Google's China Problem 203
Wraithfighter writes "The New York Times has a rather lengthy, but informative, piece on the origins of Google's current Chinese search engine, as well as a very informative look at how censoring is actually done in China. From the article: 'Are there gradations of censorship, better and worse ways to limit information? In America, that seems like an intolerable question -- the end of the conversation. But in China, as Google has discovered, it is just the beginning.'"
Google/China Relationship (Score:2, Interesting)
These websites are blocked in china anyways, so instead of having the first 3 or 4 pages of results blocked, google removed the results do delivery more accurate search results. Google isn't censoring the internet for the chinese, they are optimizing it.
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
If the effect of this "filter that is no censorship" is merely cosmetic, then why was Google forced to include it or face being banned from operating in China?
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:3, Insightful)
Blocking the results ensures that chinese people can use Google.
It is not teribly difficult for a chinese citizen to bypass the firewall, but guess what? It is also fairly easy for a chinese person to bypass the google censorship too!
Those who cannot figure out how to bypass the google censorship would likely have trouble bypassing the Great Firewall. Therefore the censored results are all that they have a use for.
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:2)
Wouldn't one who lived in China know that censorship is taking place, and thus be able to use the aforementioned "bypass" methods to access GOOGLE.COM and get the uncensored results?
~Rebecca
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
But by removing the blocked pages from Google's index completely, it's as if they never existed. In fact, blocking them no longer matters, because most people will never realize they exist in the first place.
Fundamentally, it's the difference between being handed a history book that's been filled with black marker lines covering stuff that's "redacted," and being given a history book that's been totally rewritten to only show one point of view. In the first case, you're at least painfully aware that you're getting a one-sided viewpoint, in the latter case you're not.
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:2)
The viewpoints expressed here are immature IMHO. Why puni
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:2)
This is similar to the behavior in other countries, where typing Google.com automatically redirects to the local-language version of the site.
I mentioned this in another site, and it was confirmed in a Google Blog posting at one point that the American, uncenso
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
People, when making arguments against Google's actions, conveniantly leave this fact out. They often state that Google has removed their access to these search results, when the people making the arguments know they are not being completely truthful, and are using this misconception to further their own arguments.
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:2)
If some of your search results are omitted because of this optimization/censorship, then google add a note at the bottom of the page saying something to the effect of "some of your search results have been omitted in compliance with local laws".
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose I search for "rumsfeld secretary of defense " and I get a nice set of results but at the bottom of the search page it says "some of your search results have been omitted in compliance with local laws".
Now is it;
1. Faked pictures/fan-fic stories about Donald Rumsfeld that clearly (or maybe not so clearly) break one of the multiple local decency laws.
or
2. Legitimate criticism of a high-ranking official highlighting his various professional flaws worthy of public discussion.
For me the whole Google/China thing comes down to the question - Do you trust a company and a government to think for you?
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:2)
>If the browser is a critical thinker, he/she can derive what's missing.
Ok, so in my example what is the possible reason? Its almost become fashionable to hate the Bush administration and there are examples of photoshopped photos of US officials. Recently retired high ranking generals came out very critical of Rumsfeld which caused him to go on the defensive to address it, also Bush is at a all-time approval rating low.
What does the critical thinker derive as
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats a new one.
They are omitting results due to local laws. If this is optimizing, why don't they omit every single search result in America that would break local laws here?
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:2)
Who gives a crap about the "Google experience" if the experience is censored? "Wow, look how fast I can get the government-approved view of the world!"
>I'm pretty sure that the guys running Google understand that censorship ultimately can't work forever.
Censorship doesn't have to last forever to be effective. 1989 happened 17 years ago and so far thats good enough for the Chinese government.
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:2)
Re:Google/China Relationship (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on, very few in Amertica would argue against any limitations on information.
From trade secrets to copyrights to defamation to classified documents to pornography laws, restrictions on information are inherent in our whole legal system. How about court sealed documents? Furthermore, atatcking "propaganda" stations has long been considered a legitmimate aim of our military in waging wars.
Of course there gradations of censorship. The debate has ALWAYS been about which information can be restricted. Pretty much everyone agrees that some should be. Prentending otherwise is unhelpful and it's dishonest.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
It parrots the governments line on all topics, and often features right wing talking heads yelling at centerists. It makes Conrad Black look even handed.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
The premise of the article considers only pro-government misperceptions and fails to consider underlying mechanisms as to their cause.
