New Rules Bring a "Credit Rating" For Users of Chinese Social Network 89
An anonymous reader links this article describing a newly installed set of rules affecting the already put-upon Internet users of China, specifically affecting users of social network Sina Weibo: "Sina Weibo users each will now receive 80 points to begin with, and this can be boosted to a full 100 points by those who provide their official government-issued identification numbers (like Social Security numbers in the U.S.) and link to a cellphone account. Spreading falsehoods will lead to deductions in points, among other penalties. Spreading an untruth to 100 other users will result in a deduction of two points. Spreading it to 100-1,000 other users will result in a deduction of five points, as well as a week's suspension of the account. Spreading it to more than 1,000 other users will result in a deduction of 10 points, as well as a 15-day suspension of the account." The article explains (in truth, not very helpfully) the extent to which users' freedom to talk freely will be curtailed; the long list of what not to do "includes using 'nonconforming' or false images to mislead," "exaggerating events," "presenting already [resolved] events as ongoing," "efforts to incite ethnic tensions and violence and hurt ethnic unity" and "efforts to spread cultist or superstitious thinking; spreading rumors to disrupt social harmony." (And of course the catch-all: "other activities stipulated by authorities.")
That thing you're doing (Score:4, Funny)
Who decides? (Score:4, Insightful)
Will it work in reverse? (Score:3)
Will only people who repeat government propaganda have the high scores?
If your score is above 75, you're probably a government propagandist.
Re: (Score:2)
Less 13 year olds shouting drama about how much their life sucks in random groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding. People use social network sites to mostly have fun. What is the point of adding in this kind of rating system when all you will do is make using the social network too much hard work and basically the only safe way to use it, is not to use it. People will simply shift to an easier to use social network.
Re: (Score:2)
I generally find Weibo far more fun to use cause there is generally a lot less drama and whining going on there. Additionally they didn't bother to hide everything in a 20 layer menu structure like Facebook did. The result is rather easy to use. And frankly if I use a social network site I'm looking for a very specific set of services. I'm not interested in your revolutions, your whining, your political views,
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey, what's your credit rating?"
"10"
"So you're a reliable source."
Precisely (Score:1)
Realize that obtaining objectivity is actually pretty hard. In America, entire cities of people would like to teach that man was created from dirt by a very anthropomorphic all-powerful being, and that the theory of evolution is a direct lie intended to mislead you to a pit of eternal fire. They are pretty angry at governmental regulations that forbid the teachings of what they think is "truth," and require the teaching of what they think is a lie. And yet, equally populous communities of scientifically
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, equally populous communities of scientifically enlightened Americans approve of this governmental regulation of truth, while simultaneously disapproving of the Chinese government doing the same thing.
That's a nice apology for Chinese-style censorship that tries to make all censorship equal. In the US you can still teach your kids the ancient Hebrew mythology, spread it online, or whatever. You just can't do it as part of public school because public funds are being used and there's the First Amendment which both forbids the latter while protecting the former: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
It's absolutely true that there's a
Obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but sorting and reading/socializing that way also identifies you as subversive. How convenient indeed!
Re: (Score:2)
most honest or most brave/stupid/outspoken?
You can be honest without painting a target on yourself and your family.
In moderation (Score:2)
Why can't they do this on youtube? And can they include demerits for bad spelling/grammar? Might not be the worst idea.
Kidding.
Re: (Score:2)
Good blueprint (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
When can we implement this Stateside?
What a concept, having friends with 645 or better. My credit rating is -6, I can't imagine what kind and how many friends I'll have. Hopefully, not the Kardashians.
Was anyone expecting otherwise? (Score:3, Informative)
Probably has to do with this ( http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-30/asia/world_asia_china-microblogs-crackdown_1_coup-rumors-coup-attempt-sina-s-weibo?_s=PM:ASIA [cnn.com] )
Spreading of unfounded rumors of a coup in Beijing on Social media, means more restrictions will come into play. It was to be expected. After all, libel and other forms of lying are illegal in most of the world. So is attempting to incite rebellion illegal in just about every country in the world including China. Its obvious that the Chinese would do something about it eventually.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not Chinese. Hell I've never even been to the country.
Fact is, in the US for example,
18 USC 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
And to think, that makes the Arab Spring style of government change illegal in the US, even though the US supports such means in the ME, and tends to call the kettle black when it comes to China and their own internal censorship.
It also means spreading false rumors that the government is being over thrown to support and make people want to revolt, such as what happened in China illegal i
Re: (Score:2)
Force
moral or mental strength
capacity to persuade or convince
People who had never done anything else wrong, other then believed in the wrong political party, distributed information about their political ideology were deemed a threat and charged under this section of US law. Without violence or other physical harm being done. Read some history, it will do good for you.
