PLENTY of privacy.
Tell that to the unabomber. He couldnt even mail out a letter without people banging on his door, and then transporting his house to a secured facility.
Online Heroin (Score:5, Funny)
There's a great quote from this article:
a Web site published opinions expressed by Communist Party leaders that excoriated the effects of "online heroin" on its masses, particularly on its youth
If the Internet is "online heroin", slashdot is "an online jet-powered crackpipe burning a two ton ball of primo Detriot crack, laced with LSD, PCP, Ecstasy, and some weird shit we've never seen before".
In the US, This Would Be "Illegal" As Well (Score:5, Interesting)
My friend and I recieved, on one occasion, a visit from the local police department, concerning that children had acceess to our machines and that our machines could be set to display objectionable content. The woman who had filed the complaint did not actually see objectionable content or had an experience where her child did, she merely voiced the possibility that it could happen.
Police seem to take this sort of stuff seriously. I'm not sure why it's any surprise that a government particularly against free speech would have a slightly more aggrevated reaction.
Re:In the US, This Would Be "Illegal" As Well (Score:3, Informative)
True for porn (not unreasonable in a public place), but in China the "subversive content" would include foreign newsfeeds as stated in the article.
I would call this an abrogation of a fundamental freedom, but that's just me.
Re:In the US, This Would Be "Illegal" As Well (Score:2)
No, the government asked the networks not to broadcast those speeches. They most definitely did not and would not make it illegal, much less arrest citizens for accessing foreign feeds of those same speeches over the internet.
China's actions are ultimately futile (Score:2)
China realizes that they have to have Internet connectivity for its economy to grow and compete with the rest of the global market for products and services. In the long run, it's chasing after windmills with these restrictions. Once a critical mass of Internet users is reached, there will be less support for any administration that tries to enforce such rules.
It's just a matter of time.
Here's what the Chinese Government's Rules Are (Score:5, Informative)
Taken from http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/english/sandt/ne treg.htm [usembassy-china.org.cn] :
Section Four -- No unit or individual may use the Internet to harm national security, disclose state secrets, harm the interests of the State, of society or of a group, the legal rights of citizens, or to take part in criminal activities.
Section Five -- No unit or individual may use the Internet to create, replicate, retrieve, or transmit the following kinds of information:
(1) Inciting to resist or breaking the Constitution or laws or the implementation of administrative regulations;
(2) Inciting to overthrow the government or the socialist system;
(3) Inciting division of the country, harming national unification;
(4) Inciting hatred or discrimination among nationalities or harming the unity of the nationalities;
(5) Making falsehoods or distorting the truth, spreading rumors, destroying the order of society;
(6) Promoting feudal superstitions, sexually suggestive material, gambling, violence, murder,
(7) Terrorism or inciting others to criminal activity; openly insulting other people or distorting the truth to slander people;
(8) Injuring the reputation of state organs;
(9) Other activities against the Constitution, laws or administrative regulations.
Section Six No unit or individual may engage in the following activities which harm the security of computer information networks:
(1) No-one may use computer networks or network resources without getting proper prior approval
(2) No-one may without prior permission may change network functions or to add or delete information
(3) No-one may without prior permission add to, delete, or alter
materials stored, processed or being transmitted through the network.
(4) No-one may deliberately create or transmit viruses.
(5) Other activities which harm the network are also prohibited.
Section Seven The freedom and privacy of network users is protected by law. No unit or individual may, in violation of these regulations, use the Internet to violate the freedom and privacy of network users.
State organs (Score:3, Interesting)
So, is it legal to say that the organs that the State extracts from executed prisoners are the best organs money can buy?
Re:Here's what the Chinese Government's Rules Are (Score:3, Insightful)
(7)
8) Injuring the reputation of state organs;
In other words, TELLING THE TRUTH is also illegal when it injures the reputation of gov't agencies. For instance, mentioning that the reason the elementary school exploded was that they had the kiddies making fireworks to be sold at a profit (true story, AFAIK)...
During my travels in China... (Score:5, Interesting)
The funniest time was when I went with my wife to her hometown, in southern China. In a city of 100,000 people (which they call a village in China), I was the only non-Chinese person who had been there in over 2 years. People turned and stared at me wherever I went (my in-laws were joking that they should have charged admission to see me). Yet just down the street was a perfectly functional Internet cafe.
