Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Official Vows to "Purify" the Net

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the good-luck-with-that dept.

The Internet 321

Sleeping Kirby writes to tell us China's Communist party leader, Hu Jintao today announced the intent to leverage the economic potential of the web while seeking to "purify the internet environment". He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "'raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

cancel ×

321 comments

Bolshevism vs. Fascism (3, Interesting)

P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) (1012109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17742976)

From TFA:

Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. “Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration,” he concluded.

It's still why I think Bolshevism* and its sequelae are more insidious than fascism: sure, the fascists will shoot you if you agitate against them; but the Bolshevik state would prevent you from agitating in the first place by limiting the set of stimuli that comprise your world.

Reminds me a great deal, actually, of that old Semitic myth about a certain garden and tree of knowledge; whose premise was: fragile and jealous power depends upon the ignorance of its subjugates.

The ignorance of subjugates will always be a Bolshevik, and not a fascist, end.

_____________
* Or Marxism, etc.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (1, Insightful)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743128)

I am a fascist, and I take great offence to your comment.
Fascism is not "anti-freedom"
American Fascists in particular, uphold the Bill of Rights with great esteem.
We just dont believe that the most popular politicians are the best.
Meritocracy is the name of the game.
Fascism Forward!

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743190)

Right. I bet you can't even provide a proper definition of "Facism".

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (1, Informative)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743278)

Isn't it coincidentally like the US Court definition of porn: "I know it when I see it"?

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (3, Funny)

Oh the Huge Manatee (919359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743392)

I bet you can't even provide a proper definition of "Facism".

Facism = Discrimination against ugly faces, or government by the pretty ones.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743358)

I thought manufacturing consent was the name of the game.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743500)

I thought the name of the game was, "I like it like that."

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743156)

By that notion I guess we are living under and Bolshevik revolution in the US right now, and not a fascist one as most rational people claim.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (3, Interesting)

P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) (1012109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743240)

By that notion I guess we are living under and Bolshevik revolution in the US right now. . . .

Exactly; I think the case for Bolshevism is stronger than the case for fascism; but “fascism” has been, since WWII, a rhetorically charged word to drum up cheap interest.

And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? (4, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743234)

...the Bolshevik state would prevent you from agitating in the first place by limiting the set of stimuli that comprise your world...


And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? Controlling the media to present a picture of fair and rational government has been the aim of almost every government/state/ruler in history and it continues to the present day. You need to hit the books if you think fascists (or democrats - small "d") don't practice this too...

Re:And this is unique to "Bolshevism" how? (5, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743472)

Controlling the media to present a picture of fair and rational government has been the aim of almost every government/state/ruler in history and it continues to the present day.

Though, to be sure, one cannot assume that just because governments sometimes manipulate the press, any negative information about a government that eventually comes to light is true. During the reign of Justinian, he had Procopius produce a history of his times which was, of course, laden with remarks to sooth the emperor and avoid ascribing anything negative to the empire's administration. After his death, Procopius' Secret History [amazon.com] appeared, purporting to give the "real story" of things, calling the general Belisarius an imcompetent fool and the Empress Theodora an outright whore. Yet, almost no historians believe anything in the secret history, which seems to be a kind of saucy genre of fiction that flourished at the time, and the reliable account is actually in the official production.

What I find at Slashdot is often groupthink that anything from the government is automatically wrong and any gossipy rumours that come from "underground sources" (who are more appreciated the more they try to look victimized) are automatically true. The world isn't that simple.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (0, Flamebait)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743338)

China stopped being communist a long time ago, or did you not notice that the distinctly fascist combination of state and corporate ownership of the means of production has held sway for a while now.

The ignorance of subjugates will always be a Bolshevik, and not a fascist, end.

All that Commmie ignorance and the Russians still managed to put a man into space before anyone else.

All the rest of your post is just flowery-worded bollocks to try and look intellectual whilst in fact just presenting a set of 20th century prejudices as an original idea.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743544)

China stopped being communist a long time ago, or did you not notice that the distinctly fascist combination of state and corporate ownership of the means of production has held sway for a while now.

