Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government Your Rights Online Politics

Microsoft Changes Blog Censoring Policies 153

Posted by Zonk from the less-restrictions-more-talking dept.
Lam1969 writes "Microsoft attorney Brad Smith says that the company has a new policy to deal with a foreign government's request that alleges posted material violates its laws. The policy was apparently developed after Microsoft's own employees complained after a Chinese blogger hosted by Microsoft was censored. From the article 'Smith said Microsoft will only remove blogs when given proper legal notice, and even then, will only block access to that material within the country where it is deemed unlawful. The site will still be viewable from outside the country, he said.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Changes Blog Censoring Policies More

Microsoft Changes Blog Censoring Policies

Comments Filter:

  • Nothing for you to see here. Please move along. (Score:3, Funny)

    by oh_bugger ( 906574 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @04:59PM (#14611033)
    Oh the irony
    • You must be trying to view the page in China.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • It would help if Alanis Morisette were to sing it.
      • a beautiful example of subtle irony it is).

        Be happy, now it's +5 funny. Personally, I'd have modded it "redundant", as this exact post is made every time somethng related to censorship is posted. Maybe a couple of years ago it was "subtle and beautiful", now it's on the same level as "Hot grits", "Imagine a Beowulf cluster", etc. Humour requires at least a touch of novelty.

  • Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lilmouse ( 310335 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @05:03PM (#14611066)
    They've actually done as close to the Right Thing(tm) as they can (yeah, so I can be radical) - even tho it costs them more work (=money). I'd have to have to administer this one, tho ;-)

    Way to go MS!

    --LWM
    • Agreed, go MS! :)

  • "Information wants to be free" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Douglas Simmons ( 628988 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @05:04PM (#14611074) Homepage
    You know that statement is true when even Microsoft goes out of their way to keep speech protected and free. Way to be, Microsoft.

    • > You know that statement is true when even Microsoft goes out > of their way to keep speech protected and free. Way to be, Microsoft.

      ...except that, according the article, Microsoft would have done exactly the same thing with the blog in question under this new policy:

      Zhao's blog was removed from servers located in the U.S., which blocked the viewing of his page from anywhere. Under Microsoft's new policy, it appears that Zhao's blog still would have been removed.

      Microsoft operates MSN S

  • Oh yeah? Well...... (Score:5, Funny)

    by NiteShaed ( 315799 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @05:05PM (#14611082)
    Well this is obviously part of their evil plan to, er, um.....wait.....If Google was put in this position they'd do a way better, oh, no, not that either.....dammit, what should the official Slashdot we-hate-Microsoft position be here? Damned inconsiderate of them to do something not-obviously-evil and leave us high and dry like this.
    • Every once in awhile there are situations where you and your enemy find each other on the same side. This would be one of them.

    • Re:Oh yeah? Well...... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      So what is the Google equivalent of Ballmer flying chairs?

    • Ha2! (Score:3, Funny)

      by lilmouse ( 310335 )
      Curse you, MS, for getting good Geek press coverage! Your plans for world domination by making free speech easier so you can pump more advertising into China will fail miserably!

      --LWM
    • I am sure it is part of the evil plot masterminded by Steve "Chair" Ballmer to get us to give him more money to buy more chairs that he breaks by throwing... :)
    • It's obviously part of their evil plan to overthrow Google.
    • They make mistakes, just like anyone else :-)
    • Personally I think its a bit short sighted to just say 'I hate MS.' Its like saying that the US gov't is evil. Yes, there are parts of it that are, but do you really think that the Dept. of Parks (or whatever the official name is) is evil? Probably not.

      MS is just too big to paint the entire company one color; .net is a great platform to build applications in, but VB6 really sucks. Their licensing policy is crappy (although most commercial software is in the same boat), but they don't seem to be smashing

  • Microsoft: (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @05:05PM (#14611086)
    Do LESS evil!

  • Excellent Step (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <namtabmiaka>> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @05:06PM (#14611090) Homepage Journal
    I'm happy to see Microsoft take this step. People need to be reminded that the Chinese citizens supposedly have their free speech protected by their constitution [blogspot.com]. If China wants to violate their own constitution, make sure that the blame falls sqaurely on their shoulders for all the world to see, rather than allowing companies to step in front and absorb the blame for them.

