Xinhua editors seem to be loving the Britney - Federline breakup. Because they not only wrote this article about the sex tape Kevin Federline has apparently made available between him and his ex, but they must have broken some Chinese Internet porn regulations by visiting the very definitely NSFW site Pornotube to do the research for the article.
Hands mockingly on hips (my own hips, that is): What is the world coming to?
The Economist has a long article on China and the internet, and it doesn't require a subscription: The party, the people and the power of cyber-talk. It is a good summary of China's battles to censor the internet and contain free expression by both the internet and the mobile phone. It ends on an optimistic note:
But the market is likely to prevail over restrictions. Limiting phone-card sales to just a few shops with the ability to process registration requirements would be a blow to mobile-phone companies and huge numbers of private vendors who thrive on such business. It is hard to see how it could be enforced any more rigorously than, say, China's ban on the unauthorised reception of satellite signals. Illegal sales of satellite dishes and cable services offering uncensored foreign satellite channels are big underground businesses in urban China.
China's news portals, in their competition for traffic, will continue to test the limits of official tolerance. And in a competitive market few internet-café operators pay attention to government requirements that users' identities should be registered. An hour on a broadband connection in an internet café in a small town can cost as little as one yuan—about 13 cents.
Research by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences suggests the scale of the government's task. Over 20% of people surveyed in five Chinese cities last year said the internet had increased their contacts with others who shared their political interests—a far higher proportion than found in a similar survey conducted in America (8.1%) by collaborators in the investigation. Nearly half of the respondents said going online increased their contacts with people who shared their hobbies, compared with less than 20% in the United States (networked role-playing games, growing fast in popularity in China, may partly account for this). And nearly 63% agreed that the internet gave them greater opportunities to criticise the government.
“China is changing, it's improving,” says Jack Ma, head of Alibaba, which last year took over the running of Yahoo!'s Chinese operations—for, despite an early start in China, Yahoo! has been elbowed aside by domestic rivals. “Ten years ago, 20 years ago, in Chairman Mao's time, if we came here to talk about these things [government censorship],” he begins. Then he puts an imaginary pistol to his head and, with a grin, fires it. That, of course, was when power just grew out of the barrel of a gun. Now it also grows out of the infinite, albeit virtual, barrels of the internet.
One thing that crops up is again this idea that China employs 30,000 internet censors, on top of the many hundreds or even thousands more that the portals employ to self-censor. Assuming each government employed censor costs 10,000 yuan a month in wages and technology support costs (I welcome discussion if that number is too high or low) that makes the effort a 300 million yuan per month cost, or about US$450 million a year.
The Second Amendment means nothing outside of hunting.
Our forefathers gave us that right to fend off a military takeover in the U.S. - by
either the left or the right.
Apparently, since most gun owners are far right they didn't see fit to fight the far
right takeover so here we are. On the verge of martial law.
You'll imitate your German counterparts of 70 years ago. You'll allow them to take away
any weapon that gives you parity with the military. You know you barely made a peep when
the Brady Bill took away your assault rifles, which is what you'll need to effectively
combat troops.
What a bunch of cowards, and what a sore disgrace you are to our forefathers who gave
their blood for the likes of you.
In Jesus' Glorious and Holy name,
Dean Berry -- Real American
Dunno how the above paranoid gun-suckin' "Real Amuurican's" spam above contributes to discussion about Internet monitoring on the mainland, so I'll ignore it and just say re: salary for Internet monitoring that my SZ girlfriend has a friend works as one and she says he makes between 3-4,000 yuan/mo.
He's also told her it's immensely boring but allows him plenty of time to pursue his real passion: World of Warcraft.
It seems to be that as much as China wants to censure content, a lot will still be able to get through. This is a very good thing, especially considering how controlled their media is. I'm sure users can get at a variety of smaller political blogs to find out what's really going on.
How to Get All the Website Traffic You Want with No Effort at all
In order to have a successful site you need of course a lot of website
traffic. But in many cases, even if you work really hard and you create
a
professional web page you still do not get too many visitors and in
conclusion the profit that you deserve.