These things happen slowly, but they do happen. Don't think for a second that Chinese dissedents can't figure out how to use encrypted proxies or whatever, to get information in or out, just as easily as we western geeks do to get around stifling workplace rules...
:-)
Re:During my travels in China... (Score:3, Interesting)
One word: Automobile. Once all the nasty point source pollution problems are cleaned up or moved to where you, as a foriegner, cant see them, I would say most cities in china are much cleaner in the US, simply because they dont have alot of automobiles.Give the people of Shanghai 8 million cars, especially unregulated ones, and your pollution problems are back. Similarly, Eliminate all the cars from LA, and the air will be crystal clear year round. The sad part is, the more westernized china becomes, the more cars there will be, and the more and more polluted cities like Shanghai will become.
Human Rights worth War? (Score:2, Insightful)
If one man is worth starting a war over, then isn't it also worthwhile to fight for people's freedom? Saudi-Arabia, China, Pakistan, and Indonesia are amongst the nations that the west does business with, and yet the oppress billions of people. Why can't we justify war with these countries, or even extreme trade embargoes, if only to ensure their people's freedom? How many barrels of oil or cheap shirts is a woman/man's freedom worth??
I'm not making an anti-US statement here. Canada, Britain, the EU, and australia, amongst others, are exactly the same.
More power to them... (Score:4, Funny)
It seems like the Chinese can't (or don't want to) figure out how to secure a mail server.
Are there any Chinese readers here that can explain this? Anytime I have spam problems originating within the U.S. I have about a 99% chance of getting a cooperative ISP that fixes the problem within a few hours but because of the communication barrier I have no luck pursuing this overseas (generally China).
Short of blocking all traffic from
Re:More power to them... (Score:4, Funny)
Bounce all mail from China with:
"550 FCJHV URTIG HRVCP JRIUA KQWHB - covert channel located, transmitting message block UYMPW"
After enough bounced spam with apparent cryptographic content, the Chinese government will "fix" the relay for you. Or they'll "fix" the relay's administrator.
As a bonus, you can know that the more time the Chinese government's thugs spend chasing wild geese, liquidating incompetent sysadmins, and decrypting random noise, the less time they'll have to oppress their own people.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm so glad that I live in the U.S.A.! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the government just as guilty of censorship for not allowing Penthouse magazine on the racks in a public library?
I suppose so, but most rational people would consider that a reasonable and desirable amount of censorship. After all, we don't want parents forbidding their children to go to the library because they have porn on the shelves.
As long as they are censoring "obscene" material and not "subversive content" then there is no real ethical problem (as long as we can agree on the definition of obscenity, but that's another kettle of fish.)
It's just too bad that censorware doesn't really work.
Re:I'm so glad that I live in the U.S.A.! (Score:2)
Re:I'm so glad that I live in the U.S.A.! (Score:2)
There is no such thing as "reasonable" or "desirable" censorship. Censorship is Censorship is Censorship. That's that. "Reasonable" and "desirable" censorship differ so wildly from person to person that it is absolutely ludricous to try and come up with a "standard" level of censorship.
most "rational" people would rather see porn banned outright, does that mean we should outlaw it? we live in a REPUBLIC. That means the rights of the minorities may not be trampled on by the will of the majority.
Re: (Score:2)
LIBRARIES? CHILDREN? (Score:2)
Sure, public libraries are a place where there may be children present, but there may be children present in a courthouse, walking down the street, or in the corner convenience store. (Where, I'll note, the only thing between the kids and serious hard-core porn is the clear plastic wrapper on some of the magazines)
The idea that libraries are somehow fundamentally aimed at children, and specifically are more aimed at children than at adults is pernicious. It leads to a culture in which the adults become alliterate (that is, being able to read but not reading) and in which librarians are imagined to be glorified babysitters with books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
why Americans so biased against anything non-US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why Americans so biased against anything non-US (Score:2)
I don't suppose you've read any of their national press, particularly after their fighter jet rammed a recon plane in international airspace. China has been regarding the US as THE ENEMY for quite sometime.
