In fact, no country allows unrestricted flow on the Internet of pornographic, violent, gambling or superstitious content, or content on government subversion, ethnic separatism, religious extremism, racialism, terrorism and anti-foreign feelings.
The US basically does. The government never censors the Internet; producing child pornography or running an illegal gambling site may be illegal, but there is no filter on Google to prevent you from finding those things. Terrorism, anti-foreign feelings, racism, government subversion, ethnic separatism, etc., are reprehensible, but are protected speech here. The government could find itself in trouble if it prevented someone from publishing something about one of those topics ("prior restraint"), and has lost many cases where it has tried to remove this information after the fact.
Basically, anything goes except libel, obscenity with no cultural value, and speech to incite imminent lawless action.
So basically Xinhua, get a clue. China is the outlier.
Pervasive: Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, People's Republic of China, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam
Substantial :Australia, Bahrain, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Nominal and others: Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Ireland, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia , Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America
Well, even countries with very US-like legal heritage, such as Australia and Britain, have tried to impose national-border content-filtering. So sadly, the US is still somewhat of an outlier. Turns out putting an explicit absolutist free-speech right in the written constitution was a good idea!
If someone was found showing child porn on the net, arrested, and put in prison -- which does happen, even if those children are anime characters -- is that not censorship? What is the difference between putting someone in jail for producing a particular type of content and censorship? The FCC fines television stations for saying "fuck" on the air or showing female nipples -- is there a difference? I'd rather my fuck be censored out than fined for it. If it is censored, I don't lose anything.
Frankly, if I was producing some kind of illegal content that today would land me in jail, I'd rather the government just censor it and leave me my freedom to walk around and produce other types of content that aren't illegal.
I don't see a lot of difference between censorship and threats from the secret service for putting a picture of gwb on your myspace page with a knife stabbed through his hand. If that poor teen had simply had her photoshopped image censored she'd probably have had a less traumatic experience with the whole thing -- she'd still be livid -- but she wouldn't be afraid.
The point is that censorship does happen in the U.S. Playboys have black plastic covers on them in the convenient stores here, but not in Switzerland. Why is it okay for our government to censor some types of things and not others? Where do we draw the line? Perhaps it is being drawn between what most of us find acceptable and that which we don't.
Perhaps China is drawing the same sort of line in what they require Google to filter? Perhaps the stuff they censor creates a social environment that most people don't appreciate just like fuck and nipples in the U.S.
Pretty smooth of the PRC to redefine this as "Google trying to make a political statement" rather than "Google deciding it can't do business in a country that sponsors attacks on its systems."
I see no reason why these two are mutually exclusive. If I boycott a company due to disliking their business practices, can I not also be making a statement?
In fact, I support Google in this because it is making a statement, even if that's not the primary intention.
From my understanding of the use of TaoBao and Baidu in comparison to eBay and Google, void is a description of what western companies occupy in the Chinese marketplace — not what would be left by their leaving.
I really don't think China is afraid of Google leaving at all. Baidu is beating Google in China. China also has hackers that according to Google themselves are able to defeat Google's security measures, so I'd say China will do plenty fine without Google.
I'm not sure history should disagree with it. The underlying message is that corporations shouldn't be playing politics, and that's an increasingly popular public sentiment in the USA as well (or the internet amplifies it).
How is Google trying to manipulate foreign government different from the health industry lobbying for their own interests?
The only thing that I wonder (and fear) about this piece -- is whether this is the only slant on the story that Chinese citizens will be allowed to access.
> It is unfair for Google to impose its own value and yardsticks on Internet regulation to China, which has its own time-honored tradition, culture and value.
But fair for the CCP to impose it's filtering on the people.
I think the fundamental issue is that they are trying to make improvements (opening up) to its policies but wants to do it on it's on terms, which is slightly understandable. "It" being the Chinese communist party. And the prevailing sentiment among all Chinese is that the west (aka pretty much just US) is meddling in the "opening up." I mean after what the US did in Iraq, I can see why they are hostile.
In fact, no country allows unrestricted flow on the Internet of pornographic, violent, gambling or superstitious content, or content on government subversion, ethnic separatism, religious extremism, racialism, terrorism and anti-foreign feelings.
Not true, the US allows all this, with very minor exceptions.
Ironic for the Chinese government to talk about obeying laws, when they don't even obey their own laws.
