Xiaomi Investigated For Using Superlatives In Advertising, Now Illegal In China 109
An anonymous reader writes: Chinese smartphone maker Xiaomi is under investigation for using superlative messaging on its website, according to a leaked document from the Beijing Ministry of Industry and Commerce. A new Chinese law states that adjectives used to promote products must not mislead consumers. The Xiaomi investigation [Chinese] follows claims made by rival Cong that the company used phrases such as 'the best' and 'the most advanced', in its online campaigns and therefore violated the country's advertising law. (The law against suprelatives doesn't seem to apply to communications by the government, about the government.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:nice little dig at the end (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Of course we do. We consume many services provided by the government:
Police services
Fire services
Military services
HUD services
Transportation services (roads, bridges, etc.,...)
Social Security Services
MediCare/MediCade services
Court services
Representation services (Congress)
Education services
The list goes on. Whether a given individual utilizes a given service directly or in-directly is immaterial. The (lacking) quality of the services is also irrelevant to their consumption.
services provided by the government: (Score:2)
> HUD services
The Govt provides Heads Up Displays?
Re: (Score:1)
For the lazy: Housing and Urban Development
Re: (Score:2)
True but the US government does not have any laws against using spurelatives in marketing. If you aren't getting bombarded with marketers telling you that they are 'the best' then I would like to know what rock you live under so that I can join you.
Re:Nazis didn't like them either (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting trivia, but I hope you're not trying to say that's a reason not to ban it. [logicallyfallacious.com]
Nazis used trains, too. Should we ban trains?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we should ban the trains the Nazis used
Today's time-wasting-obtuseness award goes to you. Congratulations.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I just thought it was interesting. Now, the Nazi's anti-smoking campaigns...
Re:Nazis didn't like them either (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Just a quick reminder that VW was started by hitler, operated by slave labor And cheated on emissions testing.
While they did a lot of things wrong they did do some things right.
Fanta was not one of them...
Re: (Score:2)
I like Fanta, especially the grape and strawberry flavors.
Everyone Is Guilty, Only Enemies Will Be Indicted (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Overt or covert use of national flag, anthem or emblem of People’s Republic of China or military flag, anthem or emblem;
2) Overt or covert use of the name or image of national public institute or staff of national public institute;
3) Use of words such as “national-level”, “the most” and “the best”, among others;
4) Causing detriment to national dignity or interests, or disclosing national secrets;
5) Interfering with social stability, or causing detriment to social and public interests;
6) Harming personal or property safety, or disclosing privacy;
7) Interfering with social public order, or going against good social norm;
8) Containing obscene, pornographic, gambling, superstitious, terrifying, or violent content;
9) Containing discrimination based on nationality, race, religion, or gender;
10) Affecting protection of environment, natural resources or cultural heritage;
11) Other situations prohibited by laws and regulations.
Merely sounds like another tool for the Party to deal with companies that are not state owned. Most companies will be found guilty of some section of this but they won't be prosecuted until they run afoul of the Party. In China (and increasingly in the US) everyone is guilty of something but only those that the state wants to be prosecuted will be prosecuted.
So looking at the story, we have a new law enacted a month ago and whose head is on the chopping block today? Xiaomi? Well from wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Xiaomi Inc. is a privately owned Chinese electronics company headquartered in Beijing, China, that is the world's 4th[4] largest smartphone maker. Xiaomi designs, develops, and sells smartphones, mobile apps, and related consumer electronics.[5]
Aaaaaand there's your problem. Wake me up when a state owned company is prosecuted under these new laws. Xiaomi's true crime was probably doing better than Huawei.
Re:Everyone Is Guilty, Only Enemies Will Be Indict (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are a leftist, beating the shit out of private companies is well and good. Remember: corporations are evil! Prosecuting them is only a good thing. Are you a corporate shill?
I am neither a leftist nor a corporate shill. I believe in beating the shit out of private companies that deserve to have the "shit beat out" of them. You need only look at the lengthy history of consumer protection in the United States to find instances where this was and is necessary. Take, for example, Debt Collection Practices [wikipedia.org]. Please, please, please "beat the shit out" of unscrupulous collection agencies. Please "beat the shit" out of the companies that call my grandmother to deliver unsolicited advertisements about a "warranty extension" on her car. There are plenty of private companies that should have this done to them. The issue I take with China's implementation is 1) that it will never target a state owned business and 2) the guidelines are by no means clearly laid out and can be ambiguously interpreted. Who will interpret them? When will they interpret them? Why just in time and by the same state body that made them. Please tell me, how can I prove that my product's advertising does not "Cause detriment to national dignity"?
Re: (Score:2)
Please "beat the shit" out of the companies that call my grandmother to deliver unsolicited advertisements about a "warranty extension" on her car.
Is this a thing now? Because god damn, this company has been harassing me non stop about a warranty extension on my car. It's the first time I've experienced this many unsolicited phones calls and junk mail since they came out with the do-not-call list. I've told them four times now that I'm not interested and they keep calling.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you prove your product isn't terrifying in some way?
I find this law terrifying, does that count as breaking the law?
Re: (Score:1)
Merely sounds like another tool for the Party to deal with companies that are not state owned. Most companies will be found guilty of some section of this but they won't be prosecuted until they run afoul of the Party.
What is the basis for this belief, other than anecdotes?
Certainly. Here's a text and video advertisement [huawei.com] that does imply I can make the "most lifelike enjoyment" with a Huawei tablet. On top of that, I am lead to believe this device provides oculus-like effects during usage. When will the state prosecute themselves, pray tell?
It doesn't have to stop there as I feel that the woman in that commercial is immodestly dressed causing detriment to national dignity or interests. Do you see the problem with ambiguity in the language here?
Re: (Score:2)
You should have been waken [financialpost.com] up [wsj.com] indeed. Also Xiaomi is currently being promoted by Chinese leaders (e.g. Premier Li Keqiang) as a star entrepreneur to encourage more hi-tech start ups along with Alibaba.
Who did they forget to pay off? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what power is all about -- thuggery getting in the way of the productive to extract a fine lifestyle for themselves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called "communism".
Granted, we have stupid laws and stupid judges also, and so are not entirely immune, but at least we have more ways to challenge such, including blogs and the press.
Re: (Score:1)
On the contrary!
Laxatives will very likely result in shit.
Not just any shit, but the biggest, smelliest, liquidiest shit you've ever made!
Re: (Score:3)
Before anyone gets confused by the headline, remember that superlatives [wikipedia.org] are very different from laxatives [wikipedia.org].
Right. Laxatives are the ones that are taken orally; superlatives go in the other end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before anyone gets confused by the headline, remember that superlatives [wikipedia.org] are very different from laxatives [wikipedia.org].
Shittiest comment ever.
No wait, I didn't mean it like...well crap, that didn't go well.
Geico's newt is hard to beat (Score:3)
What's Apple going to do? (Score:2)
About the government ? (Score:1)
So you can say, "The Chinese government is the absolute best at violating human rights!" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps people from countries that have only existed for less than 500 years don't have a damned clue when compared to Civilizations that have been around for at least 5000.
They're much better at fascism, anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
At violating "Western-like" civil rights you mean. "Most" Chinese don't consider their human rights violated by their government. Perhaps people from countries that have only existed for less than 500 years don't have a damned clue when compared to Civilizations that have been around for at least 5000.
That covers a time when human slavery, sexual and otherwise, was not uncommon.
We have evolved, well, most of us, in our view of acceptable treatment of humans.
"Amnesty International has documented widespread human rights violations in China. An estimated 500,000 people are currently enduring punitive detention without charge or trial, and millions are unable to access the legal system to seek redress for their grievances. [Source: http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-... [amnestyusa.org]
I can see why some would prefe
Re: (Score:2)
"Most" Chinese don't consider their human rights violated by their government. Perhaps people from countries that have only existed for less than 500 years don't have a damned clue when compared to Civilizations that have been around for at least 5000.
Most Americans were not enslaved in 1860. Ergo, most Americans did not consider their human rights violated at that time. Yet, for those whose rights were violated -- the enslaved -- and the enlightened masses, saw it for what it was: It was a moral outrage.
You have pointed out the embarrassing fact that a 5000 year old civilization still has not evolved to the point of acknowledging basic human rights and the moral imperative of liberty. China should learn a lesson from any culture -- regardless
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately Americas reputation is even worse when it comes to it's corporate controlled operations of the US State Department, US Department of Defence (now that is a snark use of a word, Offence would be far more accurate and truthful), US State Department and the NSA/CIA, in other people's countries, those sub-human non-citizens. What China does to it's citizens is no where near as bad as what the United States of America does to other countries citizens to feed corporate profits under the guise of ne
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure those students in Tienanmen Square felt their rights were violated.
Re: (Score:2)
Hosts files would have protected the students from the tanks in Tienanmen Square? Wow, I wish they had your wisdom back then.
Re: (Score:1)
Looks like you've picked up a stalker, Coren.
You must have really ticked him off. He's so mad he can't even write coherently.
Re: (Score:1)
Tienanmen Square? What's that?
According to the Chinese govt., nothing ever happened there.
Poor doge (Score:2)
Such superlative. Best rights. Wow.
Superlaxatives (Score:2)
Sticking it to the man back in the mainland. (Score:5, Funny)
Now I understand why every Chinese American store and/or product is named 'Super Happy Best for Lucky Joyful Times'.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite a name for a "massage parlor" :-P
Re: (Score:2)
I went to one of those and did have a super happy joyful time.
(However, more testing still needed to verify the "luck" part...)
Re: (Score:1)
No wonton soup for you!
So Trump can't say thing like (Score:2)
"most elegant", "highest class", "most luxurious" in China?
Three classes. (Score:5, Informative)
There are three classes of business in China.
1. State-sponsored or owned businesses. Short of a scandal like the melamine dog food one, they can get away with practically anything. No foreign interest can hold them accountable.
2. State-sanctioned businesses. They've paid off the right people to look the other way, but if scrutiny becomes too great, they'll be thrown under the bus -- but only after high-ranking officials cash out, of course.
3. Everyone else. They have to play on a field with Calvinball rules and moving goalposts.
Sometimes joint ventures with foreign companies can make their way into class 2. Often they're allowed to languish in Class 3, especially if they're exporting everything they make.
Re: (Score:2)
Xiaomi is presumably the second class. The only way a large company can operate without paying someone off is to export only.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you imagine such a law in the US? (Score:2)
Apple's entire marketing department would collapse in on itself into a hyperbolic black hole!
International harmonization? (Score:2)
AFAIK, in the US you can use "the best" but not "better than" unless you have a way to back it up. Thus, "the best beer" is OK, but "better than Bud" is not OK unless you cite some specific like, "beat Bud in a blind taste test".
Having different rules for different countries is probably going to give international ad campaigners some fits. That's the beauty of sovereignty though. Different systems, and we get to see what's workable in practice and what isn't.
Geez China, it's only puffery! (Score:2)
Hmm. Now that I think about it, the Party has been training the people to accept its claims as fact for decades. Maybe they are worried it worked too well.
Re: (Score:2)
Do Not Conflate This With Individual Free Speech (Score:3)
Communists don't believe in free speech?
Shocking.
It's not that binary. The United States has its own truth in advertising laws [ftc.gov] that, in my personal opinion, are beneficial at both the federal and state level [wikipedia.org]. Slashdot readers are free to go the Libertarian route and claim the free market would alleviate these issues on its own or perhaps point out how downright pedantic [ftc.gov] it can be at times. But the truth of the matter is that, as a consumer, we only have so many hours in a day to decide which of the thousands of products we consume in a year we should s
Re: Do Not Conflate This With Individual Free Spe (Score:1)
For people of privilege the number should be much smaller before they lose rights. I think a group of three whites should have their rights reduced.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But the truth of the matter is that, as a consumer, we only have so many hours in a day to decide which of the thousands of products we consume in a year we should spend our money on. So it does come down to federal guidelines for what is "Grade A" or "Organic" or "Green" when there is a label espousing these properties and there are consumers paying a premium for this notion. Without those guidelines those words will mean absolutely nothing and there will be no way to tell where your product was made, how much cadmium it has in it or whether it is the end result of spewing carbon into the atmosphere. Without similar laws, you wouldn't be able to trust the nutritional information at the grocery store. Is it free speech to claim that my potato chips cure cancer and lead to weight loss no matter how many of them you eat? People will know that I'm lying? Cigarettes used to sooth sore throats. Trans fats used to taste awesome.
Okay, how about "Tasty" or "Chunky" or "Kids love it!"? How can we allow companies to just sling those words around willy-nilly without a few hundred men in Washington DC taxing and regulating everything to make sure we aren't led astray? I pay an extra 12% per can for "Thick and Chunky" stew instead of the plain stew, which must in comparison be thin and runny. Since corporations are evil and out to deceive me to trick me into giving them money, how can I be sure the Safeway-brand frozen pizza actually is
Re: (Score:1)
Ugh, quote FAIL. The final paragraph belongs to the comment I was replying to.
Speech used by an individual to express ideas is free speech. Advertisements -- especially advertisements representing a very large organization -- are not. Corporations should not have the same rights individuals have and I feel that free speech is one of those clear cut distinctions. There is a long history of consumer protection everywhere in the world -- learn about your own country's struggles with it. It's not a simple issue and advertisement should not be regarded as free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)