What's new

Google to show China what it's missing

It just requires you to jump through a few extra hoops (proxy servers) and it's done. People do it all the time.

But wouldn't you rather not have to do that?

Wouldn't you love to be able to get on your computer and be able to instantly look up any information you want without jumping through hoops?

I am NOT pro-Communism at all. :rofl: Where did you get such a ridiculous idea from, or is it just another stereotype?

From observing posts from you across the forum. You kind of give off that impression by what you say.
 
.
But wouldn't you rather not have to do that?

Wouldn't you love to be able to get on your computer and be able to instantly look up any information you want without jumping through hoops?

Sure, but saving a few minutes on web searches is very low on the priority list. It doesn't improve people's livelihoods in the way that combating inflation or corrupt local officials would.

I would prefer they fix the things that actually impact people's livelihoods first, rather than these "political games" between corporations and nations, that aren't actually for the benefit of the Chinese people.

From observing posts from you across the forum. You kind of give off that impression by what you say.

I am pro-Free markets, I am against excessive financial-regulations, and I believe we could benefit from increased privatization.

In short, I am the exact opposite of what you would call a Communist.
 
.
I do care, but I care about other things more. Like inflation or corrupt local officials.

Information is easy to find, it's not exactly difficult to cross the firewall. It just requires you to jump through a few extra hoops (proxy servers) and it's done. People do it all the time.

Frankly I am sick and tired of outsiders trying to speak on our behalf. Just come over here and ask us.



I am NOT pro-Communism at all. :rofl: Where did you get such a ridiculous idea from, or is it just another stereotype?
About censorship,a foreigner living in Shenzhen uploaded an interesting video, check it。
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Sure, but saving a few minutes on web searches is very low on the priority list. It doesn't improve people's livelihoods in the way that combating inflation or corrupt local officials would.

I would prefer they fix the things that actually impact people's livelihoods first, rather than these "political games" between corporations and nations, that aren't actually for the benefit of the Chinese people.



I am pro-Free markets, I am against excessive financial-regulations, and I believe we could benefit from increased privatization.

In short, I am the exact opposite of what you would call a Communist.

Totally agree with you on that, there are too many people assuming what China wants without asking the people of China
 
. .
I can understand. After born and brought up on CCP propaganda for an entire life; it must be impossible to digest any non-communist news...:hitwall:

I like my searches pre-screened to exclude Western propaganda. It's not censorship. It's a time-saving feature.
 
.
Hahaha, i agree with Bond.

Someone would have to be pretty brainwashed to believe that anything that isn't CPP approved is "Western Propaganda"

My god.
 
.
Hahaha, i agree with Bond.

Someone would have to be pretty brainwashed to believe that anything that isn't CPP approved is "Western Propaganda"

My god.

go back to your unemployment line kid.

everyone knows the west produces propaganda.
eg. WMD in iraq, lies about libyan no-fly zone to kill gaddafi

only the white man slave...indians believe western propaganda.
the indians have been brainwashed by the whites that the white race is superior and that everything the white man says is right.
i guess indians are brainwashed in all those western schools in india with western curriculums to bow and obey their superior white master.

indians are so far up the white man's arse, they think the white man's sh*t dont stink.
 
.
go back to your unemployment line kid.

I'm not unemployed. Failed at an insult. Shows you can't participate in a civil discussion/debate.

everyone knows the west produces propaganda.
eg. WMD in iraq, lies about libyan no-fly zone to kill gaddafi

So you are claiming that things such as natural river systems in China is "Western propaganda"? :rofl:

only the white man slave...indians believe western propaganda.
the indians have been brainwashed by the whites that the white race is superior and that everything the white man says is right.

Ah here we go, i was wondering when the racism would start. Race has nothing to do with anything in this thread. Again, shows you can't participate in a civil debate/discussion when you need to start spewing racism and insults everywhere.

i guess indians are brainwashed in all those western schools in india with western curriculums to bow and obey their superior white master.indians are so far up the white man's arse, they think the white man's sh*t dont stink.

