Forget MTV, I Want My Internet! 386
shystershep writes "Teenagers in China are apparently pretty serious about getting internet access. This article on the English version of the online newspaper Xinhuanet details gang-type activity to get around China's ban on persons under 18 entering internet cafes. I may get a little cranky if I don't get my daily net fix, but I've never beat anyone with a fire extinguisher because of it (not that I remember, anyway)."
Feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Interesting)
Those kids should have been beating up the government officials that made the law, not the cafe workers who are forced to enforce it.
Of course if they're caught they'll probably be shot one way or the other.
-JemRe:Feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true, but beating up government officials is always hazardous to one's health, especially in a disarmed society. It may be possible to take out cafe workers with impunity and still make a statement.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Informative)
I've learned that lesson from the Brady bunch, take any opportunity to show the usefullness of firearms, as opposed to the "evil" that's so often proclaimed.
in there even when it's totally irrelevant
Irrelevant? Aren't we discussing deposing fascist states? Unless one is ruled by a "moral enemy", the British in India for example, there are two options for escaping the situation: First, hope the government goes away. Think of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Be patient and maybe it will end in your lifetime. The second option is a full-on armed revolt, like we've seen through-out history, and is not feasible without privately owned weaponry.
Not irrelevant at all... (Score:3, Insightful)
There should be one qualificatino though. A "disarmed society" would be ideal IF EVERYBODY was disarmed. Infortunately the world is far from an ideal place so long as someone, somewhere makes weapons.
In the American case I'd say most law-abiding gun owners are either hunters or those concerned about their personal safety, being US criminals tend to be quite a bit more armed in realation to those in other countries (that's a feedback loop of a different sort).
I
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Informative)
What do the Chinese Communist and the Imperial Japanese Army have in common? They like to kill Chinese peasants.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Interesting)
China has shut down more than 8,600 unlicensed Internet cafes for admitting juveniles since February. To bar minors from Internet cafes, local governments across China have been ordered not to approve any Internet cafe operations in residential areas or within 200 meters of primary and high schools.
They have high ambitions if they want to prevent any teenager from using the internet. Communism vs. Free speech?
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Funny)
More like Communism vs. Kids with fire extinguishers.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes that requires the use of fire extinguishers.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)
Authoritarianism [f2s.com] vs. Free Speach is more accurate. Communist societies are not necessarily authoritarian, nor vice-versa but they frequently lean that way. On the other hand, capitalist societies aren't always free but again, they often lean in that direction.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)
Current Capitalist societies lean no more prevalently to Freedom than do communist ones. The much vaunted freedom of the western world is an illusion. Internally to the United States this can be seen with the careful "arrangements" between the Democrat and Republican parties for electoral boundaries that effectively ensures that neither party can become overshadowed by any other political force.
External to the US the same holds true due to factors of economic and military dominance.
Most of the reason that large parts of the rest of the World are inimical to the United States is due to the entirely correct perception that the US is a dominant force in the arena of capitalism and has no moral qualms about using that dominance to subdue any alternate memes.
The United States Government (and other "Capitalist" Governments) are authorities - and with that status goes Authoritarianism. A choice between A & B is not a choice at all when A & B have the same opinion of subject X, and I disagree and want to vote for C, who represents my opinion.
The citizens of the United States really need to get over this "Land of the Free" bullshit and realise that their government is just as tyranical, expansionistic and controlling as any other.
You may now proceed to Mod me Troll.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)
After 9/11 there was a section of America wondering "Why do they hate us so much?" (The rest were busy hoping anybody who hated u so much was being sentenced to permanent time in Abu Ghraib..). Anyway I'd like to propose a reason why "they hate you so much" - it's simply hypocrisy. America - to the outside world keep preaching equality , justice, huma rights, democracy e.t.c. But you drop all that bullshit in an instant if the dictator come around to your side and starst kissing your ass. This foreign policy causes a LOT of resentment. If you really stood for Democracy and the rule of law why would u support Pakistan(Dictatorship) over India(Democracy), Saudi Arabia(Theocracy), and let human rights abuses in China go by in a flash, but highlight them in the rest of the world. Be consistent. A dictatorship is a dictatorship, whether it kisses American butt or not. Plus Dictatorships have the nasty tendency to turn against you when they get bored - i.e. The Taliban (who are/were a CIA creation, designed to kick Soviet Russian ass) and Iraq as well (in the Iran/Iraq war). So as an appeal to Americans, please vote out this monkey of a president, and make sure you pressure the other guy and make sure he's more bothered about local jobs than foreign leaders.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like they should hate our gov't instead of us in particular. It bugs me that 9-11 resulted in so many civilian deaths even though they have little to no influence on what the gov't decides is right foreign policy-wise.
