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!

Researchers Put Numbers On China's Microblog Censorship

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the glorious-leader-john-boehner dept.

Censorship 58

eldavojohn writes "One of China's main microblogging services used by 30% of all Chinese internet users is called Sina Weibo (weibo is the Chinese word for 'microblog') and something that is quite different from the West's twitter is, of course, the enforced censorship. Researchers at Rice University in Houston have estimated numbers for how censorship works and identifies the 'velocity of censorship' in China's microblogging censorship. Most of the posts are marked as 'permission denied' between the five minute and ten minute marks after posting. Their research shows that 'If an average censor can scan around 50 posts a minute, that would require some 1400 censors at any instant to handle the 70,000 posts pouring in. And if they work 8 hour shifts, that's a total of 4200 censors on the payroll each day.' The research indicates you would need a small army to meet stringent censorship policies when servicing China and to avoid being shutdown like Fanfou (another weibo). Keep in mind that this is not simply identifying keywords and blocking the post based on those words. The researchers noted that a phrase like 'Secretary of the Political and Legislative Committee' will result in you being unable to submit your post to Sina Weibo. So the research examines the speed of ex post facto censorship which presumably requires an employee or perhaps government employee to identify 'non-harmonious' posts based on their intrinsic content."

cancel ×

58 comments

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

Obviously A Strong A.I. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092257)

Such an army of people would be wasteful and I've never heard it discussed anywhere. So, it must be a strong A.I..

I'm guessing it works like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092259)

They most likely have a system of forbidden phrases, that stop you from posting at all, and a list of phrases and words that need to be checked. All the posters who use one of those will then be put to the top of the immediate review column, which will get censored within a few minutes.

Re:I'm guessing it works like this (2)

arielCo (995647) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092753)

This. I've seen the moderation triggers implemented in a Spanish-speaking forum but you could work around it with misspellings and leetspeak. I'm not familiar with Chinese but there may be less ways to put a concept in ideograms furtively, perhaps with homophones, and those can be covered too.

Maybe with pictures, Instagram-like?

Re:I'm guessing it works like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43095361)

This has been done. At one point, sites about "carrots" were being censored because it was one of the euphemisms being used.

Why bother? More people read the posts than would! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092299)

I'm amazed if this system actually exists. There are more people writing these microblogs than reading them. If you pay censors to read them then it just means more people that are likely to revolt or join a revolt.

Re:Why bother? More people read the posts than wou (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092529)

And each message will be read by (at most) one person. Not a terribly efficient way to spread ideas.

This quote seems appropriate. (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092305)

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. --CS Lewis

This seems appropriate to the situation, as a good many in that culture genuinely believe that the censorship performed is not only necessary, but beneficial to their society.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (0)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092429)

a good many in that culture genuinely believe that the censorship performed is not only necessary, but beneficial to their society.

It really is a shame that the citizens of a country should approve of their govt. If only we only we cold liberate them and make them a democracy. Freedom is the only way!

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

athmanb (100367) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092607)

How does this seem appropriate? Chinese oppression is pretty clearly aimed at perpetuating the party rule and guaranteeing their members cushy jobs and a steady income.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092783)

From your perspective, that is clear. From the perspective of many within, the oppression is to prevent another China-spanning war. China has a very long history, and most of it is internal wars, so a citizen with even a mild understanding of their own history is more likely to accept what they see as mild oppression instead of getting trampled in yet another war between aspiring emperors.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about a year and a half ago | (#43096269)

You mean like the Chinese Civil War [wikipedia.org] ? Funny I can't seem to find any records of an armistice. It must still be going on.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092929)

Chinese oppression is pretty clearly aimed at perpetuating the party rule and guaranteeing their members cushy jobs and a steady income.

Ummm... a national economic growth rate of 7.5% p.a. under conditions of global economic crisis... that's a lot if steady income, I wonder what they are doing with it?