First, let us review the most poplar methods of directing traffic to a
certain website.
-link exchanging - cheap method but many say that overall it drives
people
away from your site instead of to it, because adding a large number of
links
to you pages makes them look unprofessional and may drive visitors
away.
Adding only a small number of links does not have any noticeable
effect.
Also making link exchanges it's mot always so easy because you have to
convince webmasters to trade links with you. I can tell you from my
experience that if you have a new site this thing could get really
difficult
because almost no one will want to exchange links with you. Over time a
good link
can build your website traffic but it is hard work.
-free ezine ads - another cheap method but it rarely does anything
because
that are thousands of ads out there that try to attract attention and
yours
will just blend in with the others.
-search engine submissions - this may be the most effective method but
it
requires a lot of work and time, plus some money, and it only works if
you
get a high position in the search engines, which is very difficult to
do,
and you can loose that position in a few weeks.
-Buying one way links to increase you link popularity and your search
engine
rankings could be a method but having top positions in the major search
engines it's not so easy. Every one knows that search engine website
traffic
is the best but to get it you must have thousands of good quality links
which can get really expensive.
The solution is easier than you may think it is.. you can buy traffic!
For a
small amount of money you can purchase all the website traffic that you
need
and boost you business profits. Without people visiting your pages you
can
not promote and sell your products, so if you want to increase your
profits
you have to get as much website traffic as you can. Therefore, the
simplest,
easiest solution is to buy traffic. It is not expensive at all and you
will
definitely gain much more money than what you spend on buying traffic!
Now, a new innovative method was developed - the redirected visitors
technology. This tehnique brings, just as its name suggests, redirected
visitors to your site. It works perfectly and it is guaranteed to bring
a
lot of website traffic to you!
People who are working with this technology purchase all the abandoned
domain names that had a website with good traffic on them. Those
abandoned
websites are listed in the search engines and they are marketed,
therefore
they used to be visited by quite a lot of people. When you enter this
kind
of program, your website will be scanned, and those abandoned websites
will
be redirected to yours. When someone searches for something in a search
engine and clicks on the link that used to point to the abandoned
pages, it
will lead them to you instead! Unlike popups this method is not
annoying for
users, because what they find has the same subject as what they
searched
for, so they will most likely not even notice the redirection.
This way you will get all the targeted website traffic you need.
Instead of
working really hard you can simply buy that traffic! And as i saw on
the net
the prices for this kind of services are really cheap. Furthermore,
this
tehnique is not a spamming tehnique and it brings real traffic to you,
thousands of visitors!
If you are interested in learning more about the Increase Traffic
redirecting
technology or if you would like to know how to buy traffic just follow
these
links.
http://www.redirectedvisitors.com
The situation in China is definitely improving. Yet I don't think internet censorship doesn't have its positive impact. It could at least minimise the social unsettling in China. There's so many people there, a rumour spread through the internet could easily spark a riot and this is the last thing we want to see.
Of course, the government should take measures to improve and reduce censorship one step at a time.
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Martin Niemoller
Rebecca MacKinnon explains the story of Hao Wu, blogger at the popular Beijing or Bust and an editor at Global Voices Online. Read Rebecca's detailed explanation of what's going, although as usual the details are not clear. Perhaps with a build-up of pressure this can be turned into an issue ahead of President Hu's visit to America in late April.
It's easy to deride the current NPC and CPPCC sessions going on in Beijing as a token going through the motions exercise, or in the words of Shakespeare, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." That doesn't stop the newspapers devoting pages and pages to coverage of the non-event. Indeed some would argue the large volume of hot air being expended has parallels with blogging. So what better than to bring together a useless parliament with the web's pre-eminent form of communication:
Tang Weihong, who is in charge of the website, blog.people.com. cn, which hosts the deputies' blog sites, said all NPC deputies and members of the National Committee of the CPPCC, China's top political advisory body, are free to open blog sites with the website...So far, eight NPC deputies and CPPCC National Committee members have opened blogs on the website, administered by the People's Daily...
