Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chinese Human Rights Orgs Hit By DDoS

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the stuff-that-matters dept.

Security 156

Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "IDG News Service is reporting that several human rights organizations focusing on China have been hit by DDoS attacks this weekend, including Chinese Human Rights Defenders and Civil Rights and Livelihood Watch. The latter works on issues of mental persecution (dissidents being thrown into mental hospitals where they were forced onto medication or beaten with electric batons) and eminent-domain type problems (seizure of farmland or urban land without compensation when the government is working on a project)."

cancel ×

156 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Seriously? (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892304)

Think it was the chinese again?

I wonder what a full-blown revolt in China would look like nowadays...there are so many people living in that country, it would be insane.

Re:Seriously? (5, Funny)

ZuluZero (1159015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892326)

Maybe it was the /. community, duped into a DOS attack to RTFA ;-)

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892358)

If they give them all TV sets that should be enough to pacify enough of them so that revolts don't happen.

It works great in developed countries.

Re:Seriously? (1)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892554)

Maybe they should bump their Tonight Show host for Conan. Cause a huge ruckus.

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893006)

The parent has been marked funny, but I would argue that their statement is more true than most people realize.

Entertainment has a long history of use by oppressive regimes to give people something easy to focus on, and taking focus away from the terrible policies said regimes put in place.

Hell, the US has lost so many basic human rights in the last decade, that I'm amazed a civil war *didn't* break out. But hey... as long as people get to have their reality TV shows, it's all good, right?

Re:Seriously? (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893460)

Blaming entertainment obscures the true issue. So long as people have to work long hours to put food on the table, they don't revolt. It's when they cannot put food on the table that they revolt. There are some notable exceptions, but most revolutions are traced to shortages.

Re:Seriously? (4, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893546)

Panem et circences. [wikipedia.org] The Romans had that figured out millenia ago. Great way to keep the plebs quiet and pliant.

It worked, for awhile. (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893720)

Notice how the Roman empire fell.

Re:It worked, for awhile. (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893948)

At an early age we learn the concept of persistence, but during the rest of our lives we painfully learn how nothing last forever.

All great (and not so great) empires fall.

Re:It worked, for awhile. (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30894274)

Notice how the Roman empire fell.

If your point is that it fell by continued complacence by Roman citizens, heavier and heavier reliance on foreign-born legionary soldiers, and increased pressure from upwardly sophisticated (often by those same soldiers going back home and taking what they learned from the legions with them) "barbarian" attacks from the tribes in Germania and Gual, and a continuously lops-sided and punitive tax code, yeah...

Re:Seriously? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#30894374)

I don't think that the above poster was "blaming" entertainment, so much as pointing out that government USES entertainment. Let's face it - entertainers aren't necessarily the brightest of bulbs. Almost all the big names in Hollywood are liberals, for example. They aren't very sharp tools, but they are tools.

Re:Seriously? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 4 years ago | (#30894302)

It would make sense, except in other countries (that had TVs) there have been revolutions when the population hit a certain level of wealth. South Korea and Taiwan come to mind.....Taiwan was a single-party dictatorship until the 80s. The revolution was relatively peaceful, but I don't think anyone minds. It seems as soon as people have certain basic needs met and reach a certain level of comfort, they begin to start looking for more freedom. It seems reasonable to believe this will happen in China too.

Re:Seriously? (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892594)

Why would they revolt?
The have it better now than anytime in their history. Sure a few may come to the US and the EU but they will see the improvements that they have been making over time and expect them to continue.

Not to mention that they are proud that went from being a third world nation to a super power in a generation.
I don't like the way things work in China but if you look back to how they worked before I think you will see that a DOS and great firewall are progress compared to the cultural revolution.

Re:Seriously? (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892698)

And what would they revolt for? To change Chinese culture and how the country works overnight? That must end well. Remember that the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese. I don't think the country could manage a huge change.

Re:Seriously? (2, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893394)

Remember that the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese.

While I agree, in general, with your statement, it should be pointed out that the current Chinese government is also responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese. While I personally think the Soviet Union still holds the title for Killing the Largest Number of Your Own People, the Chinese are running a close second.

Re:Seriously? (4, Insightful)

sp3d2orbit (81173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893474)

what would they revolt for? To change Chinese culture

The current political leaders aren't "Chinese culture". Chinese culture is represented by thousands of years of history, not the last few decades. In fact, Taiwan has a better link to Chinese "culture" than mainland China as that government is older.

What would they revolt for? Stability. Authoritarian regimes are unstable. Authoritarian regimes don't allow for pressure release valves causing tensions to build and build and build until they explode, like they are in the Western Provinces.

the current Chinese government are the ones that stopped years long bloody internal wars and the dieing of millions of Chinese

I can't tell if you are trolling or if you are an agent of the Chinese government. But, let me remind you that 1) the current government started a civil war to gain power 2) killed over 30 million people during the cultural revolution and 3) continue to kill people to this day for speaking out for human rights.

I don't think the country could manage a huge change.

The Chinese are a resilient people who have dealt with many more huge changes than any Western culture can fathom. It is arrogant and condescending to imply that the Chinese people cannot "handle" a more open system.

mod parent +6 (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30894090)

nothing makes my blood boil more than these condescending western attitudes that nonwestern places have a "special" culture that means they can't appreciate or don't deserve basic things like participatory democracy

as if you cross the ural mountains or the mediterranean or the rio grande and *poof*, magic!: those people over there have a "special" thousands of years of history and a deep intricate culture that apparently teaches us... somehow... drum roll please... that its ok for autocracies to commit horrible violations of basic human rights

wtf?!

human rights triumph culture. culture does not triumph human rights. nevermind the fucking braindead obvious observation that government != culture. is german culture the third reich? is russian culture the soviet union?

furthermore, its called HUMAN rights, not WESTERN rights. please, some of you morons out there: this attitude about "special" cultures needing our respect... translating in your ignorant mind as asshole governments needing to be excused of outrageous crimes... this attitude is really nothing more than soft racism

Re:Seriously? (1, Redundant)

Jenming (37265) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892830)

China was a second world country.

