China Censoring Flickr 218
An anonymous reader writes "It would appear that the Chinese government is currently censoring all photos on the site Flickr. A notice has been posted in a Flickr help forum about this, but the service currently doesn't have a fix for this. It would appear that China has turned on their Golden Shield Project to censor the site. 'Jain Hua Li, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said he hadn't heard of Flickr until told about it in a conversation with a Chronicle reporter, and then suggested that the blocking may be because Chinese authorities are trying to protect children from racy images. Lucie Morillon, the U.S. representative for Reporters Without Borders, a French group that promotes free expression, said that the Beijing government often censors Web sites under the guise of protecting children or national security. She called the blocking of Flickr "one more blow against the free flow of information online by Chinese authorities" and added that it is particularly lamentable in light of promises by China to loosen restrictions before the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.' Thomas Hawk has a well-considered opinion to offer on this issue."
Thank God that wouldn't happen in the US (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh... er...
Re:Come on China, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thank God that wouldn't happen in the US (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how it's done in America: they don't use guns. They use lawyers.
Olympics will be exempt (Score:5, Insightful)
The rest of the country? No.
A month later? No.
BTW, don't check your business email or log in to the corporate VPN from China. You know the story: "all your trade secrets are blong to us".
If you don't like the Chinese Government... (Score:4, Insightful)
there is something greater in importance (Score:2, Insightful)
namely, it is the wishes of the average chinese person
your words are basically "shut up and respect the guy in charge"
no, fuck you. the guy in charge needs to respect the guy on the street. in china, he does not do this. that's wrong
that's not wrong according to western values, that's wrong period, according to all human values
it's called democracy, and it is the right and provenance of every single soul on this planet
do you understand? or are you still some sort of sycophant of the big man with the gun?
Re:Come on China, (Score:5, Insightful)
How much longer? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Come on China, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:there is something greater in importance (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. The individual Chinese have every right to live however they want, until they try to force their preferences onto others, or make threats against them. If some (or all) of them don't want to be censored, they have every right not to be.
Re:Come on China, (Score:2, Insightful)
Why doesn't anyone talk about how the CHINESE government, who is actually killing people for censorship, should be stopped ? Where is the left's support for the people of China ?
Please show me, for once, that you are capable of actually thinking about something bad without blaming it on Bush or the American government ?
Re:Come on China, (Score:3, Insightful)
If you mean this as a small crusade to economically punish the Chinese state into your way of thinking, I'd view it as counter-productive - the state censorship was *strongest* when China had the weakest economy, and when it had the least amount of contact with the outside world. If China's export market crumbled the economy would take a big hit, but that would not mean the censorship would be rescinded or Chinese lives would get better.
I'd argue that here's definitely some relationship (if certainly not one-to-one) between China's economic success, and the growing liberalization of the nation. Additionally, the associated influx of foreigners to China has a small liberalizing effect.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:i'm not a fundamentalist (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing with humans is: You don't do them justify if you treat them equal. Because they aren't equal. "Each according to his (needs/abilities/personality/etc)" is more just and ethical to me than "Each the same".
You can't understand that if all the time you're thinking "They shouldn't. This is evil."
Sorry, I don't subscribe to dualism anymore. Which is why you will not get a "yes or no" answer out of me, I much prefer pointing out that there are other options besides "yes" and "no".
But to understand that, you will have to first accept that there are things inbetween the poles of "intent is everything" and "intent is nothing". How about we start simple? Let's say intent is 50% and actual result is 50%. Can you wrap your mind around that?
Because, you know, your example back up backs up me, not you. Yes, we make a difference between murder and manslaughter. But we still put people in jail who kill others, even if it wasn't intentionally or the intent can't be proven. So at least the justice system agrees that intent is not everything.
Re:i think i'm beginning to understand your proble (Score:3, Insightful)
If it is a fact, please point me to the evidence of universal human rights, say, 200 million years ago, when there were no humans.
Ok, that's an invalid argument you say, so let's kill your second all-quantor. Please point me to the universal human rights in the Andromeda galaxy. Hey, you said "everywhere", not me.
