Microsoft Censors Chinese Blogger 462
wooppp writes "Microsoft has admitted to removing the blog of a Chinese journalist from MSN Spaces. The censored site has been re-hosted elsewhere after a short down-time, but is no longer accessible to the folks in China." From the ZDNet article: "MSN is committed to ensuring that products and services comply with global and local laws, norms and industry practices. Most countries have laws and practices that require companies providing online services to make the Internet safe for local users. Occasionally, as in China, local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements..."
Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like the suppression of independent, free thought? Way to support 'em, Microsoft! Sleep well at night!
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
What if? Why not search it? (Score:5, Informative)
1st 4+ post: That's just business..(Score:5, Insightful)
2nd 4+ post: No, it isn't (Score:5, Insightful)
So you are worng, there was a discussion similar to this one.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bit over the top. (Score:3, Interesting)
I happen to agree that Microsoft should not have pulled it but I often considered US centric in my opinions. How should a company act when faced with a country that doesn't respect the core values of that companies home country?
Re:Bit over the top. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah... (Score:4, Insightful)
> Way to support 'em, Microsoft! Sleep well at night!
While it is rather smarmy for a corporation to do, if you have a problem with it, talk to your own government.
Foreign policy is one of the functions of the government, and currently, the strategy is balls-to-the-wall capitalism with China, presumably in the hopes it opens up their nation.
ObWhere.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the blog were hosted in China, then Chinese law might be applicable. The 'blog was hosted here. MS took it upon themselves to delete the 'blog so the Chinese government wouldn't be offended. By your logic, nothing other than Disney should be hosted on the Internet, since it might be against the law somewhere. Your "don't pay taxes" scenario is silly because it's not at all the same situation - MS is under no obligation to obey Chinese law on servers located in the US.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
The day is going to come where the bill of rights is going to have to be forced on the corporate world the same way it is forced on the government or it will stop meaning anything. It's not useful if 10-12 hours a day you're under the rule of an oppressive foreign government.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't suppose you'd want to name that company, so I can avoid buying from such spineless bootlickers.
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Interesting)
But that's exactly what they did here. They decided that, on their servers here in America, they should honor laws in another country that violate US, UN and every other legitimate standard of human rights.
A global corporation will be expected to enforce local laws of nationals who are using its service.
In the absense of US law then they are required to follow local law and that is as it should be.
H
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
The content was in the hands of a US corporation, operating in the US. It seems to make no difference where the citizen or his terminal was physically located. US entities should not be in the position of refusing services based on nationality, period. If China does not like what their citizens are doing, they need to enforce their laws locally.
Personally, if I owned MSN, I'd fee
Re:Former Microsoftie Here. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yeah... (Score:3, Insightful)
Is China using its money to shout for oppression? Then use your money to SHOUT LOUDER.
The subbtle difference is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Free speech is a human right. (It is stated in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and although it isn't a legally binding document, this right is reformulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (by coincidence also article 19) which is a legally binding document).
So it's not about enforcing american view in foreign countries (which is completly stupid, but is what the **AA are trying to do with the DMCA) or some specific weird views (your imaginary "tax are immoral" situation) in a specific country (tax must be paid in the USA), it's about trying to enforce fundamental human rights independently of local laws.
That's the difference between finding taxes immoral and fighting for freedom of speech.
(Note: Have no knowledge in internation laws except for the fraction we learned studying legal medicine)
No Problem (Score:4, Funny)
I'm all for it too (Score:4, Funny)
Re:No Problem (Score:2)
Re:Learn from history, or be doomed to repeat it (Score:3, Interesting)
Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2, Insightful)
If so, doesn't that apply just as much in China as in America?
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
If so, doesn't that apply just as much in China as in America?
If they respected Chinese law and American law to the same degree, then they wouldn't have so enthusiastically pulled down the offending post, would they?
Not without a long, drawn out court fight.
Or could it be...just maybe...that this isn't about law & order, principles, or anything more noble than the pursuit of economic interests.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pursuit of economic interests is exactly what one would expect from a publically traded corporation (which has an obligation to maximize profit potential for its shareholders). Right, wrong, or indifferent, it is the law of the corporate jungle.
If I were a shareholder, I would expect nothing less from Apple, Google, or <your favorite benevolent corp here>
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2, Flamebait)
few do, though.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were a shareholder, I would expect nothing less from Apple, Google, or under the same circumstances.