To ensure blog sites serve as a platform for individuals to express personal views freely, lawmakers have urged a better legal environment for the management of blog sites to prevent vituperations in the virtual world from extending to people's daily life and to protect citizens' privacy.
In case you couldn't guess, that's from the China Daily (and clearly someone's been using the thesaurus for vituperation!). It seems odd that unelected politicians feel a need to communicate with the public. It's certainly something that hasn't been tried before. It can only be a matter of days before someone sets up spoof blogs for the President and the Premier.
Jing, a combination of a lack of time on my part and an explosion in reading and blogs on the world's part. I will try to do them ad hoc but it's not likely to be daily anytime soon. If there are any volunteers I'd be happy to turn the duties over.
Yes, blogspot is officially media non grata in China. Tell your buddy to use a proxy. It very briefly re-appear earlier this year, but that appears to have been a mistake, and I am sure someone at the ministry was duly sacked.
Liu Kin-ming of The Standard goes to Congress's hearings on American companies and China's internet and comes out angry. So angry as to make no sense. The upshot of the opinion piece is that America's technology firms are evil for obeying China's laws because China isn't the rule of law but rule by law. How defying these laws helps improves matters is left unanswered. Later, there is this:
It's really infuriating to see these companies, which have prospered in an environment only because of the principles enshrined in a constitution adopted in 1787 and the functioning of the greatest democracy, to compare China to the United States. To suggest what they're facing in China is no different than what they may face in their own country, the companies' logic smacks of the kind of moral equivalence which is prevalent in anti-American crowds.
In terms of bows, this is an extremely long one. The tech companies were pointing out that even the United States has laws it expects companies operating there to comply with. Clearly China is no USA, but is ignoring the demands of police in China easier than those in the USA because of that? If a company goes into a country, it must follow that country's laws. And if a company ignores a growing market such as China they are breaching their duty to their shareholders, a legally enforceable fidicuiary duty to manage the company in the best interests of its owners.
The rest of the opinion piece slams the various questioners, such as:
Some Democrats were trying to lessen the guilt of the Internet companies. Adam Smith, from the state where Microsoft is based, asked: "Let's assume for a moment that no US tech company does business in China. Does it get better? Is it less repressive? Does China move forward? I don't think so."
Apparently the views of duly elected representatives from Washington state don't matter as much as those from elsewhere. Yet this is the most crucial question in the debate. It's a shame the article doesn't even try and address it. Will China's home grown internet and technology companies be held to the same standards and criticisms? Is China better or worse off thanks to these companies and their operations in China? Do you see the world in black and white or in shades of gray? Is an absolute ideal better than pragmatism? The problem with doing what's right is that what's right differs between people, cultures and countries.
I wonder if Congress will ever call up some Chinese internet users for their views?
I largely agree, but I have to take issue with this:
"And if a company ignores a growing market such as China they are breaching their duty to their shareholders, a legally enforceable fidicuiary duty to manage the company in the best interests of its owners."
I've heard a few people say this, but it strikes me as, frankly, bullshit. Can someone show me a single example of a company being sued for not expanding into China? Can Ben & Jerry's, The Body Shop et al be sued for not seeking the lowest cost provider of products and ingredients? Surely if they can get it cheaper in China, they are legally required to, right?
I've started companies and served on boards. No one has ever hinted that I could get in trouble for not doing business with a regime I dislike.
Posted by Derek Scruggs at February 28, 2006 10:47 AM
I would also question whether getting involved in the China market as a content or communications company, which is what internet companies are, really makes any sense from the perspective of "fidicuiary duty."
Beyond any question of ethics or free speech, you have an exceptionally murky legal environment, regulators who act out of political motives or idiotic whims (think the cartoon ban), brand-damaging backlash in home markets to enter a market that isn't currently as lucrative as the hype implies. On the hardware side, Cisco should be fine - but risks for content-oriented businesses are severe. And that's not just on the internet side; News Corp, Viacom and Sony have all been humbled here. There are probably more risks in entering the China market than there are avoiding it.