For instance, IIRC, there were several occasions during immediate post-war period in which items recovered were prima facie evidence of WMD production, but which were later determined to be inconclusive. The correct perception, which the authors themselvs appear to have mis'd is that we have not yet found conclusive ev
right, because the US is so great (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:right, because the US is so great (Score:2)
like you haven't give a lot of your rights away recently.
The truth is that I do not trust any government to respect my liberties, but all else being equal ... I would much rather have a government whose foundation is built on laws like the right to bear arms, and the freedom of speech, than have one whose foundation is built on the right to take from people and controll them in the name of some nice sounding excuse like "stability" or freebies coerced at everyone elses loss.
Re:right, because the US is so great (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. is very good at withholding information. Not to unload too big a can of postmodernist wupp-ass on anyone, but it does so by creating whatever reality it wants. There STILL ARE/WERE WMDs in Iraq in the minds of many people because a chain of The New York Times, Judy Miller, Scooter Liddy, Dick Cheney SAID there were. Why _withhold_ information when you are the country with the Madison Avenue/Hollywood expertise to _create_ whole realities? When you have the mass seeing your reality, any "truths" are just insignificant background chatter.
I guess it was the comparison between apartheid South Africa and the U.S. where this first became glaringly apparent to me. Generally, South Africa dealt with dissent by "slips in the jail shower" and "suicides out the third floor window" -- excuses which are themselves shapings of reality, but crude post-incident excuses. It was only in the very latest years that they discovered the proactive power of advertising. If you aren't sipping KWV brandy in your decorated 10 room split-level in Soweto like the commercial shows you, it's because you're a LOSER. Doesn't have anything to do with politics.
It was their own fault it took them so long to discover advertising as a weapon. They only allowed TV in the '70s. In the U.S., we were born swimming in media and generally don't even recognize its inherent unreality.
Re:right, because the US is so great (Score:2, Insightful)
Did the president of the largest nation in the world visit your home? The bigger question
Re:right, because the US is so great (Score:4, Insightful)
Or how much of the revolution was just mob violence at anyone who tried to regulate the economy including the burning of multiple warehouses and private residences because they were involved in British attempts to regulate the illegal rum trade.
Or how Thomas Jefferson, contrary to what Swordfish would tell you, never actually executed a man for treason on the Whitehouse lawn, he did have a man accused of treason and basically run out of town using his political power simply because the two of them didn't get along.
If you want to go a little further down, Abraham Lincoln publicly stated that he had no intrest in slavery either way, it was none of his business. He engaged int eh civil war to hold together the Union and nothing else. His later decision to emancipate the slaves in the area under martial law was commendable, but it wasn't part of his agenda, nor was he able to emancipate the slaves in territory that had remained in the Union as it wasn't under his war-powers control. I have the utmost of respect for the founders of our nation which I believe to be one if, if not the greatest in the world, but these men were far from saints and it's soemthing that people like to overlook.
Re:right, because the US is so great (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think revolution is the solution. What has revolution brought us that reform could not? We end up with the same institutions, the same corruption, just with a different set of leaders.
Re:right, because the US is so great (Score:2)
And look how that turned out, they moved from a monarchy that brutally oppressed its people and marginalized ethnic minorities to a proto-socialist one party dictatorship that brutally oppressed its people and marginalized ethnic minorites.
The French have replaced a heavily religious exploitative monarchy with an incredibly anti-religious, welfare-happy republic(through the stages o
Re:Lincoln was an abolitionist from the get go (Score:2)
"I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists, because the constitution forbids it, and the general welfare does not require us to do so."
As well as in his letter that I aluded to above from 1862:
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save t
Re:right, because the US is so great (Score:3, Interesting)
If information was actually controlled we would all be talking about the tremendous amounts of WMD found in Iraq right now, instead of criticizing the adminitration about lying to us.