Re:Seriously? (3, Interesting)

steelfood (895457) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893046)

No mods, not informative.

"First World" refers to the US, Western Europe, and allies. "Second World" refers to the Soviets and their allies. China was and has always firmly been among the "Third World."

Since the fall of the USSR, the "Second World" doesn't really exist, though the countries that made up the Eastern Bloc, including most of Eastern Europe, could be said to have been in the "Second World."

Re:Seriously? (2, Informative)

Rolaulten (1392077) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893232)

Even then using the terminology of 'first' 'second' and 'third' world countries is sliding around the truth. What is more apt to say is that there are developed (eg most of the EU, US, etc), developing (China, India, countries experiencing industrial growth) and un-developed countries.

Re:Seriously? (1)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893464)

Based on GDP per Area, I would put china as a developing county.

I would use GDP per Capita but i think the large population in india/china kinda skews the results, But this approach doesn't really do justice to Russia, Canada, Australia, or Brazil.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30893660)

Based on GDP per Area, I would put china as a developing county.

Which has nothing to do with "First World, Second World or Third World". Those terms are Cold War era terms. First World were the countries aligned with the West. Second World were the countries aligned with the Soviets. Third Words were countries aligned with neither.

I would agree with the other poster who called China Third World, because although Communist until Mao's death, they were not friendly with the Soviets. China and the Soviet Union even had the occasional shooting match.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30894350)

not saying you're wrong but wikipedia says China was considered a 2nd world country because of it's alignment to russia - communism and all that.

Re:Seriously? (2, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892954)

"The have it better now than anytime in their history."

Some have it better now. There are a billion people living in China, and only a minority have access to the improved standards of living that you are referring to. This is pretty much how things were in the Soviet Union: some people were better off, but most were either in the same position they were in before the revolution or in an even worse position as a result of the government's policies.

Sorry, I know that the Reagan/Thatcher concept is popular, but increased trade does not always bring a higher standard of living to every single citizen or even to a majority of citizens.

Re:Seriously? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893286)

In the not too distant future you had war lords ruling large areas of China and western governments doing their best to treat China like a colony, after that you had the Japanese invasion, then you had the revolution leading up to the terror of the cultural revolution.
China has almost no history of human rights of freedom in the last 100 plus years.
Way to many people mistake my statements with approval. I do not approval of the actions of the Chinese government.
I was stating that the risk to benefit ratio makes a revolution just not worth it for the Chinese people at this time.
As to your statment on trade. I feel giving china the benefit of our trade was one of the worst ideas ever.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30894328)

While there were many facets of Soviet life that were anything but perfect, it is simple ignorance to say "some people were better off, but most were either in the same position they were in before the revolution or in an even worse position as a result of the government's policies". The majority of people before the revolution (alright, go back 20 years or so before for more really nasty stuff) were basically slaves. They had very limited access to education and healthcare, and almost no social mobility. For long periods in the Soviet Union, at least after Stalin was gone, people had almost 100% access to education and healthcare. I don't know that stats on pre-revolution literacy, but I do know that even now literacy in the former USSR countries is higher than some "first world" countries.
I lived in Russia for about a year and a half, and the family where I stayed for the first year was an excellent example of the good things about the USSR - the dad was a physics researcher, and got his 180 rubles/m and the mum a biology researcher on 160 or something like that. With the extras they got from work that they were able barter, it led to a comfortable life. They had very high quality healthcare, education and (non-political) cultural activities. They couldn't afford a car but had literally no use for one - public transport was so good, and dirt cheap. Life was not filled with luxuries but everything was taken care of, and there was plenty of spare time. What about now? The dad is working *double* shifts at a secondary school and spending nights and weekends writing exams for private tertiary institutions, the mum is working as a seamstress and gets paid once every three months or so, and sometimes in things like fish! So they have FAR less disposable income than before. AND they have no politcal freedom! If you look at the reality of how corruption has got so much nastier in Russia than it was before (it's always been there, now it's just extremely nasty), then the quality of life of MOST people is well below what it was after about the 1960s. Hell, look at the average life expectancy of males in Russia since it's peak of around 1985 just before the collapse and what it is now, at one point more than 20 years was shaved off the high point!
A++

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30892978)

Better than in the Tang or Sun Dinasty?

Not true (1)

microbox (704317) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893280)

The have it better now than anytime in their history.

There are now two Chinas. The vast majority are working poor, and are severely and even cruelly suppressed. PBS has a good documentary about 1989 [pbs.org] , which includes an extensive section on what working in China is like now, and how the country has been changing.

If you watch this documentary, you might easily see why a large number of chinese people might want to revolt, if they weren't so completely powerless.

OT question (1)

JonStewartMill (1463117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893380)

> All spelling and grammar errors are intentional. Grammar Nazis' need entertainment.

Including the one in your sig?

Re:OT question (0, Offtopic)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893414)

What do you think?

Re:OT question (1)

JonStewartMill (1463117) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893570)

I think irritation != entertainment.

Re:Seriously? (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893782)

Why would they revolt?
The have it better now than anytime in their history. Sure a few may come to the US and the EU but they will see the improvements that they have been making over time and expect them to continue.