If you own stock in these companies, you expect them to develop the business as best they can. China is a fast growing and potentially large market. Now that's not to say going into any market, let alone China, is an easy decision. But it would be negligent for a company to not expand the business if the opportunity is there and if, in the mind of management, the benefits outweigh the costs. Putting China in the too hard basket is not an excuse.
I'm not sure I agree it's a breach of fiduciary duty. Any management decision involves weighing up a number of options, such as whether to reinvest or return profits to shareholders. With China investments there's a number of risks that can be sensibly argued (damage to reputation, risk of IP theft, competitors' preference for market share over profit etc). If shareholders object to management staying out they can always vote with their feet...
But it would be negligent for a company to not expand the business if the opportunity is there and if, in the mind of management, the benefits outweigh the costs. Putting China in the too hard basket is not an excuse.
Until you can show me an example of someone getting sued over it, it's definitely an (legitimate) excuse. Jeezus - even Rupert Murdoch is cutting back in China. Show me a single cutthroat Western captalist taking someone to court over this - Kirk Kerkorian, Donald Trump, T. Boone Pickens - and I'll buy the "you-have-to-enter-this-market-it's-your fiduciary-duty" argument. Otherwise it's a bullshit justification.
(I speak as someone who is bullish on China and believes Google is doing the right thing. I just don't buy this line of reasoning.)
I was going to add my $0.02 on the Google.cn hysteria, which is much ado about nothing. But John C. Dvorak pretty much summed up my thoughts already:
So Google goes into China to do business and goes along with the Chinese program of censorship already accepted by Yahoo!, MSN, and others. If a company wants to do business in China, such acceptance is part of the ground rules. An outcry immediately ensues. Apparently Google should tell China to stuff it and stay out, or stay in but refuse to censor anything.
This is one of the funniest debates I've ever seen, and I can only blame Google for the controversy. It's the supposed company motto, "Do no evil," that is the crux of the problem...the company has this motto as an albatross around its neck. Any false move or normal Silicon Valley business practice will be highlighted and the "Do no evil" motto will be thrown in the face of the executives...Indeed, the comment does make it sound as if Google is somehow better than everyone else because of this supposed policy. Holier than thou. It's annoying. So the China thing comes along and boom, the evil hits the fan.
Now what can Google do about this? First of all, I don't think this really affects anything except the company principals, who have to live with never-ending ragging and finger-pointing and the "hypocrite!" moniker. Perhaps some professional damage control will help. The company is clueless about that, and that, too, could be perceived as evil.
Or perhaps they can do what I suspect they'll do. Go into China promising to abide by government censorship and let the Chinese themselves figure out how to bypass the mechanism. Chinese computer users are not idiots.
Problem solved.
The crux of this "debate" is simple: do you see the world in terms of black and white, or in shades of gray? It is better that Chinese internet users have another search engine to use, especially one that allows creative users to access information they might not otherwise find. If those ranting about Google's actions would think about the viewpoint of Chinese internet users for a minute, they may realise that Google might be helping to undo the "evil" of Chinese internet censorship.
Usually it's better to work to change systems from within, evil or not.
On the other hand, Asiapundit is taking Google to task, but not for the obvious reasons. Check out the sample of search results. Billdue also notes how little money is at stake for Google in China.
I gotta disagree here Simon. The google issue is a big deal. This is not so much as google agreeing to the rules to play ball but rather a strong victory by the CCP.
Most had hoped the free market reforms would bring social and political freedoms to the Chinese. But ever since Hu Jintao took office we have seen the Hu move more toward the hard line conservatives in the party. Less freedoms and not more has been the result.
This episode in the google chapter is not isolated. Let's not forget that the google cache page has been disabled in some time in China. Google news was not able to be accessed as well. Blogger is still not accessible (blogspot) etc. I, along with some Chinese bloggers (http://zhengweekly.blogbus.com/logs/2006/01/1860720.html ), think that in the very near future google.com will not be available on the mainland. This is the situation now with bbc news and http://www.amnesty.org/ .