No, I'm not just playing stupid here. There's a point. The point is that your definition lacks. If you agree that "universal human rights" can't have existed before humans did, then how and when (and why!) did they come into existence? Can they change over time? If not, why not? According to what we know of the world, pretty much nothing is that eternally static.
The "universal human rights" are just words. And words are subject to interpretation. And once you move away from the very generic, very abstract to the level of actual life, you find out that it isn't half as easy just to define precisely what you mean. Heck, there's a whole area of science dealing with nothing but that.
now, what to do about them?
So, first we need a better definition of the crime. Yes, you can handwave that and talk about extreme cases, so let's do that. A 50 year old sleeping with a 10 year old.
Did I mention that this was fairly common in ancient greece? Plato, Aristotle, all the heroes of western thinking were child-fuckers. And homosexuals.
So, if we are on the level of an individual case, why not treat it that way? Check what the guy says, check what the boy says. Find out what really went on. And then I would strongly suggest not making pedophelia the crime. If the boy was hurt, physically or psychologically, then that is the crime. Pedophelia is just a label.
I'd rather fight for things than against them. Can you re-formulate your POV in a way that states what you're actually for, not just what you're against?
Which is why my view of the world is multi-dimensional. It's more difficult that way.
But it's also closer to reality, which also consists of at least four dimensions.
again, your essential problem: asperger's (Score:3, Insightful)
you want to reduce humanity to a math problem
"Compassion is an emotion evolved through natural selection to facilitate the survival of the species. The same goes for all of our primitive moral instincts. They are nothing more than techniques that improve our fitness for natural selection."
yes, agreed 100%. and? is it ever another way?
"You can kick and scream all you like (and that's all you have done here) but in the end your position isn't logical."
no, it's not logical. nor will it ever be. not my position, that is, but this entire subject matter. duh! (slaps forehead) more asperger's syndrome: you don't understand humanity. it's not a math problem Rainman
"Logically when it comes to the actions of an individual there is nothing more than the power to make something happen and the will to make it happen. I guarantee that any definition you try to provide for 'right' and 'wrong' - morality - will be unsupported by science and logic."
yes! 100% i agree! but, you see these realizations as a problem that needs to be overcome. DUDE. THEY WILL NEVER BE OVERCOME. THAT'S HUMANITY
"I guarantee that any definition you try to provide for 'right' and 'wrong' - morality - will be unsupported by science and logic."
YES 100% CORRECT. AND? WHAT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN? IT NEVER WILL BE SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE AND LOGIC
DUH!
welcome to what most kids realize in kindergarten when interacting with other kids. maybe you can graduate to the first grade now, my dear intellectual charity case
now: your job is to get used to that rock of gibraltar, and WORK within those constraints. not think that those constraints could ever be overcome
i think we're making progress with you
ever see the movie Rainman with tom cruise and dustin hoffman? i feel like tom cruise to your dustin hoffman. Rainman could read into a 7 deck shoe and calculate the number of toothpicks on a floor just by looking at it
he also thought a candy bar and a car were about $100. he was very good with numbers, not very good with the human element
as are you. you can read all sorts of fancy philosophers and build castles in the sky about how humanity should be if humanity just started behaving in ways it has never behaved in all of history and all cultures nor will ever behave. ever
currently your pov is that you're not going to contribute anything to the struggle for progress until humanity suddenly starts acting accoridng to your impossible standards
autistic. retarded. poor social skills. you are in an elected office? ha!
dude, i have a better idea:
"Logically when it comes to the actions of an individual there is nothing more than the power to make something happen and the will to make it happen. I guarantee that any definition you try to provide for 'right' and 'wrong' - morality - will be unsupported by science and logic."
i suggest you start with this realization of yours above as the constraint in how you think of humanity from this point forward. previously, you have used this realization as an excuse to stop working with humanity, period. you wanted humanity to suddenly start behaving in a fashion it can't behave. nice excuse to defer your human conscience. don't work no more. no more deferring
i'm sorry Rainman. humanity isn't changing in the working parameters of how it behaves. so you better, in order to help contribute to progress in this world, get used to the illogical irrational human being. it's beliefs and its passions. work with it
but not working with it all because you want everyone to be a machine is just retarded