Venezuela's Chavez To Limit Internet Freedom 452
Posted
by
Soulskill
from the learning-from-china's-fine-example dept.
from the learning-from-china's-fine-example dept.
terets1 writes "Reuters reports that Venezuela's leader, Hugo Chavez, issued a call on Saturday for 'internet controls' to prevent rumors and inaccurate reporting from spreading. He specifically cited a case in which a website incorrectly reported that a senior minister had been assassinated and kept the story up for two days. Many of Venezuela's opposition movements use social networking sites to communicate. It is not apparent at this time exactly what kind of controls Chavez has in mind or whether those controls will be similar to the controls in Iran that have been used to silence opposition movements. Chavez said, 'The Internet cannot be something open where anything is said and done. Every country has to apply its own rules and norms.'"
The same kind of policies... (Score:0, Insightful)
Coming soon to Obamaland!
Way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
A Dictator Stifles The Press? (Score:4, Insightful)
OMFG the commists again (Score:1, Insightful)
This one would be credible if the non-communist countries weren't doing it. :-(
But they are: latest is New Zealand. So meh. Welcome to the club, I guess
Re:Way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The same kind of policies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Coming soon to Obamaland!
Americans seriously need to get over their "it can't happen here" mentality. That mentality only means it will happen more slowly, with smaller and more calculated steps instead of a few sudden movements like this one. We already have a government that can monitor everything you say, including non-public correspondence where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. You think outright censorship is very far away?
Re:Way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
You must be new... to Venezula.
They used to have private TV broadcasters you know...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Venezuelan_television_channels [wikipedia.org]
"Used to", huh?
I just think it's really sad (Score:2, Insightful)
The first reaction to news like this -- rated up twice in a minute, mind you -- is to look at this issue through a hyperpartisan lens.
The desire to curtail freedom on the Internet comes not from the right or the left, but the powerful. Anybody with a computer can have a voice, and as with the copyright industries there is a wish to turn back the hands of time rather than to adjust to the new reality, progress be damned.
It's time to shed partisanship and take a very real look at the role the Internet should play in our society. To do otherwise is to let one "side" or the other continue to erode a unique and precious part of our lives forever; once lost, what we currently enjoy with the Internet will never be returned.
Re:Not insightful (Score:1, Insightful)
You think that just because you do not find what the first poster to be insightful, that it is not insightful? While I feel that Obama does not have the backbone to try and impose censorship on the United States, I am sure we will see some type of oppressive censorship in the relatively near future. Anyone that does not believe this probably is not paying attention to who is in control of the various governments within the United States.
Regardless, you do not speak for everyone that visits this site. Those who modded the post as "Insightful" probably read the post and marked it as such because they feel it is insightful.
Sure it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I was going to mod it insightful but I'll respond to you instead.
FTS:
So it's hard to know exactly what we're talking about here, but some parallels exist. Fortunately, President Obama actually opposes (last I heard) the so-called "Fairness Doctrine," but Representative Pelosi does support it. And also consider this bill [govtrack.us], which proposes to
Never mind the existence of tort law (IIED, NIED) that already covers these areas, let's throw people in jail for a couple years! Of course prosecutors will only use this law for good purposes, never for politically-motivated legal harassment, right? Actually I'm regularly surprised by the new ways prosecutors find to stretch words like "harassment" to prevent individuals from participating in government. And they're happy to justify themselves by dusting off the old chestnut about catching Al Capone for tax evasion.
Chavez is a dictator and obviously we should be concerned that he's making a play like this. But just because we sugar-coat it and remind people to "think of the children" by naming our bills after high-profile tragedies doesn't mean our American politicians are any less interested in controlling the flow of information, at least as far as we'll let them get away with it.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Re:Way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
If you had read Reuter's report you would know that Chavez' complain was due to a website posting an completely made up and unfounded news report that a senior minister and close aidee to Chavez was assassinated. That website knowingly reported that news and kept the report on it's site for days, although it was blatantly false. This news report covers Chavez' reaction to that, in which he criticizes the spread of false, made up information. He doesn't criticize openness.
The thing is, I bet your country doesn't allow absolute freedom of speech. If you live in a civilized country then your legal system will certainly have laws which are intended to punish multiple forms of defamation. Oddly enough, if you happened to read Reuter's report you would know that that's exactly what Chavez is defending here. So exactly where do you base yourself to accuse Chavez of wanting to fight openness?