It is foolish to think that google is helping the scene by offering up google.cn and censoring content. Why? because the Chinese have alternatives. Yahoo.com, Gigablast.com, dogpile.com, etc all are available. Google had the opportunity to stand up and say, "our motto is to not be evil."
but they'd rather have access to the fastest growing internet community.
Dave, I don't really agree with Google's actions, but as I've stated in my comments on another site - I understand.
My comments are as follows:
I am by no means a fan of censorship. I came face to face with it in China on the occasions that I had my internet access restricted and then again after the government banned my blog host due to the content on my site. However, that being said, I do not fault Google for its choices to adhere to the Chinese governments policy of censorship.
Google is a business. Period. While it does have the responsibility to promote and engage in fair trade, it does not have any responsibility to promote democracy and freedom of speech. If you want to play ball in China, you have learn their rules and play by them.
That is not to say that I agree with everything, but I understand.
Do I think it is hypocritical of Google to bow to one governments demands while snubbing another? Not really. It's the same situation if you think about it.
If Google refused to comply with the Chinese government's policy of censorship, they'd simply be refused access to China's markets. At the same time, if Google were to comply with the American governments demands to hand over the information it wants access to, Google's business would suffer serious backlash from the American people.
Simply put, Google is just cooperating with those who wield the power. In China, it's the Chinese government. In America, it's the American people.
THM | Monday, January 30th, 2006 @ 01:13 AM
... your arguement is a fair one, but who's to say that doing business in China goes against Google's basic principles? Clearly it doesn't.
I'm sure you know that in today's world things are changing as fast as the skylines in China - by the minute. Sure, you could wait until the market matures, but by that time the opportunity will have passed you by.
China is changing and its markets are maturing. Perhaps not as fast as we westerners would like, but as you pointed out, the Chinese are much more patient than those of us from the West.
The key factor here is that it is the Westerners who are making all the noise about the censorship in China - not the Chinese. The fact is, Chinese people are not so concerned with such issues because their main focus is more on economic freedom than political freedom. Most Chinese will tell you the two go hand-in-hand, but economic freedom must come first and that is already happening. As for the political freedom - again, they are patient.
THM | Monday, January 30th, 2006 @ 02:49 PM
Again, I do not favor censorship in any form unless it involves the welfare of children.
Of course I do not believe it is okay to compromise one's principles for the sake of doing business because either you have principles and you stick to them or you never had them in the first place.
However, that being said, companies like Google have a responsibility to abide by the laws of the countries they operate in - such as China. I do not necessarily consider that to be a compromise of one's principles (depending on the circumstances).
THM | Monday, January 30th, 2006 @ 09:21 PM
If you want to read the rest of the comments, they can be found here.
Sorry Dave but that doesn't wash. If you're judging Google by Western standards you are omitting crucial pieces of context - in a world that is particularly imperfect, such as China's online world, part of something is far superior to a moralistic but boneheaded nothing. Google is a company, not a government, NGO, moral force or democracy provider.
Simon, the real question is not "in or out" but "why Google decides to be an agent of chinese censorship"? Of course Google is not a NGO or a government but is it indispensable to do the dirty work for chinese despots? This is the point that many people - excusing Google - are missing, in my opinion. It looks like Google is turning self-censorship into a good and virtuous action, according to many bloggers. Sorry, but it's not.
Simon, if I am understadnig you right, you are saying that if many Chinese bloggers and Chinese people do not mind being directly censored by Google, who are we Westerners to complain? Some information is better than no information.
It is true that Westerners are accustomed to having some basic freedoms on the web like access to unfettered information and I think this is why we cannot be expected to condone online censorship by a Western company anywhere, not just in China. For Western bloggers to stay quiet over it or go along with it would imply that we consider the Chinese people to be second class citizens in our global economy, people who do not deserve the same equal access to information from Google that we do.