Re: (Score:3)
China is just heading towards a WWII Germany, or a Cold War USSR.
No. This is the opposite of what is happening. China used to be more repressive than either the USSR or Germany ever was. Read up on the horrors of the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward. China has a long way to go to be as free as we are in the West, but they are heading in the right direction. This is just a little bump in the road.
Re:Was anyone expecting otherwise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Burning mod points to post:
That looks like a "last ditch" effort against those advocating violent overthrow. But as far as I can see, it hasn't been used since 1958 [wikipedia.org]. A large portion of the act that set it up seems to have been ruled unconstitutional too.
In any case, there's a MASSIVE difference between that and what China's attempting to do. One is a legal charge to be proven in court (under Common law, it's not disproven; the prosecution has to make the case that the accused violated the law, not the other way round), and the other is a measure of suppression. Further, if this is a reaction to the link you posted, the article only talks about news spreading about a rumored coup attempt, and not about anybody planning said alleged coup on microblogging sites.
What's the Chinese government worried about? That people knowing that a coup attempt is possible will then realize that their leaders are not infallible and that they can change the government? That they'll demand a real say in how things are done, and real democracy? Are they upset that anyone could legitimately not tow the party line? Cowards!
For comparison, here's how [hindustantimes.com] a democracy handles such allegations in the public. Keep in mind, this wasn't some random tweeters, but a real newspaper. The newspaper report was duly discredited, and life goes on.
Besides, movements like Occupy Wall Street, or India Against Corruption [wikipedia.org] or even the Tea Party are welcomed in mature nations - they form a conduit for people to express themselves on how they wish to be governed. Consent of the governed should be the only path to legitimacy for any rulers. Anything else is a dictatorship.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for China in this.
Re: (Score:2)
Face, meet palm!
I said "Common Law" because that's what the US uses. Naturally, most civli law jurisdictions use it too.
What I'm arguing is not that the whole world should use the British system. I'm arguing that your charge against the US is specious on those grounds.
I'm no fan of many things the US government tries to do, but your charge that they're just like the CCP is ridiculous!
Anyway, congratulations on cherry picking one minor portion, in brackets no less, which I added as an explanation, to questio
Re: (Score:2)
Face, meet palm!
I said "Common Law" because that's what the US uses. Naturally, most civli law jurisdictions use it too.
Not really. Most Civil Law jurisdictions its on the defendant to prove he or she is not guilty, through the use of interpretation of the Law. Only in Common Law does it become a natural right. Even in Europe, until they ratified the UN Declaration of Human Rights, most of them, being Civil Law countries did not follow the thought of "Innocent till proven guilty".
And many of these countries that only really applies till the Prosecutor decides to charge you with something and go to court. So until you see a
Re: (Score:3)
You mean to say that the French or Germans don't have presumption of innocence?
I believe that they'd be rather [wikipedia.org] surprised to learn that! [wikipedia.org] In fact, it's even more explicit in the European Declaration of Human Rights than in the US constitution. Some places like Scotland have the "not proven" verdict. Incidentally, Scottish law is Civil, not Common. No sensible country, from what I can see, has codified presumption of guilt. This [bepress.com] rather long article goes into good detail on how the European system developed.
You
Re: (Score:2)
Occupy wall street welcomed? Which mature nations are you referring to?
Re: (Score:1)
Fact is, in the US for example,
Stop apologizing for despots and their machinations of evil. You're a traitor to liberty; to your own self. The words you quoted are nothing more than tools used to enslave, and you yourself are a tool for spreading them.
Here's something more relevant:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
These words were written by those who were sick and tired of the very same slavery, and vowed to put an end to it.
Unfortunately their weak-kneed, pants pissing children and grandchildren let the tyranny creep back in, generation after generation, resulting in
Sounds fair (Score:3)
President Obama (Score:3, Funny)
Chinese citizen: I love President Obama and his wife Hillary Clinton. I got a "Clinton" at the Olympics.
You Americans call that a bj if I recall correctly.
Re: (Score:1)
That's what I like about /. - there's no censorship (or at least there wasn't until this flag button came along) and this allowed people to speak their mind. We may not like what others have to say but it's the only way to have any meaningful discussion.
Also, everyone should be able to sort bullshit from pertinent posts on their own in order to decide what to pay attention to and what to ignore (and if not, then these are skills that can be learned).
Considering Censorship in China is illegal (Score:2)
Took away their TAX FREE STATUS!! (Score:1)
That is inhuman. So a gift of $100 actually costs me $100 instead of $50 odd dollars?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is, it's nobody's business if I don't believe the Holocaust happened, and I should have the right to express my opinions. And once you start banning people from questioning facts, you create a mechanism where the government can "force" people to believe what the government wants them to.
