Microsoft bans 'democracy' for China web users

moneycentral ^

[phoenix_004]

Microsoft's new Chinese internet portal has banned the words "democracy" and "freedom" from parts of its website in an apparent effort to avoid offending Beijing's political censors.

Users of the joint-venture portal, formally launched last month, have been blocked from using a range of potentially sensitive words to label personal websites they create using its free online blog service, MSN Spaces.

[BenLurkin]

I'm not too keen on Google either -- but like a wino in an alley I keep stumbling back to it for another draught.

[af_vet_rr]

China orders all websites, blogs to register with government or face shutdown

Our own "National Telecommunications and Information Administration has decided that Americans using the .us domain have no right to privacy, and that if you have a .us domain that you have registered as private, you will have to reveal your contact information, and if you are planning on a .us domain, you will not be able to register as private. There was no hearing, no due process, no survey of .us owners, come January of 2006, you better reveal your information, or you domain goes bye-bye. More information at AmericansDeservePrivacy.com.

I don't expect this to stop with the .us domain. I expect other agencies and/or Congress to push for such measures across all domains/websites hosted in the US. Many of them do not like us being able to setup private websites (I'm sure they'll use the threat of terrorism as an excuse).

[Golden Eagle]

Unfortunately you are probably correct. At some point long in the future you'll probably have to log onto the network with something similar to your SSN, so you can be tracked and they verify you pay for content you access. We're talking a long ways off, but due to terrorism, hackism, and theivery, the government will probably at some point require it. By then, many will actually want it, else it wouldn't go through.

[Brilliant]

Even if it were air-tight, it would not work. You can say a whole lot of subversive things without saying the words "democracy" and "freedom." They are opening Pandora's Box, but they've somehow convinced themselves that these measures will keep it under control.

And suppose that they are right? They don't seem to understand that the primary thing that makes the internet a useful tool is the fact that you can share ideas freely. If they are going to do this, then why have the internet at all?

The other thing is that they could spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars censoring the web. It's a complete waste of economic resources. To succeed at censoring the web, they'd end up putting their economy at a disadvantage.

[af_vet_rr]

Unfortunately you are probably correct. At some point long in the future you'll probably have to log onto the network with something similar to your SSN, so you can be tracked and they verify you pay for content you access. We're talking a long ways off, but due to terrorism, hackism, and theivery, the government will probably at some point require it. By then, many will actually want it, else it wouldn't go through.

Howard Dean (and Joseph Lieberman to an extent), during his campaign, at one point said people should ID themselves before logging onto the internet, and shouldn't be allowed to use the internet without some kind of blatant electronic trail. He quickly backed off once the criticism started rolling in, but the fact that a presidential candidate of a major party (who now runs that party) would propose such an anti-American sentiment speaks volumes.

Ostensibly, it's "for the children" or "against terrorism", but in the end, it's really just against law-abiding citizens.

[Golden Eagle]

Dean is obviously (for more reasons than this example) a whacko, but there are many Republicans that are currently instituting tighter controls on the internet right now, starting with the administration. It could be decades before a thorough tracking system is in place, but you know they will, eventually, whether we are willing participants, or even aware of it, or not. Enjoy your freedoms while you can, but the majority of per byte traffic on the internet right now is either porn or pirated software/music/movies, and politicians of all colors will eventually feel the need to step in and "protect us from ourselves", if not the actual internet vandals and theives.

[Golden Eagle]

Well whataya know. Looks like Google and Yahoo were already doing it first. I'm sure you'll admit your mistake to hastily criticize Microsoft, and inferences that they and they alone were doing the despicable. /SARCASM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050613/tc_afp/chinainternetcompany

[Salo]

I never said - or inferred - MS was alone, but according to you, Google is a bunch of left wing communists because they use linux, and MS is a bunch of patriotic Americans who stand for all that is good and decent because they use closed-source. They both suck and are complicit in what is in every moral sense a crime.

If you want to know the biggest bunch of Rat Bastards helping the chicoms with the Great Firewall of China, I think Cisco wins the award.

You have yet to condemn MS for this: I condemn MS, Cisco, Intel and anyone else helping the chicoms oppress their citizens.