Not to mention that they are proud that went from being a third world nation to a super power in a generation.
I don't like the way things work in China but if you look back to how they worked before I think you will see that a DOS and great firewall are progress compared to the cultural revolution.

It's seemingly good for them -- for now. But there are a lot of parallels to America's own past. We had our Gilded Age and we had our bust after that, we had our Roaring 20's and our Great Depression. During the boom times, everyone thought that they could get their piece of the action, have a nice, thick slice of the pie. But when everything crashed, the average worker found out that they weren't left holding anything but the bag. This is why we could go from the rah-rah capitalism of the 20's to robber-barons seriously worrying about a communist revolution in the 30's. That's the only reason why FDR was able to pass the reforms he did, because the people with the money realized they had to throw the workers some kind of bone or risk everything going red.

So things are going great for China -- for now. But just how firm is the foundation they're building this economic empire on? We're already seeing the cracks in Dubai. The crappy infrastructure is a concrete and steel metaphor for the place, a gilded turd. It's a giant speculative bubble built on something even less substantial than sand. It's no wonder everything is crashing down once the hype ends.

During that big quake of theirs we caught a glimpse of China's way of doing business. The older buildings stood up because they were built boring and according to standards put in place during the "we're really trying to be communist" era. The newer buildings were built during the "we're only nominally communist, don't tell anyone" era and lots of shortcuts and substitutions were made in materials and workmanship, just like in the gangster capitalism countries. The newer buildings collapsed, the older ones not so much.

If China's prosperity proves as ephemeral as the typical bubble economy, things could get ugly rather quickly. Lots of Chinese are still taking it in the shorts. If there's not even the fiction of possibly becoming wealthy, they're not going to suffer quietly. There's the demographic crisis with lots of young men and not as many young women for them to marry. There's ethnic unrest amongst the non-Han population. There's looming ecological disasters, famine, drought, flooding, etc. And my personal guess -- if I were writing a techno-thriller this is how I'd do it -- is that things are going to really turn to shit when the Three Gorges Dam finally gets a 7.0 or greater quake and suffers a catastrophic failure. The death of a prestige project, the loss of all that hydroelectric power, plus all the deaths from the flooding downstream. Could be taken as a sign that the rulers just lost the mandate of heaven, or it could be taken to show that the rulers can't get anything right.

This is not to say a rebellion WILL happen, just that it's certainly conceivable and doesn't require many leaps and contortions of logic to hypothesize.

at some point, your economy stops growing (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893840)

maybe even sinks a little. then all hell breaks lose

sure, everything is quiet now, and plenty support the grumpy old technocrats in beijing. because they are delivering massive economic growth. but the elite are living on borrowed time, because when things go south, and they will: no country grows economically unhindered forever, then the people will ask questions. and then the grumpy old men in beijing won't have answers, just platitudes and lies, and so the people will look to other grumpy old men to answer those questions. but since there is no peaceful way to make regime change, a la a democracy, then the government becomes increasingly seen as illegitimate by its people, and before long, beijing looks like tehran

democracy is the only form of government that manufactures legitimacy, appeasing the masses. the people vote, there's a new face, a new ideology, and everyone is happy again. but of course, discord grows again, it always does. so you repeat in a few years. this is the most powerful positive attribute of democracy: legitimacy. which leads to social stability, security, economic growth, a good environment for education: everything you hold dear. manufacturing legitimacy offsets all of democracy's messiness

in fact, the autocrats frequently talk about "harmony" being a positive value and ooh: look at how messy and full of discord democracies are. and the autocrats are absolutely right, democracies ARE messy. except that the harmony they provide is a placid lie, a pressure cooker. messiness and discord is the natural state of human politics: an ugly truth. "harmony" is the false state of mankind. we bicker, and we always will. "harmony" is borrowed time, only the calm before the storm. but apparently the grumpy old men can't see that. autocracies, no matter how orderly, inevitably decay in legitimacy over time in the eyes of the people they govern, because there's no institutionalized means of feedback like a democracy provides. so a breaking point is reached, and all hell breaks out. and then you have iran

its completely unavoidable, unless the grumpy old men in beijing prove to be the REAL geniuses they supposedly are, and transition to democracy. it's not like they haven't done every other point in the master plan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Principles_of_the_People [wikipedia.org]

they have 1. the nationalism. they kicked out all the foreign parasites. they righted the shame of the british forcing opium on them. they got out from under the warlords. they united, strong and vigilant
they have 2. 'the People's welfare/livelihood'. deng xiaoping said "let a thousand flowers bloom", and they did: economic might definitely came.
now all they have left is 3. democracy. so pull the trigger already, you fuckers. it's all right there in the fucking master plan

did you forget, grumpy old men?

if the technocracts choose democracy, we are entering an age of world dominance by china, because it will be economically powerful AND stable, and i really wouldn't be bothered by it either, i'd welcome it. a change of pace from american ideological inconsistency and lack of coherence and damaged integrity on the world stage

but if the technocrats choose the tiananmen square answer to calls for democracy, china is not going to be a world power, not for a thousand years. its going to sink into discord and mediocrity and simmering anger. and i will then only say to china: serves you right. because you either give a voice to your people, or you're illegitimate. in your people's eyes, and the eyes of the world

the grumpy old men are living on borrowed time. but i haven't completely written them off. remember, we're talking about a communist party which has embraced rabid capitalism. if they can pull off that ideological dissonance, i don't see why they can't pull off the ideological dissonance of an autocracy choosing democracy

its your move, grumpy old men. choose wisely. for the sake of a billion and a half people, please, choose wisely

Re:Seriously? (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892650)

It could just as well be anyone else, even US gov to try to get people to blame China. Maybe it actually does have something to do with the fact that China isn't loaning so much money to US anymore and as an answer they're trying to make Chinese look bad. Maybe Google is in this plan too!