"So as an appeal to Americans, please vote out this monkey of a president, and make sure you pressure the other guy..."
I wish I was as optimistic as you that a new president will fix this problem. I really don't think people generally understand our problems don't necessarily stem from having the 'wrong' president so many times in a row.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:3, Funny)
A matter of severity (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the problem with much of the USA-related rhetoric that's thrown around is it's mostly hyperbole -- too severe.
The States absolutely have a huge problem with its foreign policy. Too much mucking with foreign government's leading to terrorism, leading to yet again more mucking with foreign goverments.
The size of the domestic government has grown too much. The pendulum has swung too far with the advent of legislation like Patriot and DMCA. There sits a severely mentally impaired justice secretary. The President has the leadership qualities of a piece of cardboard.
But to say the US is Authoritarian is just too severe. You cannot compare the Chinese government and the US. By comparison to communist China, the USA is certainly the Land of the Free.
Do they block internet content? Have pro-choice folks been shot protesting in front of the white house and Supreme Court? Do you register with the government before going on vacation? Will the secret police come to get you in the night because your neighbor told the authorities about your anti-Bush discussion at the block party?
Authority certainly *does not* equal Authoritarianism. Nowhere in the West do we see the kind of tyranny that exists in Korea.
And yes, the voting/party system is screwed up and manipulative in America. But again -- that makes freedom an illusion? If the people of the USA got their collective heads out of their asses and elected a qualified, effective, third party to a major office, would the incumbant demo-plican stage a military uprising to stop the election results? Have the police ever visited your home for voting for another party, including the socialist party? I don't think Mary Cal Hollis has ever been imprisoned for what she believed.
I think all pleads/"Wake up America!" arguments I hear fall on deaf ears because of their extremity. You will not convince people to change their government by saying that it's just as bad as al-Qaeda. You will not convince people to change their government if you try to say that they're liberties are as restricted as the Chinese. It's not an apt comparison, and it turns most people off. Identify the problems for what they are, don't label them with such exaggerated terms.
In my humble opinion, the Chinese are prisoners of their government -- the Americans are prisoners of their own c complacency. But that does not disqualify them as free people, and it does not make their government Authoritarian.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:2, Insightful)
let's not confuse communism with totalism (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that most communistic governments has resolved to said measures is a sad fact that just proves that communism doesn't work [libertyhaven.com]
The only places communism truly works, are in anthills and termite nests.
Re:let's not confuse communism with totalism (Score:2)
Marx himself thought that he would be the one leading the people. Communism is fundamentally flawed because its creator was fundamentally flawed. Marx wanted to benefit from the world wide revolution, so he created a system that was design
sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that in Marxist theory the state itself is by its very nature a class dictatorship; it is the instrument of one class against another, or several others. In a theoretical dictatorship of the proletariat, because the vast majority of the population will have become proletarians as a result of capitalism (peasants gradually becoming rural proletariat as well), the dictatorship of the proletariat represents almost the entire population, i.e. like the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, it is democratic *within* *itself*, representing the interests of those who run it. So a dictatorship of the proletariat would be a democracy representing everyone except the leftovers--the bourgeoisie, and possibly the peasantry, although in practice, an alliance with the peasantry was made out of necessity if nothing else.
This then leads to the withering away of the state as such; if we see the state as being a representative of class interests, and the state now represents the only class, and is a weapon of repression against the tiny minority (Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, etc.) who would like to restore the old system, then once the new society is consolidated the state as a class dictatorship is no longer necessary, and withers away. This doesn't mean government withers away, just class dictatorship.
Don't criticise something you don't know anything about.
Re:sorry, no (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:sorry, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, Marxist theory, which is much bigger and more important than just Karl Marx, and has come a long way since he died, has (among many others) 2 strands within it: the proletariat must govern for itself and leadership must arise spontaneously, and the proletariat must govern for itself but leadership must come from a vanguard, an 'advance detachment' of the proletariat. The second one is Leninism. Neither one however denies the necessity of proletarian democracy; the difference is that Leninism involves a Party that tries to lead the people and in practice, has ended up governing the people as they defer to it and it takes on too much responsibility. Not in every case however. But in any case, this is Leninism, only one specific branch of Marxist theory; and while it is influenced by older strains, for example Babouvinism from the period of the French Revolution, it is quite novel and must be distinguished from previous revolutionary theory.