    • Re:Excellent Step (Score:2, Informative)

      by jgc7 ( 910200 ) *
      If China wants to violate their own constitution...

      I'd bet the censored material was a clear violation of article 51 [unibe.ch] of the constitution.

      • Indeed. As I said in my blog entry, the Chinese government can use that single section as weasel out of anything. Of course, that's not how the rest of the world is going to see, nor will the Chinese people. It's important above all to stay out of the governments way so that they can directly abuse their power rather than do it via proxy. That will make clear to both the people of China as well as the world at large exactly who's to blame.

        I'm not necessarily looking to start a revolution, but abuses can be
        • No government is immune to its own people turning against it.

          Saddam's Iraq was. The US was (Civil War). Successful revolutions often have 3rd party support, the US Revolutionary War for example.
    • People need to be reminded that the Chinese citizens supposedly have their free speech

      Why is it Microsoft's job to do this? I think it would be better for the world if China was more democratic, but I just don't think it's corporations duty to do this. Corporations have a responsibility to their community, but that doesn't include breaking the law of foriegn lands. In China, there's a lot less restriction around using other people's intelectual property than in the US (dvd's cost about $1 for instance).
      • Perhaps you weren't aware that in addition to censoring the blog of a Chinese citizen, they also censored the blog of an American citizen who posted in Chinese on a Microsoft (American company) msn.com web site.

        This is indeed a step forward. Good for Microsoft.
      • No, it is the company's responsibilty only to follow the laws that are set forth. If they don't have a takedown notice from the government, then they shouldn't be executing takedowns. Make the government take action first, then follow what you're told. Period, end of story.
        • Make the government take action first, then follow what you're told. Period, end of story.

          That's not the whole story. The public reaction to the DOJ subpoenas two weeks ago proves that customers expect companies to consider their actions from more than a financial perspective. Google won geek points by refusing to comply, and they also demonstrated that a government order doesn't need to be the "end of story."

          Disclaimer: I'm not a Google fanboy. I'm merely applauding their actions in this one, specific,
      • So, in your world, companies are not expected to make any decisions based on any universal sense of morality. In your world, an American company that received a contract to build concentration camps in Nazi Germany would be bound to do so. Could you really do that if you ran that company? Would you be there, happily whistling while you worked, swinging the hammer that put together the ovens?
        • Oh come on, we're talking about taking down blogs that call for the overthrow of the Chinese govt. This is a little different from aiding Nazis to build concentration camps. Do you think China is the only govt. that has censorship laws? If you do, you're wrong. Almost all countries censor kiddie porn for instance. Just because you don't like China's laws doesn't mean that companies that want to do business there shouldn't respect them. As I mentioned in my previous post, I don't like the laws either, but I
          • So you do admit that there are absolute moral lines that companies should not cross. For you, they are somewhere between the current Chinese government and the government of Nazi Germany. Where would you put that line? What sort of things would the Chinese government have to do in order for you to say 'enough' and stop doing business there?
            • Well, for one thing, it would have been illegal to business in Germany during time of war. You are right that it's a fine line, but I really think it's more of a Government role to determine when the line has been crossed. If the Government determines that things are not acceptable in China, they will force businesses out. It's actually good that companies like Google and Microsoft are doing business in China. If they start breaking laws, they will be totally censored out. I think you will agree that would
    • Hah, that constitution isn't worth anything at all. It reads like a bad joke.
      "You have the freedom of speech"
      "You have the freedom to practise whichever religion you want" ....
      "Except where it does against the interests of the state."
  • Bravo to Brad and Bill!
    Now consider this a hint to Google about avoiding evil...

    --dave

    • Sounds like M$ has simply matched Google policy, if they bother to do more than talk. The M$N search engine is still at the service of the Chinese government and a rubber stamp will quickly be fabricated for the proper "lawful" request to nail bloggers. Cooperation with evil is still willing and full by both. Microsoft also has a nasty tendency to say one thing and do another, so we can't really trust them to do anything anyway.

      The right thing to do is nothing.

  • Ow! (Score:2, Funny)

    by metlin ( 258108 ) *
    Microsoft sticking it to censorship and Google shamelessly censoring.

    Now I'm really confused whom to hate. :-/

    Help me?
    • Do like I do and hate everybody. It's fun, easy, and rewarding, and best of all, you'll make a lot of great friends along the way!
    • Microsoft isn't "sticking it to censorship" here. The blog that Microsoft removed that caused all the fuss would still have been censored under the new policy.