Agreed, Marxism ceased to be the pubicly declared philosophy of the PRC after Tiananmen. Now it's just generic authoritarianism with a good dose of Han nationalism.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (5, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743702)

All that Commmie ignorance and the Russians still managed to put a man into space before anyone else.

People seemingly nostalgic for the Red Bear seem to love to belabor the "man in space" point, but also seem to avoid noting that the Soviet Union failed the ultimate intelligence test, when it neglected to ensure its own survival.

If the system was that good, obviously it should have easily managed to hang on -- obviously that would have been the prime national priority. And yet it did not. Perhaps the take-away lesson is that while the system worked admirably on concentrating a lot of resources on a few key problems, it was unable to manage the delegation of a lot of resources, to a lot of smaller problems. (This isn't particularly astute or surprising; control centralization allows for concentration, but at the expense of flexibility.)

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (3, Insightful)

MrAnnoyanceToYou (654053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743376)

I hate to put it this way, but that's nowhere near true. If you look at the wikipedia entry on Nazi Propaganda [wikipedia.org] , it will be a great enlightenment to you. Fascism always included extensive information management. Democracy shouldn't, and isn't designed to, but the last fifty years have had backsliding induced by fearmongers.

Bolshevism and Fascism are both comparatively bad forms of government by certain standards. Government rooted in non-militia military power generally is.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (2, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743558)

Democracy shouldn't, and isn't designed to, but the last fifty years have had backsliding induced by fearmongers.
The last fifty years of what? If you're talking about the US, it isn't a democracy; it's a limited republic with some facist elements. Democracy is where every "person" being governed has an equal say in the governing of society. Needless to say, it doesn't scale well.

In a US-style republic, those being governed have the option to have their say (not equal representation) in electing (and recalling) people to govern for them. This method of governance has obvious and non-obvious flaws, as we've seen in the US implementation since its inception.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743642)

Hush you, he's obviously using democracy as a metaphor for his ideals of freedom. Just like George W. Bush. It's too bad the Iraqis are choking on the sweet air of freedom...

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743458)

Wow, I'm not all that sympathetic to communism and I'm still offended by that post just because how ignorant it is.

Marxism isn't a political theory, it's an economic one. Sure, the politics and economics are somewhat coupled, but not *that* closely. You can have a Marxist state that is also fascist and you can have a Marxist state that is openly democratic. Claiming that all communist states are repressive by definition is just moronic and suggests that you either have no idea what you're talking about or that you're so entrenched in your own ideology that you will attribute any evil to the other side. That makes you pretty much as dangerous as the Communists and Fascists fanatics in my view since none of you can be reasonable.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743508)

Chinese do not appear to be Communist, Marxist, or even remotely Stalinist or Maoist anymore in ideology or economics.

It is more on the lines with National Socialism economically and a bit Italian Fascist government policy wise (without any central Il Duce figure).

I say this because China is highly nationalist rather than ideologist.

If you published an article today about Tibet/Taiwan is not China would be akin to publishing an article in 1939 Germany that Danzig is not Germany.

Sure you have the ability to do so like any semi-independent but national Pride or fear of nationalist sentiment against you would make you most likely not do so. (Or fear of jail if your shame wasn't enough)

It isn't because Marxism or political ideology that you can't talk about Tinamen Square or Tibet, but Chinese Nationalism.

Remember the riots that targeted Japanese stores even though they were owned by Chinese? These things get out of hand.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (1)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743524)

'Cause god knows, those academic Marxists sure hate anything to do with semiotics.

Re:Bolshevism vs. Fascism (0, Troll)

PalmKiller (174161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743610)

The Garden of Eden a Myth? I think not...that is the story of your direct ancestors...unless of course you are from another planet.

They're going to what? (2, Insightful)

MECC (8478) | more than 7 years ago | (#17742982)

Don't they mean purify humanity?