So, I would be surprised if you could find that 'reference', but even if so, Marxist theory does not rest on Karl Marx alone, by a long shot. So it's pretty unimportant.
Re:sorry, no (Score:5, Interesting)
I assume what you're referring to with peasants overthrowing the aristocracy is feudal society in which peasants are rising up against their feudal landlords. The trouble is, *before* capitalism, peasant revolts were frequent, but could never take power because they basically had neither a viable alternative to the aristocracy nor the military or economic might. The bourgeoisie however, which were growing inside feudal society engaging in the capitalist mode of production, had already built up this mode so far by the time they openly revolted that they had the economic might and the alternative ready at hand. They were therefore able to overthrow the last vestiges of feudal power.
But historical materialism is not a stage based, unilineal framework to be just sloppily applied in the same way to every society on earth (as many in the 2nd International and later the Soviet Union would have had us believe). Societies engage in complex constellations of different modes of production, and the ones Marx traced out as the specific precursors of capitalism, which only developed once--in Europe--are the ones that are emphasised in his writing (with minimal mention of the so-called 'Asiatic Mode of Production' which was based on the extremely limited evidence to hand from 19th century anthropology).
Marx's point was that in the theoretical model of the capitalist mode of production, which of course never exists in pure form, the tendencies are toward the oppressed class--*for the first time in history*--to successfully be responsible for the bringing about of a new dominant mode of production. Every previous transition had been brought about by some other forces, some other oppressor class, etc.
But what we saw developing in the 20th century is the possibility of peasant revolution. Simultaneoulsy developed by Mariategui and Mao, although in two different forms obviously, is the idea that global, imperialist capitalism actually stifles social development in the colonies or neocolonies, preserving feudal, slave, or other modes of production where it is most expeditious. Furthermore, as Engels had pointed out long before, societies do not have to linearly develop through the same series of modes of production--they can 'skip stages', in the stadial wording, if there are other societies which have created preconditions (i.e. an example to follow). Thus most of the socialist revolutions in the 20th century had peasants as their motive force, both thanks to the development of guerrilla warfare tactics, and thanks to advent of socialist theory, which was an outgrowth of European capitalism.
Because Marx was a social scientist, and not a witch making predictions with a crystal ball, this does not invalidate the whole of Marx's theory. On the contrary, it augments it with a greater understanding of the situation once we see what happens when capitalism reaches a truly global scale and starts to interact in new ways with other modes of production as a result.
On the spot. (Score:5, Insightful)
In China, a socialist revolution never took place. Mao's army, upon seizing a city, proceeded to ban unions and strikes, and left the police force that defended the old regime firmly in place. To call China a communist country is to show a complete lack of understanding of socialist politics.
Study Trotsky's work if you want to fine-tune your understanding of the travesties of socialism that were found in the Soviet Union, and elsewhere, after, say, 1925.
You are way off base here (Score:4, Informative)
go read for yourself [wikipedia.org]
did you get Marx confused with Lenin?
Re:let's not confuse communism with totalism (Score:2)
arguments over non-existant political systems are futile IMO
Re:let's not confuse communism with totalism (Score:2)
Re:let's not confuse communism with totalism (Score:2)
Seems to be a design flaw if you actually want a system not based on force but on freedom and all the other nice stuff. Of course it's a design feature if you're the happy dictator sitting on top of it all.
Re:let's not confuse communism with totalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Trying to counter that argument is like trying to counter the statement "I know everything that's worth knowing". I can ask you questions and, if you don't know the answer, you can declare the subject "not worth knowing". "Real" communism is as practical as the old Theory of Relativity example of turning on a flashlight in an
Re:Feedback loop (Score:2)
If a government needs to step in to prevent teenagers from spending to much time on something they have lousy parents.
When you 'were there' what did your parents do? Nothing? Kick you in the butt?
Jeroen
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That must be it.... (Score:2)
Jeroen
Re:Feedback loop (Score:3, Insightful)
And who else than the US is leading it?
Jeroen
Re:Feedback loop (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Feedback loop (Score:3, Funny)
You mean porn, right?
Re:Feedback loop (Score:2, Insightful)
The upshot for the Communists is that by maintaining a relatively unsophisticated population, they can publish this crap. But I would suggest that most people here are not reading this correctly.
Substitute the word library for
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)
how many Chinese people do you actually know? it amazes me someone can say something like this with a straight face. i have yet to encounter a site with so many political fuckwits (excusez-le mot) than slashdot. tech-savy? perhaps. being able to copy-paste links from sites that are heavily biased by media and propaganda? for sure.
we Westerners have too much of a superiority complex. China is struggling like hell to transform from yet another failing 'Communistic' dictature (notice the quotation marks!) to a free market economy.
the other day i saw a documentary where a guy was talking who studied transitions from dictatorial regimes to democracies. the paradoxical conclusion he gave was that the few countries who succesfully changed into democratical society were the ones where a dictator stayed in place, forcing things to evolve slowly, and then letting go when the infrastructure to support democarcy was sort-of in place. the countries where revolutions took place where the ones where one dictatorship was just replaced by another.
i found this highly insightful, and completely logic. revolutionaries are not the ones suitable to build democracy in the chaos after a revolution. the process of installing a democracy might be better off with gradual, *enforced* change. which is exactly what they are doing with China at the moment.
wait and see. within the next few decades, China will be a force to reckon with. and, with time, democracy will be the norm there.
(and yes, i am appaled by the images of students run over by tanks as much as any other person)
Re:Feedback loop (Score:4, Insightful)
Something like: Russian leader, US leader, and Chinese leader driving down a road leading to a T-intersection.
Russian leader: Signals left. Turns left.
US leader: Signals right. Turns right.
Chinese leader: Signals left. Turns right.
"the chaos after a revolution" can't be good for growing anything worthwhile.
the paradoxical conclusion he gave was that the few countries who succesfully changed into democratical society were the ones where a dictator stayed in place, forcing things to evolve slowly
You need a dictator who is working himself out of a job.
The US got something of that effect with Washington who refused a third term. After the war, he could easily have made himself King George I of the United States of America.
It's not about internet and not about government (Score:4, Insightful)
It's about a band of teenage criminals who'll pound the shit out of anyone not bowing down to their requests, whatever it would be.
Internet access is just a coincidal background of this story.
Re:Feedback loop (Score:2)
Take the case of north korea: there is, to say the least, a constant drive by the government to keep its citizens in the dark and, while I would not be so bold as to say that the average NK citizen loves its government, that this has led to more anti-government feelings is not at all clear--if anything, a prima facie it would not be unreasonable to suggest that their tight control of inf
Re:Feedback loop (Score:2)
I feel the exact same way about file-sharing(in America).
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)
And how many people were protesting for freedom at that time?
Risking the very serious and demonstrably fatal repercussions that can incur?
"True, there are restrictions, but it is far from being as bad as the US press would have you believe."
I really don't believe I am reading this
That is willing to machine gun (or run them over with tanks or whatever) it's citizens has lost the right to rule, in my not so humble opinion.
2. A government that is actually concerned with the wellbeing of their population.
3. Government officials that can think and even add numbers.
Of course they know that restrictions of any kind will upset some people; it is a matter of striking the right balance in the current situation, and in China there are a lot of people who very sceptical towards this flood of rubbish, as they perceive it, from America.
And a great deal of people that want to be able to make up their own minds.
It is just to bad that their "caring" government as you attempt to paint it is willing to kill them for trying to be able to. Oh yes before I forget care to try to reconcile that "caring"
Government with what is happening in Tibet?
Re:Feedback loop (Score:5, Insightful)
1. China is running its working class over with trains when they protest. There are no civil liberties in China. If you protest, not only do you die, your family is economically ruined, if not just tossed in jail. There are no rights in China. None.
2. The median annual income for Chinese is somewhere around 300 dollars. Meanwhile, children of Communist officials are making millions of dollars from running state owned enterprises.
3. China barely keeps its population fed. And when it hasn't [wikipedia.org], it did not face revolt.
China is not Communist. They have adopted capitalist features to better squeeze money out of its people. What do we call such countries? Fascist.
Re:"Socialist" is probably the better term (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, their methods did differ a bit: Communists attempted to eliminate private business and put everything under the direct control of the state while Fascists just usurped private enteprise and turned it into a de facto agency of the state, but the underlying goal -- establishing a centralised, totalitarian society -- was the same.
The ideological differences can largely be seen as methodol
Re:Feedback loop (Score:4, Insightful)
During the days of segregation, a black person in the Southern United States would step into the street when passing a white person on the sidewalk. Black men did not talk to white women. Black people and white people did not even use the same restrooms or water fountains.
Just because people live differently does not mean that they "choose" to live that way. They may not have a choice in the matter.
I do feel sympathy for the people in China who are oppressed by their own government, the people in Tibet who are oppressed by the same government, and anyone who is oppressed by tyranny, including women in countries where they have no rights.
I don't necessarily think I should do their dirty work for them (regime change ala Iraq). But I am not going to pull the wool over my eyes and pretend there isn't a problem.
