China Censoring Flickr

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."

Re:there is something greater in importance

[Tom]

your words are basically "shut up and respect the guy in charge"

Yes, evil China. In the west, we never let the guy in charge decide, we always look for what the average person wants. There will never be a war that isn't supported by a vast majority... Err...

that's not wrong according to western values, that's wrong period, according to all human values

According to western human values. The human rights of the UN are very strongly western values. When they were drafted, few non-western countries had a say.

it's called democracy, and it is the right and provenance of every single soul on this planet

According to which universal truth?

Hold the flamethrower for a second. I don't say tyranny is great. However, this blind love with "democracy" is not productive, either. It blinds you to better alternatives that might emerge, for example.

Re:Hackers For Freedom?

[Ash Vince]

China has a group of hackers that do nothing but make viruses, spyware, to try and infiltrate and sabotauge foreign computers.

In the real world, or just in Command and Conquer Generals?

I thought that most spyware originated in the US where you could sell marketing data you gathered for the greatest returns.

Re:Come on China,

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because banning pornographers from advertising to children is *totally* the same as China's suppression of all political or anti-Communist speech. Totally.

Using Censorship against them

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Seems if you want something not to be pirated in China, how about adding extras like the Dalai Lama, Falon Gong or Tiananmen Square? Software makers, be sure to feature a Falon Gong extra in the tutorials. Movie makers: How about a cameo by the Dalai Lama in the next Pirates of the Caribbean movie? Google Maps: when you zoom in on Tiananmen, show perspective mapped photos of what really happened.

Seriously: I have a friend who just got back from a visit in China. He said the Communist Party is very scared about losing its grip on society. They've very, very worried about losing control. Something you haven't heard in the mainstream media: Chinese, particularly the poorer ones, are really sick of the rich getting richer. When the Chinese Government wants to build a road, they pick a poor area, flatten it and kick the poor locals out. Increasingly, people are getting sick of it and the government is worried: This is why they're banning things left, right and center: http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2275.asp [indiadaily.com] http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK165285 .htm [alertnet.org] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/world/asia/21cnd -china.html?ex=1337400000&en=578ee101ec63e955&ei=5 090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss [nytimes.com]

Re:Come on China,

[WML MUNSON]

As usual, wikipedia has a pretty decent page on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Uni ted_States [wikipedia.org]

I am not saying that the US is as bad as China, but no government is above trying to censor things they dont aggree with for any number of reasons.

I'm currently in China and therefore I cannot view your Wikipedia link, but I'll take your word for it.

Re:so you tell me

[Tom]

all people SHOULD BE equal?

That is the current consensus in western society, yes.

is there another way to look at this issue?

Hundreds. In fact, mankind has lived 99% of it's existence subscribing to non-equality. The very same way we would call someone antisocial or insane if he claimed that group X is more or less valuable than other humans, the same way you would have been looked at as a nutcase in most of human history. People would be upset and consider you endangering their very morals if you had claimed that slaves, jews, christians, greeks, women or whatever they oppress in their society are equals.

And I'm not even starting to discuss the main problem: How exactly do you define "equal" ?

Re:do you believe in progress?

[Tom]

slavery still exists. it always will, under the radar, in some form or another. does this mean you stop fighting slavery? furthermore, at some point in the past, slavery was more prevalent than it was today. so is this proof of progress in the world?

It is an excellent argument against your "universal human rights". Because for millenia slavery was perfectly acceptable in most human societies. How do you dig that? By claiming "progress"? That the "universal human rights" have only been discovered recently?

Now, there are only two ways to parse this: Either, progress is inherent and any future state is by definition advanced to any past state.
Or, you include a judgement by deciding what you consider progress and what not. Judgements are always based on values. Values are relative. Q.E.D.

and how do i define equal? very simply: equal in rights and priveledges. equal in accountability and responsibility. what's so complicated about that?

The words are easy. Making them real is what's complicated. Here, I'll give you an example to chew on: Is discrimination by age ok or not? If it is ok, does that not break your equality request? If it is not ok, do you really believe a 2-year old should have the same rights, privileges, accountability and responsibility as a 20-year old?

Ah, now you'll say "you moron, that distinction is based on biological facts and makes sense!". To which I'll reply either a) yes, but the lines we draw are not, 16, 18 or 21 years are simply arbitrary lines or b) racism is also based on biological facts, and for most of human history, it did make sense (it doesn't anymore, in western society, true).

yes, those people would be upset. bigots, racists, the ignorant: they get upset when you suggest to them that all human beings are equal. and? so what? because a moron or an evil asshole is upset we should let those slaves, greeks, women, etc. continue to live as unequals? huh?

See, and that's the point. Those people would say the exact same thing about you.

Now, assuming that I am autistic, have no social sense whatsoever and am completely removed from reality (hey, your assumption, not mine), explain to me in objective terms why you are right and they are assholes. Spare us another back-and-forth and find arguments that they could not use just as well.

Here's a hint: You'll not be able to. Everything you can say is based on values, which are relative.

so what is your problem exactly? are you yourself ignorant or a bigot?

My "problem" is that I prefer understanding people to condemning them. Understanding means accepting their values as true for the moment. It doesn't matter if those values are the ten commandments or the belief that women are not really humans. If you want to understand what's going on with someone, you have to take those beliefs and accept them, just for the moment, because your own values get in the way of understanding.

And understanding, to me, is what enables us to live peacefully with each other, on every scale from individuals to nations.