Here's a link for you. I hope you like it.

[OB1kNOb]

Translation: All Hail the Almighty Dollar/Yen/Yuan/etc.....

"For the love of money is the root of all (kinds of) evil."

[N3WBI3]

You have yet to condemn MS for this

Cold day, hell... enough said..

[Golden Eagle]

LOL, it sure is funny to watch you flop and flounder about when your hypocrisy is exposed. I said in my first post (and have countless other times) I don't believe in tech exports to China because all they do is use them to further their goals of oppression. I then in my last post above referred to the practice as "despicable". You're the one left trying to explain why you originally tried to bash Microsoft alone for it, and infer that I somehow supported it, both of which leave you in your current predicament, for which I am certainly not to blame. Quite obviously, you have no one but yourself to thank for that.

[Golden Eagle]

You're just as hypocritical as he is. If you want to take a step towards proving you're not, then go create a thread with today's news that the Mozilla site in Korea was hacked and defaced.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050613/tc_afp/chinainternetcompany

You wasted no time creating a thread when a similar problem happened to MSN a couple of weeks ago, your joy overflowing. Remember?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1415640/posts

[Golden Eagle]

Wrong link. Here it is:

http://addict3d.org/index.php?page=viewarticle&type=news&ID=7380

And another:

http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3512081

[N3WBI3]

See Salo, I just told you not to hold you're breath and the sorry guy comes back with more attacks on anything OSS rather than condemn MS's actions..

[Golden Eagle]

I already condemmed them, and pointed they were not alone, and we've since come to find out that Google and Yahoo had already made those changes for the Chicoms ahead of Microsoft.

Now the question is, are you going to show any consistency yourself, and create a thread about Mozilla's website getting hacked like you so gleefully did when it happened to Microsoft? Apparently not.

[N3WBI3]

This is great, though you might want a peek..

nowhere on the thread does he actually condemn MS and misses this thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421954/posts started at 06/13/2005 11:41:03 AM CDT, before he said "Now the question is, are you going to show any consistency yourself, and create a thread about Mozilla's website getting hacked like you so gleefully did when it happened to Microsoft?" at 06/13/2005 11:58:13 AM CDT...

Talk about a fanatic...

[Golden Eagle]

Good, hopefully I won't have to goad you into it next time.

My position is very consistent, I don't believe in basically any tech exports to China, especially not giving them free copies of software to legally use much less rename "Red Flag".

I also despise when companies like IBM and Microsoft partner with or praise the Chicoms. Yes, I think IBM is more guilty of this, rightfully so, but I've also created entire new threads to bash Gates before, because I thought he deserved it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1345585/posts

Once again, you're wrong. Typical.

[Salo]

What predicament? I acknowledge the transfers take place. I don't like it, but it does not matter. You get fired up about Red Hat being renamed Red Flag and distributed by the Chicoms, and you soil yourself over anything IBM does, but I have yet to see you explicitly condemn Microsoft or Sun for doing what IBM, Cisco, Google and Yahoo also do. In your world, MS and Sun are stand-up, patriotic American companies who would never sell our enemies the rope to hang us with. In reality, they are no better than anyone else.

Man up, Nancy: you and yours are as bad as anyone else and theirs. Thankfully, you are through pretending you have the moral high ground on this issue.

[Golden Eagle]

Horse manure. You support the GPL license, which does allow the chicoms to take a free and legal copy of Red Hat Linux and rename and resell it as Red Flag instead. Pointing fingers at Microsoft doesn't do you any good either, since they do nothing of the sort. They are actually victims of software piracy in China, something you seem obvlivious to since in your mind it should all be free anyway. If not you, the rest of your anti-Microsoft GPL-loving pack.

[Salo]

I support the GPL, the BSD licenses and MS's right to keep their source to themselves and sell the binaries. If it's your property, you can do what you want with it within the law. Not the issue.

If Red Hat is ok with China using their stuff and calling it Red Flag, I won't argue with them. Again, not the issue.

I feel anyone using MS's software should pay for it. Again, not the issue.

The issue here is not software piracy or the GPL.

The issue is MS (among all of the others doing it) is helping the chicoms to oppress their people: it's wrong.