Slow server already, here's the text... (Score:5, Informative)
Local police said Sunday they have stepped in to investigate an assault that happened Friday night at the Sanfuwan Outlet of the Hongshulin Internet Cafe Chain, which staff said was among a series of attacks by young people at the cafe.
One of the staff, surnamed Chen, said he stopped seven or eightteenagers about to enter on the morning of May 6 because some of them looked very young. Chen asked to see their identity cards to verify their age. The teenagers refused and threatened to beat anyone who "dared to check identity cards." They tried to force their way into the cafe but were stopped.
Amid recent campaigns to crack down on illegal Internet cafes and to ban people under 18 from entering, Internet cafes in China have been ordered to check identity cards of guests before they are allowed in. Otherwise Internet cafes themselves will face harsh punishment varying from a fine to closure.
According to Chen, a group of some 16 young people broke into the cafe on the night of May 7, two guarding the door and two taking over the reception desk and telephones to prevent reportingto the police. The rest began to beat and punch Chen, some striking him with aluminum rubbish bins and fire extinguishers. Security guards of the cafe were also beaten.
In an interview with a local newspaper, Chen showed the injuries to his back, head and face. His nose bridge bone was almost broken.
According to Chen's colleagues, it was not the first such retaliation assault at the outlet. In their resignation letter, they listed many beating cases because of stopping young people. Their bicycle tires were deliberately damaged many times. Some even launched an online assault to the cafe's server, cut the broadband line, input junk programs into computers and poured mineral water into displays.
To tighten security at the cafe, the local police station helped the cafe employ four security guards in April, but it proved not enough to prevent such assaults.
The police have started investigation into the case and vowed to track down those responsible, said Tian Yuming, a senior policeofficer.
China has shut down more than 8,600 unlicensed Internet cafes for admitting juveniles since February. To bar minors from Internet cafes, local governments across China have been ordered not to approve any Internet cafe operations in residential areas or within 200 meters of primary and high schools.
The Chinese government has launched a nationwide check on all Internet cafes from February to August to halt the entry of minorsand to prevent access to detrimental information through the Internet. Enditem
Re:Slow server already, here's the text... (Score:3, Funny)
That's a definite proof that this is a bourgeois conspiracy. Working class people would have used tap water!
TV? I don't need no stinkin' TV (Score:2, Redundant)
Good. (Score:5, Funny)
How would you old farts like it if we put an age cap on viagra?
Don't think we couldn't do it
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean like barring something innocuous like a woman's breast on TV and imposing huge fines on the network which showed it? Or preventing children from seeing a movie with innocuous nudity in it? It's not just China where censorship happens over "innocuous information".
Re:Good. (Score:4, Informative)
For TV, govt. restrictions exist only for broadcast TV, cable censoring is purely voluntary.
Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
They aren't voluntary to the individuals forced to abide by them. Besides which, the only reason they exist is to keep the government from legislating involuntary restrictions. So the threat of force is still exists even if it isn't as direct as if the legislation was already enacted.
--HC
[nonsense]Re:Good. (Score:2, Funny)
And of course this won't stop everything, just being 18 won't stop anyone from trollwarring on the internet or in whatever games the chinese play.
Xinhua (Score:5, Interesting)
What's the brouhaha about?? (Score:5, Funny)
Those miners probably would've dirtied the keyboards anyways...
This alone is proof of the value of information (Score:4, Insightful)
Ehm nope this is how dictatorships get started. (Score:3, Insightful)
These kids are more closely related to the looters and
They have the tools. (Score:4, Interesting)
Execution for doing so may persist for a while though.
ROFL (was : Re:They have the tools.) (Score:3, Funny)
Midori Linux - the world class general purpose embedded OS core (developed by Mr. Linux, the father of Linux)
Oh well. At least they attempted somehow to credit the developer...
Re:They have the tools. (Score:2)
As juveniles they might actaully be safer in China. From Amnesty International, April 03:
Re:They have the tools. (Score:2)
Praticing capital punishment is one of the things China and the USA have
I want my ID number (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.interfax.com/com?item=Chin&pg=0&id=5
What was it you said about having nothing to hide?
violence from ban.. (Score:3, Insightful)
So now the have gangs walking around trying to get their internet and assault security staff from checking their ID.
Probably not very intelligent to mess with the staff of an internet cafe.
I wonder how hard it is to get internet access by just dialing up or using wardriving/company internet access in China...
Re:violence from ban.. (Score:2)
Re:violence from ban.. (Score:3, Insightful)
As I understand (by visiting/talking to people living in PRC), dial-up connections to the internet are easy to get and cheap.