Maybe Google should point this out to them.
And there's no rule saying companies need to stay out of politics. Even if there was, Google, from the outset, said it was going to be a different kind of company.
How many people in China have internet access? How many people in China even know what Google is? How many people in China do even care about all of this? I may be naive, but I don't see chinese people being vocal on any matter regarding "their rights" - either they are satisfied (in majority) with their system and it's not anyone's business outside of China, or they are contempt but silent about it - which, again, shouldn't be anyone's business outside of China until they ask for outside help.
I think that this is an interesting and valid point. My perception from visiting China and talking to recent mainland immigrants to America is that most people in China think that their government is basically doing a good job, and basically looking out for the best interests of the Chinese people. No one there would argue that everything the government does is in their best interest, but if you think that the government is doing a good job on most issues, you'll probably be complacent.
To a certain degree, the same thing is true in America and other western nations. There are a lot of issues to be upset with, and that most people would disagree with the government on. Everyone has problems with the government, and on certain issue most people think the government is wrong (e.g. most people think that Congress spends money wastefully, and that our representatives look at more for their own interests than those of their constituents). But as long as you basically feel that the government is doing the right things -- and I think most people do, looking at things from a holistic perspective -- then you're likely to forgive the transgressions of your government. Or at least you'll limit your disagreement to grumblings, instead of actively protesting or campaigning against the government.
I would argue that the position of the Chinese people is, if not right, at least defensible on these grounds. The quality of life has been improving rapidly in China, and certainly the prestige of the country has been on a huge upswing for the past twenty years (e.g. in economic terms, the space program, political power in international diplomacy, etc.). In such an environment you might not be too worried about Internet censorship (most of which is probably censoring things you don't really care about). As their expansion catches up with them, and the rate that China can increase its wealth and prestige slows down, that will probably change, and people will find more reason to be concerned with censorship and other human rights issues within China. But that could be a while off.
It's a usual stance for China to claim some situation is an internal affair to block outside meddling.
When the bird flu broke out, China blocked Taiwan's access to the World Health Organization to get information on how to deal with it--mostly on the grounds that it is an internal affair.
In fact, no country allows unrestricted flow on the Internet of pornographic, violent, gambling or superstitious content, or content on government subversion, ethnic separatism, religious extremism, racialism, terrorism and anti-foreign feelings.
<sacasm> ...except Sealand </sarcasm>
Anyway, there is a great divide between letting a good majority of this kind of stuff through vs blocking as much of it as you can (eg, 99.9% vs ~30%)
In both instances you can say that no country is allows unrestricted flow, but that is not an adequate measuring stick for data flow.
Has this been machine translated, I wonder why is the English of the article so poor? News agencies in China don't have anybody who write proper English?
[+] [-] jrockway|16 years ago|reply
The US basically does. The government never censors the Internet; producing child pornography or running an illegal gambling site may be illegal, but there is no filter on Google to prevent you from finding those things. Terrorism, anti-foreign feelings, racism, government subversion, ethnic separatism, etc., are reprehensible, but are protected speech here. The government could find itself in trouble if it prevented someone from publishing something about one of those topics ("prior restraint"), and has lost many cases where it has tried to remove this information after the fact.
Basically, anything goes except libel, obscenity with no cultural value, and speech to incite imminent lawless action.
So basically Xinhua, get a clue. China is the outlier.
[+] [-] benologist|16 years ago|reply
Pervasive: Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, People's Republic of China, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam
Substantial :Australia, Bahrain, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen
Nominal and others: Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Ireland, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Malaysia , Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America
Specifically the US, although not much:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Unit...
[+] [-] gojomo|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnid2|16 years ago|reply
Frankly, if I was producing some kind of illegal content that today would land me in jail, I'd rather the government just censor it and leave me my freedom to walk around and produce other types of content that aren't illegal.
I don't see a lot of difference between censorship and threats from the secret service for putting a picture of gwb on your myspace page with a knife stabbed through his hand. If that poor teen had simply had her photoshopped image censored she'd probably have had a less traumatic experience with the whole thing -- she'd still be livid -- but she wouldn't be afraid.
The point is that censorship does happen in the U.S. Playboys have black plastic covers on them in the convenient stores here, but not in Switzerland. Why is it okay for our government to censor some types of things and not others? Where do we draw the line? Perhaps it is being drawn between what most of us find acceptable and that which we don't.