      They're just restricting the censorship to requests from one country.

      Just like Google.
    • Now I'm really confused whom to hate. :-/ Help me?

      Most of the hatred of MS is irrational, why introduce rationality now?

    • Uh, they're both still doing exactly the same things. So yes, please do feel free to be consistent and either hate both or be OK with both.

      "Sticking it to censorship"? Puh-lease, are you that easily fooled by a press release? They're still censoring at least as much as Google is.

  • Google (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Just give Google 10 more years...

    Do no evil. The concept of evil changes with time, sometimes quite rapidly.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by PFI_Optix ( 936301 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @05:11PM (#14611147) Journal
    Slashdot.org membership suffered a sharp decline when 192 readers' heads mysteriously exploded.

  • Say what you will about MS... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by IAAP ( 937607 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @05:13PM (#14611161)
    but the fact that their employees feel safe enough to criticise them says something.

    FTFB: But, the behavior of my company in this instance is not right.

    Either Scoble is very important to MS, or MS tolerates that from their employees. Beleive it or not, I've been at companies that would NOT have tolerated that kind of outspokeness from one of their employees. Or, Scoble, is now looking for a job.

    • Re:Say what you will about MS... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      being a current MS employee, generally speaking MS is extremely open to critism internally, staff are encouraged to have there say. I would feel very comfortable raising objections internally with the knowledge that the worst that would happen would be that my opinin was rejected. I previously worked at another unamed large IT company and one of the reasons I left was when voicing my opinion about one of our products internally I was told that such critism was unacceptable in open forum (even though it was

  • /nudges Google (Score:3, Insightful)

    by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @05:14PM (#14611169) Journal
    Supposedly Bill Gates poked some fun at Google over their China ethics dilemma ... maybe this will be the start of something good.

  • "sexual" content (Score:3, Insightful)

    by superwiz ( 655733 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @05:15PM (#14611179) Journal
    How's that going to effect all pedophilia blogs comming from the US? Does that mean that MS will now host blogs that promote pedophilia in the contries where it has not been outlawed?
    • Why would MS promote pedophilia 'spreadable' cheese?

      Unless you misspelt it and meant Cheddar?
    • In their first spot of "prohibited" items list:

      ( From http://spaces.msn.com/coc.aspx [msn.com] )

      Prohibited Uses

      Violations of the MSN Spaces Code of Conduct may result in the termination of access to MSN Spaces services or deletion of content without notice.

      You will not upload, post, transmit, transfer, disseminate, distribute, or facilitate distribution of any content, including text, images, sound, data, information, or software, that:

      * incites, advocates, or expresses pornography, obsce

    • It's not a two way street. Choosing not to host (or display) some information that is 'illegal' in some countries, but display it in others does not equate to having to host anything and everything for display 'somewhere'. They are a private company...they can, and do, choose what and what not to host and where to display it.
    • Does it also mean all those de-CSS DVD cracks will be hosted, but blocked only in the US?
    • sure, why not, it's not like companies enforce laws they don't like here overseas.. think human rights, OSHA, minimum wage, working hours, right to unions, child labor, etc.. those things cause more damage in the world than a few pediphillies. Note too that MS and other companies want "IP" laws ENFORCED by the US where they're NOT legal yet.. after all, they want to take advantage of the cheap labor, but don't undercut us on the home! From a corperate point of view there's nothing wrong here.. they shoul
    • I certainly hope so. Surely that's the right thing to do, if such countries exist. You don't really support free speech if you only support the freedom to criticise governments you don't like.
  • These companies dont have a choice if they want to do business in China..

    it is rather simple, either MS and Google comply, or they are not welcome in China.

    and for those of you who think you would choose to be moral and not support censorship, I would love to see how fast you turn on those convictions if someone pulled up with a dumptruck of money.

    • It's absolutely nothing wrong with taking the money instead of moral/ethics, but the fact that Google had been doing no evil and suddenly pulled a U-Turn because of a lucrative market reflects how Google has changed.

      And check out the "Google In Damage Control [interneh.com]" story here, everything's changing.
      • how is doing what is required under the law "doing evil" honestly
        • Well, to give you and extreme example, consider Germany under Nazi rule.
        • Law is made by the government of the time , and a government is usually formed by the most powerful (be it belief or gun) party in the country, and this party bands together for a reason.