Yes you say there are some people who believe they are there. I believe you are talking about the same percentages of people who believe we never landed on the moon. I can't sa
not so obvious (Score:2)
To RTFA... (Score:3, Informative)
Password: chastise
courtesy of http://www.bugmenot.com/ [bugmenot.com]
Communisim is not a technicality (Score:3, Insightful)
How do I know that all this talk about giving Chinees the "most freedom that we can" is all bullshit? Because the people saying it are not only censoring, but they are lying. None of them call it like it is, none of them dare say "hey your government is a piece of shit" for fear of offending the Chineese powers that be. Basically, it is a policy of appeasement and to see how it will play out - Chineese history shows very clearly, it will end in disaster.
Re:Communism is a technicality (Score:5, Interesting)
Having some experience with eastern European countries during their communist regime, I can tell you it really is just a technicality for day to day live.
On one hand, people first and foremost are interested to live in peace and comfort and want to see their children doing the same. If they can achieve this, the philosophical aspects of the current emperor of the land is of no importance. On the other hand, if they can't they will damn whatever emperor makes their live miserable and at some point will seek to improve their lot by exchanging emperor.
For the less philosophical level this means: If you starve or are terrorised by the killer squads, you don't give shit about if those responsible are brandishing little red books or are the stoutest supporters of free capitalism.
This all leads to the simple conclusion, that communism (as much as capitalism or all other -isms) are just minor technicalities only mostly happy people with nothing better to do can worry about.
Re:Communism is a technicality (Score:3, Interesting)
This all leads to the simple conclusion, that communism (as much as capitalism or all other -isms) are just minor technicalities only mostly happy people with nothing better to do can worry about.
Philosophies like "statisim" and "libertarinisim" are not just some nice little philosophies that sit on the clouds. They involve belief systems, and these belief systems lead to chioces, and these choices have conesquences. If people don't care, it is only to the extent that they don't realise the consequence
Re:Communism is a technicality (Score:2, Insightful)
I know this is a tech forum, but please don't forget companies like MacDonalds and KFC, which are really (negativelty) effecting the health of the population. Get rid of them first, since they can't possibly do any good to anyone.
(IMO)
Re:Communism is a technicality (Score:2)
Eating some fried chicken now and then never hurt anyone. It's the people that go to KFC and McDonalds daily that are hurting themselves.
Re:Communism is a technicality (Score:2)
You could put a Surgeon General's warning on every McDonald's meal, and force the cashiers to say "By purchasing and consuming this product you are taking 1 day off of your statistical life-span and increasing your healthcare costs by $100, do you want to continue?" and people would still eat there.
Greasy, salty, fatty food TASTES GOOD to a whole lot of people. If you're not one of them, congratulations. Go eat carrots and live a lo
Re:Communism is a technicality (Score:2)
I'm sure the leaders at google, yahoo and cisco understand the consequences. It's how they act given that they know and understand the consequences that is an issue.
It don't blame google for the way they acted. If you read the article, google chose not to provide services which would require personal information and content to be stored in china and they don'
Is communism bad in theory or only in practice? (Score:2)
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice? (Score:3, Insightful)
Very easy: The politicians, psychopaths, gangsters, opportunist and other power crazed animals that created regimes called communist across the world mostly made the live of the people of said courntries miserable. For this reason, communism has a really bad name. On top of that, it's a rather impractical philosophy which tends to ignore the way most current societies work, thus creating very quickly big gaps between theory and implementa
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice? (Score:2)
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice? (Score:2)
Centrally planned economies did not effectivley allocate resources so their economies did not grow very fast which lead to lower standards of living. The "5 year" plans mainly did not work. If someone high up had a really bone headed plan it got forced down everyones throats. In a free economy the bone he
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice? (Score:2)
The key word being 'ideal'. In reality, Communism was a grand attempt at mass social manipulation, using a combination of ideas from Marx's critiques of capitalistism and vision of communism, to the brainwashing techniques originated by the Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov [wikipedia.org], to Frederick Hegel [wikipedia.org]'s dialectical [wikipedia.org] theory [wikipedia.org] of history, to the philosophies of moral and cultural relat [wikipedia.org]
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice? (Score:2)
They could actually do some real production or research, instead of creating speudo economic value. So basicly your example sucks. Also communism does
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice? (Score:2)
Lawyers are symptom of a society based on the rule of law. As annoying as they are, I'd much rather live in a society with too many lawyers than in one with none or too few. In the former societies, lawyers are supplanted by the secret police. Take your pick.
