New MySpace China Tells Users to Spy on Each Other

Anonymous Chinese Coward writes "MySpace has launched in China, the world's most populous nation, but this definitely is NOT the MySpace you're used to. Members are told to click a button to report any 'misconduct' by other users. MySpace's definition of 'misconduct' includes actions such as 'endangering national security, leaking state secrets, subverting the government, undermining national unity, spreading rumors or disturbing the social order' — according to the site's terms and conditions. In China these are all crimes which carry a hefty prison sentence. Any attempt to post content containing phrases that the Chinese government doesn't like, such as 'Taiwanese independence', the banned 'FaLun' religious movement or the Dalai Lama, produces the following message. 'Sorry, the article you want to publish may contain inappropriate content. Please delete the unsuitable content, and then try reposting it. Thank you.'"

Free Speech

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they can say it in a free speech zone.

Re:On which country...

[aussie_a]

On which country on the earth these are totally free actions?

"undermining national unity" to start with. I could go on to "spreading rumors" but there's not much point.

In US it's racism

Really? Is saying something like "all niggers are fags" result in punishment from the government in America? Wow. America's even worse then I've heard. Or else you're full of shit.

Re:Tit for tat

[AlexMax2742]

Name one person who was locked up soley because of something critical they said of the president.

Don't get me wrong, he's incompetant and his entire administration is crooked, but if the US was really like the Chinese, you would be in jail right about......

*knock knock*

Oh shi....

Time to be constructive

[Kizor]

This is nothing we haven't seen before and nothing we won't be seeing again. The Chinese government will go to great lengths for its powerlust and especially to protect itself from the people, and every year the march of technology hands them more power. So what can we do about it? Making brooding, cynical posts is the usual M.O. and the generated online badwill has no doubt brough them to their knees. [penny-arcade.com] How can we do what little we can to end this obscenity?

Run Tor?
Join Amnesty International and buy some of their nifty hoodies [amnestyusa.org]?
Hold a public protest?
Boycott Chinese goods (yeah, right)?
Organize a fuck-off massive online attack and hammer on the Great Firewall? [wikipedia.org] ("one of the most important projects for ensuring its political power..." indeed.)

Help me out here.

Re:On which country...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you actually chinese? It's possible you're believing your government's propaganda about other nations...

There's no such a country which would let people to do some action to broke nations unity.

This is complete rubbish. In fact, in european societies, it's considered healthy to allow people *try* to break "unity" (so long as it doesn't endanger people's lives) - if unity remains in the face of such challenges, then it's strong. If it doesn't, then there was no unity worthy of protection in the first place. Yes, this means europe is virtually incomprehensible to bizarrely conformist chinese - don't worry, the feeling is mutual.

What do you expect from Murdoch?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can always trust a Murdoch owned company to whore out completely and totally to anyone that asks if there's money to be made, none of that namby-pamby google-style conscience here.

Re:On which country...

[mrbluze]

Yes it's censorship. Yes it is annoying to some. But that's the price of living whealty. That's the price of surviving with limited resources.

Whilst I agree with you partly, I think the reason people are aghast at these kinds of news reports is because suppressing debate, perpetuating fear and generating an 'us and them' culture prevents China from advancing to become a liberal society (liberal as in beer.. or something).

Oppression doesn't have to be the price of surviving with limited resources. Part of the reason China remains poor and in many respects a 3rd world nation is precisely because it has a stupid system of government. It is an oligarchy, it remains a totalitarian state. I'm not saying China has to be a 'Democracy' like, for example, Canada, but anywhere in the world you find the absence of a meritocracy, you have this problem. The US is no shining example anymore of promotion on the basis of merit, either.

On the other hand, anyone who wants to point the finger at China had better sweep in front of their own door first. Everyone's liberties are being eroded at this time, and we all must fight the fight on our own turf.

Re:On which country...

[joto]

On which country on the earth these are totally free actions?

I'd like to think every single one except China. But since I can't say that with 100% confidence, let's just say: The vast majority.

Every country have their own regulations to protect their own sensitivity to a matter. In US it's racism, in Europe it's mostly ethnical discrimation of genocide.

Bullshit! Nobody in US has ever been jailed for being a racist. Why do you think Ku Klux Klan still exists?`And whatever you mean by "ethnical discrimation of genocide", I can't even start to guess, as it makes no sense at all.

In China their worries are different due to their history.

Such as being an oppressive communist state, with only a farcical political facade that tries to imitate representative democracy.