Never mind that their increasingly capitalist structure has given far more people over there opportunities than can be said about some of our population here.
Compare that to Taiwan, which started from worse circumstances and is ahead of the PRC about 10 to 1.
Re:why Americans so biased against anything non-US (Score:2)
I think you'd be just a tad testy if the Taliban was flying recon off Seattle, or the Soviets had planes growling around off Miami, these barely visible specks in the sky reminding you day in and day out - they're watching you.
Both sides provoked that spyplane incident. Don't be fooled.
Re:why Americans so biased against anything non-US (Score:3, Interesting)
Not me, but I will firmly claim that it is much better than China.
When you criticize China, are you doing so because you've really thought about the issues, or because that's all the media has told you to do here?
I criticize the Chinese government because they are fundamentally hostile to individual freedom, believe that the citizens exist to serve them, and have no reservations about abusing their people to maintain their power. Yes, I know you can list things the US government has done that are not good, but the magnitude of the abuses is not comparable. Even the fact that you can criticize the US in this forum is a testament to the freedom that you enjoy here that you would not in China.
OMG! HOT PROLETARIAN ACTION (Score:2)
[wavy dream sequence effect]
Spam floods Chinese in-boxes: "A no-money-down real estate opportunity for YOU, comrade!" "Refinance your hut today!" and "OMG! ULL CUM! HOT PROLETARIAN AXXXION!"
American Internet porn companies begin to target this new market, making downloadable titles featuring the likeness of Chairman Mao Tse "Swollen" Tung [ridiculopathy.com].
Note to the Chinese (Score:3, Interesting)
Just tell it to translate the page you want to see from Chinese to English (or such), and it will ignore all the non-Chinese characters on the screen. So you'll get the website.
People have been using that to bypass filters at work for quite a while.
-k.
Hmmm.. (Score:2)
Why not both? (Score:2)
Smash the state! Hot Asian teens!
Then again, "Asian teens" probably isn't so interesting over there.
A ground-level analysis. (Score:4, Informative)
First, Internet cafés are ubiquitous, and yes most of them are dimly lit holes with 12 computers sharing one ISDN line, or sometimes a 56k modem. Generally there are no bathrooms, the dimly lit room is filled with cigarette smoke and the whole place is grimy as the bathroom of your local pub. I.e. typical China, outside Beijing/ Shanghai/ Guangzhou. There are of course nice internet cafés in the big cities, like the one in shanghai that proudly displayed the chair President Clinton once sat it to surf the web, but those places are the exception.
Now just like any industry, there's licensing involved and in a Chinese Internet Café that means registering with the Chinese Bureau of Post and Telecommunications. Part of the Café license is the understanding that you'll filter all unsuitable content, which mostly consists of pornography (highly illegal in any form), actual dissident sites (yes they do exist, our government happily cracks down on the same sort of thing here) and yes BIG name foreign media. By big name I mean NY times, CNN, BBC, Washington Post etc. Anything that's local, or my mother wouldn't think of as a news source- i.e. Slashdot, Guerrilla News Network or the Economist, are not filtered at all.
Of course being a big place with a lot of people, regulation of this sort of thing isn't ubiquitous, which means that it's not that difficult to find Cafés that don't filter CNN and what not. They're just officially banned. And of course all bets are off when one uses any sort of proxy. Now the unofficial level of restriction raises and lowers depending on current circumstances. For example when we "accidentally" bombed the Chinese embassy a couple of years ago, the restriction was quite high. Chinese people were pissed at foreigners and the restriction level went up. On the flip side, after the Sept. 11th attack, they had an unofficial moratorium on the restriction of foreign news, which got extended all the way through the APEC conference.
When we hear that the Chinese government cracked down on internet Café's allowing subversive content through, what it generally means is the Cafés were letting in pornography. Most Chinese couldn't give a damn about foreign news, and of the few that do, the number that have the ability to read English is quite small. On the other hand the number of people who would be looking at pornography is quite large.
On average I would even venture to say that the aggregate level of information freedom of PR China is equal to or even greater than that of the United States when one takes into the account the development of intellectual property law. The Chinese didn't even have a concept of property when they opened up 20 years ago, so they sure as heck don't have a concept of IP, something that we're still struggling with, today. Hence buying pirated anything- software, music, movies- is many times easier than buying the officially licensed thing.