Re:They're going to what? (5, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743228)

I don't know, but it's ironic that they want to "purify the internet environment", while their actual environment goes to complete shit. [newscientist.com]

Re:They're going to what? (1)

bigpat (158134) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743340)

Don't they mean purify humanity?
Of course they do. I think this is the relevant quote:

Sure as I know anything I know this, they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, 10, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I aim to misbehave.
-Captain Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity

Re:They're going to what? (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743362)

> They're going to what?
>Don't they mean purify humanity?

Abbot: "Not they, Hu."
Costello: "Who's going to what?"
Abbot: "Hu's going to purify the Internet. What's going to purify humanity."
Costello: "I don't know who or what's gonna purify humanity! Or how!"
Abbot: "Hao? Who's Hao?"
Costello: "I don't know!"
Both: "All your base!"

Who, or When? (1)

Pfhorrest (545131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743602)

No, not How, When. When Jiabao is gonna purify humanity while Who Jintao does the same for the internet :-)

Multi talented (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17742998)

Hu Jintao is a very talented man.

from the article:

Hu stressed the need to exploit the net's possibilities, while keeping a tight grip. "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded.

On the internet I thought one hand was for the mouse and the other was otherwise occupied. Its no wonder he is keeping a tight grip.

Re:Multi talented (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743150)

He needs a tight grip because, as South Park has taught us, Asians are very small equipped. Have beeeerry small penis. Americans have berrrry raaarrge penis.

Purify this! (4, Funny)

suso (153703) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743000)

Well with the unix epoch hitting 1169696969 in 7 hours and thus a dip in the 65% of people spending time with their SO, it should be harder for him to purify the net.

Applaud! (1)

Prysorra (1040518) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743002)

We need to purify the internet of mentioning the word democracy! Oh wait.....

At least China is honest in intentions (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743006)


unlike USA with their "think of the children" "piracy", "PAC" excuse

truth ? you can't handle the truth !

Worst Fortune Cookie Ever! (1)

Critical Facilities (850111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743014)

From TFA
"Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration," he concluded.

What the hell does that even mean?

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever! (1)

Lucan Varo (974578) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743048)

Means that one person will be strangling the internet. :)

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever! (1)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743292)

So... that's what the kids are calling it these days. ;-)

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743414)

I've always been a bit leery of the term "Port Filtering."

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever! (1)

DuBois (105200) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743434)

Old Zen saying: "The sound of one hand clapping." But Zen is typically from Japan, so it may not apply.

Re:Worst Fortune Cookie Ever! (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743570)

In order to make sense of this, one must apply the Fortune Cookie Rule, thus making the statement, "Ensure that one hand grasps development while one hand grasps administration, in bed."

So you hold on to what is "developing" with one hand, and "administer" to your bedmate with the other. Works pretty well for me!

From the good-luck-with-that dept. (3, Interesting)

Short Circuit (52384) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743040)

You might think that the average person wouldn't stand for it. But I recall someone once saying the "average person" is 5' tall, female, and Chinese.

While China may only house 15-20% of the world's population, that's still a huge fraction. That would be one hell of an astroturf.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!! (4, Interesting)

teutonic_leech (596265) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743042)

Yeah, just what we needed - officials of a country with a long track record in crimes against humanity bent on 'cleaning up the Internet'.

Re:Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743144)

Well, let's see if they can clean up the spam problem before we pass judgment.

Re:Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!! (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743670)

Yeah, just what we needed - officials of a country with a long track record in crimes against humanity bent on 'cleaning up the Internet'.
Which country are you referring to? A number come to mind....

King Canute (1)

kaleco (801384) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743046)

This reminds me of a story about a man who thought he could command the waves.

Re:King Canute (1)

d'fim (132296) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743194)

No, he did not think so. That was his point.

Re:King Canute (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743334)

ARGH. People get this wrong constantly. Go and actually read the legend of King Canute [wikipedia.org] , he knew the waves wouldn't stop and carried out that little exercise to show that he didn't have power above God's will. (At least, he did if it ever really happened.)

Whatever (0, Troll)

fatnicky (991652) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743054)

Purification of the web != removal of pron.

Silly slant-eyed man, goatse is not going away.
(siwy sant-eyed man, go say nah goin way.)

