China Takes Its Already Strict Internet Regulations One Step Further 49
New submitter DaveS7 writes with this story about new regulations from the Chinese government designed to further crack down on online media. Chinese authorities have released a new set of regulations for online media, raising concerns about tightening control over freedom of expression by the Communist regime. Contained in the ordinance, released on April 28 by the Cyberspace Administration of China, is a clause saying that persons responsible for managing flagged sites will be summoned by state personnel in case of violations. Internet censorship in China is mostly managed by individual websites, which are encouraged to toe the Party line before the Party steps in to rectify things for them. The new ordinance increases the number of conditions that, if met by online media, result in automatic state intervention.
Let's not judge others (Score:1)
Be nice.
Re:Let's not judge others (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, enslaved people want to be subjugated and controlled much like poor people want to be poor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That reminds me "The Sand Pebbles" is on TCM this month..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They certainly want to be able to have food, clothing, and shelter even if they have to indenture themselves to a master for it. Many would also like to try to earn a name for themselves by fighting to the death in the arena. Have you not kept up with Game of Thrones?
Re: (Score:2)
Only cowards censor.
If you feel facts are judgements then ... good luck with Real Life TM
Tough choices... (Score:2, Insightful)
Give up billions of customers or side with the tyrants? I wonder which choice the investor class supports?
China ~ Europe (Score:3, Insightful)
Rectify? (Score:2)
Internet censorship in China is mostly managed by individual websites
Nice to know it's voluntary.
... toe the Party line before the Party steps in to rectify things for them
I wonder just what "Rectify" means in these cases?
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder just what "Rectify" means in these cases?
You'll probably get removed, or jailed or better yet shot.
Re: (Score:1)
And organs harvested. There is a lot of organ harvesting going on in China from executed prisoners.
Re: (Score:1)
Hard to say, can you really trust a chinese narrative? Do google "chinese culture of lying" and "saving face at all cost china". I've learned to never trust a chinese person ever and never do business with them where I can't have a non-chinese arbitrator, if you do, you will loose money and they gain "positive" reputation for fooling "white pig".
Capitalism does not create freedom (Score:4, Informative)
In the 80's and 90's there was a common wisdom that introducing capitalism into a country would create liberty and democracy. But China is proof that it does not work that way. Other data are Imperial Rome (Eastern and Western branches as well), Nazi Germany, Imperial China, The British Empire, Fascist Italy, and the Ottoman Empire. All of them had market economies at times in some cases very wealthy and vibrant. But none of them could be considered democracies either due to central autocratic rule, or through restriction in franchise based on wealth e.g. land ownership) or gender.
Re: (Score:3)
In the 80's and 90's there was a common wisdom that introducing capitalism into a country would create liberty and democracy. But China is proof that it does not work that way. Other data are Imperial Rome (Eastern and Western branches as well), Nazi Germany, Imperial China, The British Empire, Fascist Italy, and the Ottoman Empire. All of them had market economies at times in some cases very wealthy and vibrant. But none of them could be considered democracies either due to central autocratic rule, or through restriction in franchise based on wealth e.g. land ownership) or gender.
You forgot the biggest example of all - the US of A.
Re:Capitalism does not create freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
China was a struggling third world country before they wisely began to adopt capitalism, It's far from a free market, operating more like a nation sized corporation, but to call it communist is off the rails. It still has a caste system for example. It's operating pretty much along the lines China has operated for quite a long time, except without an obvious emperor.
Imperial Rome was sort of similar, but it's worth noting that the public had a strong voice in politics, as indicated by the bread and circuses they were provided to keep them happy, a fully operational social welfare system that existed thousands of years ago.
Nazi Germany was never capitalist, for example Hitler in 1927: "We are socialists. We are enemies of today's capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions." Goebbels: "The worker in a capitalist state - that is his greatest misfortune - no longer a human being, no longer a creator, no longer a shaper of things. He has become a machine."
In 1941, former Nazi boss of Danzig, Hermann Rauschning, wrote that the last part of the German Revolution was Nazism, which was just as much a realization of Marxist as of nationalist ideas, and he notes that the only ones who refuse to admit this are supporters of Marxist theories and Nazis themselves. Rauschning also writes in his book that Marxism itself was part of a single great revolutionary movement which included Marxist Socialism, Nazism, Communist Bolshevism, Fascism and nihilism. Rauschning knew Hitler well and repudiated him and his movement at great risk before the rest of the world recognized the full danger of Nazism.
Much the same could be said of fascist Italy.
The only group in your list that could credibly be called capitalist were the British Empire, and during its height (mostly mid 19th century to the start of the 20th century) liberty and democracy did indeed bloom, culminating in universal suffrage and the outline of what we today call a modern democracy appearing. Not so much in the colonies of course but that was the Imperial part of the equation
Re: (Score:3)
I'll take issue with you on a number of points. Rome was first a Republic; by the rich, for the rich, and of the rich. If you were poor, landless, a female, or a slave you had no voce. This seems to be the model the modern Republicans would like to embrace. After the Caesars took over, the Senate was often mostly advisory or a rubberstamp. The Causer usually had the last word.
You don't have to be rich to be a democracy. See Costa Rica.
Germany was Capitalist. Hitler's biggest supporters were the industrialis
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure you fully understand the scope of the social welfare programme in question - for much of its existence, it supplied around a third of the citizens of Rome with what they needed to exist. It didn't do so for the fun of it, costing Rome an absolute fortune as it did, but rather because said citizens would otherwise revolt.
While Nazi rhetoric consistently attacked the rich, the well born, the war profiteers, and the industrialists and while Nazi rhetoric consistently championed the working poor, t
Re: (Score:2)
"Much the same could be said of fascist Italy."
But not by Benito Mussolini: "Fascism [is] the complete opposite ofMarxian Socialism...Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. " So only did Mussolini say fascism was not socialism, he also says it is not capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
Benito Mussolini was a socialist and earned the title “Il Duce” as the leader of the socialists in Italy. When he founded the fascist party, its program called for implementing a minimum wage, expropriating property from landowners, repealing titles of nobility, creating state-run secular schools and imposing a progressive tax rate. Mussolini took socialism and turned it in a more populist and militaristic direction, but remained a modernizing, secular man of the left.
Re: (Score:2)
So, essentially, (Score:3)
It's the same kind of self-censorship going on that we have here. With the difference that here you're just being inconvenienced 'til you go out of business or bend over instead of being shot, of course. So, yes, we're still "more free" than them.
But it's also a reminder that "more" is not necessarily more than "much"...
China isn't communist (Score:5, Interesting)
Technically, China is a capitalist dictatorship. People often conflate the economic system with the system of government, because in our experience, most capitalist counties are also democratic (although typically republics), while most communist countries are also dictatorships. China has a heavily regulated economy, but the government doesn't own all wealth and resources, so it's not communist. That being said, I'm sure there are aspects that are heavily socialist, but no country is completely polar in these regards. I mean, the US isn't totally capitalist; there are high taxes, and there are a lot of centralized resources in the government.
Seems that (Score:2)
tight-asses are bubbling up to the top - or manifest themselves automatically in this area while other's just obediently serve in their allotted slots of existence.
Needs two - one part to give up their freedom by choice, subduing into being robots obeying written - with soldiers this seems to happen or not written with corporate ants and the demanding jerks being the counterpart and everyone is happy to live their life to the fullest?
For one brief shining moment ... (Score:2)
I misread 'Internet' as 'environmental'.
We can dream, right?