Re:The same kind of policies... (Score:1, Insightful)
"You think outright censorship is very far away?"
Actually, yes, it is. It's blatantly unconstitutional, and the First Amendment isn't going to go anywhere. You don't need to get over an "it can't happen here" mentality, you need to get over your baseless paranoia.
Responsible (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The same kind of policies... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the plan (Score:3, Insightful)
wild west (Score:2, Insightful)
The wild west day of the internet are almost over.
The internet can now give power to individuals, corporations and governments (and the US corpovernment ) will not let this go on for long, unless ...
Re:Not according to Sean Penn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess Chavez has decided to follow the same path that every other communist leader has followed? "We cannot allow openness if it means people will disagree with me."
While Communism encourages this behavior, it does not hold a monopoly on it. Plenty of non-Communists in businesses and governments everywhere are this way. Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree. Even "because I said so" parents and teachers exhibit this behavior (and condition people to accept it from a young age).
The inability to handle dissent is just an essential feature of the authoritarian mentality. I think it's caused by both an inability to lead by example (i.e. hypocrisy) and a profound personal insecurity that makes the person feel they need to be "right" no matter what. That's why anyone who offers dissent, however well-founded, is seen as an enemy and must be shut down. Nowhere in this do you find an awareness of the person's fallibility or an ability to feel gratitude towards those who help them shed false ideas. Their overinflated egos won't allow that. That's why it never occurs to these people that truly sound policies and truly good actions have nothing to fear from scrutiny.
It's also more evidence that Frank Herbert was right when he said: "All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."
Re:Not according to Sean Penn (Score:2, Insightful)
not listening to input from people that aren't part of your circle of 'true believers' isn't dictatorship. hell, that describes the bush administration.
Re:Not insightful (Score:4, Insightful)
I am sure we will see some type of oppressive censorship in the relatively near future. Anyone that does not believe this probably is not paying attention to who is in control of the various governments within the United States.
That's crap. The US government is the de facto definition of gridlock, ineffectiveness and partisan pettiness. They wouldn't even agree on a bill to give themselves the winning lottery numbers without bickering, squabbling and turning it into a pissing match. And then they'd anonymously block it, filibuster it and shit can it. If there's one thing the lot of them are missing these days is purpose.
There's only one true political division in the United States: the old-money families and the powerful elite they represent (that represents them, actually, as the truly powerful don't like the limelight) and ordinary Americans. All other divisions are artificial creations of the media, by-products of the either-or way in which everything is presented. Left/right and Democrat/Republican are like this. The Democrats and the Republicans are two factions of a single party, the Statist Party.
There's one thing they all agree on: the government's size, power, and involvement in the daily life of citizens should be continuously expanded, with no regard for merit, necessity, or the reduction in quality of life that this will cause. Right now USA citizens enjoy relatively free access to the Internet. To the power-hungry, however, that just means this is a growth area for government. Unfortunately that's purpose enough for them. There is very much of a "because we can" mentality operating here that is not terribly concerned about immediate goals except that they make good excuses which are hard to politically oppose, such as "to stop terrorism" or "to protect the children".
So, there might be "partisan pettiness" concerning the question of what to do with an overwhelming ability to censor the Internet. But there will be no such pettiness when it comes to whether or not our politicians would like to have this ability.
Another anti-Chavez ill-informed kneejerk reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
This report provides a great opportunity to see how the anti-Chavez croud is prone to knee-jerk reactions while so poorly informed. The thing is, the report which this slashdot post is based on only mentions that Chavez complained about a specific website posting false information. More specifically, the offending website, which is ran by an anti-Chavez faction, made up a story about how one of Chavez' cabinet ministers was assassinated and kept the made up story on it's site for days, although it was repeatedly contacted and informed that the minister was, in fact, alive and well. Chavez' coment is nothing more than a complain that just because it's the internet you shouldn't be allowed to dedicate itself to defamation and intentionally spread false information. And suddenly he is labelled as a dictator hell-bent on destroying openness? What twisted train of thought leads you from a) you shouldn't spread lies to b) no freedom for you?