1984 (1)

EaglemanBSA (950534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743060)

'...He loved Big Brother. The End.'

Re:1984 (2, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743346)

Dude, spoiler warning!

/tosses book

Well done (5, Informative)

grub (11606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743068)


Every time you buy some "MADE IN CHINA" shit from WalMart, etc. you help bankroll this type of crap.

Re:Well done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743330)

I call bullshit. Plenty of Made in China crap comes from Taiwan (Republic of China) and they don't pay tax to the red Chinese. Try the history channel instead of pron sometime.

Re:Well done (1, Informative)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743566)

I'm fairly certain that items manufactured in Taiwan and imported to the United States actually say that they are Made in Taiwan, rather than China or Republic of China or "that darn island that we're going to take back one day" or whatever.

Items manufactured in mainland China almost never qualify as PRC or People's Republic of China, but rather as simply Made in China. As one is a democratic republic and the other is a communist state with capitalist leanings, I'd assume manufacturers would wish to avoid any confusion.

Try not watching TV at all sometime.

Re:Well done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743382)

100% true. China is raking in the BILLIONS and a good chunk of it is due to outsourced American manufacturing. When they pay almost nothing for labor and can have entire towns devoted to making socks http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-socks10apr10 ,1,5181869.story?coll=la-broadband-left [latimes.com] they're laughing their way all the way to the state-run banks. Worried about China's increasing power and influence in the world and their atrocious human rights record? Maybe it's time for a stop-buying-Chinese campaign...

Actually no (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743386)

If you didn't buy "Made in China", the Chinese economy would suck. Nobody would be able to afford computers and they won't have access to any sort of information. Only the information printed on the local propaganda newpaper or the (propaganda) radio. With an advanced economy people have computers which they can use to educate themselves and get past the Chinese petty little "censorship" efforts. Do you really think the Chinese govt. can even have mediocre success in censoring? It's all talk.
Also by buying Made In China you build a nation of consumers who need services from the US (airplanes, farm equipment, high tech stuff). Even China wouldn't have the needed workers to sustain an developed modern economy .. because there physically aren't enough workers. So that would benefit both countries and other countries in the world. This will continue until automation helps reduce the number of hours people need to work (and people will be paid more as they work less because the amount of work needed to afford a good lifestyle would be reduced).

Re:Actually no (4, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743758)

This will continue until automation helps reduce the number of hours people need to work (and people will be paid more as they work less because the amount of work needed to afford a good lifestyle would be reduced).
Ah yes... 1950's optimism... with the advent of the automatic dishwasher, laundry machines, improved automobiles, etc. people will no longer have to work 8 hour days! What's that? 50 years have passed and you work an 8.5 hour day now? You can't work an 8 hour day because then you won't be competitive with the people working 8.5 hour days, and you won't be able to keep a job to support yourself? How is that possible, when you live in a country with such a massive food surplus?

Does Mr. Gore Know Yet? (1)

livnah (969701) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743112)

Has anyone let Mr. Gore know yet that his creation [wired.com] will be ... upgraded and "purified"?

I think what he means is... (4, Funny)

KeithH (15061) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743126)

...that he is going to ban Internet Explorer (tight grip) and force a replacement for SMTP (innovate).

Well, he's nearly got the clout for it. Good luck Hu. You've got my vote! oh wait...

Re:I think what he means is... (3, Funny)

Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743238)

Your post advocates a (x) legislative ...

Re:I think what he means is... (1)

Jon47 (979674) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743370)

This place could use a little cleanup, just look at that mess of spam emails, phishing attempts, viruses and sites developed offering no services but rather only search engine optimized pages designed to accrue ad money a fraction of a penny at a time. I'm not sure if fascist misogyny is the path to our answer but I'm willing to give it a shot!

Purify the internet environment? (1)

Raterman (952724) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743152)

Who does he think he's kidding?

I say we purify the web (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743162)

I say we purify it by attacking those misguided moral and political crusaders who think they have the right to censor anything.

Fundamental inherent rights of man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743180)

Unfortunately globally, people have slowly begun to disregard that man has fundamental rights. Not only that, we now all expected to be suspicious of each other.

