Bloggers Test New MS China Filter 356
earthbound kid writes "Rebecca MacKinnon at Global Voices Online has set up a test of Microsoft's censored blogs on MSN China (see previous Slashdot story) with screenshots. It seems that MSN rejected titling a new blog 'I love freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy' (in Chinese) because 'The title must not contain prohibited language, such as profanity.' MacKinnon managed to use a workaround and got a pro-freedom blog up, for the moment."
hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Like for example, "dmeocarcy" instead of "democracy", "frit psot" instead of well youknow, etc?
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:2)
"mni zuh"?
More seriously, "U+6c11 U+738b" (min2 wang2) would be conceptually close.
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:2)
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
To be precise, the first was the same min2 as in min2 zhu3 "democracy", while the second, wang2, is a character identical to the zhu3 of "democracy", except that it lacks one tiny stroke at the top. The idea was that this would be as close conceptually as you could come to misspelling a word within the Chinese writing system, see?
(If Slashdot would only get with the 20th century and permit Unicode in postings - or even just parse HTML entities instead of stripping them - then this sort of misunderstanding would never happen...)
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlikely, I've modernized slashdot and the slashcode engine to be fully XML compliant and use DIV's instead of tables.
I've even fixed it so you can make text larger in CSS without the overflow (like many of the people who have tried to modernize slashdot)
My code additions were rejected, and I contacted every one of the editors through their personal emails... and haven't had a reply.
I guess they're not concerned. Oh well..
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
One would think that they'd actually have an easier time getting around the filters than their yingyu equivalents.
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:5, Funny)
1. I must help my Uncle Jack off the horse.
2. I must help my uncle jack off the horse.
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:2)
oranges (see below) (Score:2)
Your Uncle Mildred is happy to see you.
Galvanize the subway on Thursday.
Re:oranges (see below) (Score:2)
That's the problem with slashdot, any time anyone posts an *actually funny* comment, it doesn't get modded up.
It's like the moderators have seen humor described in a book, but have no real first hand experience with it.
Obviously this happens extensively (what the grandparent proposes) but it's a barrier to communication, and all such barriers make organization of dissident and populist movements - never easy - even harder.
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:2)
Chinese puns (Score:2)
The real horse is your mother.
Get it?
In spoken Chinese (or rather, the group of languages collectively called Chinese), each syllable is given one of four "tones". The meaning of the word changes if even one syllable is mis-toned. The whole language group is one big pun waiting to happen!
See http://www.omniglot.com/writing/chinese_spoken.ht m [omniglot.com]
for more details.
Re:hmmmmmmmmmm (Score:2)
I see what you're after though. Perhaps spamming techniques *is* a freedom of speech issue after all...
The wonder of censorship... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is that everyone knows you are censoring. It only truly works, when ala 1984 everyone is convinced that it isn't happening.
Welcome to the internet China, and Microsoft, claiming you are "just enforcing local laws" is just a bad a defence of the freedoms you enjoy as the traditional "I was just obeying orders defence".
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
Like it or not, the PRC is a legitimate nation-state.
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:3, Insightful)
As with the superior officer, the decision in this case is whether to go into China and supress free speech, or to try and expand your Chinese audience from outside.
Given the choice, Microsoft chose the option that "screw the first ammendment, we want cash".
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
That's true, but we were talking about Mainland China. If that's a legitimate government, then so is Mugabe's [telegraph.co.uk], and so was Phol Pot's [treklens.com].
Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because a government is recognised by other governments, it's a legitimate government in a civilised country. Today, the only member of the international diplomatic community which stands up and says that Mugabe is an insane, evil dictator i
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:5, Insightful)
It benefits a man nothing to sell his soul for the whole world... But for China....
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
Around one fifth of the World's population is in China.
Microsoft would be doing a terrible disservice to their shareholders if they didn't do everything possible to be able to do business with those billion+ people.
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
As long as we are all clear that this is why they are doing it, and American's stop complaining at home about Chinese people taking their jobs and being "unfair" by producing cheaper goods...
You can't have your cake and eat it.
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
Wow, wayda put words in my mouth.
All I'm saying is that Microsoft is a Business.
As a Business, Microsoft's first responsibility is to its shareholders - to maximize profits.
China has HUGE porift potential for Microsoft. Therefore, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to try to do everything they can to do business there.
Absolutely none of that equates to your claim of what I'm saying.
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2, Insightful)
So if they had to pay bribes to Chinese officials to get business, that would be okay? If they had to smuggle in white slavegirls, would that be okay? What you're describing is a very mercantilist, mercenary, conscience-less philosophy of doing business. I don't support it, and I don't think Microsoft should.
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
Once again, I said aboslutely NONE of that.
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
I don't get it. How is this not "money is more important than freedom"? You're saying Microsoft must trample on the rights of Chinese people in order to "do everything they can to do business there" in order to "maximize profits".
There are no words in your mouth other than your own.
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
[...]
There are no words in your mouth other than your own.
Please show EXACTLY where I said that "Microsoft must trample on the rights of the Chinese people".
The number of Straw-Man arguments getting thrown around here is ridiculous.
Re:The wonder of censorship... (Score:2)
Like it or not, most people out there don't WANT freedom. They'd rather be told what to like, what to do, how to do it, etc. Why? Because its easier, and they feel better about themselfs in the end. Its not my fault, I was just following protocol. I'm not ruining familys lives, I'm just enforcing the laws.
So let's make sure it gets squished, (Score:2)
Shhhhheeeyit.
Re:So let's make sure it gets squished, (Score:2)
http://radio.weblogs.com/0001011/2005/06/16.html#a 10419 [weblogs.com]
The key is Dallas (Score:2)
More seriously, an AC a bit higher up had a good point. China is a sovereign nation and has full rights to what goes on inside their borders. We in the US may not *like* it, but their laws are their laws. No such laws exist to _allow_ for free speech. Now If the citizens decided to overthrow their government, then I'm sure
Re:The key is Dallas (Score:5, Interesting)
China may have the legal right to do whatever it wants with its citizens, no matter what that is, but it doesn't mean that it's morally OK for them to do it. Furthermore, China *did* sign and ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - in fact, there even was a Chinese professor (Zhang Pengjun) on the commission that drafted the declaration.
That being said - as has been reported, there *is* not even a law in China that would require censorship of words such as "democracy". MSN is simply sucking up here, in one of the worst ways imaginable.
Re:The key is Dallas (Score:3, Interesting)
And they will care about your concept of morality (or mine, for that matter) because...?
there *is* not even a law in China that would require censorship of words such as "democracy".
Another regime that looks good on paper, doesn't it? Except that the written laws do not necessarily hold in some (quite many) countries. The constitution of the Soviet Union, for instance (i'm quoting the 1936 Constitution [politicsforum.org]), states that In conformity with the inte
Re:The key is Dallas (Score:2)
Re:The key is Dallas (Score:2)
Morally, the PRC should have been overthrown decades ago. Sadly, the citizens of China continue to allow it to exist.
Let me make one thing clear to everyone here (since a lot of people on Slashdot are quite simple and need things spelled out), I am all for Freedom of Speech. I love my country for the freedoms it provides me, and I wish that everyone
Re:The key is Dallas (Score:4, Insightful)
Why the sudden change of heart? I don't seem to remember THAT little detail stopping US in the past 15 years while being the world's bull^H^H^H^H "policeman" and "taking charge" in Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... Or perhaps it's because the Chinese are strong enough to seriously bite the US in the ass that all of a sudden people stop to think? I think a little honesty is needed here.
Re:The key is Dallas (Score:2)
Ok, here it is honestly: In all the cases you listed, people were dying in declared, undeclared, and terrorist wars. The current issue is one of free speech, a "right" that the US founders guaranteed to its citizens. No other country is required to uphold our law, though, so
Re:The key is Dallas (Score:2)
What rights are you talking about, exactly? They have full powers to enforce censorship, and full legal "rights" according to their own laws, but many would argue, obviously, that the Chinese government has no moral right to censor individuals. To state the obvious again, this is what many people think of immediately when they see the word "rights."
"If the citizens decided to overthrow their government, then I'm sure
Re:The key is Dallas (Score:2)
Now I think many slashdotters could go off on a rant here, but I think I'm just going to point in the direction of Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and the line in there where it reads "An unjust law was in a sense no law at all."
It's one of the rights of every human being [wikipedia.org] to have free speech. China's government can try and stop China
China *DOES* have free speech (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The key is Dallas (Score:2)
Re:Yes, f*** universal human rights (Score:2)
While I agree with your sentiments, I don't think you follow the complexity of the situation. The government of China is allowed to be the government by its people. Unless the people there are willing to rise up against their own government, there's little we can do about it over here. It's simply not
Is the US really that different? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it that different if the government blocks free speech directly or allows companies to do it?