The thing is, this is yet another example on how hell-bent some people are on attacking Chavez. For example, imagine that a media company such as Fox/CNN/whatever decided to run stories on how Bush/Obama was assassinated. Imagine that that media company decided not only to post that information but also kept it up for days, although it was repeatedly contacted to be informed that no, Bush/Obama was still very much alive. If, after that, Bush/Obama complained that you shouldn't post false information to your heart's content, would that make Bush/Obama dictators who hate freedom and want to wage war on openness? Heck, what if it was your very death that the website announced? Would you enjoy having to go around contacting everyone you could informing that you were still very much alive? Wouldn't you want that site to stop spreading those lies? Wouldn't you want that sort of action to be illegal? Of course you would. But suddenly, if Chavez mentions it then he becomes an evil, anti-freedom dictator? Go figure.
There are a lot of irrational, ill-informed anti-Chavez militants around and they don't hate Chavez because of anything he actually did. In fact, they don't base their hatred on anything. Their hatred for Chavez is their starting point and they pick up from there, grasping at straws to try to justify they hatred. Those irrational, anti-Chavez militants make it a point to accuse him of being a dictator although he is holding a democratically appointed position to which he was elected time [wikipedia.org] and [wikipedia.org] again [wikipedia.org] and although he has been the target of multiple [wikipedia.org] coup [wikipedia.org] attempts, all of which were reverted by none other than Venezuela's people. Is that what being a dictator is about?
Personally, I don't like Chavez. I believe he is a demagogue who, at best, is trying to revolutionize a society which can barely manage to function. Yet, I'm always left dumbfounded by the string of primal anti-Chavez sentiment which is based on nothing more than the ill-informed imagination of a hand-full of idiots who don't even know why they hate him. That is to be expected among the great unwashed masses but hell, this is supposed to be slashdot, a place where informed, educated people tend to read and post news. This sort of nonsense shouldn't take place here.
Re:The same kind of policies... (Score:2, Insightful)
We don't know that the Sun is going to rise above the horizon tomorrow
Apparently you don't know about the laws of motion and conservation of angular momentum.
Re:The same kind of policies... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You think outright censorship is very far away?"
Actually, yes, it is. It's blatantly unconstitutional, and the First Amendment isn't going to go anywhere. You don't need to get over an "it can't happen here" mentality, you need to get over your baseless paranoia.
Three words for you: free speech zones. If you're not familiar with the logic behind them, please look it up. In a nutshell, the (bullshit) "logic" is that the FIrst Amendment guarantees free speech, but does not specify where that right may be exercised. Any reasonable person would conclude that the Constitution does not list specific locations because it applies everywhere in the USA, but that doesn't suit the authoritarian mentality. So now they can tell you that you may not practice free speech where any decision-makers are likely to hear you, right here in the USA.
The dangers of that path, of allowing such flimsy and easily-abused exceptions to what are supposed to be inalienable rights, are both extreme and seldom appreciated. It is not the right way; it is not a good path. It also sets a precedent.
So, they already get around that pesky Constitution when it comes to physical protests. The only real surprise will be if they don't find such clever ways to skirt the First Amendment when it comes to the Internet. That's the mentality you're dealing with here. It will because it can, and any excuse will do.
Calling it "baseless paranoia" suggests that it's impossible or extremely unlikely, that nothing like this has ever happened before, that there's no reason not to trust our federal government. It's neither "baseless" nor is it "paranoia" if you actually take a look at the direction in which this country has been heading. Of course, that will require that when you see a spade, you call it a spade. Some people have a much easier time with this than others. Obviously others prefer to bury their heads in the sand and label as "paranoid" anyone who makes that a little less comfortable.
Re:That's the plan (Score:5, Insightful)
In Venezuela the freedom of speech is the greatest in the world. In Television News anchors openly talk about killing the president, they make calls for a coup d'etat, all this goes for newspapers and radio stations.
[citation needed]
People can say and think whatever thay want.
"Think", yes; there's no Thought Police in sight. "Say", yes too unless it's printed / broadcast in any major news outlet, and even then you only have to pack up in advance of the defamation "suit".
There has been 11 years of this. And they still say that there is no freedom of speech in Venezuela. I watch how the world sees Venezuela, they show a country in total war with mass killings, wich is total bullshit.