Yeah, anyone can throw in all kinds of theories, but we don't really know. It could just as likely be anyone else, even someone who just does it fun to see all these news around the internet.

Comment from article:

It's useless to ask the chinese government if they're responsible because the timing makes it so obvious they would feel it was pointless to admit it, It's just too obvious

Yeah right. Too obvious, so it must be Chinese.

Re:Seriously? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893658)

I wonder what a full-blown revolt in China would look like nowadays...there are so many people living in that country, it would be insane.

China has the world's largest standing army.
It really wouldn't be much trouble for them to occupy their own country.
Particularly in light of China's strict control of domestic ammunition and arms sales:
Buying and selling weapons/ammo leads to jail time or the death sentence.

So to answer your question, a Chinese revolt would be a disaster.

Re:Seriously? (2)

tibman (623933) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893970)

Don't forget that the Chinese Army is made up of Chinese Citizens. Some may fire on their own people when told to.. but i'll bet some will fire on those giving the orders as well.

Re:Seriously? (1)

hey (83763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893666)

It would be a People's Revolution. Possibly by a People's Revolutionary Army.

Re:Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30893810)

I wonder what a full-blown revolt in China would look like nowadays...there are so many people living in that country, it would be insane.

It'd most likely look like an awful lot of unarmed people getting run over by tanks. Which their government would deny violently by running over, with tanks, any unarmed bloggers who reported it.

Horsecock (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30892312)

I can't believe it's not horsecock [goatse.fr] .

It serves then right. (3, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892362)

Those damn Liberal Commies... Uhh.. Wait.. Ummm.......

Re:It serves then right. (2, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892894)

Those damn Liberal Commies... Uhh.. Wait.. Ummm.......

Commies have generally spent more time fighting each other than the people who are supposedly their enemies. Stalin may have been a psychopath, but it's a safe bet that more than a few of the people he stabbed in the back were planning to stab him in the back if he hadn't acted first.

Re:It serves then right. (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893202)

I kind of see that as chicken vs egg.
 
Were they going to stab him in the back just because or were they going to stab him in the back because if they didn't he was going to stab them in the back.

Re:It serves then right. (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893528)

...it's a safe bet that more than a few of the people he stabbed in the back were planning to stab him in the back if he hadn't acted first.

Hear, hear! It's a little known fact that the switchblade knife industry skyrocketed in Ukraine before Stalin got wise to their plans, and preemptively struck at over 6 million [wikipedia.org] would-be backstabbers.

Re:It serves then right. (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30894130)

What you describe is a 'feature' of any government in which one or a very few have almost unlimited power. It has nothing to do with communist theory. If you look at the history of western Europe from the time of the Roman empire to the end of absolute monarchies you will see the exact same behavior time after time.
Stalin's number of killed are impressive only because of technological advances which allowed it.

One day (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892368)

We'll look back on this kind of persecution and vow never to let it happen again. I won't be the first one to break Godwin's Law but you know exactly where I'm headed.

Re:One day (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892436)

I'm fairly certain that claiming you are not going to Godwin a conversation is in fact Godwin'ing a conversation, but I agree with you in any case.

Re:One day (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30892462)

Nazi Germany?

Re:One day (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892632)

Nice thought but it keeps happening again and again. The good thing is thing is that currently things in China are better than they where during the Cultural Revolution.

Re:One day (2, Insightful)

tsm_sf (545316) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892754)

better than they where during the Cultural Revolution

Anything would be though, wouldn't it? Actually for the average "man on the ground" this is probably the best time in China's thousands year history. Doesn't mean it still doesn't suck ass.

Re:One day (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893336)

Ever said that it was a way I wanted to live but sometimes you have to look at it from a different point of view.
If you got beat every day and worked 16 hours a day you will think that a new master that doesn't beat you and works you only 12 hours a day is a hero.

Re:One day (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892796)

The good thing is thing is that currently things in China are better than they where during the Cultural Revolution.

Only because most people are good little citizens (with exception of google.cn users and these evil human rights proponents).

Re:One day (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893788)

or you mean pitizens?

Re:One day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30893488)

The Chinese and the Americans will get together and blame the 'Terrorists' while continuing to eleminate human rights?

Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (2, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892386)

I really hope this DDoS is not being sponsored by the CCP. I mean seriously, do they *want* to piss off the world? If this doesn't unite black-hats, I don't know what would. I stupid can a government be?!!

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (5, Insightful)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892470)

From the looks of it, I doubt they care. They are far too integrated with the world economic systems to be made a pariah of. Their biggest concern is losing control of the masses. As long as the peasants stay in line, they can sit back and not give a damn about the rest of the world.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892752)

It's not only Chinese government's concern, it's all of chinese. The country would drop into a total chaos if the government falls, and it would probably be bloody - history shows this. I think the citizens also understand that and think its better to live than let the bloody internal wars start again.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893012)

"I think the citizens also understand that"

You sure give them a lot of credit, considering that they live under one of the most pervasive censorship and repression systems ever devised. Yeah, there are examples of worse regimes, but they are pretty extreme and really do not say very much.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (3, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893102)

Well they do know that their government is like that, the placing of flowers outside Google China [economist.com] offices and the popularity of Avatar (because of unintentional references to China) show that.

