China Sets New Rules On Internet News 340
auckland map writes "China set new regulations on Internet news content which ban the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest. Established news media needed permission to run a news Web site, while new operators had to register themselves with government information offices. This move further widens a campaign of controls Chinese government has imposed on web sites, communication, leisure and businesses." From the article: "The state bans the spreading of any news with content that is against national security and public interest ... [internet news sites] must be directed toward serving the people and socialism and insist on correct guidance of public opinion for maintaining national and public interests."
More infrmation on the story: (Score:5, Informative)
The Reuters copy is a bit spotty in its coverage...more information can be found here [nytimes.com], here [expressindia.com], and here [infoworld.nl].
Interesting quote from the third source listed above:
Before anyone brings it up... (Score:5, Informative)
They have an authoritarian government with a capitalist economic system. "State capitalist" is the more correct term. (authoritarian states are not necessarily communist, although the reverse is generally true).
This may be offtopic, but usually the conversation always manages to drift towards this anyways regardless of the original topic.
Re:No, not reall (Score:2, Informative)
There is a word for it: Doublespeak [wikipedia.org].
Hillary Clinton also wants internet 'RETHINK' (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Before anyone brings it up... (Score:4, Informative)
When are we being spoon fed? (Score:2, Informative)
Swindles and perversions (Score:3, Informative)
The sad thing is that this isn't a new problem, but some people seem to be unable to learn from the past. I hope most people here have read Orwell's thoughts on the matter, but for those of you who haven't: Politics and the English Language. [resort.com] Written almost sixty years ago, and as true today as it ever was. Quote:
Close, but not quite (Score:1, Informative)
The large enterprises are majority owned by the government (CNOOC, for example, is 70% owned by the gov't) but minority shares are available through the stock exchange. I wouldn't say they have a capitalist economic system, although it has increasingly capitalistic elements.
Normally, I'd make a point that "State Capitalism" is an oxymoron (since Capitalism means the seperation of state and economics), but it oddly "kinda sorta" fits China today.
Re:"National security" is the antithesis of freedo (Score:5, Informative)
It would sound like a good constitution (it even includes the Freedom of Religion) if they didn't literally throw it away with Articles 51 and 52:
In other words, the freedoms that come before those paragraphs are only suffered at the state's whim. If they feel that you are in any way working against the state (e.g. the criticism they just "allowed" in Article 41) or attempting to undermine the "unity of the state" (e.g. the freedom of religion granted by Article 36) then the state will step in and run you over with a tank [wikipedia.org] or throw you in jail.
So much for the constitution of the People's Repulic of China. Be very happy if you live in a country to whom rights are more than words on a sheet of paper.
Re:Peoples.... (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like the social welfare programs that starved 30 million people to death? [orbit6.com]
China's move away from Communism trough free market reforms, and its expansion of exports to the US, has lead there to be about 200 million [chinadaily.com.cn] fewer people in China living on under $1 per day now than in 1990.
I'm no apologist for China's continued lack of human and political rights, but at the same time at least the government appears to be leading economic growth, which is much more than I can say for Cuba or North Korea (or places like Zimbabwe).
Re:How primitive (Score:3, Informative)
"In America, we just have all TV news produced by a relatively small set of companies that are politically sympathetic to the ruling political power."
Type the following into google. Liberal News, Socialist News, Communist News, and Conservative News. Then merrily wander your way over to your favorite podcasting website and just pick through the various news types you can pick.
Besides, TV news (outside of Fox News) is not sympathetic to any 'ruling power'. The TV news is brain dead crap they stuff into a 30 minute (minus commercials) program. Reporting on the "runaway bride" and other lazy half assed reporting isn't evil, it is just fucking lazy.
There are plenty of alternatives. If you are reading this article, you have access to them.
Re:Before anyone brings it up... (Score:3, Informative)
This only works because of globalization, China can control the entire industry in their country and compete with foreign corporations who don't have the benefit of being able to unilaterally set wage rates. China is in a much better economic standing than the US, because the government and the corporations are one and have the same goal. In the US the corporations both attempt to control the government and undermine it, I'll let you figure out who will probably be more successful in 100 years.