Re:Is communism bad in theory or only in practice? (Score:2)
Not exactly. Roughly speaking, real wealth is created by harvesting raw materials and applying work, capital, and ingenuity to them to turn them into a product worth more than the sum o
Re:Communism is a technicality (Score:2)
Agreed, in TFA Lee says that the prevailing Chinese sentiment is:
Too many people have a gut
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
This sounds just like the sort of things that happen here. Lots of things are censored in 'free' countries just because some minority* groups don't like it.
Lying is second nature to politicians no matter where they come from.
Don't you think you should be worrying about the lies from your own government before critising others?
---
*or even majority groups... but what's the difference - it's still censorship.
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
Don't you think you should be worrying about the lies from your own government before critising others?
Why is it that just because my own government is trying to act criminal should it mean that I need to stick a bag over my head and pretend that other governments aren't being criminal even moreso?
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
First, it's not illegal to lie. Nor is censorship illegal. What 'criminal' acts are you referring to?
Second, perhaps the Chinese people like their government. Why shouldn't they be allowed to have a government that pleases them? Perhaps they don't care about censorship, but they probably believe that it is for thei
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:3, Insightful)
But it is. It's just a label, applied to lots of rather different governments really. There's not *that* much that are shared between say 1985 east-germany and present-day China, nevertheless the same label is slapped on both, which doesn't really enligthen anything much.
If anything, it serves to sidetrack the discussion from the real and impor
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
But it is. It's just a label, ...
By saying that China is "communist", what I am saying is that their political system is being held accountable to forces that are NOT in the interest of peoples liberty, or that temper abuses of government. The US had slaves on the plantation too, but accountability to fundamental political forces changed that as society moved on. Where are those forces in China? Answer, there are none other than from us and from resistance in China that we should not be helping the C
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
Absolutely. As are the political systems of every nation I can think of.
Ok, fine, perhaps not in principle accountable to, but at the very least in *practice* run pretty much according to the will of those forces. Is the Patriot Act "in the interest of peoples liberty" ? How about the DMCA ? How about the Micky-Mouse act? How about the recent suggestion to imprison people w
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
Those are compelling arguments for changing some things at home, not for sticking our head in the sand about China's police state. That 200 bln trade deficit is the punishment we get for using paper money instead of real money (eg gold), and that business shift to china is the punishment we get for having a welfare state. If we didn't have one, we would have no resistance to bringing in cheap labor so they could build the factories here, but today we can't do that because if we did they would all come he
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:3, Insightful)
I was saying China seems to be going in the rigth direction, and has for a number of years. This is a trend we should encourage and support. We want China to *continue* becoming more open, less corrupted, better living-conditions, more freedoms. We acomplish this best (I think!) by;
Cooperating with them.
AND making it clear what kind if improvements we'd most like to see.
Rather than by scaling back the deabte to the point where it's black/white, good
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
Cooperating with who? Yahoo was not cooperating with the chineese people when they turned over a dissidnet to be thrown in jail. There is a big difference between cooperating with an oppressive government vs a people who are oppressed.
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:5, Interesting)
Since 1978 China is essentially a state-capitalist dictatorship with local (and primitive) democracy, with remaining socialism only on the countryside (state-owned farms leased to farmers). The state-owned property has largely been returned to private interests, and nowhere in the world will you find as many privately owned businesses as in China.
China of today is communist only by name, and this won't change because the party needs to pretend it is implementing "socialism with Chinese characteristics" instead of capitalism, because the party was founded on a Marxist-Leninist basis.
China of today is thus as much communist as North Korea is democratic ("People's Democratic Republic of Korea") or East Germany was democratic ("Deutsche Democratische Republik"). Why is this so incredibly hard for Americans to understand?
Please repeat after me: China is a state-capitalist dictatorship. There you go! Now when you know the basics, perhaps you will be able to discuss the problems of China with some more credibility.
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
This reminds me of a joke which used to be rather popular some years ago. It goes something like:
Do you know what the difference between "democracy" and "people's democracy" is?
Well, it's really the same difference as between a "jacket" and a "strait jacket."