There is also another concern:
Google are not selling shaving foam. They are asking us to trust them with the world's information and ideas. If Google can be persuaded to directly censor search results in China on behalf of the Chinese government, they can be persuaded to censor search results elsewhere according to the wishes of whatever tyrant happens to be in power at the time, perhaps in the interests of National Security. Google has set a precedent for itself.
This may be acceptable to you, but it is not to us.
Posted by Noel Guinane at January 31, 2006 06:03 PM
Noel:
I have several problems with what you've said. Firstly I'm not characterising Chinese netizens as second class citizens - they already are by the nature of the Great Firewall and the Chinese government's restrictions. That is the reality. One day I hope and know it will change. But in the interim, isn't giving more access to tools such as Google a good thing, even if the tools themselves are not 100% effective?
As for what Google is "selling", you've missed the mark. All Google and other search engines do is organise information that already exists on the web to make it more easily accessable. In fact, unlike Yahoo, Google explicitly does not make content. Even Google News is just a composite of various websites and news services. Google does censor in Western countries. From this week's Economist:
It has reached an agreement with the Chinese authorities that allows it to disclose to users, at the bottom of a list of search results, whether information has been withheld. This is similar to what the company does in other countries where it faces content restrictions, such as France and Germany (where Nazi sites are banned), and America (where it removes material that is suspected of copyright infringement). Although the disclosure is more prominent on these western sites, putting such a message on its Chinese site is an important step towards transparency and, furthermore, is something its rivals do not do.
Indeed at the same time Google is dealing with China, it is staunchly resisting a DoJ lawsuit to force it to hand over reams of customer data.
I'm not calling Google saints. I'm just saying that their actions are a fully understandable and indeed admirable course of action in a difficult situation. I'm sure they would like to offer unfettered access to their searches, but that isn't feasible. And isn't forbidding Chinese netizens access to Google.cn making them second class citzens by restricting their access to a tool common outside China?
To me all this hysteria seems largely generated by people adhereing to dogmatic principles at the expense of realpolitik. That is their right. If Chinese netizens find Google.cn no better than the current offerings, it will fail. Google has an interest in making things better, but can only do so within the constraints that exist. We don't live in utopia.
isn't giving more access to tools such as Google a good thing, even if the tools themselves are not 100% effective?
No, not if it means Google itself has to do the censoring. All Google can do is bring its information up to a border. What filters are subsequently applied to it by sovereign governments is something Google cannot be expected to control. If the Chinese government wants to keep their people in the dark about their country's politics and history, then that's up to the Chinese people to sort out, not Google. This was the position before Google agreed to directly censor search results in China. The objection now is that Google is actively participating in helping the Chinese government to censor information. That is stepping over the line. It means Google have set a precedent that can come to affect those of us who at the moment enjoy free and unfettered access to the web.
On your suggestion that Google already engages in censorship elsewhere ... I knew about Google’s ‘censorship’ in France and Germany and think that banning access to Nazi sites or hate sites does not equate to the censorship Google have agreed to do in China which I think we can agree is widespread censorship. Google refusing in the States to show information that has been the subject of US copyright infringement complaints can also not be compared to the widespread censorship Google are actively participating in in China.
Though I agree Google organize information and make it available, I think it is fair to say that Google are "selling" something. They sell ads. You don't have to make content to sell it and I think you know this.
Indeed at the same time Google is dealing with China, it is staunchly resisting a DoJ lawsuit to force it to hand over reams of customer data.
Good point. As I asked on my blog, how can one thing be an outrage worth going into court over and the other worth only a vague disclaimer at the end of someone’s search results? What principles exactly are involved here?
You mentioned realpolitik. Censoring used to be against Google's principles. Their FAQ used to say:
Google does not censor results for any search term. The order and content of our results are completely automated; we do not manipulate our search results by hand. We believe strongly in allowing the democracy of the web to determine the inclusion and ranking of sites in our search results.