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about a year and a half ago | (#43096239)

If you're a typical slashdotter 'fascism' is when Mum and Dad used to tell you to clean your room. If some party describing itself as Communist censors the internet and ships people off to re-education camps because they complained about corruption, re-education camps and so on that is 'appropriate'.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092721)

Except that it's bullshit by a fire-and-brimstone Christian who thought that capitalism was God's will and that worldly authority/law/society was eeebil.

I far prefer the honesty of Chinese censorship to the dishonesty of US "freedom of speech", where the extent to which you will be heard runs as far as the extent of your ownership of the media, and anyone who speaks too loudly out of line will fall foul of government heavyhandedness anyway.

The First Amendment is little more than the right to waste your time whining and being ignored so that you don't engage in effective action instead.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43097495)

I far prefer the honesty of Chinese censorship to the dishonesty of US "freedom of speech"

Great doublethink there. I wonder what "prefer" means in this context?

The First Amendment is little more than the right to waste your time whining and being ignored so that you don't engage in effective action instead.

The "honesty" of the Chinese government goes beyond just suppressing speech. They suppress "effective action" as well.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43102961)

Great doublethink there. I wonder what "prefer" means in this context?

Meaning: I prefer Chinese media censorship to US media hegemony. The effect is the same: I am prevented from speaking my mind using the methods available. The difference is the US uses the excuse of "property law" - media just happens to be owned by a small collection of companies all of which have broadly the same political outlook - while China stipulates what should and should not be said.

What you have in the US is the right to say something which no-one listens to. You celebrate it and you think it's fundamental to your culture, and you are at least right with this latter point: it is fundamental to US philosophy to be most proud of your most irrelevant rights.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43104953)

If you speak and no one listens you're upset? Sounds like perhaps your message is simply one that is only relevent to yourself and not worth anyone else's time. You have the right to speak your mind, likewise everyone else has the right to ignore you. You have no right to try and force your message down anyone's throat. Perhaps you need to find a different message or a medium of distribution that doesn't require cooperation from those who don't find you interesting? Nothing is stopping you from creating your own distribution mechanism - that you seem to be upset that existing one's won't carry your message is kind of amusing. It isn't censorship if what you have to say is offensive to everyone or simply not interesting and no one wishes to hear about it

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43114149)

The effect is the same

No, it isn't. Even if the US system completely blocks your speech from being heard (which it doesn't BTW, as you can read here on Slashdot, which is yet another piece of US media), that's a vast distance from censoring public speech. Even if no one is listening, you don't have to modify your behavior. While under the Chinese system, say the wrong things for too long, even if no one is listening other than the censors, and you'll be punished.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

dcollins (135727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094009)

It's funny to hear that from famed theologian C.S. Lewis, when it's pretty much a perfectly on-target description for God.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094349)

This seems appropriate to the situation, as a good many in that culture genuinely believe that the censorship performed is not only necessary, but beneficial to their society.

It also seems hilariously ironic coming from a Christian, given how often some variant of Christianity has been used as an excuse for oppression, and how a central tenet of the religion is its authority to declare what is "good", or godly.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43105573)

I know it's a bit of a kneejerk reaction whenever someone associated with Theology is mentioned, but given some other statements in the same text, I think that you might be a bit too quick to attack him since he explicitly calls out the behavior you mention. For example:

I believe in God, but I detest theocracy. For every Government consists of mere men and is, strictly viewed, a makeshift; if it adds to its commands 'Thus saith the Lord', it lies, and lies dangerously.

and here:

That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They 'cash in'. It has been magic, it has been Christianity.

I mean, he specifically calls it out as one of the very culprits of tyrrany, so I'm not sure how it's ironic at all.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43105999)

I mean, he specifically calls it out as one of the very culprits of tyrrany, so I'm not sure how it's ironic at all.

It's ironic because at the time when he wrote it, Christianity was not a "has been", nor is it today. Religion is still a pox upon politics. As a member of an oppressive religion whose influence he discounted by placing it in the past as an evil, he was part of the problem.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year and a half ago | (#43106495)

You are being unreasonable. You might as well state that anyone who doesnt simultaneously spit on the ground every time 'thing_you_hate' is mentioned is somehow condoning it.