None of this is to say that the Chinese aren't being oppressed with regards to their online freedoms; it's just that the oppressors aren't nearly as strict as our own news tells us.
They did try to revolt once (Score:3, Flamebait)
As I recall, it didn't work out so well.
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:3, Interesting)
However, just because one attempt was crushed, doesn't mean the next one will be. If anything good is to be extracted from that mess, it proved that a 'free' mentality pervades a large minority, or perhaps a timid majority.
The hard-liners are getting old. They will die soon. If you can't beat them punch-for-punch, let nature take care of the problem.
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:3, Interesting)
What's confusing me is that there were a few thousand *STUDENTS* in Tiananmen. You know, students. As in "educated, above-average people who are as different from anything you can call 'majority' as you get". As in "bah, they'll grow up and they'll come to their senses eventually". As in "we're 1.2 billion people here, we need someone with authority to rule us; that fancy democracy thing is not for us, but those 'intellectual' pricks just don't understand". Is it clear now?
And btw, the majority may be silent, but it's never timid.
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:2)
Even ignorant farmers can loathe being under repressive control. It's in human nature, not college textbooks.
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:2)
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:2)
The answer is you don't. I think the saying is, "Don't judge a man from where you stand, but from where he stands."
So you are _assuming_ that the majority of Chinese people are unhappy with their current government. That position is not supported by the.
Pointing to events like Tienamen square and claiming that the people of China hate their government is like pointing to Waco and saying the same about the US.
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:2, Funny)
Now that would be an ugly sight.
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:2)
> Now that would be an ugly sight.
As opposed to the last time around, where the soldiers got to play Grand Theft Auto, except with tanks.
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:2)
Sure it did! China now has favored-nation trading status.
Oh, wait, you meant it didn't work out well for the *protesters*.
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:5, Interesting)
A short summary of the Tianamen "incident" of 1989:
Originally it was a popular protest by students to restore the honor of CCP Secretary Hu Yaobang after his death. He was sympathetic to the growing democratic movement and was forced to resign (dishonorably) in 1987.
The request was denied and a hardline editoral was published which led to further protests.
As the movement grew larger and larger, and more and more out of control, it was moralized by the advancement of anti-corruption in the government. So they could be said to be disruptive for a morally correct reason.
The protests turned into a series of hunger strikes, and sympathetic protests in many other major cities.
The protests grew stronger and stronger, leading to the paralysis of the cities' normal operation.
During all this the CCP was split on the proper action to take. But they could tolerate such disruption only so much, and were fearful that this activity would grow so much that it woud lead to another cultural revolution.
By the time the cities had been "occupied" for more than a month, hard measures were decided upon.
The students were asked to peacefully leave, but they refused. During the month of protest their movement had become more and more radical, any moderate protest leaders had been driven out and removed from positions of power.
The government greatly wanted a calm ending to this movement but could see no other recourse but to forcefully remove the protestors, which turned quite ugly due to the radical nature of the protest by then and an overreaction by the army.
Any sort of pro-democratic spin on the movement was *only* added as part of a positive spin to win support and demonstrate that they (the students) were justified in their activity. But it was really more anarchy than democracy that the movement was representative of.
The CCP, whether through indecision, fear of bad press, or other factors, was incredibly patient with the protest. Can you really imagine any country allowing its cities to be occupied by a hostile, anti-government protest? Check out the story of the US reaction to the WTO protests in Seattle.
But don't just listen to me, go to your local library and check out some books on the subject. The excellent "Tianamen Papers" just came out last February, which documents much of the party actions that I've just described.
Difference with US reaction (Score:2, Interesting)
In Seattle, non-lethal weapons were used. Even in many third-world countries, protests are broken up with rubber bullets, not live ammunition. And if you complain that the students were radical, why not also point out that the gov't was hardline and refused to budge?
Now, I'm generally very defensive about China when Slashdotters rant about how evil it is without looking at the reality and practicality of the situation there, as it is making a lot of positive progress these days, but this is a case where the gov't could have done any number of things to avoid killing students, and it chose not to. Why? Not because it "had no choice", but because it too heavily weighs "stability of our nation" over individual lives. For that matter, even the "patience" may have been a bad thing, as a more controlled suppression of the protests earlier could have turned out a lot better.