The problem is that computers are too expensive for many people. Specially young people.
And there is not much sense in buying an expensive computer, when you can use an internet cafe to a rather low rate. When travelling in China, most of the cyber cafes I used had rates in the range of $0.5-$1 per hour. Mostly wit
Re:violence from ban.. (Score:2)
> As I understand (by visiting/talking to people living in PRC), dial-up connections to the internet are easy to get and cheap
To clearify what I meant (a.k.a. "I should have used the Preview button"):
Dial-up accesss seems inexpencive and easy to get
However just like in Finland, the cell phones are starting to replace fixed lines in China among young people due to lowe
Xinhua reliability (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the tragic Internet cafe fire in Beijing in 2001, the central Government has been increasingly active in demonising the internet. This is just an extension of that on-going propaganda war.
There are lots of laws (Score:5, Informative)
The fear of punishment keeps people from breaking some of the laws. But since the athorities don't have the resources to check up on everything, they have to let a lot slide.
When the central government makes a drice at some kind of crime all the regions have to show some results. However I don't always think that the local athorities put so much effort into it...
On example is the search for pirated DVD movies. Every year China have a big drive to shut down the pirates. They raid shops and warehouses and confiscate tons of pirated DVD's. The week after the same people are back in the same stores selling pirated DVDs again. And the police have nice numbers of how many pirate shops they have shut down. Making the government very pleased.
So sometimes the numbers of how many operations they have shut down, might not mean so much, since it's hart to tell if they mean permanently or just temporarely.
The spread of news seems to be a very sensetive area for the Chineese government though, so perhaps they do have as strict enforcement of the law as reported
Re:There are lots of laws (Score:2)
This also happened in India (Score:5, Informative)
But like many other laws, people realised it was rubbish and thus no one took care to implement it
Re:This also happened in India (Score:3, Informative)
Well, control is everywhere. (Score:3, Insightful)
In other countries the control and censorship is done by direct action and by preventing people to access the information that might be potentially harmful. I think that this is an culture issue, it's just without any extra twists out there. They just ban it, so they don't have to really manipulate or regulate it.
And other countries have governments that allow people to access all the information, but instead put their efforts on manipulating the media indirectly to counter/soften the effects of unpleasant information or to draw attention from real problems to other things. This includes everything from feeding falsified information to advertisement-like careful timing, repeating, double meanings and so on.
Same shit, different implementation. Close your TV and your Internet, there's nothing to see here.
Freedom of speech (Score:4, Insightful)
This is proof that the Internet is, nowadays, the most powerfull media to allow for Freedom of Speech. If it wasn't so, why would the Chinese government be so worried about the Internet's influence on their citizens. I recall that this issue does not only affect minors, as there is a nationwide content barring scheme in China.
But if there's on thing that History teaches us is that no matter how harsh laws and enforcement are, there's no stopping for Man's will to be free.
Is it freedom of speech? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try freenet for a while. The anonymous P2P network. Very much a tool for freespeech. Allows anyone to post material without fear of being found out. Now try looking at what is actually there. Child porn and copyright infringement and frankly a whole lot of perfectly legal stuff.
Not exactly the kind of stuff Amnesty Internation
Why would they want it? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Why would they want it? (Score:2)
Just as the Mongols found a way to get inside the original Great Wall, you too can find your way outside the Great Firewall of modern times.
Internet cafes in China are mostly used for gaming (Score:5, Interesting)
When I did, I often found that I was the only one 'using' the Internet. Everyone else was immersed in on line games (ok, they probably played over the Internet as well). Apart from the occasional chatter I was the only one using a browser.
Regards,
X.
Evercrack and the great chinese insurrection. (Score:2, Insightful)
well duh (Score:2, Funny)
Violent Chinese (Score:5, Interesting)
China is the only place I've ever been, which inludes about 100 countries and 6 continents, where I've actually been physically assaulted by a street vagrant. The kid was about 14 and begging for money. He saw that I gave his much younger brother some Yuan coins and approached me.
He stuck his hand out, and I pointed to his little brother as if to say, "I already gave your little brother some money." He then starts punching me in the stomach. Not hard enough to hurt, but not soft enough to not be annoying, either. He kept this up for 3 minutes while I was waiting to cross the street, then he followed me across the street, punching me the entire time.
A fast, well-placed elbow to his temple made him stop, but the Chinese in general are quite aggressive.
Now, people who have never been to China and have no idea what it's really like but who don't like what I just said, this is when you mod me down. Wouldn't want you to miss an opportunity to flout your ignorant righteousness.