It's especially unreasonable since you complain about him suggesting something concluded in the past when 'has been' is the present perfect tense. In otherwords, it is used when describing a period of time which starts sometime in the past and continues to the present, with no implication that such a thing has stopped unless explicitly stated.

Re:This quote seems appropriate. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year and a half ago | (#43106567)

It's especially unreasonable since you complain about him suggesting something concluded in the past when 'has been' is the present perfect tense.

What's unreasonable is your lack of reading comprehension. I said it was ironic, not that it was bad, or that I was upset about it.

Disharmonious comment (1)

lesincompetent (2836253) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092317)

Sorry to sound rude but "Secretary of the Political and Legislative Committee"! I'm "Secretary of the Political and Legislative Committee" tired of this "Secretary of the Political and Legislative Committee" censorship!!!

Re:Disharmonious comment (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | about a year and a half ago | (#43096651)

It's probably a reference to this

http://english.sina.com/china/2012/1119/528202.html [sina.com]

Zhou Yongkang no longer holds the post as secretary of the Committee of Political and Legislative Affairs of the CPC Central Committee.

Meng Jianzhu, Minister of Chinese Ministry of Public Security, has been appointed as the new secretary, CPC Central Committee announced Monday afternoon

So You Yongkang got sacked but no one in China is allowed to speculate as to why.

According to Wikipedia

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

In May 2012 the Financial Times reported that Zhou had relinquished the operational control of the party's Political and Legal Affairs Commission to Minister of Public Security Meng Jianzhu due to his support for former Chinese politician Bo Xilai, and had lost his right to select his successor when he retires from the Politburo Standing Committee in fall 2012. The New York Times later reported that Zhou's status remained unchanged.

Bo Xilai was a Maoist and a very dangerous person who got denounced by Wen Jiabao (who as someone put it "seems quite nice for a Chicom [taipeitimes.com] ")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai#Removal_from_posts [wikipedia.org]

On 15 March, Bo was dismissed as Chongqing party chief and its related municipal posts, while temporarily retaining a seat on the Politburo. Due to the potentially destructive effects Bo's dismissal would have on party unity, party elders were consulted on the matter. The decision was reportedly made at a meeting of the Politburo Standing Committee on 7 March, during which security tsar Zhou Yongkang cast a lone dissenting vote. On 14 March, Bo was reprimanded by Premier Wen Jiabao during the Premier's annual press conference. Wen called the achievements of Chongqing "significant," but the result of "multiple administrations," i.e., not just Bo himself. Wen also made numerous allusions to the damage wrought by the Cultural Revolution, an indirect rebuke of Bo's efforts to revive "red culture". Addressing high-level political changes by a Premier to an open public forum was unprecedented. Political observers believe that Wen's remarks and Bo's downfall represented a consensus within the central leadership that Bo not only needed to shoulder the responsibility for the Wang Lijun scandal, but also marked a significant victory for liberal reformers.

On 10 April, Bo was suspended from the party's Central Committee and its Politburo, pending investigation for "serious disciplinary violations." Bo's wife, Gu Kailai, was now a prime suspect in the inquiry into the death of British businessman Neil Heywood. The announcements, carrying criminal implications, likely marked the end of Bo's political career.

On 28 September, the party's Politburo adopted a decision to expel him from the CPC. He was accused of major disciplinary violations and corruption charges during his tenure in Dalian, the Ministry of Commerce and Chongqing, including the Gu Kailai case. He was also accused of having "improper sexual relationships with a number of women."

On 26 October, the Standing Committee of the 11th National People's Congress expelled him, removing his final party or state position and setting the stage for his trial.

On 4 November, Bo Xilai was formally kicked out of the Chinese Communist Party. There is speculation that he is going to be tried by the Supreme People's Court in original jurisdiction, the first time since the trial of the Gang of Four.

Ha ha. It's like when the Daleks took Davros off to "stand trial for crimes against the Daleks". Or when the Island decided to put Patrick McGoohan's chief tormentor on (predictably insane and Orwellian) trial leading this this memorable exchange

Number 1: "Do you, ah, approve of the proceedings?"