Thats, right it was the army's fault.. [not] (Score:2)
As for other countries tolerating a paralysis of important country infrastructures, you only need look as far as Europe. Anybody remember the farmer and trucker protests in France recently?
Trying to claim the Chinese government was an accidental party to the human rights atrocities of Tianamen Square is scandalous and a revision of history.
Now you've twisted _my_ arm (Score:4, Interesting)
You seem to be greatly afraid of "disruptions". No, don't tell me -- cultural revolution, right? Well here's a thought. The cultural revolution could not have occured on the scale it did if it wasnt for the (in)famous groupthink with which the Chinese are still struggling. By avoiding criticism, suppressing discussion, punishing "incorrect" reasoning, the Chinese strong men are supporting this tendency. They are promoting tribalism and so endangering their society.
Frequently, when speaking with ethnic Chinese, I hear such phrases as "We chinese do/say X..", instead of "I think". In a recent NYtimes report on AIDS, the author of a popular internet diary was interviewed about his recommendations for govt. AIDS policy. He felt the need to preface his remarks with "Well, I am only an individual, so I'm not qualified to judge.." My question is, who the hell _does_ judge policy, if not human beings? It is this fear of being the nail which sticks out, this sense of doing what your neighbor does, which has turned china into a giant gasoline pool, waiting for a spark. In an open society [amazon.com], individuals may go crazy, but the culture as a whole remains sound. Instead, the authorities whom you are defending have chosen to live in a closed society. They always fear the smallest flame.
In the US, we did have violent demonstrations in Seattle, they were publicized, debated, and no revolution, no mass bloodshed. In china it's forbidden to even mention Tiananmen square, secret police prevent people from assembling there on anniversary dates, professors fear for their jobs if they bring it up. The justification is fear of "disruptions", but few dare to ask why such a small spark can set fire to a whole nation.
Instead of ritually defending the CCP, or "we chinese" as a nation, those who truly care about the health of society should attempt to promote freedom of speech, of criticism, of protest. Strive towards open government and an open culture. This will provide channels to dredge the lake, and chinese human beings (as opposed to "The Chinese") will finally be able to speak for themselves without fear of commiting "incorrect" criticism.
Re:They did try to revolt once (Score:5, Funny)
"Stirring symbol of human spirit difficult to wash out of tank treads."
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
I would put it to you, sir, that if the American government shut down some internet cafes, the majority of Americans would not give a flying fuck. Now, if you were to shut down McDonalds or ban lame-ass sitcoms - that would be another thing...
Not So Smug! We could be in the same boat soon! (Score:3, Insightful)
During World War II we locked people up for their ethnic background, and during the cold war we persecuted people based for allegedly belonging to subversive political organizations that supported things such as a living wage and racial equality.
What i'm saying is that we shouldn't be so smug, this sort of thing isn't as far fetched as one might think.
Re:Wow. (Score:2)
That announcement would then be followed by an announcement by the CEO of AOL/Time Warner (who was just appointed as head of the newly created "Homeland Entertainment" department) that they would immediately merge with CBS, Fox, and every other media company you can think of, and that every home in America would immediately recieve free cable television and connection to the "New and Improved American Internet" for life. 85% of the sheep..er, people in this country immediately decide it's better to lie down and take it than risk missing the Friends season finally, and the rest of us are left wondering why the fuck we didn't move to Canada when we had the chance.
Re:Well yeah.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well yeah.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well yeah.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well yeah.... (Score:2)
J
Well, troll (Score:2)
And the reference to Marxism only shows how little you know about China.
Seriously, the most likely reason for this is that the bidnessmen running the cafes that were closed got too big for the level of government connections they have. Better-connected competitors may have happened to mention to officials that "gee, those guys let anything through." I would be surprised if you couldn't still get stuff from many of the 78,000 cafes still open.
Re:Well, troll (Score:2)
Hey, me too! Especially this guy...
"I send you this file in order to have your advice.
See you later.
Thanks"
Re:Who cares... (Score:2, Insightful)
The last time the people of China "[grew] some balls" was at Tiananmen square. That sure worked out well for them. I think some people forget that not all of us live in a somewhat "free" society.