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
Because we're Americans. We can't find France on a map, but we 'boycott' their goods because Bill OReilly (3 million viewers) tells us so. We support a war in Iraq to get terrorists and WMD. Education is for Europeans. Now if you don't mind we're off to beat up some homos and invade Iran!
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
Re:Communisim is not a technicality (Score:2)
At the risk of sounding "me too"--
Communism and capitalism are economic systems; dictatorships and democracy are political systems.
Thank you. This is exactly what I was going to say, and most people seem to have missed this.
Capitalism has nothing to do with democracy; they are orthogonal (though arguably, capitalism actually opposes democracy, in their effects on power structures). It is perfectly possible to have a democratic communist country. In fact, that's what the Czechs were moving toward i
That about sums it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's nice to know the Chinese are as apathetic about their government as we are in the U.S.
Re:That about sums it up. (Score:2)
What is happiness really? What makes you happy? You only want the ability to criticise your government because you think you might need it.
Not just apathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
I am far from being in agreement but I can after a year almost come to an understanding of why she feels thi
Re:Not just apathetic (Score:2)
One thing is certain: I have come to approve of dictatorship recently.
Democracy is the goverment of the people, for the people... and we all know Sturgeon's Law.
Re:Not just apathetic (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not just apathetic (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all the same to her:
1) she isn't being persecuted by the U.S. gov.
2) she isn't being persecuted by the Chinese gov.
Of course, 2 is only because she (and her family) had the money to leave.
In China things are certainly different. There is a large (and growing) number of people who are upset with their government:
Number of mass protests in China:
2004: 74,000 [washingtonpost.com]
2005: 80,000 [washingtonpost.com]
And these are official numbers.. released by the Chinese government. Feel free to lookup numbers for the past several years.. you'll see the number of protests are growing each year.
So who are the protesters? Almost all of them are Peasants. Those who are the poorest, also happen to have the fewest rights.
So ask yourself: when was the last time you saw that many protests in the U.S.? When was the last time you saw the poor protesting because of their treatment?
Yeah, it's all the same to her..... as long as she doesn't have to live there.
Re:Free Speech Zone ® (Score:2)
Nevermind Creationists (Score:2)
Meh, it's just a matter of time (Score:2)
Make way for zhoogle!
Re:Meh, it's just a matter of time (Score:2)
Re:Meh, it's just a matter of time (Score:2)
Re:Meh, it's just a matter of time (Score:2)
Re:Meh, it's just a matter of time (Score:2)
Is this some kind of joke? (Score:2, Funny)
The same URL from the same editor with a differente blurb: only in slashdot [slashdot.org].
--
Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
Circular hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Circular hypocrisy (Score:2)
The reason is simple - although there will always be people who are aware of censored content at the time it is censored, that cultural memory is fairly short. If the Chinese government can keep unwanted material out of sight long enough then people will stop looking for it.
"
Wrong Title? (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize that Google is trying to enter a new market, but I wouldn't be surprised if China really wanted Google there too -- on their terms of course.
the tank man (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/ [pbs.org]
Re:the tank man (Score:2, Insightful)
Most relevant to this discussion of censorship is the sixth part of the documentary. They start the segment by asking four students at the Beijing university to look at the infamous image of the man stopping a column of tanks in Tienanmen square. None recognize the image at all, and only one understands enough to connect it to the incident of 1989. It's as if it never happened for anyone younger than a certain age. By controlling information, the Chinese government has mana
Graduated Censorship Does Occur Here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Graduated Censorship Does Occur Here (Score:2)
Censorship not just in China (Score:3, Interesting)
Mod parent down (Score:2)
censoring is not the real problem (Score:4, Interesting)
The real problem is the use of the services for finding and punishing citizens. Microsoft and Yahoo have been turning over any and all information to govs. with a glee in their eye and $ in the checkbook. In fact, in the most recent episode, Yahoo turned over a DRAFT of an e-mail. This is not something that went out to the general public. It was not used anywhere. It was simply thoughts that are now being used against ppl. Yahoo/Microsoft will hang their head while crossing their fingers and winking their eye.
In contrast, Google has so far fought against American Gov ( and other govs. including chinese) about releasing any information that can be used in this way. Google did release info concerning ONLY child porn, but nothing that allowed a witch hunt by our admin. And so far, it does not appear that Google is releasing info about what individuals do.