Yes it is annoying to some. But that's the price of living whealty. That's the price of surviving with limited resources.

Make up your mind. Are they wealthy, or are they surviving on limited resources?

If anyone thinking wars, which created those worries, are due to greed of people,

I fail to see what you are getting at here

else our bodies won't store any energy, will it?

Now, I really fail to see any meaning at all. Please consider therapy.

Re:On which country...

[catxk]

I don't see how declaring racist behaviour illegal compare to the anti-governmental censorship this article is about. One is about stopping certain people from attacking, mentally or physically, people of various ethnicities etcetera, and one is about protecting a government from its own people, which by all means should be a contradiction in terms. I see how the first, stopping Nazis for example, is problematic since it is indeed a constraint on democratic principles, but then again, it's no where near the same league as what you're defending. So please stop it, it's embarrassing. And as far as MySpace goes, yeez, what are they thinking? Where are the morals? Grr!

Re:On which country...

[MyLongNickName]

Try putting that in terms of GDP per person.

Re:On which country...

[thebdj]

On which country on the earth these are totally free actions? That's not specific to China, they just want to control it, which is fine.

A hell of a lot more then you know. No it is not fine; it is oppression.

Every country have their own regulations to protect their own sensitivity to a matter.

Please enlighten us.

In US it's racism, in Europe it's mostly ethnical discrimation of genocide.

Well, you failed to enlighten. There are no laws in the US that prevent you from saying racist things. Racism is taboo, but it sure as hell isn't illegal. Racist speech (and other "hate speech") is actually illegal throughout large portions of Europe. I would talk about your Europe example but that sentence doesn't even make sense.

In China their worries are different due to their history. There's no such a country which would let people to do some action to broke nations unity.

Again, bullshit. Many countries have suffered political revolutions and civil wars and have the freedom to discuss this history and not just talk about it using the government spin. These things are also used as a means to prevent revolution, which is the real reason they want to keep people quiet; they fear that with truly free discourse their government wouldn't stand a chance.

Yes it's censorship. Yes it is annoying to some. But that's the price of living whealty. That's the price of surviving with limited resources.

Censorship is not just annoying to some, it is a violation of human rights [wikipedia.org]. Human rights violations are actually something China has had issues with for quite some time and is still criticized for. And which is it, wealthy or poor (limited resources?)?

If anyone thinking wars, which created those worries, are due to greed of people, then those are either fools or the ones behave like that. All wars are due to survival instincts of people.

Where did you get that bullshit? The American Revolution was about survival? It was the people of the Colonies tired of the oppression they believed they were receiving from the British. The could've survived they decided to fight for their independence. The American Civil War was a battle of states rights, taxation, and slavery (to boil it down to the basics). The south has managed to survive post-Civil War and probably could've survived without it. Survival wasn't the reason. You would have to be pretty naive to think some wars were not out of greed (or some sort of manifest destiny). Read about the Mexican-American War [wikipedia.org] sometime. Of course there are also people who think "The Iraq War" [wikipedia.org] is based on greed (particularly oil). You will have a hard time proving that either of those wars were about "survival".

You might not have problems today, but you need to think your future as well, else our bodies won't store any energy, will it?

Proving once again that your sentences are poor. WTF are you trying to say? This entire piece reads like some sort of Chinese propaganda. You start by saying, look everyone else does this too. Then you give some bad examples, hoping people will accept them. Then you attempt to defend it again by proclaiming it is related to history and national unity. You admit it is censorship then stumble through calling it simply annoying, but say it is the price you must pay for living rich (or is it living poor). You then toss war aside as a matter of survival only, ignoring the fact that war is not always about survival alone. Then you have some statement that doesn't make much sense at all, maybe it sounds sort of good in propaganda-speak.

Re:On which country...

[porpnorber]

Interesting. The parent is modded 'insightful.' Perhaps this is some strange new meaning of the word, of which I was previously unaware.

No, contrary to your belief, many countries do have banned religions. Many countries do watch seperatist movements sufficiently carefully that speech about them is (whether because of censorship or self-censorship) far from free. Many countries do have charismatic figues whose presence they do not tolerate and whose influence they seek to diminish. Even if you see Europe and America through rose-tinted glasses, surely you aware of the more politically intense parts of Africa, Asia, South America? Or perhaps you are unaware that there are even reasons for concern about Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and parts of the Arab world? (Where do you get your news?)