Indians have nothing to do with anything in this thread. God knows why you have even written this. Have you taken your medication today? You just randomly start talking about Indians and white people out of the blue.

This is something i have observed alot from you. As soon as you can't contribute anything to a discussion, you start up with racism, insults and random offtopicness.

Please remain on topic or you will be reported to the mods.
 
.
But wouldn't you rather not have to do that?

Wouldn't you love to be able to get on your computer and be able to instantly look up any information you want without jumping through hoops?

From observing posts from you across the forum. You kind of give off that impression by what you say.


I suppose the question is given what the Chinese enjoy today how will freedom of speech really benefit the citizens? Or do they even care?

I too think the CPC sometimes go overboard in censoring material, then again so does the Singapore government. Really only a very small fraction of Singaporeans really give a damn about what the government is trying to censor, we have more important things to worry about than some magazine lambasting the PAP. During the dark years of Singapore the politics were so dark it would be considered close to communism in comparison.

At the end of the day we all benefited, we have a safe country in part of the world where surrounding countries have murders on a daily basis. Some so often its counted by the hour.

I can empathize with CD when western powers come and try to implement their thoughts on how things should be run without actually understanding the situations or the societies culture. Singapore used to be like that at one point in time receiving criticism after criticism about freedom etc.

Disneyland with the Death Penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
I came across a bloomberg article of some relevance, the whole article is quite refreshing so I decided not to bold out the more important bits


China’s Blog Censorship Rules Have U.S. Parallels

What’s the opposite of free speech? If you answered, “totalitarian censorship,” you are right -- and you are old.

In the Internet age, censorship is all about allowing partial, temporary free speech, then shutting it down once enough has been said. The innovator, as usual these days when it comes to nondemocratic governance, is China, where the leading microblog site, Sina Weibo, unveiled its modified censorship model this week.

Users get 80 points. Monitors will take away points for violations. These include the censors’ old favorite, criticizing the government. You can also lose points for spreading rumor (which I thought was the whole point of the Internet) or promoting cults (a provision apparently aimed at the banned spiritual movement Falun Gong). The monitors will also scour your comments for puns or other circumlocutions used to avoid censorship in the past. If you run out of points, you’re cut off.

If free speech is so threatening, why don’t the powers- that-be in China just shut down the microblogs altogether? Part of the answer is that with 324 million users, Sina Weibo has become too big to fail, or at least too much a part of normal Chinese life to be eliminated. But the deeper reason to keep the masses microblogging is that the Chinese government reaps important gains from it. This is not your father’s Communist Party. Nor your grandfather’s. China’s leadership is engaged in a complicated, risky process of trying to gain some of the advantages of democratic government without the disadvantage of putting itself up for direct election. Free speech is a crucial part of the experiment.

Releasing Pressure

A major benefit of allowing people to complain on the Web is that it allows society to blow off steam. This is a venerable value of free speech, recognized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in a famous dissent in 1951, responding to the court’s choice to uphold the conviction of 11 American Communists for teaching subversive ideas. “The airing of ideas releases pressures which otherwise might become destructive,” Douglas wrote. If such release is beneficial in a democracy, it’s doubly so in a place where there is no robust public sphere.

Another advantage of limited free speech is that it allows the government to gather information about public concerns. Chinese authorities can’t rely on ordinary polling data, because pollsters in China can’t operate freely, lest they learn of serious opposition to the government. And it’s impossible to spy on 1.3 billion people all the time. The microblogs serve as “the abstract and brief chronicles of the time,” as Hamlet called the theater.

Once the microblogs have conveyed what people are thinking, the government can respond to their concerns, as it did last summer after the Zhejiang train derailment when Premier Wen Jiabao made a special visit to the site in apparent reaction to public frustration with bureaucratic silence and denials. Responding to public opinion is the hallmark of accountable government. Without elections to provide oversight, China’s leaders need every opportunity they can get to demonstrate that they respond to people’s concerns. Seen this way, limited free speech, followed by government action, is an important part of how the Chinese Communist Party seeks to sustain its legitimacy.
Proxy Battle

The party is utterly aware that free speech could help bring the government down. That is why it is experimenting with freedom in moderation, and using quasi-private entities like Sina Weibo as its proxies. China’s leaders are trying to gain the advantages of free speech without paying its full price. First Amendment absolutists will probably raise their eyebrows at this. After all, Americans have been raised to believe that free speech has a life of its own; that truth is great and shall prevail.