Re:Violent Chinese (Score:4, Informative)
I got mobbed once in Yunan making the short, 15 feet trip from the restaurant exit to my ride, just cause somebody in my group gave an old lady some coins.
Re:Violent Chinese (Score:5, Insightful)
damn, that's a new level for retardedness. how about we extrapolate from Columbine?
Nonviolence is the vehicle for change... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man."
Mohandas K. Gandhi on nonviolence
some insider information (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's some information from someone (a Westerner) who's lived here for around 3 years.
First of all, I guarantee you the children that did this did it because they're fucked up little shits. They certainly weren't doing it because of some freedom of information ideals. They were probably just pissed off cause they couldn't get on to play their MMORPGs and chat online. No matter if China's internet regulations are right or wrong, beating a guy over the head who's just trying to keep the store in business is not the way to change government policy. If anything, it just reinforces the opinion of the public that internet cafes are a bad influence on the young. Even my father-in-law, who is quite educated and a well respected school principal, thinks net cafes are evil places. Once when I told him I wanted to go check my email, he took my wife and I walking around town until we came upon a net cafe that didn't look too evil. It's a good thing I never told him I used to stay up all night in net cafes playing Starcraft with my friends while studying in Beijing!
Another thing people are forgetting is that this stuff is all dealing with internet cafes. It has nothing to do with what people do in their homes. Families are still free to have high speed internet in their homes no matter what age their children are. And anyone who is going to risk looking at censored information is probably going to do it from their own home. Almost all of the internet cafes are locked down to prevent users from messing with any internet settings, so it's not likely they'll be able to use proxies in the cafes anyway. In your home it's quite simple to go through a proxy. The people who really want outside information can get it easily enough. It's just the masses, who don't really care anyway, who can't get censored information.
Another thing, I always see people talking about how China's got so many laws against things such as pirated software, movies, music, and brand names but doesn't do anything about it. There's fake brand names everywhere, even in official franchise stores. And I can only recall one time that I saw official copies of movies and music for sale. Official software is easy enough to find, but nobody actually buys it. Anyway, my brother-in-law is the Secretary (not secretary) of the Consumer Affairs division of the Public Security Bureau in a large city, and I've asked him about this. They all know they could walk into any store and confiscate at least 95% of their goods, but they don't. If they did, stores would be going bankrupt all the time. If they tried selling official products most of them would go bankrupt too since nobody can afford to buy their products. So, should China protect the income of rich foreigners and bankrupt it's citizens, or should they protect their own and look the other way? It's a pretty easy decision, and most people forget the US did the same thing to England regarding copyrights not too long ago.
Sure, every once in a while there will be big crackdowns, and their real purpose is just to show investors. "Hey look, we're protecting copyrights! Come do business here!" More business investments in the country helps the economy, obviously. But everyone here knows the busts are for show. And most stores will be warned ahead of time so they can hide their products.
Bah I already wrote more than I thought I would...
If anyone actually read that whole message, congrats.
[This comment was censored] (Score:5, Funny)
My favourite excerpt (Score:2, Funny)
Teen problem can be a real issue.... (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the teenagers are not necessary "seeking information" in internet cafe. They are not likely to be the politcal dissent kind that most are thinking about. Or else, they will try to be as low key as possible. The "illegal" info can also be porn, mp3 etc. The most usual activity is PC gaming.
Second, video arcade (internet cafe nowadays) can be a real trouble spot for the teens who don't want to go home at midnight. Car is not that accessible in most Asian countries. Flats are small. Teens need to find a place to have their first cigarette, need to have a place to get together with their in-group...
Quite naturally, fist fights and gangster problems are quite common in this sort of environment... The nature is a bit similar to a bar without alcohol. Even Hongkong under the UK colonial control (before 1997) need to impose similar rule for the video arcade, ie no children under 16 are allowed to enter standard video arcade. Quite a few secondary friends had got beaten up/ money taken by the gangsters in the video arcades when they were young (sneaked into of course)...
Curb the free internet access is of course one of the communist party's agenda. But, the very real teenage problem should not be overlooked either.
Most of you have gotten it wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Chinese culture emphasises filial piety, almost blind faith of authority, etc. I don't know if Confucianism came because of the influence by the Warring periods (where, due to pure greed, Chinese armies attempted to seize control of all the states and unify them); or something else.
Don't ever forget that Chinese culture, as NatGeo once put it, looks to the future with one foot firmly in the past. It's something that we are sort of proud of. (I also remember the various Dynasties variably as periods of plunder, unrest, and corruption.)