Sure, right now this is used for good it seems - we just ban holocaust denialism. Now what happens if one day the government decided to ban creationism denialism? In theory it can happen, because when the governm
Re: (Score:2)
You europeans/britons/australians are waaay too easily offended if you need to censure words with criminal punishment. Get a spine, get a grip.
silly (Score:1)
CHICOMs
Nice censorship you got there (Score:3, Insightful)
Naturally (Score:3)
If it's a UN body, they can use their vote/veto to censor anything they don't like.
They're all about micromanaging what people think, apparently...
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how you define "untruth". The way you or I would probably define it is "something that is not true", in which case, the question becomes "how do you (the sharer) know something to be 'true' before sharing?" or alternatively, "Do you, in good faith, believe that what you shared was true?"
The way the Chinese government seems to define it is, "Any statement that is critical of, or damaging to the reputation of the Communist Party and the Glorious People's Republic". In which case, why did you share
Re: (Score:1)
This plan seems to count on the fact that information could be spread to a vast number of people at little cost to owners accounts spawning the last couple of hops.
FTFY. Emphasis added
Chinese Weibo commentary is obtuse (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There's a difference between somebody being a troll, and called out for it by other users, and the government retroactively proclaiming something "untrue", which knowing the CCP, would be loosely defined as "stuff we don't want you to say".
Answer, don't censor. Something that most governments, political parties, religious institutions, corporations, etc should have hammered into their heads!
We already have this censorship in Anglosphere (Score:1)
Just try to do what somebody in power defines as:
1. Deny the holocaust,
2. Incite homophobia.
3. Incite racial hatred.
4. Display child pornography (where in some places e.g. Italy the "child" can mean a 17 years old).
5. Denigrate the Moslem religion.
6. Suggest that Homeland Security has been given too much power.
And in all those cases, truth or consent is NOT a defence!
And you will find yourself in jail, not just banned from posting for a month.
Re: (Score:2)
How very interesting. Which one of those do you have a problem with now, citizen? One moment while I write this down...
</black humor>
The government having the power to regulate those kinds of speech is preferable to vigilantism. No, that's not a binary choice, but I for one feel strongly enough about certain of those topics to make quite a point of it, if you take my meaning. You can argue against your culture's values, and hope to change them, but on these topics it is important to note that people h
Re: (Score:3)
1. Discussing the issue within the framework set up by authority when it is the authority that needs changing is not usually workable. That's why rebellions start in the first place. Countries that make criminal offenses out of words that make certain people/groups feel bad have no business calling themselves free.
2. lobbying. well this is really an example of 1, right? Except of course you have to be wealthy, which 99% of us aren't, and those who are, are the ones using the government to their advantag
Re: (Score:1)
I would mod you up to 5.
Re: (Score:2)
So when the "others" being incited against are government agents it is acceptable to disregard the principles upon which we have built our society? Your "love it or leave it" simplifies my statement to the point of absurdity. If you do not like your society, you must act to change it or change your locality -- either is acceptable. It is an obvious statement, if you're not inclined towards willful misinterpretation.
Your statements only follow each other sequentially, not logically. Please try again. On the
Re: (Score:1)
"Inciting to harm" should not be a crime. Doing harm is the crime.
It's like the difference between "assault" and "battery".
With assault, you are not harmed. At the limit, you feel threatened with harm.
With battery, there are bruises.
Re: (Score:2)
"Inciting to harm" should not be a crime. Doing harm is the crime.
You seem to have forgotten to include your argument. In point of fact I must be generous to assume that you have one. So far, I gather, it goes something like this: "To allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State, for it is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments." [wikipedia.org]
In order for your analogy to apply to hate speech we must assume that there is some [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
False analogy = true.
"Inciting to harm" should not be a crime. Doing harm is the crime.
It is the difference between assault and battery.
Thank you for that correction.
Re: (Score:1)
The first "petitio principii" is "coito ergo sum" (apologies to Descartes).
The second is "libertatum super omnes".
And "libertatum" as in article 4 of "the rights of man"
http://www.barvennon.com/~liberty/Declaration_of_rights_of_man.html [barvennon.com]
If somebody's words do you injury, then the right place to seek restitution is before a jury of peers. Not in legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Sound principles. Good argument. You haven't fully addressed the question but I don't feel like continuing to play devil's advocate.
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
So when the "others" being incited against are government agents it is acceptable to disregard the principles upon which we have built our society?
That's just it. This only happens when the officials disregard these principles first, in ways egregious or hypocritical enough to piss people off. if, in a democracy, a lot of people are ready to go from the ballot box to the ammo box, the government has failed and has been failing for a long time. I realize china isn't a democracy, but perhaps that's part of the problem.