That statement was taken down immediately after they caved in to the Chinese government's demands to directly censor search results in China.
Are you saying it is okay to compromise your principles in order to get in on an opportunity?
Posted by Noel Guinane at January 31, 2006 09:39 PM
Simon, simply look at how Google is changing the face of history by these two quick searches;
"tiananmen square" on Google Image Search
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&hs=rAv&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=tiananmen%20square&spell=1&sa=N&tab=wi
"tiananmen square" on Google CH Image Search
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen%20square&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&sa=N&tab=wi
Oh look, it's as if it never happened!
And where's the note that says the information has been censored because of the government? I can't see it. It just seems, simply, the information is not there, and Chinese Google users would no no differently.
Simon, simply look at how Google is changing the face of history by these two quick searches;
"tiananmen square" on Google Image Search
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&hs=rAv&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=tiananmen%20square&spell=1&sa=N&tab=wi
"tiananmen square" on Google CH Image Search
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen%20square&btnG=Google+%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2&sa=N&tab=wi
Oh look, it's as if it never happened!
And where's the note that says the information has been censored because of the government? I can't see it. It just seems, simply, the information is not there, and Chinese Google users would no no differently.
the more this conversation goes down this path, the more dismayed the chinese internet users are. frankly, they couldn't care less about whether google.cn, google.com. google.eunuch.com is accessible or not. that is an esoteric problem for westerners. the chinese internet users will move on and use whatever tools that they have. the only difference is that they are more convinced than ever that the westerners never considered the interests of the Chinese Internet users in this matter, because the westerners were just too self-absorbed and self-indulgent. just go away, will ya?
I don't think you speak for everyone, eswn. Who are you?
Posted by Noel Guinane at February 1, 2006 12:50 AM
Never mind. You are Roland Soong of the East South West North blog. You lived in New York City for many years before moving to Hong Kong and you claim you "know little or nothing about China." Your blog, though outspoken, has never been blocked by the PRC.
Isn't it wonderful what Google can tell you when its search results are not censored?
Posted by Noel Guinane at February 1, 2006 01:37 AM
Ham:
At the bottom of the very search on Tiananmen Square on Google.cn you mention there is this:
据当地法律法规和政策,部分搜索结果未予显示。
"According to local regulations and policy, some search results are not displayed".
Wow, it's good to see Google are being so upfront about the censored results, sticking a tiny disclaimer at the bottom of the page, where no one will look, elaborating that "some things may not be displayed".
When Google talked about this on the BBC news, they made a big deal out of the fact that when a user sees content is being blocked, they'll KNOW it's censored, they'll know they're not seeing the whole picture. Obviously that's not strictly true - only by reading the small print will you realise "something" (never referred to as censorship) is up.
what is the basis to call google a 'ccp agent', or 'censor for ccp'?
you can always go to google.com for the full search results! if you cannot access google.com, it is the fault of your ISP not google. google is now creating an alternative called google.cn so that you know which search was censored and which was not.
the more i read about the accusation, the more i feel google is doing a great thing for the intelligent surfers.
Ok guys, you're right.
Thank you Google for your brave self-censorship on behalf of CCP. Thank you for encouraging "intelligent sufers". Thank you for your valuable sanitized service. In Tiananmen everyone's smiling. In China everything is ok. Why worry?
I think we in the West had better start to tone down on all our shouting on the freedom and democracy stuff, because of lately I haven't seen much happening in the name of those ideals that make me feel proud. Iraq may be the most noteworthy example, but the record is even worse for what is NOT happening. Why are we inclined to "liberate" the Iraqi's, but are we OK with watching at the sidelines while f.i.in Congo a couple of millions have been butchered by now ? What will we do in Palestine, with the Hamas victory now ? Democratically elected, but we will cut your financial support after all since you happen to have a fight with your neighbour, killing your people and refusing you to take possession of the ground you live on but who for some reason happens to be our friend. Sorry for that !