Some examples:

* Spain preventing shop owners from displaying models of size 6 and under because it glorifies being thin.

* The state of Karnataka, India, banning parents from teaching their child English or any other language of their choice besides the official language.

* The US deciding that a person can be held without any evidence and punished without being able to confront the evidence (assuming their is actual evidence) against them.

* Globally, punishments inflicted that serve only the purpose of vengeance, not rehabilitation.

* Islamic whackos believing that it's OK to kill innocent people to advance their agenda.

* Collective punishment of innocent people due to the actions of a few.

* Growing distrust of neighbors.

etc.

So basically, little by little, the concept of human rights is being eroded. Maybe a few would be more secure in the padded cell, but what's the use of life then?

The Register isn't qualified to report on this. (5, Insightful)

It's a thing (968713) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743186)

Anyone who confuses the Web and the Internet isn't qualified to report about either.

And anyone who puts a ® at the end of an entire article as if it was a copyright symbol isn't qualified to copyright or register as a trademark anything.

Re:The Register isn't qualified to report on this. (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743552)

And anyone who puts a ® at the end of an entire article as if it was a copyright symbol isn't qualified to copyright or register as a trademark anything.

I believe they're using the "®" as a logo ("R" for "Register") rather than attempting to indicate a registered trademark.

Re:The Register isn't qualified to report on this. (1)

It's a thing (968713) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743696)

IANAL, but I'm doubtful about the legality of that.

They should just have a tiny version of their logo at the top for that anyway, it's not misleading.

ah, commie propaganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743216)

Maybe he should try "civilizing and purifying" China first.

Purify the internet...? (1)

TinBromide (921574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743222)

I tried that once, but i got too many naked ladies jammed in the filter and the heuristic algorithm gained sentience and is currently working in atlantic city. Kind of like skynet, but with porn.

Re:Purify the internet...? (2, Funny)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743622)

Kind of like skynet, but with porn.

So, ThighNet then?

This is complete nonsense... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743236)

article!

WTF!!!!!!

Here ya go, continue your trade with China, as you trade, you are polluting their environment.

Need I say more?

Small problem for Mr. Hu (3, Informative)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743262)

A vast majority of the world's servers are in countries not named the People's Republic of China. Therefore, to do as he insists, he would have to take control of those servers. I suspect, that even given the large number of people at his beck and call, that is a task beyond his capacity. At some point, every person is possession of sole authority in some organization gets delusions of grandeur.

In plain English: he's FOS.

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743476)

A vast majority of the world's servers are in countries not named the People's Republic of China. Therefore, to do as he insists, he would have to take control of those servers.

Or, he tries harder to make the 'great firewall of China' even more efficient so that the stuff that he can't directly control, he can supress. If his little corner of the world seems to have been purified, and his own citizens can't see anything to refute it, his plan must have worked.

I suspect that's a more likely strategy.

Cheers

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743676)

I think he's talking about the Internet as seen by Chinese citizens. Here's your quote:

Hu told the politburo the party should "strengthen administration and development of our country's internet culture".

Not that I think you're wrong about the delusions of granduer thing, but this is something within his power to do.

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu (1)

fgb (62123) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743734)

If Dr. Hu had said this, then I would be concerned...

Re:Small problem for Mr. Hu (1)

BK425 (461939) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743736)

Jintaos "sole authority" possesses double digit GDP growth and one of the largest populations on earth. Ultimately wether his "grandeur" is delusional or not will depend imho on the Chinese economy. Personally... while I consider myself a US patriot (ducking), -my- 401k has some international picks in it.

Say what you will about him... (1)

Irvu (248207) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743282)

Hu Jintao knows how to say absolutely nothing and say it well. That sentence is a masterpiece of meaningless airy drivel. You can read it and reread it and there just isn't anything there. Any speechwriter worth his salt should be envious of that hot air.