Yet there is an extraordinary precedent for China’s censorship model: the history of free speech in England and the U.S. before the modern era. When it was drafted, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution didn’t contemplate the radical freedom Americans now enjoy. Its language, drawn from English precedents, was aimed essentially at prohibiting what is called prior restraint: government censorship of books and newspapers before they could be published. As with the Sina Weibo rules, once you had spoken or written, you could still be punished for what you had freely said. You were accountable under the crime of seditious libel.

That law punished -- you guessed it -- criticizing the government, spreading false rumor and impugning religion. It was, according to the great English legal scholar William Blackstone, “necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion.” It existed in the U.S. even after the Constitution was ratified, sustaining convictions through the late 18th century. The U.K. didn’t officially take it off the books until 2009.

Censors, take note. Or on second thought, please don’t. I want to keep all 80 of my points in case I need them.

(Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard University and the author of “Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR’s Great Supreme Court Justices,” is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer responsible for this article: Noah Feldman in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at noah_feldman@harvard.edu.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Lisa Beyer at lbeyer@bloomberg.net.

Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View columns, editorials and op-ed articles.
 
.
I came across a bloomberg article of some relevance, the whole article is quite refreshing so I decided not to bold out the more important bits


China’s Blog Censorship Rules Have U.S. Parallels

<snipped>

Yet there is an extraordinary precedent for China&#8217;s censorship model: the history of free speech in England and the U.S. before the modern era. When it was drafted, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution didn&#8217;t contemplate the radical freedom Americans now enjoy. Its language, drawn from English precedents, was aimed essentially at prohibiting what is called prior restraint: government censorship of books and newspapers before they could be published. As with the Sina Weibo rules, once you had spoken or written, you could still be punished for what you had freely said. You were accountable under the crime of seditious libel.

That law punished -- you guessed it -- criticizing the government, spreading false rumor and impugning religion. It was, according to the great English legal scholar William Blackstone, &#8220;necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion.&#8221; It existed in the U.S. even after the Constitution was ratified, sustaining convictions through the late 18th century. The U.K. didn&#8217;t officially take it off the books until 2009.

Censors, take note. Or on second thought, please don&#8217;t. I want to keep all 80 of my points in case I need them.

(Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard University and the author of &#8220;Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR&#8217;s Great Supreme Court Justices,&#8221; is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer responsible for this article: Noah Feldman in Cambridge, Massachusetts, at noah_feldman@harvard.edu.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Lisa Beyer at lbeyer@bloomberg.net.

Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View columns, editorials and op-ed articles.
So you had to reach back a hundred years or so in order to make a comparison...:lol:

I like my searches pre-screened to exclude Western propaganda. It's not censorship. It's a time-saving feature.
And all of you are liars.

EVERY ONE of you love the uncensored Internet as advocated by the West.
 
.
So you had to reach back a hundred years or so in order to make a comparison...:lol:

Refer to my first post, I was comparing China against Singapore. The second was merely an article by a gentleman from harvard which Bloomberg felt worthy of of publishing. The crux should really be how the Chinese government is taking bay steps to freedom. Isn't what all the fuss by pro freedom people like yourselves are about?

Also I recalled asking you this question before on a similar topic which I have have yet to get the answer for.

How will increase freedom from what is available in China today benefit the citizens from what they already have?
And all of you are liars.

EVERY ONE of you love the uncensored Internet as advocated by the West.

Lets not kid ourselves all of us have access to the internet and pretty much gain whatever information we want. The debate is how does the internet censorship in China really matter to the actual wants of its citizens.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom