China Calls For Even Firmer Internet Control 119
eldavojohn writes "Chinese state media has published a long article detailing why China needs to take even firmer stances on sites like Twitter and the internet as a whole, or risk backlash to the Communist Party from 'Internet opinion.' The commentary warned, 'Unless administration is vigorous, criminal forces, hostile forces, terrorist organizations and others could manipulate public sentiment by manufacturing bogus opinion on the Internet, damaging social stability and national security.' China seized upon the London riots recently to justify tighter internet censorship. The article, of course, ends with the conclusion that 'Clearly, in the future when developing and applying new Internet technologies, there must first be a thorough assessment, adopting even more prudent policies and enhancing foresight and forward thinking in administration.' While this provides China with their Emmanuel Goldstein and his Brotherhood, it should be noted that the People's Daily is often over the top."
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they are. Have you actually lived there? It's the same thing here on slashdot always when talking about countries little bit different than US. I've lived many times and many years in Thailand, yet every time there's some slashdot news about internet censorship in there, whole slashdot goes on a knee-jerk reaction telling how the government is being abusive. The truth is that the people want it. Same thing when talking about how it's unlawful to talk badly about the Thai King. Somehow in slashdot it's viewed somehow as that he made the law. It was the people who wanted it. Do whatever you want in your own country, but don't go telling other countries how they should be. Let their people choose. If you want to comment about it, do get some actual own experience.
Sure, and a crackhead quite sincerely wants more crack. That doesn't mean this is good for him to have. Sometimes people want things that aren't good for them to have and don't serve their best interests. This is nothing new. There is nothing wrong with being opposed to this in principle.
Having said that, I agree that sovereign nations should be left alone as much as possible. The only justification for interference is when they directly and unambiguously threaten us. The whole problem with the US is that it loves to meddle. All or nearly all problems the US has ever had with terrorism or with attacks against Americans who are overseas or with its terrible reputation in many parts of the world is because we simply refuse to leave other nations alone. The US is a domineering empire that tries very hard not to call itself that.
Can you imagine how the US would react to a foreign nation that wants to establish a military presence within its borders and dictate how it should be governed? Or a foreign nation that uses its secret agencies (CIA equivalent) to try to cause chaos and disrupt its election processes? I have the funny feeling they wouldn't like it one bit. Why, they might even want to get back at anyone who tries it.
Re:Fair enough (Score:4, Insightful)
The only justification for interference is when they directly and unambiguously threaten us. The whole problem with the US is that it loves to meddle.
This "meddling" you abhor is intended to head off the germination of groups and governments that can eventually "directly and unambiguously threaten us." And by "threaten" I mean militarily, politically, or economically. The alternative is to allow a potential threat to grow unchallenged until it's so big that it can't be stopped without massive casualties, consequences, or costs (or all three). The last time everybody sat around and let a threat grow unchallenged, about 60 million people died in a war that lasted the better part of six years. Isolationism's been tried before. It doesn't work very well for the defender. It does, however, work very, very well for those planning to do harm to others.
Yes, that's the fear-based orthodoxy preached by those who wish to justify the imperialism err I mean meddling. You make this mistake of thinking I don't understand it when in fact I simply disagree with it.
And naturally we're either complete meddlers who have no respect for anyone else, or we're totally isolationist and have no input towards the rest of the world at all. You know why isolationism failed? Because it was practiced in its extreme form. All I want is for us to stop bullying other nations, to stop using the CIA to overthrow democratically elected governments, to stop things like the mass murder of South Americans so we can have a fucking fruit company, and to understand that there is a definite, positive connection between treating other nations as playthings and having lots of people who desperately want to harm you.
Wanting to trade with other nations in an equitable fashion, having ambassadors and engaging in diplomacy with them to try to reach mutually satisfying agreements, and respecting their decision when they tell you "no" is not isolationist, at least not the definition of it you seem to have been taught. It's really amazing the way you can go a whole decade without a pointless overseas war when you do things this way. You know what really harms others? When you actively create your own enemies just so you can justify continuing to feed your military-industrial complex.
You know why so much of the world hates Americans? They think the American government represents the wishes of the American people. It's hard to blame them. We definitely like to preach about how our government is "by the people, of the people, for the people".