They aren't stupid, you know.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893600)

The Chinese government isn't likely to fall any time soon, but a number of its agencies have been acting very aggressively against foreign interests and governments. It is quite probably true that these agencies are just out of control, and their actions might not be a result of deliberate policy from the "top".

But their Government leaders are taking no measures to rein in those aggressive actions, and sooner or later these will be (correctly) interpreted as acts of war. China might be big, but it would be stupid to go down that path.

Sure, China is a big creditor of the US and a big market for countries like Australia, but ultimately we are going to have to stop kowtowing to them and insist on acceptance of a few basic ground-rules. We are not doing ourselves any favours by brown-nosing to the Chinese just to stop the boat rocking.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (2, Interesting)

sp3d2orbit (81173) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893800)

The country would drop into a total chaos if the government falls

You are perpetuating a fallacy. Change does not require war. In fact, the Chinese constitution already guarantees certain rights to speech, press, and assembly. The Chinese could implement democratic reforms by simply upholding their existing constitution. That would mean allowing people to speak out against the government, government officials, or government actions. That would mean allowing political rivals to run for office. That would mean not censoring the press. It does not require revolution or war.

The idea that the Chinese government provides stability is misguided, at best. Authoritarian regimes don't provide stability -- they repress. That repression leads to frustration and without adequate political safety valves that anger boils over into revolution. Authoritarian regimes create revolutions since there is no other way for the citizens to have their concerns addressed. A Chinese government that adhered to its own constitution would be much more stable than the thugs currently in power.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30892804)

Their biggest concern is losing control of the money

Fixed that for you.

Very few make a career out of government for the power alone, but ALL of them do it for the money. At the top of the power pyramid, money is the goal, and power is simply the means to achieve it.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (3, Interesting)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892856)

In order to maintain control, the Chinese government must prevent widespread unrest. In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike. In order to maintain their status in the world, they must keep growing economically. Therefore, the government keeps hording money. Because the government is hording money, they buy our 'worthless' dollars and prop the value up therefore spreading the wealth to the US rather than spreading it through their citizenry. Once their citizenry see this, and begin to realize their lack of wealth in relation to the rest of the world, and began to want the things they feel a middle class should deserve, there will have to be widespread social unrest to effect the inevitable change. Further, an economy with widespread social arrest is less desirable to investors.

Either the Chinese middle class becomes more affluent through shared prosperity of the Chinese economy - prompting social unrest because of middle class desires such as free speech, the right to own property, the right to ones' investments; or the Chinese government continues to prosper at the expense of the peasant class prompting social unrest.

My prediction: Eventual widespread social unrest and burst of the economic bubble that is China. The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (2, Interesting)

javelinco (652113) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893162)

The United States has a LOT to loose (and gain) from social unrest in China.

Think for a moment.

Do you believe that social unrest in China will be nonviolent? It won't be. There will be plenty of violence - especially if the lid is kept on too long.

Do you believe that the violence won't effect nearby nations, such as Japan, India, Korea, RUSSIA, etc.? It will. It will be deadly serious for those countries, because we are not talking about social unrest where a few people get a few guns and start shooting at people. China may not have a technologically powerful military, but they have a lot of weapons, in the hands of a lot of people, and they are plenty dangerous (these weapons include nuclear missiles, in case you've forgotten). Neighboring countries will be freaking out, to put it mildly, when the shit hits the fan. And they'll have good reason to do so, since the consequences of, and the conflict itself, will most definitely spill outside the border.

Do you believe that the United States won't get involved with the problem? Without a doubt, the United States will get itself entangled in the problem, to some degree. Even if we are constantly being told to butt out by Russia, our other allies like South Korea and Japan will be screaming for help - and we'll try to do something. We'll pour in aid. We'll fuck around in the U.N. trying to create some sort of international intervention, spending massive amounts of political capital. We'll send in troops, with various contradictory missions and poorly thought out objectives. We might be able to resist for a bit, but we'll go in. And our pundits, of course, will say it's because of the money - because Americans, above else, need clarity of purpose - it doesn't MATTER how complicated the situation is - we must simplify it to a single sentence.

And so, do you think this practically inevitable situation won't affect/hurt the United States? I think that's pretty naive. We offload a huge amount of manufacturing of our goods to China - the type of goods that keep our masses happily consuming and ignoring the what's happening in the world. We might not freak out too bad if gasoline hits $4 - but we certainly will if we can't buy a 30" TV for less than a $1000. And we react pretty badly when we demand something as a majority. We won't just get hurt economically, as prices for things considered basic commodities go up - we'll make it worse by poking ourselves, and others, in the eye.

All that said, I hope it happens. I hope the Chinese people take control of their government, grow their middle class, and build some more freedoms into the core of their political, social and moral beliefs. I'm not positive it'll happen, but I'm pretty sure that there will be some sort of explosion in that country. We'll see.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893240)

The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.

I would imagine the US has a tremendous amount to lose if social unrest breaks out in China. If that happens, I'd guess the Chinese government would be inclined to dump their rather considerable reserve of US cash onto the open market rendering the US dollar damn near worthless in the global economy. I'm not an economist (nor enough of a fan of economics to even pretend to be) but it's my understanding that this potential financial armageddon is one of the big reasons that China is able to basically bully the US around the way that virtually no other country can. Someone with far more knowledge in global economics than I can certainly step in to correct me where I've gone wrong but I'd imagine the US would very much like the Chinese political situation to remain relatively stable lest it result in the US dollar becoming worthless.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893858)

I would imagine the US has a tremendous amount to lose if social unrest breaks out in China.

A classic way to quell internal unrest is to focus on an external enemy. How many times has history taught us this?