Coming back to the Google issue, with all that shouting from the West going on, the "freedom and democracy angle" is quickly becoming the standard benchmark to look at all the issues. Is it good business sense what Google did ? Of course it is. Are Google and Yahoo pioneering a new way of doing business with difficult regimes ? Hardly. Working for a telecom company myself, I know that all the major ones working in the so-called vertical markets have and are providing switches with a feature called "lawful intercept" to police departments worldwide. And what it is used for you think ? Anybody dare to believe that we control the laws defining the circumstances under which it can be used ? Dream on. Has it been sold in China ? You bet it has, so our "don't be evil" friends are in a major league of companies all making good business sense and that's what companies are for: they have to generate money to keep our societies running, whether we like the morals of it or not.
What strikes me is the lot of people trying to fit Google's principal decision to censor some searchresults into a strategy to lead freedom and democracy to victory. All I can make out of it is a company kowtowing to a regime you would not accept in your own country and thereby condoning the rightfulness of censorship. I pity the Chinese media organizations that are trying to walk a thin line who will now be told that not only their inland peers are exercising "self-constraint", but hey, even the Westerners do so. Google, in my opinion, is doing a bad service to Western companies looking to do business in China , because they have just shown the CCP that it not only can require you to abide by some perverse rules, but that it actually also can be implemented. So expect the business climate to worsen.
"Due to the specialized nature of Internet technology, there are still some places where pornography exists," he added. "Harmful information on overseas sites can still be transmitted internally, and a minority of people try to use the Web to carry out illegal activities."
To help the censors, I've found one website they might like to take a look at...
Controlling the internet is one thing. Controlling spam is another. But China's going to try:
China has ordered telcos to purge spam SMSes of smut and other "unhealthy" influences, including "superstitious content" like fortune telling. The Ministry of Information Industry made the pronouncement today on its website which declared: "Recently, there has been a lot of dirt hidden in the telecommunication networks. The situation is serious."
If China really wanted to make its 30,000 internet cesnors do good works for mankind, the government could set the censors loose on China's rampant spam industry. Given everything else has failed to stop spam, let's give authoritarianism a go.
While we're at it, does anyone regulate Hong Kong's random mobile calls or message at any hour of the day or night? If not, can we ask China to do it? Please.
All the news that's fit to print (with Chinese characteristics)
Xinhua has announced new regulations for online news as part of China's ongoing clampdown on the net. Inevitably Mainland bloggers will be considered part of this regulation. Xinhua's report begins:
Online news sites that publish stories containing fabricated information, pornography, gambling or violence are facing severe punishments or even shutdown.
Thanks Simon. Yes, this is Richard's forte rather than my own but what the Chinese govt seem to be doing is just like it says on the tin: they want to "standardise" the flow of news and information and make the news reflect what the big guns of the Chinese official state madia are saying.
They're trying cut down on the number of voices within China's media and ensure that the news channles are speaking with one (party-approved) voice.
The number of media channels has exploded in China this last decade or so and so has the number of non-official voices in that media.
Also, the newspapers here, for example, are predominantly no longer state-owned, they are on their own and always looking to increase sales. These rules try to reign them in so that, at least the op-eds reflect the party line.
You'll have to judge the quality, but it's more that it's been a busy day at work and Monday is always a tough day for linklets as I've got a whole weekend to cover.
Two items on China's internet censorship efforts. The leadup to the NPC and CPPCC sessions is also crackdown on internet season. First the SCMP reports:
China on Tuesday said it would toughen its already rigid censorship of the Internet during its annual parliamentary session to keep at bay those with "ulterior motives". The Xinhua news agency said there would be strict 24-hour monitoring of internet chat rooms and forums of major Chinese portals by "security guards".
Secondly:
Shanghai authorities are threatening to revoke the licence of a lawyer who has defended a number of activists in high-profile cases after he posted essays critical of the mainland's legal system on overseas websites...The Shanghai Bureau of Justice will hold a disciplinary hearing on Friday to determine how to punish Guo Guoting after accusing him of "defiling and slandering" the Communist Party and state government.