Microsoft Bans 'Democracy' for China's Web Users 430
Doc Ruby writes "As reported, paradoxically, on MSN, 'Microsoft's new Chinese internet portal has banned the words 'democracy' and 'freedom' from parts of its website in an apparent effort to avoid offending Beijing's political censors.' MSN China says it must comply with local laws, but there is no Chinese law against the use of these words."
Re:So some creative misspelling... (Score:3, Informative)
Speaking truth to power? (Score:5, Informative)
Last I heard China was working on their own operating system to supplant those of the West, so Microsoft might be wasting their time.
Re:link to the website? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Mercenary Taiwanese Scum (Score:5, Informative)
When referencing "The Constitution of Taiwan", one must realize that the name of the document should technically be "The Constitution of the Republic of China".
When that document insist that "Tibet is part of China", it meant "Tibet is part of the Republic of China."
Thus when saying the constitution of Taiwan says Tibet is part of China when the Chinese army are killing Tibetan nuns, the first reference to China and the second reference are pointing to different entities.
The referenced link makes it sound like Taiwan believe Tibet belongs to a murderous government, when in fact that very document (the "Constitution of Taiwan") deny the legatimacy of the Bejing government to whom the nun-raping Chinese Liberation Army belongs to.
Because the "Constitution of Taiwan" still think R.O.C. is the rightful ruler of mainland China, any reference in it that talks about "mainland China" also means the R.O.C. government, which in fact no longer rules the mainland.
The misleading nature of your reference makes me doubt the validity of the other information on that page (even if the numbers or the quote are true, the context might have given completely different meaning).
Remember, when the "Taiwanese" government say that anything is "Chinese" or "belongs to China", they mean their little government located in Taipei that only has effect soverignity over a few island. More often than not, it is more accurate to replace what they are saying to "Taiwanese" or "belongs to Taiwan", where Taiwan technically means the Republic of China.
Numerous American groups were and are engaged in a boycott of Chinese products and have demonstrated loudly and vociferously against the occupation of Tibet.
Numerous Taiwanese groups have done the same thing too.
If the actions of many captalist corporations of a certain nationality/ethinicity is sufficient to charactize a people, as you have done using Taiwanese companies to characterize the Taiwanese people, then I can also say the American are no better than mercenary pigs. Slashdotters should be all too famaliar with a few examples.
The majority of the Taiwanese population would be outraged to find any Taiwanese company profiting from China in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square. Realize, most Americans actually don't know how Starbucks exploit the environment and coffee workers, about the Nike sweat shopts, etc.
This response has the biase of an individual who identifies himself as being a "Republic of China" Chinese who was born and mostly raised in Taiwan. Individuals who identify with the R.O.C. are actually closer to being the minority in Taiwan, compared to the people who identify themselves as strictly "Taiwanese". The referenced link stated Eighty-five percent (85%) of the people of Taiwan are Chinese. Only fifteen percent (15%) are Taiwanese. without any reference, and probably uses some biological ancestry demographic data instead of using what the people actually identify themselves with.
Re:No law? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Democracy is Eurocentric idea. (Score:3, Informative)
However, the KFC in the Imperial Park didn't have their lease renewed. There is some hope.
Re:MSNBC? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:couldnt put it better myself (Score:2, Informative)
Communism is an economic philosophy that the current Chinese regime no longer adopts. What I suspect you dislike is not the economic policy but the political policy adopted by the Chinese government (single party, weakly enforced civil liberties, etc).
Oddly enough, this isn't too different from the current politcal situation of the USA (PATRIOT Act, two party duopoly, etc)
Testing if the article is right (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, my chinese isn't very good. I study chinese, but I started last september, so I don't read that many characters...
But first off when trying to create a msn.com space, is the passport account. So I decided to create a chinese hotmail account, with the data of a young student living in Beijing. That was only a little tricky. The two obstacles I ran into was finding the zip code of Beijing, and finding out what I had to do in the text box on the last page next to the email address I just created. The zip code was quickly solved after finding the homepage of European Centre For Chinese Studies at Beijing University, and their address... The text field, I found out after numerous tries, was just a reconfirmation of that same email. Having the email address and passport account created I was sent back to the My Space creation page.
I decided my space should be called 'ziyouheminzhu', being the words 'freedom' 'and' 'democracy'.
Just to check, I entered that in Chinese characters as the name of the blog and clicked continue. A fat red text popped up saying "You cannot use forbidden words!".
So the article is right, but for the sake of maintaining a critical view to journalism, I thought I had to prove it...
Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him? (Score:5, Informative)
I know this might come as a shock... but Bill might actually be a human being. Doesn't mean you have to love Microsoft. Obly that Bill Gates actually has a humanitarian streak in him.
But ofcourse, it is much easier to make a smart ass remark when faced with evidence contrary to one's beliefs.
Re:Parent is a troll. (Score:3, Informative)
Here's one example: NBC, one of the 3 majority American media networks, is just a subsidiary of GE, probably the world's largest corporation. GE makes nuclear weapons for the US, and all kinds of weapons systems and components globally. They're no different from their competing networks, in priorities or the news they publish.
Another example: amidst the chorus of denials that Bush was intent on invading Iraq, regardless of which necessary pretext, a British memo was leaked revealing that Bush's administration was "fixing facts around the policy". Lying about intelligence to justify war. Other evidence was produced to show that the US and British military multiplied their bombing of Iraq before the war, to goad Iraq into reaction that could be spun to justify invasion. Sure, it got published in British media. But in the US, which has almost all the exposure, responsibility and costs of the invasion (other than dead Iraqis and their destroyed country), our media doesn't cover it. The litany of politically sensitive, but extremely interesting stories our media doesn't cover is endless. Instead we get 24/7 coverage of OJ, Michael Jackson, disppearing white girls. That's our government/media cartel at work.
Let's have your coincidence theory that covers this "business as usual", rather than just empty, Anonymous Coward rants.
Re:Where's Pastor Ken when you *need* him? (Score:3, Informative)
And that's just the kind of thing that my accountant deals with. I'm sure that there are other laws that Gates' team (could be a whole school, with his fees) shoots for, even laws that Gates has purchased in our complex tax code not infrequently customized for rich individuals. In fact, at Gates' level, and considering how his donations line up with policies that Bush promotes as Federal charity expenses (like Africa), I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Gates' contributions allow the Feds to count his contribution as "US contribution", and thereby cut public expenses while reaching "the same goal". Such support for highly visible political purposes always get paid back. For example, Gates (and his top-lawyer father) made a lot of noise during the "kill the estate tax" debates about spending their money before they died on charity, rather than either give it to the Feds, or lobby to pass it all to their children. Their publicity fed both Democrat and Republican agendas, which also surely gets payback. Bush (and the Democrats who vote with him) has saved super-rich people like Gates (and not so super, but rich people like me) large percentages of their income in perpetuity, not just a one-shot deal like Gates' establishment of his foundation. These are not necessarily "facts", in that I have specific evidence of them, but believe me: I'm paying for tax savings, which I get, not infrequently by doing counterintuitive actions with my money. I'd bet Gates gets even more.
And with it, he gets lots of access to national leaders. Especially in the developing countries, where his greatest potential for market expansion lies, and which have much less leverage against an established monopoly. Plus he gets to groom his general public image, which can help him in every country, especially those where politicians have to choose between helping or hurting him. Which often means being with or against him, where his popularity with their people lets them let him off the hook more easily.
In that environment, Gates is doing the right thing. For himself, surely. But he's also putting money where it will do a lot of good, where others have not. So the system, and Gates, is producing a good effect. He's collecting money from people succeeding in the global economy, and giving it to those who are not. Which is old school "liberalism". It should be no surprise that the vastly powerful Gates gets rewarded for his largesse, and that doesn't undercut the value of his contributions. But it is a mistake to see it as purely a sacrifice. There's lots of enlightened self-interest there, much of it more immediate than even instant karma.