I admit I am not an American, and I may not have all the details of American history right, but I have the distinct impression that being, for example, a black supremicist has not, over the years, been condicive to one's personal freedom. And today, even white racists keep quiet about it. No, I agree, it does not normally get one jailed; but it certainly get one fired. And in (otherwise very calm and pleasant) parts of Europe, yes, public holocaust denial will get you locked up.

You may argue that there is a difference of degree, or a difference in emphasis; and I will agree with you. I am not apologising for China. But the person you are replying to is entirely right: China is not, as you would like to believe, unique merely in controlling speech.

Now as to Chinese history. Perhaps you are unaware that China has a history. Rather more of it than the USA. Go look it up. The person you are responding to is again right: China does indeed have a history of thousands of years of attempting to maintain coherence of a huge and disparate empire through rigid control. This has at times been startlingly successful; at other times undeniably catastrophic. The current no-longer-communist regime is just the last of many. Chinese history and chinese attitudes are indeed different from American ones.

Finally, you seem to have an objection to the juxtaposition of the phrases, 'living wealthy' and 'with limited resources.' How quaintly American. Wealth is caused by waste, is it? That attitude is not one that will see you among the leaders of the world for very long, and thankfully it is not one that the entire rest of the world shares. Wealth can arise from managing what you do have, wisely; or from waste and theft. Civilisation lies in choosing the former path. 'Living wealthy' with limited resources is not merely consistent, it is a laudable goal towards whch we should all strive.

None of this is to defend the original post; but your attack on it is impressively off-target. Certainly not everyone's English is as good as yours. Thankfully, however, many people are better informed and more charitable.

Re:On which country...

[eraser.cpp]

Right, but the point was that the GP believed you could prosecuted in the US for simply making a racist remark or generally promoting their murder. You can't unless it's really specific, to the point where you're inciting a particular incident of violence. We know other nations have laws that restrict (or arguably discard) freedom of expression, but despite what /. seems to think the US is one of the only nations that truly still protects that right. Comparing US limits on expression (those which infringe on the liberty of others) to China's (those which conflict with popular opinion or government interest) really trivializes the plight of all of those people who have been arrested, tortured, or killed under China's oppressive government. It's also counter-productive to any effort to try and improve the situation in nation's where expression is unduly limited when people will so quickly draw comparisons between that nation and the US and only really prove that they don't understand the gravity or reality of the issues they speak of.

Re:Brilliant

[alanoneil]

If you're not even slightly concerned that some nation has the ability to affect others on a global scale, I suggest you hit the history books and learn a few things. A nation the size of China implementing (successfully enough, so far) such ridiculous privacy and freedom policies in the name of national security... very scary stuff indeed. Remember, we have always been at war with Oceania.

Re:On which country...

[Plutonite]

That's ok, I see what you are trying to say, although it doesn't really invalidate the statement you refer to at all. In reality, every group in history that has tried claimed a communist state has instead established a totalitarian dystopia very much in line with Orwell's fiction. It is not by accident that Russia AND China AND Cuba AND North Korea and every other commie state you can think of happened to evolve into the nightmare you shy away from.

Why are you blaming Stalin? What happened was only natural. The genius behind Orwell's 1984 was that he showed how all the claims of common ownership of resources cannot be realized without a pyramidal scheme of control, freedom is achieved through slavery, and absolute peace is in fact, war. The wonderful "Trotskyist" universe you are defending does not exist, because human nature mandates that it cannot exist. What exists instead are websites with little red buttons on them that you can use to report your friends to the benevolent State.

Re:On which country...

[dwater]

The things he says may or may not be wrong, but how do you know for sure? The vast majority of the things he says are matters of opinion - he just fails to state them as such.

If I can be allowed to speak for the Chinese people I know...

If you talk to many (most?) Chinese people, they do not consider themselves oppressed or otherwise 'non-free'. However, they do consider the USA as an undesirable place to live - mostly because of the whole 'American spirit' which is sickly to them (and much of the world, actually), and also US foreign policy ie Iraq/Vietnam/Korea and even their meddling in Taiwan (they consider the US to be largly to blame for the problem). They just wish that the US and its people would keep their opinions to themselves and keep their noses out of other people's business. They don't consider their government sinless, for sure, but neither do they consider other country's sinless - people from the US seem to conveniently ignore their own problems and concentrate on other people's.

In any case, the point of the moderation system is :

Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting. The real goal here is to find the juicy good stuff and let others read it. Do not promote personal agendas. Do not let your opinions factor in. Try to be impartial about this. Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down. Likewise, agreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it up. The goal here is to share ideas. To sift through the haystack and find needles. And to keep the children who like to spam Slashdot in check.