Perhaps China is drawing the same sort of line in what they require Google to filter? Perhaps the stuff they censor creates a social environment that most people don't appreciate just like fuck and nipples in the U.S.
[+] [-] ibarrac|16 years ago|reply
The average American reads this and thinks "that's not quite right, I don't have most of these restrictions."
The average Chinese reads this and thinks "yeah, every country censors, why is Google singling us out?"
[+] [-] mo34|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jbellis|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daeken|16 years ago|reply
In fact, I support Google in this because it is making a statement, even if that's not the primary intention.
[+] [-] barredo|16 years ago|reply
It's about something higher, about human rights.China should not be giving any lessons to anyone about this kind of stuff.
I guess China fears that Google's movement will start a pattern of western tech/internet companies leaving China.
Would Chinese companies be able to fill the void leave behind be those companies? I'm not sure.
We are about to watch a game of victimhood (sorry, not sure if that's the word) played by the Chinese Govt. Let's see how that works.
[+] [-] chrischen|16 years ago|reply
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsbc#History
If your company is in China, it's implicitly controlled by the gov't since it has authoritarian rule.
[+] [-] andrewtj|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fnid2|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stuntmouse|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rscott|16 years ago|reply
Fascinating, though I hope history will disagree with the message of this piece.
[+] [-] benologist|16 years ago|reply
How is Google trying to manipulate foreign government different from the health industry lobbying for their own interests?
[+] [-] psyklic|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|16 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fnid2|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrischen|16 years ago|reply
But fair for the CCP to impose it's filtering on the people.
I think the fundamental issue is that they are trying to make improvements (opening up) to its policies but wants to do it on it's on terms, which is slightly understandable. "It" being the Chinese communist party. And the prevailing sentiment among all Chinese is that the west (aka pretty much just US) is meddling in the "opening up." I mean after what the US did in Iraq, I can see why they are hostile.
[+] [-] ibarrac|16 years ago|reply
In fact, no country allows unrestricted flow on the Internet of pornographic, violent, gambling or superstitious content, or content on government subversion, ethnic separatism, religious extremism, racialism, terrorism and anti-foreign feelings.
Not true, the US allows all this, with very minor exceptions.
[+] [-] dangrossman|16 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_gambling
So are certain types of porn and anti-government websites.
[+] [-] natch|16 years ago|reply
Maybe Google should point this out to them.
And there's no rule saying companies need to stay out of politics. Even if there was, Google, from the outset, said it was going to be a different kind of company.
[+] [-] Keyframe|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eklitzke|16 years ago|reply
To a certain degree, the same thing is true in America and other western nations. There are a lot of issues to be upset with, and that most people would disagree with the government on. Everyone has problems with the government, and on certain issue most people think the government is wrong (e.g. most people think that Congress spends money wastefully, and that our representatives look at more for their own interests than those of their constituents). But as long as you basically feel that the government is doing the right things -- and I think most people do, looking at things from a holistic perspective -- then you're likely to forgive the transgressions of your government. Or at least you'll limit your disagreement to grumblings, instead of actively protesting or campaigning against the government.
I would argue that the position of the Chinese people is, if not right, at least defensible on these grounds. The quality of life has been improving rapidly in China, and certainly the prestige of the country has been on a huge upswing for the past twenty years (e.g. in economic terms, the space program, political power in international diplomacy, etc.). In such an environment you might not be too worried about Internet censorship (most of which is probably censoring things you don't really care about). As their expansion catches up with them, and the rate that China can increase its wealth and prestige slows down, that will probably change, and people will find more reason to be concerned with censorship and other human rights issues within China. But that could be a while off.
[+] [-] iamwil|16 years ago|reply
When the bird flu broke out, China blocked Taiwan's access to the World Health Organization to get information on how to deal with it--mostly on the grounds that it is an internal affair.
[+] [-] froo|16 years ago|reply
<sacasm> ...except Sealand </sarcasm>
Anyway, there is a great divide between letting a good majority of this kind of stuff through vs blocking as much of it as you can (eg, 99.9% vs ~30%)
In both instances you can say that no country is allows unrestricted flow, but that is not an adequate measuring stick for data flow.
[+] [-] cemregr|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sipior|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] louislouis|16 years ago|reply
Quoted for truth.
[+] [-] jrockway|16 years ago|reply