Which is why it is the duty of we, the public, to intensely criticise any corporation when it does do something unethical, so that the ethical choice becomes the most profitable one.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2)
What color is the sky on your planet?
Expecting people to think of anyone other than themselves is un-American.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is something everyone here at
And we need to start doing this BEFORE it is too late.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2)
Furthermore, who decides what is moral? You? I personally don't think people should drink alcohol, but that doesn't make it OK for me to drive around to all the local bars and set them on fire.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Killing and imprisoning dissenters is a Bad Thing. There is no discussion needed.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you believe there are any universal moral truths? If you do not then there is never a moral justification for resisting the immoral laws of a human government.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
i believe in speaking out against laws that are immoral to me, but one has to be willing to accept the consequences.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the morality of drinking really isn't that difficult to discern: It's not immoral to drink except where it would harm another person
How far do you take that, and who decides what "harm" is?
You gave a few examples where I don't think you'd get much of an argument from most people about it being wrong to get drunk in those situations. But it's easy to take another step, and another. For example, the purpose of DUIs being wrong is that it could harm others -- no guarantees. And the purpose of not getting drunk enough to interfere with supporting a family is to protect the family. However, there are few people in the world who are truly alone. Is it wrong if I, as a single male with no children, drink myself to death? It could happen. My family would be devastated. Clear emotional harm would be done. So was my drinking immoral? Clearly it would be simple to say "fine, drinking yourself to death is immoral" -- but I do not believe there is a purpose to a system of morality that offers no real guidance. I can get good and drunk, and impair my judgment (making it harder to know when to stop), but it would be immoral to die? Err... helpful.
What about the "lesser of two evils" cases? What if I know my neighbor is planning on killing people, but I don't have any proof such that I would be able to get the police involved as anything more than a delay tactic? Is it moral to kill the neighbor to protect others? What if I don't KNOW he's going to commit murders, but I have a very strong suspicion? A moderately-strong suspicion? Where is the line? If I am 51% sure, does that mean it's moral? What about 50%? Remember now, we're not talking legality, we're talking morality. Regardless of legality, would it be the right thing to do?
How about things that are less easy to quantify? If god descended from the heavens right now and told me if I killed every last Arab in the world, peace would reign for the remainder of the history of the world, would it be moral to do it?
How does friendship play in to morality? If I am friends with somebody who committed a crime and he calls me for bail, should I pay it even if I know that he's going to skip out and never come back? If my friend confesses murder to me, is it my moral imperitive to rat him out or keep his secret? After all, I am causing harm regardless of which I choose. Does it matter if I knew--magically or just by virtue of knowing my friend well--that whatever he did would never be done again?
Are "selfish" things immoral? If I own a business, is it immoral to close it and lay off my employees because I am no longer interested in running it? (Yes, in reality, the chances are good that I would sell it in that situation -- but assume for the sake of argument that I am unwilling or unable to do so.) That could cause a ton of harm to them, particularly if they themselves have families, and it's not like I'm closing it because it's hemhorraging money or anything.
I don't expect you or anybody else to actually answer these questions -- in fact I hope nobody takes the time to do so, they're nothing but hypotheticals. I pose them all in order to make one simple comment: Morality is not always as simple as you make it out to be and (at least) in the case of friendships, I do not think it can be wholly logical either. That emotional part you acknowledge can't always be tossed away.
(I realize as I preview this that the argument is somewhat tangent to your statement about the morality of laws, but it seems like you took a tangent of your own. That and it took me a long time to type and I'll be damned if I'm going to close the window now. :P)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? I don't agree. Having sat on a jury where the charge was aggravated sexual assault of a child, I can tell you that people get convicted of being child molestors for things that don't pass the smell test. Here's an example (just to grab a random example out of today's newspaper) of someone arrested where the actual language of the indictment includes "...She could tell by [chron.com]
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2)
Governments don't care about what's moral or immoral either. Governments and corporations are alike in the fact that they owe allegiance to something or someone other than the individual. Only individuals are moral creatures, because only individuals have free will.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all - have you actually read any Chinese laws? No? You can get them in translation, and they are not really all that draconian; in fact I suspect the average American could subscribe to them with no problems at all. But just like in USA, it is the way that the law is practised that matters. Is the police heavyhanded? Are the judges fair etc? And perhaps the Chinese are no worse off than the Americans in that respect either.