I think it's very ignorant to think that the people of China deserve a government that abuses their human rights. I think that it is even more ignorant to think that the people of China do not have any "balls" because they do not try to stand up for themselves more often.
When you stand up for your rights in China, you are eliminated, plain and simple.
It's one thing to say that if you were in their situation you'd stand up for your own rights; it's another to actually do it when you are there.
Re:Who cares... (Score:2)
Nothing naive about it. People can stand up for themselves or not. Unfortunately, the Chinese culture is extremely authoritarian. I should have said "learn to question authority" instead of "grow some balls" as there are undoubtedly some very brave Chinese citizens.
If the majority of the people decided to revolt the Red Army would be powerless to stop them.
Re:Who cares... (Score:2)
Yes, we do.
Re:Well... their laws are their laws... (Score:2)
Re:Well... their laws are their laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
The people may not have a choice, but be careful when you say that the Chinese people don't support what the government is doing. There are a billion Chinese people. Telling a Chinese girl that she's "one in a million" is like telling her that there are 1,000 girls that look just like her.
When half a million students go downtown and shout angry slogans and act up, that's one half of one percent of one percent of their population. That's an insignifigant little piece of dirt. And believe it or not, a good majority of that billion people, the truly "Silent Majority" in China, watched those kids get run over by tanks with the same satisfaction we reserve for watching the Klu Klux Klan get pegged with glass bottles on T.V.
China is extremely conservative. That's what happens when your survive the Chinese Cultural Revolution [hawaii.edu], when young people rose up, took control, killed all the skilled doctors, lawyers and artisans, and ran loose across the countryside committing mass murder. The Chinese people on the whole have had enough radical change for two lifetimes. They are a product of their history, just like us.
A lot of Chinese Americans I know roll their eyes when they hear about the "Concert(s) for Tibetan Freedom". Held in stadiums on the very land from which we marched millions of Native Americans across the Trail of Tears to their death, it seems to them to be at best hypocritical and at worst pure vanity on our part to assume that the Chinese government is so very different from our own.
Be careful throwing stones on behalf of the Chinese. They are a proud and strong culture, they outnumber us, they have seen wars so terrible that our country can only imagine. They have had tiny revolutions that lasted longer than our entire country has been in existence.
I'm not approving the action; I'm saying you should weigh your opinion and your ignorance together carefully first.
Re:Well... their laws are their laws... (Score:2)
Re:Manpower (Score:2)
1 Billion+ People (Score:2)
Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:2, Interesting)
Was 9/11 horrific? Of course. But what should we do about it? Well, the Taliban is pretty much gone, so that's thing number one. But in the long run, America's security has a lot to do with the rest of the world. If we don't stand up for freedom everywhere, we risk being the only place on Earth where it's practiced (albeit imperfectly).
Now, I'm not going to say "get over it" because you've already been told that. I'm going to say "do something about it". You gripe and moan about people's priorities, but I don't hear any solutions coming from you, or even a point other than you don't like people getting on with their lives. It is possible to carry on a normal life and not forget about a horrific event. We did it for about 4 years during WWII, and we still haven't forgotten Pearl Harbor. Let people deal with things their own way, and stop trying to make people conform to your idea of mourning.
Re:IT is. (Score:2, Interesting)
Probably around 0%, because China means business.
By the way, when you said that "it is their country," I think you needed to be more specific. I think you meant to say "it is their regimes country."
Either way, notice the possesive "their". Remember the Cultural Revolution? Well, probably not unless you're old, but these people chose this form of government. It is to be assumed that this is what they want, or at least that this is not undesirable enough to spawn another revolution a la USSR. I say let the Chinese government govern their people however they want. They are a major power, not an island dictatorship. They seem to be doing some things right, and they haven't fucked up Hong Kong yet. "Information wnats to be free" is more accurately "We wish information was free". Unfortunately (or not), it can't happen everywhere.
Re:IT is. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is a clear case of a minority dictating to the majority. The nationalists just got their asses kicked. That's all.
Most in China will secretly tell you that their government sucks, but they are too afraid to do anything about it.
Re:IT is. (Score:3, Insightful)
And they have the right to be OK with that.