Reminds me a lot of a certain Sci-Fi book. (1)

Lead Butthead (321013) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743778)

Hu Jintao knows how to say absolutely nothing and say it well. That sentence is a masterpiece of meaningless airy drivel. You can read it and reread it and there just isn't anything there. Any speechwriter worth his salt should be envious of that hot air.
So in the end everything cancelled out. Absolutely nothing was said or reassured.

First great mistake (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743288)

...is to never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Of course, the internet may soon be bigger than Asia...

Doug in a Dress (3, Insightful)

Ace905 (163071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743294)

I think it's obvious the entire slashdot community is going to be 'against' this initiative. We all have experience using 'more than average' time on the internet and particularly the world wide web ; it is completely impossible to 'guide' people on the internet.

China would have to have a ginormous amount of 'censors' constantly surfing and updating their own database of acceptable internet sites to have anything close to a 'guidance initiative'. This is just a media spin on what china has been doing all along, blocking major portions of the internet off completely from it's own citizens.

You can see the ridiculous tracert douginadress.com [douginadress.com] takes to reach chinese citizens right now ; another comment on China's inability to even provide standard censorship

Ho-lee Cree-ap! (1)

MuChild (656741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743306)

It will be interesting to see if the strict controls that the Chinese government imposes on the internet in order to enforce its wierd ideas and fantasies break the internet.

The sad thing is, eventually, we'll be buying draconian filtering technology back from the Chinese in order to cope with spam. Sigh.

Re:Ho-lee Cree-ap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743496)

Every time I see a spam from China I add the entire netblock to our firewall ruleset. Why don't the PRC start with "purifying" that?

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? (5, Funny)

amstrad (60839) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743322)

From CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA [people.com.cn]

Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. No citizen may be arrested except with the approval or by decision of a people's procuratorate or by decision of a people's court, and arrests must be made by a public security organ. Unlawful deprivation or restriction of citizens' freedom of person by detention or other means is prohibited; and unlawful search of the person of citizens is prohibited.

Article 39. The home of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable. Unlawful search of, or intrusion into, a citizen's home is prohibited.

Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law. No organization or individual may, on any ground, infringe upon the freedom and privacy of citizens' correspondence except in cases where, to meet the needs of state security or of investigation into criminal offences, public security or procuratorial organs are permitted to censor correspondence in accordance with procedures prescribed by law.

Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints and charges against, or exposures of, violation of the law or dereliction of duty by any state organ or functionary; but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited. In case of complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens, the state organ concerned must deal with them in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures, or retaliate against the citizens making them. Citizens who have suffered losses through infringement of their civil rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law.

Short answer? Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743490)

Yeah, these rights are guaranteed in theory and taken away in practice.

Which is why we in the US should be worried about suspending them habeas corpus :/

Hell, even my captcha is 'controls' ...

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743516)

Not at all, its just largely unenforced.

You're talking about legal protection (read court protection), but China's current court system is only about 20 years old (perspective here, Britain's is like 700 years, the US's is like 300). It's a system that isn't independent yet, and hasn't worked out its early kinks. On the positive side though, Hu has been one of the major drivers for it, so its not as bad as it could be.

Keep in mind, most constitutions do make reservations about when certain elements within can be suspended (USA's and Canada's both do). I'm not sure if the Chinese Constitution has that, but I'd suspect it does. Does such a provision make it a sham? You tell me if the other two Constitutions are similarly invalid.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? (2, Interesting)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743522)

See, the Founding Fathers of the US thought of this and wrote up the Constitution to say "This is what the Government CAN do" (Articles) and "This is what they CANNOT do" (Amendments). The last amendment states that any other rights are left to the states to decide, and then reserved by the people.

All of your bolded words (especially "unlawful", used multiple times) can be interpreted by Chinese courts to mean anything, because the Chinese Constitution purposefully spells out rights (grants them) as opposed to saying they are self-evident.

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? (4, Insightful)

Jerf (17166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743582)

You missed Article 51:
Article 51. The exercise by citizens of the People's Republic of China of their freedoms and rights may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society and of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.
And guess who decides what interests the state?