Secondly, what do you actually know about whether the Chinese feel free to speak their mind? I suspect you've never actually been there and spoken to ordinary Chinese. I have, many times, and I can testify that they are not in the least afraid of having an opinion or speaking it in public. I suspect a lot of the American ideas about this come from the time of the cultural revolution, where people were widely persecuted, not only for having the wrong opinions, but also for lots of other things, more or less at random. China has moved on from that - this is a common thing in the world: societies change over time; well, maybe not America, what so I know, but certainly China - how could anyone doubt that? Also, are you absolutely sure that you can get away with having the wrong opinions in America?
Thirdly, it sounds grand, all this drivel about 'ignore immoral laws'; just you try to do that in America. Or perhaps you don't fancy an unlimited holiday at Hotel Gitmo?
A very sound rule of thumb is, if a society is stable over time, then the population is by and large happy with the way things are. This is true not only for USA and Europe, but also for China and many other countries. The ordinary feel quite happy with the way their country is run, and if you actually believe in freedom, you should leave it to them to decide whether they like it.
I think a lot of you Americans need to revise your prejudices. As far as I can see your attitudes towards other countries, and in this particular case China, is caused by a combination of ignorance and simple jealousy - China is doing better and better, while America is going the opposite way, so they are simply 'evil communists' who persecute pious religious practitioners like Falun Gong, American style 'evangelicals' and other representatives of the worst in mankind.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:4, Insightful)
I hesitate to make a tired 1984 reference, but do you remember how the proles in that book were allowed to speak their minds without repercussion? The woman who flips out in the movie theater doesn't get a rat cage strapped to her face - they just throw her out of the place, because she is unimportant and no one cares what she says.
So yeah, maybe most people in China don't have a problem with their government, but anyone who does is sure as hell going to have a rough time of it if people start listening to them.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Informative)
Great Leader, is that you?
Let's look at facts, shall we, not "prejudices"
We begin:
Here are some happy people being run over by tanks.
http://images.google.com/images?svnum=100&hl=en&sa fe=off&q=tiananmen+square&spell=1 [google.com]
Here are reports of hundreds of other happy people being tortured to death.
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=falun+gong+tortu re&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq= &as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occ t=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=off [google.com]
Here are images of torture victims, many of them old women. The squeamish may want to skip these.
http://images.google.com/images?&num=100&hl=en&btn G=Google+Search&lr=&as_ft=i&as_qdr=all&as_dt=i&as_ rights=&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wi&q=falun%20gong%20tort ure [google.com]
Isolated incidents from long ago? Oh no, kamerad. Just last month Chinese police shot 30 or 40 villagers who were protesting their poor living conditions.
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=chinese+villager s+shot&num=100&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as _oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as _occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=o ff [google.com]
I am glad you posted something so easy to refute with such overweening disdain for the victims. It's clear why you are such a supporter of the current regime.
Finally, your claim that "you Americans" are jealous of china is a purile red herring meant to stifle discussion.
Hint for you: The only way you can stifle discussion now is if you get Microsoft to do it for you. And the rest of the world is watching.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Insightful)
"In Theory, Marge!! In Theory!" Dude, the Chinese Communist party is about as far from accountable to the people as any modern, bureucratic government has ever gotten!
The Internet filters required by law in US libraries are controlled by random private corporations that aren't accountable to anybody at all.
Except of course, to the contracts
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well he can if he's voted in. That's what democracy is all about.
Osama is already doing it, and he feels just as righteous as you do.
You are only half correct. Osama Bin Laden has had a huge influence on US law. Possibly more so than anyone else in the last 50 years. However, I don't see how you feel he is applying his morality to US law. Unless you think, that Osama thinks it is moral to capture him, photograph his anus and then
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like the pot thats calling the kettle... well you get the idea.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2)
China has deep pockets and is growing in economic development at a STAGGERING rate. The EU is not. So you had just as well get used to these sorts of stories, because corporations are going to be sucking up to the Chinese government for a very long time to come.
-Eric
Companies LOVE China (Score:3, Interesting)
Because China is soon to be one of the worlds largest markets, and no company can afford to lose its foothold there, lest their more unscrupulous competitors use the China advatage to squeeze the life out of them.