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893290)

eminent-domain type problems (seizure of farmland or urban land without compensation when the government is working on a project).

What kind of Chinese name is Kelo?

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (1)

Cidolfas (1358603) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893496)

The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.

I'm not sure I agree with you on that count. If the Chinese are still pegging the Yuan to the Dollar and buying US Debt when the unrest happens it could lead to a global market devaluation of the Dollar because so many Dollars would be Chinese-owned and nobody on the global currency markets would be looking to buy them. Add in the fact that, due to the pegged Yuan causing a trade imbalance, the US currently is letting all the manufacturing capacity rust unused and we have a shrinking skilled labor pool. That doesn't bode well for the US.

Then again, I agree that there will be an eventual middle-class revolt in China as the government tries harder and harder to maintain authoritarian control over policy that is increasingly unpopular (like kicking people out of their houses for government projects). When it happens it could cause huge issues with Chinese economics.

Right now China makes stuff for the US and the EU with an undervalued currency because they need the jobs. Basically, they're giving us cheap shit in exchange for paper because it prevents urban young adults from having free time on their hands and no jobs to work at. This prevents a French Muslim-type problem from happening, where 30%+ unemployment leads to radicalism.

So what do I want to happen? China to keep the mandate of heaven by acquiescing to the demands of a growing middle class, and we'll quietly see the communist government overtaken by democratic forces from the within the populace. No disruption, no devaluation, but we wind up with a free China (well, free as in Russia at worst) that will likely kick our asses at economics by sheer scale of production capacity. But I don't count on getting to see that.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30894050)

But in that case, the Yuan will plummet first, won't it?

On the other hand, I highly doubt the theory that China pegs Yuan to Dollar without any market support. Such theory is against the recent economic history and actuality in China. The best one could say is that the government may try to suppress value of Yuan, but it wouldn't work if the market fundamental would not allow it. That's because China has a vibrant black market. Back in 1993, the Yuan's official exchange rate is 3:1 against the Dollar, over twice as high as today's. Yet, nobody could sell their Yuan at that rate; if you wanted to buy USD, trade your Yuan at 8:1 in the black market. Eventually, the government readjusted the rate to that of the black market's. The market won. Today, you still can't exchange large amount in the white market, but the black market rate is pretty close to the official rate. This proves the rate should be about the right.

The same goes for imports. While China charges higher tariff on many imports, such as micro chips, most businesses get their supply from the black market channels which get the products by smuggling. That's how China works. Most things happen in the black market.

Of course, regular Americans wouldn't read about these details

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (2, Informative)

steelfood (895457) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893776)

Wow, ok, let me pick this apart, since it's modded +5.

In order to prevent widespread unrest, they must keep the peasants peasantlike.

No, they have to keep the peasants busy working and trying to make money to raise their standard of living, instead of out of work and making trouble. That means they need to continue to grow and increase their middle class, or the populace won't be happy at all. Remember, it's all about standard of living, or as another guy said it, having a TV in every household.

Therefore, the government keeps hording money.

This is a non-sequitor. The government hording money does not affect the populace's standard of living. Nor does it make sense for the government to horde money to keep the populace poor if they want to keep the populace happy. If the divide between the wealthy (government) and the poor is great, there is a greater chance of unreset.

Because the government is hording money, they buy our 'worthless' dollars and prop the value up therefore spreading the wealth to the US rather than spreading it through their citizenry.

The first part doesn't make sense. If the chinese government is hording money, they won't be buying up dollars. That's spending their money to buy dollars.

They are propping up the US economy. But they're also spending a lot of it domestically. Their entire bailout package was to throw money around to stimulate the economy. Where've you been for the past 2 years?

Once their citizenry see this, and begin to realize their lack of wealth in relation to the rest of the world, and began to want the things they feel a middle class should deserve, there will have to be widespread social unrest to effect the inevitable change. Further, an economy with widespread social arrest is less desirable to investors.

Non-sequitors. And they don't even make sense. In a healthy economy, everybody is growing wealthier. This is basic econ, 101. And what does investors have to do with anything?

Either the Chinese middle class becomes more affluent through shared prosperity of the Chinese economy - prompting social unrest because of middle class desires such as free speech, the right to own property, the right to ones' investments

A happy middle class is a complacent middle class. Just look to the US. Happy middle class means the government can trample over the people's rights. It's when things are bad that people start to get up in arms. Social unrest doesn't happen when everything's fine and dandy.

or the Chinese government continues to prosper at the expense of the peasant class prompting social unrest.

Which isn't happening. The Chinese government (and China in general) is prospering at the expense of the rest of the developed world. What's left of the peasant class is prospering along with everybody else.

My prediction: Eventual widespread social unrest and burst of the economic bubble that is China. The US has nothing to lose from social unrest in China.

That's a nice prediction, but it's not predicated on anything you said before. You threw around social unrest everywhere like they were some kind of key word, without neither understanding what causes social unrest, nor what social unrest actually entails.

Thanks for playing, troll. I praise your cleverness in getting yourself modded +5 despite being completely wrong about--well, almost everything. I guess it's easy to fake knowing things when you're talking to like-minded ignorant people. But anybody who knows even a morsel about the specific subject at hand will shred you apart and expose you for the troll you are.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30894398)

Non-sequitors. And they don't even make sense. .... do you know what non-sequitor means? cuz that's the most redundant statement I've ever heard...

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (1)

steelfood (895457) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893002)

From the looks of it, I doubt they care.