Again [citation needed]. Straw man anyone?
Yes there was a time 2002-2003 where there was a fight and a coup d'etat, wich the people fought to get their president back and they won, the vast majority of Venezuelans won. This small faction of what we call "media terrorist" who own private TV stations, radio, and newspapers still attack their own country by lying to them.
They attack their government, which is not the same. Shall I explain the difference to you?
Im venezuelan, if you want to know the truth of whats happening here, come to Venezuela, to any part of it, and you will see peace, a beautiful country.
Yeah, I guess 16,000 homicides last year [el-nacional.com] in a 24MM people country make for a lot of peace on the streets. And 27% inflation brings rainbows and puppies all around.
Re:Way to go (Score:4, Insightful)
>While Communism encourages this behavior, it does not hold a monopoly on it. Plenty of non-Communists in businesses and governments everywhere are this way. Remember that corporations are essentially dictatorships and that the type of politician who "knows what's good for you" does not ask whether you agree. Even "because I said so" parents and teachers exhibit this behavior (and condition people to accept it from a young age).
True, but a strawman. Corporations rarely hold the broad scope of powers that governments do. Parents ditto. (Consumers can choose to not buy from a corporation they dislike; children can typically run away from abusive parents and seek refuge with neighbours and family. Seekign refuge from government is another matter entirely as history will show you.). Also, both of the aforementioned rarely their their so-called dicatatorial powers to the excesses that governments do, especially government led by politically-religious folks ala Charvez.
Re:Way to go (Score:4, Insightful)
here is the difference:
In America I can post this:
"News just in! Obama caught fucking a goat!!!"
And nothing is going to happen.
If Obama could show some real financial harm from my claim he might be able to get some money out of me but the very fact that I'm powerless and not an authority protects me because my claims can be taken with a grain of salt.
on the other hand if I were in Venezuela and posted this:
"News just in!Chavez caught fucking a goat!!!"
then the owners of slashdot would have commited a crime for spreading false rumours.(probably false anyway)
because that's what this is all about:
Some forum users on that site posted a rumor and now chavez wants the Internet controlled so that people can't start rumours.
Re:Way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that I've mentioned so many "isms" I'm inclined to include this quote:
"A person shouldn't believe in isms, he should believe in himself." -- Ferris Bueller, Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Re:Way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
Opposed only to the democratically elected government
That's the whole point of freedom of speech.
that you can voice opposition to your government even if it is democratically elected.
If I can't call for my government to be dissolved/overthrown/deposed and replaced by another form of government then I don't have freedom of speech.
Chavez does not like free speech.
He wants to restrict it to only things he agrees with.
If it's illegal to talk about rumours in public then anything that's bad for the government will be called a rumour.
Re:Way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's defamation, pure and simple"
In free countries, it's recognized that you can't defame public officials.
Re:Way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Scrameustache believes that it isn't censorship if Chavez only censors people who oppose him strongly.
If there are 10 people talking, 1 opposed, 8 neutral and 1 in favour and Chavez only has the 1 person who's opposed silenced then in Scrameustache's mind that means he isn't really censoring people much since 9 out of 10 weren't censored.
Re:Way to go (Score:4, Insightful)
news just in:McCarthyism was a very very bad thing.
Are you really trying to say that Chavez suppressing dissent is fine because the US has some black spots?
if anything that's a reason why he needs to be stopped now before it gets worse.
Question ANYTHING you hear about Venezuela (Score:4, Insightful)
Venezuela is sitting on one of the largest oil reservoirs outside the US and the middle east. To make matters worse, they kicked out foreign oil companies because they want to exploit them themselves.
So I can see a lot of interest to oust the current government. By domestic and international interests that would love to see Chavez gone. Please do note that I neither say it is so nor that it ain't so. I am not in Venezuela, I just watch the whole deal from afar with a keen interest because Venezuela and the thing going on in the country and around it are a prime example of a propaganda war happening.
Take EVERYTHING you hear about Venezuela with a grain of salt. Make that an ounce. Or more. Verify with as many sources as you can, and forget about "independent sources". If you can find one, please inform me, I couldn't. Take all the propaganda from ALL sides and draw your conclusions afterwards.
Re:Way to go (Score:4, Insightful)
wow.
just wow.
