Google Suggest Disabled In China Due To Porn 106
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Chinese government has asked Google to disable Google Suggest because it has been suggesting that people search for pornography based on its analysis of the most popular search terms in China. This comes on the heels of a fake CCTV interview being used to support the government requirement that all new computers ship with the 'Green Dam' Internet censoring program, which is still in force, despite reports to the contrary." The story on the chinaSMACK site demonstrates that Chinese search engine Baidu features a comparable search-suggestion function, which similarly recommends adult-themed sites, but that the government has not attacked Baidu over the issue of porn.
Why Is Chinese Censorship News On Slashdot??!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's face it, the Chinese government censors and blocks whatever they feel like, the Chinese people know and accept it.
So why does slashdot post these stories anytime XXX blocks/censors anything in China? Let's face it, it's not news anymore. It doesn't affect my rights online or anybody else's outside China.
Baidu benefits from being Chinese (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why Is Chinese Censorship News On Slashdot??!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Filtering is the Hijab of the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
And from their point of view, pornography is the symptom of undisciplined actions, as well as overextending the activities of people in ways that are ultimately futile.
Both oversimplified points of view are the result of popularized culture.
The day when people in general get embrace moderation (the old definition; the kind that keeps things from becoming a controlling factor) and education (not institutionalized, but the uninhibited growth of the mind) will be the day when you see civilization truly start to flourish.
Our own propagandized signposts of civilization or authoritarianism often serve to cover up the ugly truth.
Re:Why Is Chinese Censorship News On Slashdot??!! (Score:3, Insightful)
To hell with China.
Unfortunately I suspect that the billions of people in Chine will be too big a market for a company like Google to pass up. A non-profit company like wikipedia may refuse to censor [slashdot.org] but I doubt you will get a similar response from a for-profit business. That big a market is too big to pass up.
Re:Why Is Chinese Censorship News On Slashdot??!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes we have the rule of law.
We have due process, yet we know of people held by our government for years without trial.
We have the Geneva conventions, yet we know people have been recently tortured by our government.
We have the right against unlawful search, yet we know the government has been listening on our domestic correspondence without permission from the courts.
We have the right against unlawful seizure, yet the government regularly seizes items (such as cash and property) it considers unlawful and without process.
Congress alone can declare war, yet we have armies engaged without war being declared.
What's one more stupid internet filter in light of all this?
If you don't act to maintain your rule of law, you will lose it.
Re:Filtering is the Hijab of the Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Dual-mindedness is a very human trait. Why do we lie when we know the truth? Why do we cover up what is shameful to us? Human psychology is funny like that.
Is it funny? It seems pretty straight-forward, to me. Self-control is necessary for a functioning society. Exerting self-control is far more difficult when tempted. Thus, some people may seek to ban temptations to help themselves (and, secondarily, their societies) maintain self-control. Attempts to ban "pornography" are one example of this.
Societies more accepting of pornography could, indeed, be considered "more intelligent," if the reason they're more accepting is that they have more self-control (a triumph of intelligence over instinct).
Re:Why Is Chinese Censorship News On Slashdot??!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Why Is Chinese Censorship News On Slashdot??!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Due process only applies to citizens.
False. The 14th Amendment reads, in part, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Any person, not any citizen; the writers knew the difference.