Besides that, secretly, corperations love the Chinese Government. It's essentially a kind of facist state, which by and large me
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, they are violating this blogger's human rights (as defined by the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights) in order to make a profit.
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:2)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. Stopping all economic activity between the US and the rest of the world would propably force the US government to perform its duty to protect its citizens by stopping them from being murdered by the state. As an added benefit, it would force the rest of the world to cut its dependency on US economy. So in short, both US
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Should MSN obey the law? (Score:5, Funny)
Most slashdotters would like to call it "Common Sense".
More information (Score:4, Informative)
A lot more information on this story can be found at Rebecca MacKinnon's RConversation [blogs.com].
F@lon G0ng? (Score:2)
Thanks for the interesting link. I wonder if their censorship software is smart enough to detect modified versions of forbidden language like: F@lun G0ng. You would think these kind of usages would spring up for the same reasons they have in the west.
Re:F@lon G0ng? (Score:2, Interesting)
The Almight Dollar wins again (Score:3, Insightful)
when companies who claim to take pride in living in a "free" country facilitate repression abroad.
Just getting it out of the way. (Score:2, Funny)
Rational discussion may now resume.
Re:Just getting it out of the way. (Score:3, Informative)
But we can always raise the national debt ceiling...
Censorship is a Unique Element of an Oligarchy (Score:5, Interesting)
I am sure George Orwell's '1984', Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World', and even Bill Gate's 2005 article 'The New World of Work' would be banned as well.
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2005/05-
Quote: "Improving personal productivity: One consequence of an "always-on" environment is the challenge of prioritizing, focusing and working without interruption. Today's software can handle some of this, but hardly at a level that matches the judgment and awareness of a human being. That will change -- new software will learn from the way you work, understand your needs, and help you set priorities." (Bill Gates 5-19-05)
Unless you live in China.
Re:Censorship is a Unique Element of an Oligarchy (Score:5, Funny)
Oh come on, it's not like we live in a world where our calls our monitored, our emails read, history is revised, and our leader is a "big brother" type who makes his own law. I mean, here in America, the NSA would never silence someone just for makin
Nothing to see here (Score:5, Funny)
Go back to your homes, watch some football and have a nice fast food meal, secure in the knowledge that whatever the government does, it's for the purpose of protecting your rights and ensuring your safety from TERRORIST!!!!!!!
9/11, 9/11, You all must remember 9/11.
Who's censoring? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who's censoring? (Score:2, Insightful)
I find it very disturbing that MS can't seem to keep itself out of trouble elsewhere but can suddenly follow the laws of a communist nation like china that's what really disturbs me.
Re:Who's censoring? (Score:2)
China, on the other hand, could ban all MS products or, hell, probably even round up their employees and shoot them.
Re:Who's censoring? (Score:2)
Re:Who's censoring? (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect. If you RTFM, it is MSN's employees, rather than China's upstream infrastructure, removing content.
Re:Who's censoring? (Score:2)
Do you expect every US company doing business with China to remove words like "freedom" from all their sites?
And our reporter is afraid of "outspoken" too? (Score:5, Insightful)
We report that the views were controversial for China, but apparently that makes them unreportable. What, are we hoping a Chinese audience will be able to find the story now?
(As far as Microsoft being ever so scrupulous about adhering to international standards, it's impressive how multinational corporations cover their butts when an authoritarian state is offended. Their commitment to international practices is even more impressive when local labor standards give them what amounts to slave labor.)
What would happen if a US citizen mirrored him.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Worldwide Censorship? (Score:4, Interesting)
Was it simply the case that Chinese IPs were blocked from accessing it, or in fact was the entire blog simply removed from MSN Spaces altogether.
Either way is shameful, but if private companies begin to censor the web for everyone, worldwide, at the (implied) behest of autocracies, where will that leave us?
I like Chinese (Score:2)
as quoted from his blog (Score:4, Funny)
Nothing could be more true!
The real question is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps we can learn something from the Chineese.
Google, Yahoo, Cisco and others collaborate also.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google Bows to Chinese Censorship [wired.com]
How about Yahoo:
Information supplied by Yahoo ! helped journalist Shi Tao get 10 years in prison [rsf.org]
and there is this on Cisco and China:
China's Internet: Let a Thousand Filters Bloom [yale.edu]
How is it Censorship? (Score:3, Insightful)
So if someone illegally paints a swastika on my house, is it censorship for me to remove it? I hope someone could explain the difference to me.