How blinkered can you be?
he isn't going after the people who posted the rumours.
(which were not defamation, they were rumours that some ministers had been assassinated.)
He is going after the owners of a site which had an online forum which someone posted rumours on.
It kills open online boards because if you can be prosecuted for whatever your users post then you cannot run an open online forum.
For reference if I posted "chavez was killed by an angry swarm of bees today" on slashdot then the owners of slashdot would be held responsible by Chavez for their malicious rumor spreading.
Or just because it's Chavez who does that then it is suddenly evil and anti-democratic?
If this was a coalition of Jesus, Buddha, and Santa doing this I'd be opposed.
You however seem to believe he can do no wrong.
Re:Way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the vote in Florida was never settled in terms of actual required recounts, Bush had no legal claim to any of the votes. Late on, further investigation indicated that had the recounts been completed that it would've almost certainly given Gore the necessary votes to win the election.
The point is that Bush's representatives cried foul every time a vote went against them during the process, whether or not there was cause to claim that it belonged to them. Yeah, I'll be modded down for this, but if you're going to make such silly comments somebody has to point it out. Chavez while in office has behaved largely the same way that Bush did, but to a much greater degree.
Re:The government doesn't have to censor... (Score:3, Insightful)
One question: why is the transmission medium relevant? Libel laws should be equally applicable whether the false defamation is written in a book, newspaper, magazine, or Web site. Where does the special focus on the Internet come from, if not the fear of power-hungry politicians everywhere of a medium that is not easily censored or controlled, that makes it more difficult for them to get away with lying?
One of the biggest and most noticable differences between traditional media and the Internet, even in the USA, is that traditional media will report "government officials explain X" and stop there. In contrast, many online sources will report "government officials explain X" and then proceed to question the validity of that statement. This is usually done openly, in the sense that regular users like you and I can write posts offering dissent. It's not difficult to understand why corrupt politicians want this to go away.
Re:A Dictator Stifles The Press? (Score:1, Insightful)
I live in Venezuela. Here, what Chavez says, it becomes law, sooner or later. It's just like that. Our congress exists ONLY to turn into law what HE and ONLY HE says. Research a little. Recently, a law that says that "violent" videogames aren't allowed in the country. Why was that? because HE thinks that those "nintendo thingies" are propaganda from the dreaded "US Empire". And the result? they begun to confiscate ALL games and consoles (Mario Bros, guitar hero, you name it). And that's just to name a recent law
Re:Way to go (Score:4, Insightful)
And you keep ignoring reality.
Censorship comes in many many forms.
You can burn all the books that say something you don't like.
You can kill people who express opposing opinions.
You can shut down media which disagree with you.
You can prevent people who oppose you from being able to express their opinions to anything but a minority of the population.
China knows very well that their firewall can be bypassed easily but the goal isn't to prevent 100% of the population from hearing things they don't like, 90% is good enough.
Re:Not insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
As an ex-law enforcement agent of our government, I can tell you that it will not take a bill to silence those the government does not want talking. Sure, you can sit there and "take a stand" or "speak truth to power", but there is little you can do to stop an organization as large as a government. The founders of the United States gave citizens the ability to fight the government, when it gets out of control, but no one ever utilizes that power. In the end, we only have ourselves to blame.
I will agree with you on your statements about politicians, but only to a certain point. When politicians want something passed, they will do whatever it takes. It does not matter what ideology a certain politicians believes in, they all want to stay in power. When someone or something threatens their ability to retain power, then they will fight it in any way they can.
You can attempt to seem righteous and say, "oh, but I would NEVER do THAT". I am here to tell you that you would do exactly what any other politician would do and probably even worse. It is not that you are not a decent person; it is just that any human that is in power wants to retain that power. Thousands of years of human history has shown us this again and again.
Re:Not insightful (Score:3, Insightful)
Bashing Obama is today's most popular conservative sport.
Of course, you were right there defending [insert-president-from-other-side-of-the-aisle] when it was the other way around, right?
Somehow I doubt it.
Re:Sure it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
He was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected in a fair election, unlike George W Bush (for example).
You might want to let it go. Bush was legitimately and fairly elected by the system that exists. Just because it's not the way you like it doesn't make it illegitimate.