Number 6: "I note them. With interest."

So, are they faster than Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092417)

Non-USA country in spotlight, deflect to USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092473)

(of course, never ever mention Europe or elsewhere when commenting on articles about USA censorship, that's a no-no and Off-Topic!)

Re:So, are they faster than Facebook? (1)

poity (465672) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092591)

Were these acts of censorship instigated by decree of the US GOVERNMENT or a choice made by the COMPANY? We can be against both sources of censorship, but I think we can also understand the fundamental differences, and the fact that the one which is more pervasive and more broad in its coverage is more threatening to the individual.

Re:So, are they faster than Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43096537)

Does it matter if it's GOVERNMENT or COMPANY?
I think NOT.
Besides, the government in the west (and east) has such a stranglehold on the viability of companies that they pretty much run the show anyways (if google is going to bend over and spread them on command more modest enterprises aren't going to do much different http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/03/06/0328212/google-releases-data-on-fbi-spying [slashdot.org] )

Only one question remains. (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092427)

How do you prefer your censorship?
Overt or covert?
And the same could be asked of surveillance.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/82701103/Analyst-Desktop-Binder-REDACTED [scribd.com]

Plomo o plata, I think journalism/blogs/social media are as censored in Russia, Europe and America as it is in China.
The tactics might differ but the strategy is consistent.

Re:Only one question remains. (4, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092589)

What is with the constant America and Europe are evil scumbag overlords crap on slashdot? Come down off it you paranoid moron. The US censors like 1 thing and you go all Glen Beck and compare them to China as if it's the same caliber. Yeah, the US's free speech availability is the exact same as China. You're right. Ugh, keep dreaming, idiot.

Re:Only one question remains. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43097275)

Censoring 1 thing is 1 too many. You'd be correct about "paranoia" only if the number of things the US censored was 0.

Re:Only one question remains. (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | about a year and a half ago | (#43102633)

Where in my post did I use the terms evil, overlord or scumbag? Your lack of reading comprehension in no way entitles you to using the paranoid moron dreaming idiot idiom, but I shall attempt to refrain stooping to your level.

Censorship and surveillance are tools. When used by our servants and representatives to enable and cover up secret police, secret laws, secret sentences, state-sponsored abductions, torture and assassinations I think we have every right to be concerned.

It is probably hard for you to comprehend, but there are (many) Chinese who believe there's no place like China, and many Russians who believe Russia is the bastion of liberty on this planet.

Re:Only one question remains. (1)

Sporkinum (655143) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092639)

Irony...
"This Page Cannot Be Displayed

Based on XXXXX Internet use policies, access to application Scribd of type Social Networking has been blocked."

Re:Only one question remains. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092947)

*cough*fuckingmoron*cough*

Re:Only one question remains. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43093545)

Considering Im reading and replying to your post I guess covert.

Slashdot is just as bad as China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092471)

Here is yet another post about Chinese censorship, yet on Slashdot even polite comments with no swear words are deleted within an hour if they do not take part in Slashdot groupthink and/or provide a unique or unpopular perspective on matters.

Of course writing this comment is futile too since it will most likely be deleted by Slashdot censors. Hypocrites.

Re:Slashdot is just as bad as China (2)

rgbrenner (317308) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092979)

slashdot does not delete comments. Click on the "Load all comments" button, and move the slider to -1... all the crap is still there.

Re:Slashdot is just as bad as China (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094525)

Not true. I have had several comments deleted and they did not exist after moving the slider either.

Re:Slashdot is just as bad as China (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year and a half ago | (#43097725)

It's probably marketing spam. I believe that does get deleted.

Automation (1)

dcollins (135727) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092491)

"Keep in mind that this is not simply identifying keywords and blocking the post based on those words. The researchers noted that a phrase like 'Secretary of the Political and Legislative Committee' will result in you being unable to submit your post to Sina Weibo."

Yeah, because computers can find keywords, but throw in a couple spaces, and then it's impossible.