The same could be said of the rest of the world too. Sure, there'll be some political posturing, some grandstanding by local loud-mouths talking about boycotting Chinese goods. But at the end of the day, people will go back to their same old lives, using their China-made toothbrushes to brush their teeth, wearing their China-made clothes, walking in their China-made shoes or driving in cars with, among other parts, China-made tires, sipping from their China-made coffee mugs, working on their China-made mice, keyboards, and monitors, cooking with their China-made pots and pans, eating their meals with China-made utensils on their China-made plates, and sleeping on their China-made mattresses.

Yeah, you can cut a few of those thing out of the chain, but even if it's not explicitly "Made In China," the raw materials, or numerous componenets thereof quite possibly could be from China. Short of buying your own manufacturing plant and hiring your own workers, it's practically impossible to avoid Chinese-made goods. So in the end, nobody's going to do a damn thing about it except make a lot of noise.

It's a sad but unfortunate reality. And that's why the Chinese government does what they do; they know they can get away with it.

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30893284)

From the looks of it, I doubt they care. They are far too integrated with the world economic systems to be made a pariah of. Their biggest concern is losing control of the masses. As long as the peasants stay in line, they can sit back and not give a damn about the rest of the world.

the ccp doesnt give a damn , we're way more dependant on "made in china" then on oil from contries that support terror groups , who has tried to give up its car lately , now who has tried not to buy anything "made in china" ? thought so . so chut up and swallow

Re:Looking for a fight in all the wrong places. (1)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892844)

It's really hilarious that people assume the government had anything to do with this.
Do you really think they would be this stupid and obvious about these things?
It's just some random scriptkid with a botnet trying to get some media attention; "lol, I did that heheheh".

Chinese Gov't Public Relations (2, Insightful)

Orleron (835910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892418)

After hacking Google and 34 other companies, you would think the Chinese government would lie low for a little while to let things simmer down.... not THIS.
Sheesh... a freshman in a public relations degree program would know that.

Re:Chinese Gov't Public Relations (1)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893042)

I don't think the Chinese Government is known for public relations. They tend to specialize in public mandates.

The Difference (-1, Offtopic)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892442)

thrown into mental hospitals where they were forced onto medication or beaten with electric batons

Whereas in America they just do it to you in public [youtube.com] .

Getting rid of pesky pests (3, Interesting)

olborro (1684086) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892486)

Hey, if it worked with Google, why not try that with human rights organizations?

Re:Getting rid of pesky pests (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892842)

Because I'm sure Google isn't taking this lying down, and pulling out all the stops to tighten things up. They've already threatened to pull out of China, the next step is for them to use their massive resources to *help* China human rights efforts. Sleeping dragon and all that jazz.

Unlikely but possible alternative (4, Interesting)

zmaragdus (1686342) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892734)

One alternative to consider, as unlikely as it may be, is this: China [already] has a really bad rep among the online communities for openness and free speech. Some third party comes along, having assembled a botnet, and wants to further smear China's name. So they tell their botnet to attack the webpages of those who oppose China's rights abuses. The world assumes it was China and hates them all the more.

Now, before a flood of hate-replies come, let me say a few things. (1) It is less likely than not that the above scenario happened. Anyone wanting to oppose China's rights abuses wouldn't attack those pages. ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality.) The perpetrator would have to hate China but not care about the rights abuses. (2) I personally think that China is responsible. This post is just a small attempt to keep people thinking rationally instead of letting their emotions take over completely. (3) We probably will never truly figure out who really did it anyways.

Re:Unlikely but possible alternative (4, Insightful)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892918)

I agree with you and I strongly disagree with you. The chance that the Chinese government had anything to do with this seems small to me and the chance of some random scriptkid with a botnet doing this is huge.
People don't seem to realize how many botnets exist worldwide and how many individuals are involved in the botnet scene, there are plenty of people that could've done this just "for the lulz" to get some media attention and not out of a political motivation.

Re:Unlikely but possible alternative (1)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893128)

If I worked for the CIA I might just think that having the 'company's bot-net' cause even m0OO0r3 trouble for the Chinese would make for some pretty nice lulz....

Re:Unlikely but possible alternative (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893556)

While it's true that scriptkids can do this sort of thing, that's only a reflection of how easy it can be. However, I think you're vastly underestimating China. Sure, a scriptKid can do it. But the people working on the Great Firewall of China have access to just about every level of the Internet. Owning every machine in China is pretty trivial when you think about it in terms of the government department in charge of regulating the Internet also being responsible for botnet management, by which I mean ensuring that the existing botnets are under the control of the regime.

Re:Unlikely but possible alternative (1)

hackingbear (988354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893866)

The same can be said on the Google case; the government said that Google has not presented any evidence to them or made any formal complain so far. [mingpao.com] (you can google translate that.) Of course, we don't care, as long as we can make a front page story to reinforce our stuck up morale superiority and launch another useless verbal attack on our archrival.

Re:Unlikely but possible alternative (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893288)

The DDOS wouldn't have to be anti Human Rights, who cares if their page is down for a few days or even a month that's not going to stop the Human Rights people

yes (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893376)

and iran only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes

(rolls eyes)

there's keeping an open mind, and then there's a giant chasm of gullibility

to entertain the notion that the chinese government is not attacking chinese human rights activists through electronic means is stupefyingly naive

Re:Unlikely but possible alternative (1)

vxice (1690200) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893386)

"Anyone wanting to oppose China's rights abuses wouldn't attack those pages" only if they saw it as a minor inconvenience to those organizations and the attack did not last long. If you are some shifty vigilantly group that no one knows about then you have little to loose and possibly a lot to gain if it is convincing enough that china was behind the attack. And if the end justifies the means...