But I have to wonder, how soon before Google does turn evil and starts releasing. Once they do, they will be heading down a very slippery and steep slope, that will force them to join the likes of Yahoo, Microsoft, Enron, etc. in names that are now synonymous with evil.
Google: "at the top", Yahoo: "a sellout" (Score:4, Interesting)
I expected [famed political blogger] Zhao [Jing] to be much angrier with the American Internet companies than he was. He was surprisingly philosophical. He ranked the companies in order of ethics, ticking them off with his fingers. Google, he said, was at the top of the pile. It was genuinely improving the quality of Chinese information and trying to do its best within a bad system. . . . Yahoo came last, and Zhao had nothing but venom for the company.
"Google has struck a compromise," he said, and compromises are sometimes necessary. Yahoo's behavior, he added, put it in a different category: "Yahoo is a sellout. Chinese people hate Yahoo." The difference, Zhao said, was that Yahoo had put individual dissidents in serious danger and done so apparently without thinking much about the human damage.
A useful perspective from one of the internet celebrities in China. I hope Yahoo appreciates all the good publicity its actions in China are garnering.
Side-by-Side Comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
http://images.google.com/ [google.com]
http://www.google.cn/imghp?hl=zh-CN&tab=wi&q= [google.cn]
Search for "Tiananmen" on both sites and notice the *significant* difference in content returned by each.
Re:Side-by-Side Comparison (Score:2)
"According to the local laws, regulations, and policy; part of the search's results could not be returned"
Which is something that I find interesting, I would not have expected Google to be allowed to admit that they are censoring the search results.
Ideals... (Score:2, Interesting)
Google in China can't display results about democracy. Google in America can't display results about Scientology. Same shit, different pile.
Non registration link. (Score:4, Informative)
"lengthy but informative"? Huh? (Score:2)
This is one of the problems with the age of the blog/web page/snippet, and it's one of the reasons that publications like the Times aren't irrelevant yet. And it's also one of the big reasons that the half-hour television news program is a farce.
For some stories/ideas/reports, you can't boil everything down to three nicely CSS-formatted ample white space-surrounding paragraphs.
Are you suggesting that despite the informative nature of the piece that slashdotters m
It's just America's China problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's a thought - this'll screw the chinese govt. (Score:4, Interesting)
Somehow, a register should be set up of content providers and hosters, anyone registering for content hosting would not know of anyone else - the whole thing would be secret - and the register would allot content to hosters so that the whole thing is multiply redundant. Finally, the whole effort should be overseen by someone respectable who can report if things are going OK or if there's a shortage in any particular area.
There's a couple of years yet until 2008, should be enough time for a mature discussion and ample time to develop a co-ordinating website and distribute the required content.
Thoughts anyone?
Re:They're already selling them cheap elsewhere (Score:2)
If that's the case, I wouldn't expect this to slow down piracy at all...
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz.html [davehitt.com]
http://www.channel3000.com/news/8340048/detail.htm l [channel3000.com]
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/banloss3.htm [smokersclubinc.com]
http://www.geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/SMOKERSAN NUALDEATHS.htm [geocities.com]
http://www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/Introdu [nycclash.com]
Re:Remember that Censorship does exist at home too (Score:2)
The whole thing about people not being able to photograph their childrens coffins was played off like a big Bush Jr censorship issue by the left when he had absolutely nothing to do with it, although Cheney was mildl
Re:Remember that Censorship does exist at home too (Score:2)
The UK media is a bit better at that. When our soldiers get killed, you often see the coffins getting brought off the plane back home. It seems the right thing to do; if we're going to go to war, it's almost indecent to pretend there are no consequences. And Europe is no better: the press was proudly displaying the Carica
Re:Remember that Censorship does exist at home too (Score:2)
Maybe you should check were all Iraq's oil used to go before you answer that, not to mention where it's going now, becasue it sure as hell isn't the US.
Re:Remember that Censorship does exist at home too (Score:3, Insightful)
To me at least this implies that somehow Europe is above making excuse to cover their asses when oil is concerned. I was merely illustrating that they're just as two-faced as the rest of the world, even if they wont admit it.
The rest of your comment I can't even reply to, because it's a collection of statements that lack "coherence". Coherence is what strings statements together in