For all the bitching about the United States you see on Slashdot, at least our government actually has to try to subvert the Constitution, and we have ways of fighting back. The US Constitution doesn't have an "Oh, and everything we promised you you have, you don't have." escape hatch built in. Technically, we have the exact opposite, whatever our dear Attorney General may think. (The closest thing to an all-purpose escape hatch is the Commerce Clause, and that's not without controversy, nor is it total; the Supreme Court has interpreted it more broadly than I'd like but they have rejected some uses of it.)

Re:Is the Chinese Constitution a sham? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743592)

You forgot to emphasize this important clause:

>>but fabrication or distortion of facts with the intention of libel or frame-up is prohibited

Obviously that's open for a lot of abuse by the state, but if only it worked on Slashdot, the world would be a better place.

Purifying the internet is all well and good... (1)

ENOENT (25325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743328)

but who will protect our precious bodily fluids from being impurified?

Paging Gen. Jack D. Ripper!!!

Oh, thats a good one! (1)

varmittang (849469) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743332)

Oh, wait, you weren't kidding. I'm sorry, I wasn't laughing at you, but with you, at yourself.

Hello, Major Strasser (1)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743366)

"There are certain parts of New York, Major, that I wouldn't advise you to try and invade."

I find it interesting... (1)

clragon (923326) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743406)

that things disregarded by most Chinese as simply propaganda will make the headlines of the western press...

China had to learn from North Korea & Cuba? (3, Informative)

us7892 (655683) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743410)

From wikipedia, In December 2004, the Hong Kong magazine Open quoted an alleged instruction by Hu to propaganda officials in September in which he wrote that, when managing ideology, China had to learn from Cuba and North Korea. Although North Korea had encountered "temporary economic problems", its political policies were "consistently correct". Open also quoted Hu as calling Mikhail Gorbachev, "a betrayer of socialism".

Well, that doesn't sound too good. And he wants to "purify" the internet.

Another interesting summary on wiki of his "Eight Do's and Dont's", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba_rong_ba_chi [wikipedia.org]

Number Eight is interesting, "Regard plain living and hard struggle as an honour, regard living in luxury as a shame."

Perhaps he needs a number nine, which reads something like "Regard the internet as a backward Western evil, filled with filthy images and make-believe."

I wonder... (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743422)

...thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

So the Chinese are suggesting that the 2008 American Presidential Race be banned from the Internet?

Sounds like a Marketing guy (2, Funny)

sizzzzlerz (714878) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743456)

He proposes to do this by maintaining "the initiative in opinion" on the internet and to "'raise the level guidance on the internet," thus civilizing and purifying the internet environment.

Straight outta pre-bubble 2000 sales hype for some dot-com. Yup, China is advancing far faster than we could have ever believed.

Be warned. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743478)

Given the reactionary nature of many /.ers, I fear that goatse and related content will get to +5 status in this discussion.

Purifying the Net (2, Funny)

HunahpuMonkey (613489) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743512)

Thank God! We need less memory leaks.

mo"d uWp (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17743534)

"Purify" (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743554)

Why is it that we can't just immediately nuke anyone that vows to "purify" again ?

Re:"Purify" (1)

Improv (2467) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743608)

That certainly would purify things :O

Re:"Purify" (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743640)

Yeah, nukes aren't messy at all.

Excel Saga anyone? (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743700)

"Secrecy is the art of hiding unbeknownst information from people." ~Il Palazzo, Vol 1, Ch 1, Excel Saga

Obligatory /. comment (1)

v912485 (1001003) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743726)

I for one welcome our internet purifying overlords!

TFA said nothing (3, Insightful)

grumpyman (849537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17743746)

TFA has absolutely no context and everybody just can't wait to pitch in their brilliant 2 cents on 'purification', state control, philosophy in life...etc. Anybody bother to check what is he referring to? TFA is atypical Chinese government bashing rhetoric. I have no problem bashing them, but FFS in what context does he meant by purifying? What if the context is 'kiddie porn', 'online crack sale', WTF is it??? Network virus? Zombie bots?? DOS attack????


Every time there's this knee-jerk, robotic reaction I totally don't get. Believe in what you WANT TO believe in. In this case, there's no FA to read.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...