Why does China insist on the one-China policy with the Republic of China? It's not because, I believe, of evil people; it's an almost blind faith to the belief that all Chinese belong in one nation. In Mandarin, Chinese is called Zhongguo - Zhong being "central" or "most significant", or something along those lines. Is there a United States of Besterica? They'd probably be trying to take Singapore - where I live - too, if there weren't such a large proportion of other races.
They were so eager to claim HK from the British, and have been generally not-so-militant about it (there is still incredible press freedom in HK). Why? Because authoritarianism isn't as important as housing all Chinese into one China.
My Chinese teacher once said - these types of people are a rarity in Singapore - that if you're Chinese and have nowhere to go, guess which country will welcome you with open arms.
What am I trying to say? That authoritarian control that you Americans resist, yes, that is not a good thing, but it has come about due to the influence of Chinese culture, not because of evil people. You people do not exactly understand *why* authoritarianism exists, choosing to see it in only a romantic, black-and-white, good-and-evil thing.
George Bush junior - not the best example of a good man, I guess - once said "there ought to be limits to freedom"; indeed, that's one of the most insightful things a man can say.
Re:Most of you have gotten it wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, Eastern sensibilities are so profoundly different from those of the West that very few Westerners can even appreciate the mindset. The feeling of community and an individual's role simply diverge too radically between Asian and Eurocentric ( this includes US ) cultures.
Historically, Chinese have always looked to the past for an ideal society. The Golden Past, with the Golden Emperor and the time of perfect order. The underlying message is that the idealized perfection that once was ca
Come on, people! (Score:4, Insightful)
What we have here is a state-run newspaper talking about kids trying to do what the state doesn't want them to do. Do you think the state will paint a rosy picture of them?
You'd have better luck getting the RIAA to admit that P2P really isn't all that bad.
Animal Farm (Score:3, Insightful)
LEO could help solve this problem. (Score:4, Interesting)
It could even be possible for such a teenage to make money on the Internet and pay for his Internet service (with a service like PayPal) without the government ever having any knowledge of the financial transactions.
Re:Bravo for the Chinese (Score:2, Insightful)
wtf would that be exactly? what is the equivalent to a tank running over a protestor on the internet?
Re:Bravo for the Chinese NOT (Score:5, Insightful)
This is totally different from restricting access to information for adults, which China also does, and wrongly in my opinion. But please don't confuse a gang of hooligans' attempts to get what they want for a serious attempt at helping promote freedom of access to information.
These are not the kind of youth I want to take over. I think they are kind that grow into the people that ordered the Tiannamen square clampdown.
Re:Bravo for the Chinese NOT (Score:4, Insightful)
--HC
Re:Bravo for the Chinese NOT (Score:2)
The only method for control is to make stuff not even available, without anyone knowing what they're missing - and that's just not practical in China right now.
N.
And a american kid killing for a pair of nike's is (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the poster you reacted to is right. These are exactly the kind of people who grow up to be dictators or the tools of dictators. What after all is a dictator? Someone who supresses others with violence and intimidation to get what they want. Exactly what these criminals did.
China has a law. It is a law not many others would agree with but then the US, so called bastion of freedom, has laws many others would not agree with. The previously mentioned ban on cannabis, somewhat legal in say holland and tolerated in most western nations, can get you a long time in jail in america. Would a gang rading a goverment run canabis plantation (for medicinal use) have the same kind of sympathy?
The only things these criminals have achieved is play exactly into the chinese goverment hand. They claim kids can't handle the internet and they have been proven right. After all throwing a fit and beating everyone up is hardly a sign that one is a responsible adult right?
Think of it in the same way as the "keep canabis illegal" crowd who uses every canabis related death as a sign of its evil (while totally forgetting that these deaths pale when compared to say alcohol related deaths).
I am not trying to defend the ban on internet access for minors (despite the bad joke that this would make online games a lot more enjoyable) but these kids are not protesting it. They are no more then any criminal who with violence breaks the law. No serious human rights defender would want to be associated with them.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed..Read this story [chinadaily.com.cn] for instance. The thing is, I don't think the Government there really cares if teens are using it to look at porn or not, although the crackdown on cafes earlier was supposedly to stop this sort of activity.
Any sort of information being freely disseminated by sources other than approved ones is seen there as a threat. I am simply stating a fact, not blindly bashing the Chinese government. They don't like news/information to come to the masses from sources they can't control.
name the chinese government official.. (Score:2)
and i read this in the media..
"The embedded process was supposed to give government a better handle on what journalists were doing, but now you have this whole rogue operation of civilians with digital cameras who have access to things the media don't," he said.
they didn't say the name of the chinese gov