Seriously, there seems to be a great oversight among certain old-school folks that computers can do this kind of mass searching in support of oppression perfectly fine. The argument that "it would take a huge army of men to do all that surveillance" does not hold water anymore.

By All Means Explain This Revolutionary Technology (2)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092597)

Hey, thanks for calling me an "old-school folk" but I'll have you know that I have studied artificial intelligence both academically and professionally and -- always amusing -- is the delta between how far along people think we are with AI and where we really are with AI. I mean, people are talking like all you have to do is show Watson a problem set and then <insert automagication here> solutions abound! Your assertion that it's just "a couple spaces" thrown into the mix that's stopping us is laughably outdated. For example: Applying a negative modifier to a positive statement can occur in so many ways, I couldn't even list them all right here right now. And we're just supposed to automatically code for that?

Seriously, there seems to be a great oversight among certain old-school folks that computers can do this kind of mass searching in support of oppression perfectly fine.

That's why it takes five to ten minutes? Yeah? I don't know what sort of improvements you've made on top of latent semantic analysis or if you've completely scrapped that and revolutionized natural language parsing but, by all means, publish your work so the rest of us can bask in your divine glory. A job at Google should be the least of your goals -- usurping Google as an advertising giant would flow naturally from being able to automatically "understand" with a high recall and accuracy rate what people are writing in microblogs.

The argument that "it would take a huge army of men to do all that surveillance" does not hold water anymore.

It's funny you should use the phrase "hold water" when discussing how viable a large army of mindless internet users would be [wikipedia.org] .

Re:By All Means Explain This Revolutionary Technol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094017)

Um, they don't care about false positive, and at the VERY LEAST an automated system could be the first line to flag posts for review by a human, drastically reducing the workload. In short dcollins is correct.

Re:By All Means Explain This Revolutionary Technol (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094019)

That's why it takes five to ten minutes?

It takes 5-10 minutes because the automatic scanner sorts into three categories:

1. Stuff that clearly violates the rules.
2. Stuff that may violate the rules.
3. Stuff that looks okay.

So anything in (1) gets banned by the computer. (2) and (3) get posted, but (2) is flagged for a human to look at. The human censor queue is a few minutes long, thus the delay. There is no need for a human to look at everything.

I have no first hand knowledge that it works this way, but it seems to me that this is the way any non-moron would design it, rather than hiring 4000 humans to do what a small perl script could do.

Re:By All Means Explain This Revolutionary Technol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094335)

Yeah you should have paid attention to the recall rate comment. Do you know what a false positive and true negative are? And how the rate could cause you to run afoul of the government?

Surely they use some automation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092513)

Keep in mind that this is not simply identifying keywords

Even if a human has to 'disapprove', a computer with keyword search can help this process. Pick the posts that may be offensive, present to the censors. This helps a lot, censors won't have to wade through food recipes, car repair tips or fashion blogs. On the other hand, people are cheap in China...

"and to avoid being shutdown like Fanfou" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092561)

YM "and to avoid being shut down".

'shutdown' is a noun.

Lenny Bruce (2)

Sporkinum (655143) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092779)

Lenny Bruce
“If you can't say "Fuck" you can't say, "Fuck the government.”

Difference between US and China (2)

mbone (558574) | about a year and a half ago | (#43092785)

(Besides the obvious political ones.)

In the US, this would be viewed as something requiring A.I. research. In China, another 5,000 or even 10,000 people get an "iron rice-bowl."
Foxcon could handle this with their staff on break.

Re:Difference between US and China (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43094059)

Well... Why not? Perhaps it will benefit those 5000+ people to read comments presenting a negative view of the state?

Hypocrisy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43092935)

How is this different to large corporations like Virgin Media hiring reputation management companies to monitor the internet 24/7 and remove critical posts from major media comment sections?

That is the Chinese company STYLE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43093101)

The reason why weibo is so seriously censored is that it has become an official microblog tool. many provinces have opened weibo accounts to announce new policies or report breaking news.
but at the same time it is also the #1 microblog service. It has the most users. If the government don't want people know some unharmony news then it will order SINA to add some key words to blacklist.
  The whole process is invisible to the public and the consorship has no law or rules.