The USA is headed in the same direction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30892914)

As our government continues to remove our liberties and giving it all to itself, its only a matter of time before the New World Order strips us of our constitution and begins imposing the same treatment on us.

Shouldn't it read: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30892946)

"Chinese Human Rights Orgs Hit By DDoS Again"?

Not surprising (3, Insightful)

Brazilian Geek (25299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30892990)

China is giving the world the middle finger and not giving a shit about the repercussions.

Face it, corporations are hungry for dollars and one of the only markets left for them is China and the whole Google thing proved that it doesn't matter what China does, the corporations are going to fall in line and obediently do what China wants of them. Of all the companies affected by the breech only Google has spoken out - the rest are quiet and will remain so in fear of losing precious Chinese business.

China has seen that it has nothing to fear from the corporate world - the ones that give them money. They'll do whatever they want now - taking down sites and silencing opposition will only be met with silence and their homeland population is so docile that they'll never revolt so why the fuck should they care.

consequence of "free trade" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30893036)

we've traded freedom for cheap junk from wal mart.

welcome to the bush/obama new world order.

China can sell stuff here but your blog can not be read in China.

But... but hacking is ILLEGAL in China! (3, Funny)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893052)

Shame on you, shame! Bad China! Go sit in a corner.

Oh, you don't want to sit in the corner?

You're angry we called you bad?

We're so sorry, we won't say it again. We beg your forgiveness.

-Signed, the International Community.

Re:But... but hacking is ILLEGAL in China! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893228)

hacking is ILLEGAL in China

Unless you ARE China.

Re:But... but hacking is ILLEGAL in China! (1)

tangelogee (1486597) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893644)

...what's that, you want Poland(or some other closer country)? sure, you can have Poland, if you promise to stop there...

What about a reverse firewall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30893096)

Why not build a reverse firewall?

They have the GFW, we put the reverse GFW.

All suspicious traffic will be filtered.

All CCP official web sites like China Daily, CCTV, Xinhua, etc will be blocked.

Maybe block also all chinese internet sevice like Baidu, Youkuo etc as long as equivalent services out or China are blocked in their GFW

And periodic massive DOS attacks to the servers managing their censorship

Keeping Score (1)

palmerj3 (900866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893282)

Google: 1 China: 1

But Who? (1)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893564)

Is China going on the offensive? It would not be a terribly wrong move, from a warfighting perspective. Give a taste of what real cyberwar looks like, then tell your opponents to stop the pissing and moaning about what they see as reasonable information management.

But it could also be someone bent on destabilizing China. Pakistan, perhaps. The iron is hot for the striking. Perfect time to try to foment international pressure.

Or by Chinese dissidents themselves.

Who can tell?

Only us. We, information scientists, are the only soldiers that matter in this war.

We are at the beginning, the very early dawn, of the information age. This is not only true in war but in commerce as well. We are the new gods. Prepare, and begin, to demand your full account.

Divides (2, Interesting)

mindbrane (1548037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893584)

E.O.Wilson wrote an essay in the late 90's suggesting China is the test case for humanity's attempts to find solutions to environmental and population problems. China as a traditional agrarian male dominated culture has moved from a practise of female infanticide to using technology to abort female foetuses. From this practise a sex ratio imbalance has arisen that some see as of little current or historical importance. The nation's one-child policy could leave 24 million bachelors by the year 2020 [discovery.com] . My own readings in history have taken on views more in line from what has been learnt from the last few decades of research in primatology [wikipedia.org] . Chimpanzee behaviour favouring, figuratively speaking, male oligarchies restricting access to resources maps clearly, in my mind, onto all three, still widely practised, Mediterranean death cult religions promulgating male dominated societies. Based on China's current sex ratio imbalance the questions to be addressed probably can be set in historical, anthropological and primatological contexts.

Personally I suspect China flirted with democracy, but as is nearly always the case, power structures are not given to relinquishing dominion. Recently /. ran a story that the Chinese government replaced the movie "Avatar" with a biography of Confucius [stanford.edu] . The works of Confucius are only known by way of reconstructions, but his core message seems to have been one of a familia philosophy, strongly patriarchal, and, in that light, like the Christian, Islamic and Judaic cults that I find map well onto Chimpanzee behaviour. The core mandate of such power structures is submission and tradition. I suspect the Chinese government, if not the Chinese people, are moving away from democracy and into a tradition bound version of Confucianism, but at best it's only a superficial reading.

The discussion can go on and deeper but one current salient point should be made. Chinese society is observed to be much more family orientated than our western societies. A recent rampage killing in the international press was reported on as having happened in western societies because the killer was deranged, whereas the Chinese feedback suggested the man went on a killing spree because his family wasn't there to support him. Western society is strongly vested in the rights of the individual, China not nearly so much. If the West and China and, perhaps much of Asia, are to achieve an equilibrium than we're going to have to bridge this core cultural divide from both sides.

just my loose change.

srsly guys (1)

eexaa (1252378) | more than 4 years ago | (#30893854)

Why don't we just disconnect China?

I mean it.

Living in a bubble. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30894120)

So remind me again why haven't we "cut the cables" to china again? they WANT to be culturally isolated, they want nothing to do with "western filth and smut" they want thier puritanical culture of blissful ignorance to the atrocities being committed in the name of control and order. So why not just cut off the internet, cut off trade, and let them live in thier own little bubble?

Sacrifice (1)

Exception Duck (1524809) | more than 4 years ago | (#30894388)

It would be interesting to see how many of the free speech advocates on slashdot would actually risk their own freedom for freedom of speech.

It's very easy to sit in your lazyboy and curse other countries when the worst thing that can happen is extension of the mickey mouse law...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?