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:2)
Yes I do. Disney does enough, without needing to invent things you think they might do. If you tried to copy the visual representation of the characters they created, then I would expect them to object. But if I go to my local video store and look in the kids section I have seen a couple of differnt Snow White
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, I think a lot of people who are against copyrights are simply too lazy to make up their own original stuff. Yes, I know, it's harder, but it's not theft of other people's ideas, either.
For example, many people complain about the extension of copyrights in citing Disney's efforts to retain the copyright to Mickey Mouse. Well, why shouldn't the Disney Corporation retain those rights? They developed and nurtured the character over decades. Why should people who had no stake in the character, who did not create it or make it grow, have the right to use it in, say, advertisements for some widget company?
And it's a lot different from China. This is an issue of political free speech, of dissent from their regime. If you were in China, you would not be allowed to say the regional equivalent of "Bush is Hitler!" We can say "Bush is Hitler" because this is a free country, and, quite frankly, because Bush isn't actually Hitler.
You might want to try visiting a totalitarian country someday. Try Cuba; a gorgeous tropical island, wonderful friendly people
America, for all its faults, is nothing at all like a totalitarian country. Those who say it is truly have no clue of what life under tyranny is really like.
D
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:2)
He said that tiresome litigation would ensue if you used the characters Snow White or Beauty and The Beast in a work.
If you used a likeness too similar to the Disney characters, no doubt you would, but I found a web site that tells the Beauty and the Beast story [balletmet.org], in various versions. The site has obviously not been shut down by Disney, so the original poster's point is invalid.
Perhaps I should have checked that before repl
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:2)
Of course he's not. Everyone knows Hitler had that little mustache.
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:2)
Have you lived under tyranny before? If you haven't then I think your statement is a bit of a contradiction, or more bluntly it's blind patriotism.
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:3, Interesting)
When I made remarks to my Cuban girlfriend in a state-owned restaurant that could be construed as being against the regime, she certainly seemed sincerely frightened, and told me the waiters were spies.
i suspect the Cuban government knows that if they make the revolution look too perfect, they'll lose credibility. The remarks you mention may well have been part of the script. It's pretty clear from what
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:2)
OK, good point. Remind me, when was the last Mickey Mouse cartoon made?
America, for all its faults, is nothing at all like a totalitarian country. Those who say it is truly have no clue of what life under tyranny is really like.
I think a lot of the slashbot groupthink is very much "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" chicken-little stuff. That being said, I believe it was Karl
The OT Answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is the US really that different? (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, yes [amazon.com], yes [amazon.com], and yes [amazon.com]?
I don't know where you've been, but every time Disney releases a new movie to the theaters or video, there are a large number of knockoff movies that hit the streets around the same time.
It's the same thing with Barbie dolls. Hugh numbers of companies make a fortune off of selling cheap knock
Who's side are we on? (Score:2)
Which promptly got submitted and
Who are the editors working for, exactly?
There's a plot hole in the workaround article: (Score:5, Funny)
* You must have a HotMail account...
Isn't writing these instructions in English a bit like having drive-up ATM's in Braille?
Re:There's a plot hole in the workaround article: (Score:2)
Cthon98: hey, if you type in your pw, it will show as stars
Cthon98: ********* see!
AzureDiamond: hunter2
AzureDiamond: doesnt look like stars to me
Cthon98: *******
Cthon98: thats what I see
AzureDiamond: oh, really?
Cthon98: Absolutely
AzureDiamond: you can go hunter2 my hunter2-ing hunter2
AzureDiamond: haha, does that look funny to you?
Cthon98: lol, yes. See, when YOU type hunter2, it shows to us as *******
AzureDiamond: thats
Re:There's a plot hole in the workaround article: (Score:2)
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_010.html [straightdope.com]
Uh, right... (Score:2)
But seriously, if China wants to censor a website, all they need to do is submit an article to slashdot with link to the site...
Gilmore's Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Nice to see Gilmore's Law is still in effect.
I Loev Mircosoeft (Score:5, Funny)
Let's get things straight (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let's get things straight (Score:3, Insightful)
So how good is the filter? (Score:2)
Or maybe go the 1984 route: everwhere you want to write the word "freedom" write "slavery" instead.
Freedom Fighters (Score:4, Insightful)
Rule based filtering, then Bayesian filtering (Score:2)
bloggers throw hissy fit, film at 11 (Score:2)
It's not the least bit surprising the bloggers have just made a big deal out of what the rest of the technology community has known for a decade (China censors the internet, aka the Great Firewall) and society has known for decade(s) (China is a communist regime, hell-bent on censorship to protect itself).
What disappoints me is that nobody realizes how self-righteous we are. For example- there was an ABC news story recently about China sending in thugs to beat up people and chase them off their land whe
Re:bloggers throw hissy fit, film at 11 (Score:3, Insightful)
After you get paid for it.
Are images allowed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Typical Chinese blog post after MSN China.... (Score:2, Funny)
~April 17~
Last year, Zhyang and I went to visit New York in America, the land of xxxxxxx. We had a xxxxxx time! We learned so much about xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxx, we realized it was a xxxxxxx country. We even got so see the Statue of xxxxxxxxxx. I want to tell all my fellow citizens to xxxxxxxx as soon as they get to xxxxxxxx. There, a person will translate English for you and give you xxxxxx. They also know alot
Re:Forbidden? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who writes the laws then?
Re:Forbidden? (Score:2)
Re:Forbidden? (Score:2)
Mao Zedong
Re:censoring (Score:2)
Re:censoring (Score:2)
Re:censoring (Score:2)
Writing about freedom & democracy isn't against the law in the US AFAIK.
Re:censoring (Score:2)
I'm not aware of any laws against threatening the President, any more than threatening the life of any other person.
You will get a visit from the Secret Service (or the FBI if the Secret Service is too busy) who will investigate to determine if the threat is a valid one, but (assuming it isn't) you can't be prosecuted
Re:censoring (Score:2)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
Re:censoring (Score:2)
Censorship is preventing something from being expressed, not harassing somebody who already said something.
Censorship definitely exists in the United States; that's what the FCC does to TV and radio with their "obscenity" rules. I know the FCC is trying to replace what parents should be doing (and perhaps doing more sinister things), but I challenge you to prove to me that there is more censorship
Re:censoring (Score:5, Insightful)
We've had 44 presidents, 4 assasinated while in office. 4 more who have had attempts on their life while in office. That's 18% of the the presidents so far.
The Secret Services job is to protect the President, his family, other high ranking officials and their families and foriegn dignitaries. They take their job seriously. They investigate ALL instances of possible threats because one of them just might be real. A guy I knew was pissed at a cop and said "I'm gonna kill the president!" The SS showed up at his door by the end of the week to find out if he was a threat or not. They found out he wasn't and left him alone.
So clarify what you mean by the kids or let the SS do their job.
Re:censoring (Score:2)
Re:censoring (Score:2)
Re:censoring (Score:2)
Re:censoring (Score:2)
Some would argue that the two are mutually exclusive, an oxymoron.
Now on the OTHER hand, my wife's uncle's dog's vet's husband's third cousin says he has a friend who actually WORKS at this place and has SEEN all these aliens...the kids are there too!
Re:censoring (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
By your logic, Afghanistan under the Talibans was a sovereign nation, and they were fully within their rights to arrest, torture and shoot any woman who dared going outdoors without wearing a huge blue tent over themselves, or men without beards, or people who owned books. Similarly, Khmer Rouges had the right to deport people to the countryside and kill vietnamese, etc etc etc...
That's so stupid I think you're actually just a troll...
Re:And? (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:2)
Sounds about right.
Re:And? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:2)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech, I just don't think we have a right to put our nose in China's internal affairs and tell them that they're wrong.
Re:And? (Score:3, Interesting)
No. By anyone's logic.
Re:And? (Score:2, Insightful)
China is also part of the U.N. and, as a member, subscribes to the United Nations Declaratio on Human Rights.
And, as a result, they should not be censoring their own citizens right to speak freely, etc.
Google for "United Nations Declaration on Human Rights" some time, read it, and then look at what is espoused in that document and what member countries of the United Nations are actually DOING. Particularly, countries that are members of the security council.
What is "said" and what is "done" (or not
Re:Why would China not have it screened? (Score:3, Informative)
"(15) "United States" means--
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States."
In other words, anywhere you see "United States" it applies to any of those things listed under A, B or C.
A) a Federal corporation, does NOT mean that the United States is a federal corporation, it means that within Title 28, any thin
Re:Why would China not have it screened? (Score:3, Informative)
How's that tinfoil hat fitting? First, just because you see the word "corporation" used in a sentence doesn't mean that somehow it's a business being run by investors just like whatever private-sector company you love to hate.
First, the definition of the word:
1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having