What I fear now is that does SINA also delete posts themselves(without the orders from government)? A recent incident confirmed this: days ago SINA was accused by NETEASE for copying their blog content, then SINA blocked keywords searching about this on WEIBO.COM. This gets many critisize on the internet

Hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43093281)

It's always hilarious to see the West, in particular the USA, land of the free, act all righteous and point out how bad the Chinese are.

4200 Censors (1)

ChemGeek4501 (1044544) | about a year and a half ago | (#43094637)

Seems like a small number of new party employees when you have a population of 1.3 billion.

China follows Google's lead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43095039)

Morons think Google has 'algorithms' that do the clever stuff, but Google's success in the search-engine business is down to legions of Human operators who constantly create 'semantic hints' from daily mined data flowing from the search terms people are using. Modern computing is a VERY people intensive business. We are back to the times when office blocks were filled full of people with slide-rules and maths-tables, and later on mechanical and then electro-mechanical 'adding'-machines.

China is inventing nothing here. Indeed, its use of masses of people spying on Internet traffic lags behind the USA and EU by a significant degree. The only difference is that China is NOT a first-world 'democracy', so it still believes in the usefulness of crude censorship. Of course, China felt emboldened when Tony Blair instructed his LibCon puppets to imprison people for criticizing the UK's armed services online, especially if the critics were of a 'Muslim' background.

Given that many pro-authority morons read Slashdot, let me point out how Blair's actions are designed to cause a chain-reaction. Blair's people used the excuse of 'cyber bullying' to create a new law where 'offending' people with an electronic message was a criminal offense. Zionist owned TV stations and newspapers were excluded from the law, of course- even though they were responsible for promoting it in the first place with constant 'yellow' journalism.

-People were told 'cyber-bullying' was stalking and harassing a 'living ordinary person'.
-then it became showing disrespect for an ordinary person that had died (even though slandering the dead had never been a crime in the UK)
-then it became showing disrespect for 'fallen' soldiers, no matter what war-crimes they were involved with
-then it became ANY disrespect shown to the armed services in general (no right to anti-war protest)
-yesterday, in Ireland, a 26-year old man was arrested for referring to a politician whose surname was 'Rabbitte' as 'Rabbit', and not even as an insult. The Irish government STATED that writing insulting things about serving politicians is a crime when done electronically by ordinary citizens, and specifically referred to Blair's cyber-bullying laws as a justification.

We call this the 'slippery slope'. In the UK, intelligence agencies have been incensed by Blair's stupidity, and forced the government to back-track on the law. Why? Because the intelligence agencies REQUIRE people say what they think openly, so they can be tracked and cataloged. Britain hovers between the US system of free-speech, and the Chinese system of 'approved' speech- bouncing erratically between the two. The zionist news agencies (especially the BBC and those run by Rupert "Goebbels" Murdoch) love to run campaigns demanding the rights of ordinary citizens be severely curtailed in the name of 'political correctness'. Porn was illegal in the UK for the longest time precisely because of this.

In the UK, the tradition of 'free speech' was for the 'important' people, never the riff-raff from the streets. The age of the internet has thus proved very confusing for the powers-that-be. British newspapers have a tradition of employing some of the most vile racists and elitists on the planet, giving them daily opportunity to spew bile at Muslims, 'blacks' and ordinary working-class people. No change in the law can be allowed to prevent this. The trick Blair uses is based on old telecommunication laws that were drafted to deal with obscene phone calls. Electronic messages of ANY form from ordinary citizens are thus treated as phone calls for the sake of prosecution, neatly ensuring the same laws do not impede Blair's neo-nazi journalistic allies.

Re:China follows Google's lead (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#43095919)

Morons think Google has 'algorithms' that do the clever stuff, but Google's success in the search-engine business is down to legions of Human operators who constantly create 'semantic hints' from daily mined data flowing from the search terms people are using.

Are they headquartered in China?

Magritte's Ghost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43103339)

Move along, folks, there's nothing to see here. I am not a censor.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>