Re:How is it Censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter of MSN is pulling the blog voluntarily (in order to avoid negative repercussions with the Chinese government), or if the Chinese government orders them to do so. Either way, it's a government-caused limit to free speech.
Nice to know that MS does obey laws... (Score:2)
As a nation, we should stand for freedom, most especially for freedom of speech, because that's the one freedom from which all the others come. As long as we can all talk, we don't necessarily have to resort to violence to bring about change.
Any corporation organized in t
MS has given this blogger amazing prominence! (Score:2, Insightful)
Lunacy (Score:2)
Good luck, then, because that's unpossible.
Helpful tip: Laws from other countries often conflict with each other!
Tough situation! (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder what things would be like now had the Soviet Union managed to stay intact in the "mass media" Internet age. Surely there was some net access available to a select few behind the Iron Curtain, but I can't imagine it would be easy for, say, East Germany to control their media completely.
I think they did the right thing on this. Our country's laws are not necessarily the world standard, and other countries are free to follow whatever policy they please. They're also free to block access to things they see as dangerous. We do this "in reverse" all the time...other countries are much more liberal in terms of what can be seen on TV, etc. To please the religious crew, we censor broadcast media and let people who want to see more subscribe to cable. The problem opens up when you inject a stateless medium such as the internet.
Remember Amatuer Action? (Score:3, Informative)
At the time there was a lot of concern about the net becoming regulated by the laws of the most restrictive state. Funny how that seems to be the case nowadays, except it is the corps doing the 'regulation' and not the governments per se.
(PS, for some reason there is very little record of the whole Amatuer Action BBS fiasco in google's database, very odd for what was such a big deal at the time.)
Oppressive regimes (Score:4, Insightful)
Chinese Law (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't simply a case of a company complying with local law. China's censorship of Zhao's blog is actually illegal under Chinese law. It violates article 35 of The Constitution of the People's Republic of China [people.com.cn], which guarantees freedom of speech and article 41, which specifically protects the right to criticize the government. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Microsoft acted in response to the order of a court. What we're talking about here is compliance with an illegal request. There may be an argument that Microsoft could not afford to refuse to comply, but any moral argument that Microsoft has an obligation to obey local law is bogus.
TO save time replying to each one.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Polaroid and South Africa (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Slashdot editors do this (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem becomes where does the right to free speech stop? Slashdot has rules about posting; not many, but enough. Despite the fact that the Bill of Rights guarantees your right to say what you think, Slashdot is under no obligation to promote your ideas or encourage you to speak them.
For example, you may be a racist; you have a vaild right to be one and to say anything you like about any group that doesn't fit in your personal view of the world. Slashdot does not have to give you a forum for your idea
Re:Slashdot editors do this (Score:2)
A popular misconception. The first amendment guarantees your right that the government will not abridge your right to say what you think. Congress specifically by the text, and the state governments as well by later supreme court interpretation.
Private citizens and entities can do it all they want, however. Tell you boss off, you'll be sent packing.
Re:Slashdot editors do this (Score:2)
And I thought I was the only one.
Me too, until I saw your sig. Did you try emailing moderation@slashdot.org to enquire about your bad?
Re:Slashdot editors do this (Score:2)
Yes. My sig contains the meat of the response. I was amazed.
Re:Slashdot editors do this (Score:2)
If you've followed Slashdot for a while, you'll notice that the only constant is being disagreeable. What to disagree with actually varies quite a bit simply based on the content of the article.
Godwins Law and Bill Gates. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not bad form to compare Communist China with National Socialist Germany. Both are non free countries which engaged in systematic censorship and murder.
It is bad form to co-operate with either and Bill Gates should be ashamed. Richard Nixon's policy of engagement was more a case of Machiavelli's help the weaker of two enemies than co-operating with a murderer. With the stronger of the two gone, the remaining enemy should be shunned. Co-operation with China today is a classic example of selling the rope to your executioner. Bill Gates, by shutting down a US cite at China's request, is saying that he's willing to subject US citizens to Chinese publication law. That does not make Bill Gates a murderer, but it does make him someone who's willing to violate your rights to help a lawless regime.