          So to assume that all law-biding citizens automatically qualify as good citizens is a big assumption.

          Law has nothing to do with good and evil.

          Google had a choice of breaking the law and be good, or abiding the law and be evil.
        • If

          1. The law requires doing evil
          2. One complies with the law

          then

          One must commit evil
    • I would love to see how fast you turn on those convictions if someone pulled up with a dumptruck of money.

      I'm revolted by the very suggestion. Not everyone is prepared to sell their principles for a price. If it were as simple as Microsoft and Google agreeing to cencorship policies for the purposes of profit, then it would be clear cut, their actions would be completely unacceptable to just about every civilised human being I know.

      Except it's not quite that simple. It's a choice between allowing acce

    • for those of you who think you would choose to be moral and not support censorship, I would love to see how fast you turn on those convictions if someone pulled up with a dumptruck of money.

      Stop for a second and really, really think about it. Forget all the money associated with any particular decision. Then, ask yourself, is Google doing something immoral? It's a very tricky question. Here's how I feel about it: A.1 Google does not have the leverage in China to change China's free speech policy. A.2 Reg

  • useful (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "And even then, it will block access to that material only within the country where it is deemed unlawful. The site will still be viewable from outside the country, he said."

    ooh thats useful. someone blocks your site, then you have to travel to another country to update it.
  • Is it actually possible that bad press and of course the dollars that might shift from Google to Microsoft might actually drive some freedom. Can you picture this: companies competing against other companies to be the most democratic and free information provider in the world.

    That's just good news for everyone (even Microsoft haters).

  • this is really bad for china... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Elminst ( 53259 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @06:01PM (#14611627) Homepage
    This is actually really bad for places like china...
    Now someone can post a blog/whatever with potential bad info about things happening in china, and no one in china can see it. BUT, the rest of the world will see it in all its glory, uncensored. Great for the revolutionaries, good for the rest of the world, bad for china, et al.
    It's like the head in the sand. China won't see it, and thus denies it exists. But the rest of the world will see it just fine.
    If this holds, expect to see even more posts about chinese atrocities from internal subversives, because now they won't be hidden from the outside world.

  • Let the governments censor their own crap! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @06:04PM (#14611647) Homepage
    I'm pretty tired of China (who else wants to be censored so badly?) making the price of commercial admission "do our censoring for us." They have the data pipes coming into their country's borders. They should take it upon themselves to filter their own damned data. Filter everything going out and coming in. Then they will know it's contained and controlled just the way they want it.

    Sounds like they want to have their noodles and eat'm too.
    • Yeah, but their government won't say it's being censored, unlike the google.cn search results. I can't say a whole lot about MicroBlogs (TM), but if it censors out just the entry in question and not the full blog, it would be easy enough to overlook some sort of reference to the past entry. I'd find it hard to believe that they can force true ignorance anyways, even if they can cut out some of the sources. What happens when the gold farmers are getting yelled at in WoW about being a bunch of komyounists

  • Can someone explain... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <(peter) (at) (slashdot.2006.taronga.com)> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @06:16PM (#14611773) Homepage Journal
    ...exactly what the difference is.

    Microsoft took a blog down. They got flamed about it. They changed their policies so they'd only "take blogs down" for the country that requested it. The blog in question would still have been censored if the current policy was in effect. Result: Microsoft is applying special filters for China.

    Which is exactly what Google is doing.

    How is this good when Microsoft does it, and evil when Google does it?

    I mean, people aren't going "well, Microsoft's expected to be evil, so this is par for the course", people are actually arguing that this is "not evil". It's less evil than blocking sites/searches that the Chinese government requested everywhere, perhaps, but Google wasn't doing that and nobody ever suggested that they might... and Microsoft was.
    • It's a pretty damn big difference, actually.

      It's the difference between a "utopian" society that's only that way because all dissidents are silenced, and a "utopian" society that is recognized by others to be the oppressive regime it is, even if the people there don't.
      • Please, no analogies. They don't illuminate the issue any. I can honestly say I'm no better informed about what the difference is by your message after reading it and puzzling over it.

        Can you try again in simple, direct, clear and explicit terms and explain why the same action is good if Microsoft does it but bad if Google does it...?
    • The difference in my mind is this.