[c] or move to someplace where your views are tolerated.
You said 'love it or leave it'. It's quite unambiguous.
but you should seek to demonstrate that there is greater harm in restricting the individual freedom of speech than restricting the freedom to seek harm to members of your own society.
Ok, when the law allows lots of/powerful/influential people to dictate what the
Re: (Score:2)
[c] or move to someplace where your views are tolerated.
You said 'love it or leave it'. It's quite unambiguous.
And yet your quoted selection somehow manages to be the third of a list of alternatives, and neither of the first two are "Mindlessly repeat the majority position." Slandering my argument does not improve your position.
This only happens when the officials disregard [...]
False. People have been arguing against governments since their inception.
if, in a democracy, a lot of people are ready to go from the ballot box to the ammo box, the government has failed and has been failing for a long time.
False. Red herring.
Ok, when the law allows lots of/powerful/influential people to dictate what the minority can say, it quickly becomes a form of tyranny.
Don't powerful minorities usually dictate terms in tyrannies? An attempt to regulate speech does not necessarily require a majority or minority, and tyranny is not an automatic consequence.
Without the right to communicate unambiguously, it's impossible for grievances to be heard except couched in whatever newspeak terms the power elite allow.
You kno
Re: (Score:1)
In childrearing, my philosophy was let them do anything they wanted, with the limitation that "only so long as it is not too much trouble to keep a watch that they don't kill themselves" (or someone else).
" Is there no line that can be crossed between holding an opinion and seeking harm to others?" I think the line is the infringement of the other's liberty.
From "The Rights of Man" 1789. Article IV "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the nat
Re: (Score:2)
Just try to do what somebody in power defines as:
1. Deny the holocaust,
Last I heard, that was Germany, not the Anglosphere...
2. Incite homophobia.
3. Incite racial hatred.
Incite homophobic violence and racial violence more like; otherwise certain politicians would be jailed for multiple life terms. To name just one, Rick Santorum in the US.
4. Display child pornography (where in some places e.g. Italy the "child" can mean a 17 years old).
Child pornography is violence (of a sort) against a child who cannot consent. How is this a free speech issue?
5. Denigrate the Moslem religion.
Yet, Richard Dawkins and Pastor Terry Jones are still free
6. Suggest that Homeland Security has been given too much power.
Yet, Bruce Scheiner still roams free.
And in all those cases, truth or consent is NOT a defence!
And you will find yourself in jail, not just banned from posting for a month.
Truth is a defence. Consent (I assume you talk of the child pornography thing) can
Re: (Score:1)
points
1. Not crime to deny holocaust in Anglosphere. conceded.
2 & 3. Rather a fine legal point there between inciting "hate" and "violence". Not conceded.
4. That is a cultural question. Not conceded.
5. Good lawyers in the US can cite (is it the first?) amendment. But In my country (AU) you better have the capacity to fight. Partly conceded.
6. But what is HS doing closing down wikileaks and copyright websites? And don't people get into trouble at airports? Reckon it's happening but we don't get
Re: (Score:2)
2 & 3. Rather a fine legal point there between inciting "hate" and "violence". Not conceded.
Not so very fine; saying "I hate X" is different from saying "Kill X". Naturally, there's a grey area that's handled case-by-case.
4. That is a cultural question. Not conceded.
How so? A minor can't give consent. And it's generally a pretty despicable activity that harms the child concerned anyway. This is similar to incitement to violence. Your rights end where others' rights begin.
5. Good lawyers in the US can cite (is it the first?) amendment. But In my country (AU) you better have the capacity to fight. Partly conceded.
Not sure of Australia, but I'm yet to hear of anyone going to jail (that being your whole accusation) for that...
6. But what is HS doing closing down wikileaks and copyright websites? And don't people get into trouble at airports? Reckon it's happening but we don't get to hear of it. not conceded.
Nice evidentiary standard there! "Reckon it's happening but
Re: (Score:1)
Going back to point 1. The Germans are, of course, devolved Anglosphere.
2&3 Lets leave it as a grey area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derryn_Hinch#Sexual_Relationship_With_Underage_Girl [wikipedia.org] This radio commenter was jailed for (ultimately) the "hate crime" of publicly identifying a pederast.
4. In some cultures (Aboriginal Australian, even 50 years ago) children under 6 or so ran around in public, naked. Look in National Geographic a few decades ago. Finding something to be "pornographic" is largely cul
Re: (Score:1)
Thank you. The insult was deserved.
Re: (Score:2)
peaceful? maybe. honest? no. who defines honesty then? some popular crowdbased 'like' system? sorry but argumentum ad populum is not a good way of deriving truth.
Anonymous Cowards! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Disregard that, I suck cocks!