Re:Sure it is. (Score:2, Insightful)
Chavez is not a dictator. He was legitimately and overwhelmingly elected in a fair election, unlike George W Bush (for example).
Read more news (and history) then. Hitler and Mussolini were elected too, you know. Chavez has shut down opposition newspapers, thrown political opponents into jail, supported the leftist-cum-terrorist operations of FARC in Columbia, is best buds with the Castro brothers, etc. All of which adds up to me as dictator-like behavior. He first came to notice after a failed coup attempt in 1992 - and when he did come to power, became one of the leaders of the OPEC cartel, reducing production to boost oil prices.
See http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/presidentsofsouthamerica/p/09HChavez.htm [about.com] - a generally sympathetic view of him as a leftist reformer, but his dictatorial aspirations are clear.
Plus, he's just a lying SOS and enemy of the US, just on general principles (or lack thereof). Most recently, he accused US of being responsible for the Haiti earthquake ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583588,00.html [foxnews.com] ) using some magical new weapon no one else has heard of. Evidence of the paranoid style and demonization of some "enemy" which is page one of the dictator's handbook.\p>
Re:Sure it is. (Score:3, Insightful)
You might want to let it go. Bush was legitimately and fairly elected by the system that exists.
Wait, it was fair because the system -exists- and we should forget about it? So I suppose you'd say that because the system of "Castro is the only one on the ballot" was in existence for Cuba's recent history, Castro was the fairly and legitimately elected democratic president of Cuba, and people should "let it go?"
Re:Way to go (Score:4, Insightful)
The funny thing is that the National Enquirer is in the running for this year's Pulitzer having outed former democrat presidential candidate John Edwards as a hypocrite for talking about family values while sleeping with an aide & getting her pregnant.
By defending the right to publish of trash like the Enquirer the US assures that the truth will get out. By muzzling all opposition Chavez displays that he is no better than Pinochet.
Re:Sure it is. (Score:2, Insightful)
Chavez certainly isn't the first dictator who started out by getting elected.
-jcr
Plenty of dictators started out by getting elected, but the stress is on the "started out". You can only reasonably call democratically-elected people dictators if and only if elections are subsequently abolished. Leaders who are still serving a term for which they were elected cannot be called dictators, unless you are seriously stretching the use of language.
The reason Chavez in called a dictator (mainly in the American media) is because it easier to call someone an emotive word than discuss the issues; compare the use of the word "terrorist".
Re:Question ANYTHING you hear about Venezuela (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm let's see, Venezuela kicked out foreign oil companies, except: Chevron Corporation, Repsol YPF, Mitsubishi Corporation, Inpex, Suelopetrol CA, Eni, PetroVietnam, Petronas, ONGC, Indian Oil Corporation, Oil India, CNPC, Rosneft), Gazprom Neft, Lukoil, TNK-BP, Surgutneftegaz [wikipedia.org]. And that leaves us... Uh, Esson (which retired) out of the cake. Yeah right, thats the whole world he kicked.
Good thing you warned us about misinformation there. Giving examples eh?
Re:Way to go (Score:3, Insightful)
The point was not the scope or extent of the power. The point was the arbitrary way that it is exercised and the fact that justification of its use is an afterthought if it is provided at all.
By that weak definition, everyone is a "dictatorship", and so your definition is useless. For example, you have absolutely no power to change the color of my bathroom walls. I did nothing to justify their color to you, and any justification I gave you now would sound quite arbitrary. I'm in charge of my own property, and I said so.
There is a huge difference between a dictatorship that you can leave by abandoning your home along with much of your culture, family, friends, and possessions, vs. a "dictatorship" that you can leave by buying a different product or going home before you have to pee. Dictatorship isn't just about having control over something, it's about having control over someone else's life.
That applies to the original example, too. It's a shame when a corporation doesn't want to allow openness, but compared to a real dictatorship it's also pretty trivial. If GE doesn't want your ideas openly discussed on NBC, take them to Fox, or the Washington Post, or Digg, or Slashdot, or your blog. If China doesn't want your ideas openly discussed, then your ideas disappear, and if you put them on your blog then so do you. Chavez is talking about China-style control now, not just GE-style.
His only personal interest is to remain in power (Score:2, Insightful)