      Google has a slogan "Do No Evil" yet when put to the test, as in the recent China episode, we saw that "evil" is very much a gray area to them.

      Now Microsoft, while taking a similar implementation to Google, but has decided to make it an actual written policy on how they will handle these situations. That's the big difference. Google (as far as I know) has no written policy to cover this. And seeing as MS is the first large tech company to have such a policy, theref
      • And seeing as MS is the first large tech company to have such a policy, therefore setting the bar, it is good.

        I still don't get it.

        If censoring the view from China is wrong, then making that an official policy and setting a precedent that censoring the view prom China is appropriate can't possibly be good.

        Please, don't keep telling me that Google is being evil. Explain why Microsoft's actions are somehow not also evil.
      • Actually, I'd say Google's *written* policy, or at least the way they put it on their blog, is much more responsible than Microsoft's. Google has publically stated that it won't open up blogspot or gmail in China; to me, it shows a well-thought plan to not put itself in the same position that Yahoo was, when it released information to the Chinese authorities that directly contributed to a Chinese dissident's arrest. Microsoft has had no such policy, even as it, apparently, censors its search results just as
    • Censoring a blog you host is not the same as censoring the entire internet (which is what google is effectively doing).
      • Incidentally, Google has publically stated that it won't host blogspot in China, because of an apparent fear of reprisals.

        Realistically speaking, I doubt if you could say that Google is censoring the internet, seeing that you can, as a matter of fact, search on Google.com from within China, even if your search results might be blocked. To me, Google is just responding to its apparent committments to Chinese law, while at the same time, not quite censoring itself. This is a crucial point, I don't know if Ame

      • Google is censoring the entire Internet?

        I had no idea they were that powerful. No wonder thay have an insane market cap.
  • A master stroke on Microsoft's part. Expect Google to change its tune momentarily.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • The other face of the janus announces :

    "MSFT: Our DRM licensing is there to eliminate hobbyists and little guys"

    http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/30/msft_our_drm_ licensi.html [boingboing.net]

  • Google/Russian Culture Version of Evil (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hansreiser ( 6963 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @11:17PM (#14613445) Homepage
    Please remember that one of the founders of Google is Russian, and in Russian culture censorship is just not evil. Censorship is what you do if you have the power to do it. Nothing more.

    So, when Google says don't be evil, they mean it sincerely. They just don't mean what us Americans mean.

    Also, keep in mind that the US government is doing nothing, repeat, nothing, to prevent foreign governments from pressuring US based companies into censorship. If you want there to be no censorship by China, then pass a law stating that any company that censors material based on the request of a foreign government which is not also censorable under US law may not do business in the US.

    If you aren't willing to pass such a law, which will have a price, then don't complain about Google.

    Please consider the enormous strategic importance of the Chinese market for Google. China is growing FAST. Also consider that Google most likely does not consider themselves to be irreplaceable for China, and that there is really not a lot they can do (unless the US Government pushes back against China in this culture war). Then consider one last time that in Russian culture this is just not evil.

    This is a job for the US Government, not Google or Microsoft. Oh dear. Sigh.:-/

    • Re:Google/Russian Culture Version of Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

      by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Wednesday February 01, 2006 @01:28AM (#14613907) Journal
      Please remember that one of the founders of Google is Russian, and in Russian culture censorship is just not evil. Censorship is what you do if you have the power to do it. Nothing more.
      As a Russian, I would like to officially state here that you, sir, are an idiot. At best what you describe could be called "Soviet culture", or, even more precisely, "totalitarian culture" - except there's no such thing. Censorship and tolalitarianism by the very nature of the latter always go hand in hand, be it in the USSR, China, North Korea, or Iraq.
      • Did you notice the change in government in Russia? Did you notice that the average person on the street in Russia, when surveyed by the press in Russia, just does not care about censorship?

        The reason Putin can censor is that the only people who really care are talkers not doers.

        Go out and shoot him, and I will not only apologize, I will spend time living there again. I went there thinking that democracy was going to win --- I did not expect to be told stories that the KGB had secretly funded Yeltsin, and
      • At best what you describe could be called "Soviet culture",

        And you don't feel that after being part of the soviet union for ~70 years Russia might possibly have absorbed a bit of its culture?

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX enhancements aren't.

Close