Most in China will secretly tell you that their government sucks, but they are too afraid to do anything about it.
Also their choice. It isn't up to you or me or the UN to force a revolution against a government _we_ don't like. We can use political pressure and such to _urge_ them in a particular direction, but except for violations of "internationl law" and certain humanitarian issues we have no right to tell them how to run their country.
There is no inalienable right to live in a democracy.
Re:CNN is a MouthPiece for Capitalists (Score:2)
Secondly, China is quite a plutocracy itself. It is certainly not communist - there are plenty of private corporations making a great deal of profit (including many in joint ventures with American, Taiwanese, and Japanese companies). If anything it's far worse than in the US - while in the US there's at least some separation between government and corporations, in China the only corporations allowed to exist are those run by Communist Party members and blessed by the government.
Re:CNN is a MouthPiece for Capitalists (Score:2)
This is one of the funniest posts I've ever read. you must have rocks in your skull. Companies PRODUCE wealth? Out of what? Thin air? Do you even know what wealth is? It sure as hell isn't money. Wealth is relative, and inherently meaningless. It is an arbitrary value we as humans have set on things which we percieve to be desirable.
Companies don't produce wealth, or ideas, or innovations. They produce profit. That is their sole purpose of existance. Anytihng else that comes out of them is a side-benefit. But what if a society was not concerned with wealth? What if people were free to do as they pleased, not having to worry about collecting a paycheck. Where people who enjoyed fostering new ideas could do so, and people who enjoyed working with their hands could do so, to help bring these ideas into being. How much faster would innovation progress if everyone did what they did only because they found it enjoyable?
THIS is the communist ideal. It is not the twisted, sick idea as perpertrated by the Chinese and Soviet governments. The problem with the communist ideal is that it would require such a massive global shit in thinking, it is not workable. Communism is not workable on a contry only basis. Thats why these bastardisations exist. The creators MEANT well, but didn't alise their efforts were futile.
COmmunism itself is a utopian, and worthy goal. It's just not do-able. So, next time you want to go bashing "hippie communes", think about what you're saying, instead of looking like an idiot.
Re:CNN is a MouthPiece for Capitalists (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be fooled by the same logic that you believe the parent poster is fooled by. True, many good things have come from our Capitalist society. However, your understanding of the system is not based on any facts. With the exception of Gates, Bezos, Perot, and a handful of others, people who "work hard, take risks, and take responsibility usually" don't make it to the top. These people are called employees. Most heads of corporation reek of old money. Their friends and families sit in Government and on the boards of PACs. Now that our government is bailing out the airline industry for its lousy (and deadly) business practices, the notion that corporate owners take risks is obsolete. The exception is small businesses.
Statements like "hippy commune" show your inability to construct a factual argument. What good does "finding another job" do when the game is already rigged by the winners?
There are an infinite number of economic systems waiting to be explored.
Re:Slashdot (Score:2)
Many of the comments are based on personal opinion, slanted to promote a specific viewpoint, contain outdated or incorrect facts, or are outright bold-faced lies. I wouldn't consider much of the content here to be newsworthy material, even if it gets a 4 or 5 score. I won't even bother to mention what I think of all the "first post!" attempts or troll postings. Thank goodness for moderation.
In short, Slashdot is a nice place to find out about new ideas and technology, but it hardly counts as a legit news site. The Chinese will probably ban it anyway, however, because some of the ideas discussed here about personal freedoms wouldn't be very popular with officals over there.
Re:China ruled by Stupid Jackbooted Thugs. (Score:2)
It shows how "nice" the military is for not running over the chinese citizen. It shows self control.
its all a matter of perspective.
Re:And we are surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
Even the most totalitarian regime in history was outnumbered by the citizens of said regime. If a revolt happened on a national scale, any government could be toppled, even the U.S. All that's needed is citizens with courage -- Ghandi proved that to the mightiest empire in modern times (Britain), and he never fired a shot. It is not easy, it is hard. People die. But what is better? Living in oppression or fighting and perhaps dying for freedom? I would rather fight and take my chances than huddle at the government's whim. It's a pity that more people don't realize where power comes from, but then again they are educated from day one by government institutions that "the system" is unfightable.