Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Internet Your Rights Online Politics

New MySpace China Tells Users to Spy on Each Other 158

Posted by Zonk from the everyone-wants-to-be-friends dept.
Anonymous Chinese Coward writes "MySpace has launched in China, the world's most populous nation, but this definitely is NOT the MySpace you're used to. Members are told to click a button to report any 'misconduct' by other users. MySpace's definition of 'misconduct' includes actions such as 'endangering national security, leaking state secrets, subverting the government, undermining national unity, spreading rumors or disturbing the social order' — according to the site's terms and conditions. In China these are all crimes which carry a hefty prison sentence. Any attempt to post content containing phrases that the Chinese government doesn't like, such as 'Taiwanese independence', the banned 'FaLun' religious movement or the Dalai Lama, produces the following message. 'Sorry, the article you want to publish may contain inappropriate content. Please delete the unsuitable content, and then try reposting it. Thank you.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New MySpace China Tells Users to Spy on Each Other More

New MySpace China Tells Users to Spy on Each Other

Comments Filter:

  • Free Speech (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 28, 2007 @06:28AM (#18910415)
    I'm sure they can say it in a free speech zone.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Just outsmart the PROC "Big Brother" and go netspeak...

      fR33 teh D0lLi3 Llah-mAh Tie-W0n N-dee-P3ndEnc3 F@L00n FTW!!!!1111oneoneone

    • 'endangering national security, leaking state secrets, subverting the government, undermining national unity, spreading rumors or disturbing the social order'

      Other than "spreading rumors", which just sounds silly, aren't all the others illegal in pretty much all countries in the world, including the US?

  • Even if they do, I bet they can be hacked by chinese.

  • I... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by NayDizz ( 821461 )
    I hope they catch as much crap for this as Yahoo and Google have for their apparent misconduct on their Chinese counterparts.
    • Definitely. I wonder, will they be reporting those who commit misconduct to the Chinese police? Or will they quickly cover it up and only forward any relevant information if subpoenaed?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bogjobber ( 880402 )
      They probably won't because MySpace is owned by News Corp., which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Let's just say Mr. Murdoch doesn't exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to promoting freedom and democracy. This is hardly surprising.

  • On which country... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by camcorder ( 759720 )
    On which country on the earth these are totally free actions? That's not specific to China, they just want to control it, which is fine. Every country have their own regulations to protect their own sensitivity to a matter. In US it's racism, in Europe it's mostly ethnical discrimation of genocide. In China their worries are different due to their history. There's no such a country which would let people to do some action to broke nations unity. Yes it's censorship. Yes it is annoying to some. But that's th

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by aussie_a ( 778472 )

      On which country on the earth these are totally free actions?
      "undermining national unity" to start with. I could go on to "spreading rumors" but there's not much point.

      In US it's racism
      Really? Is saying something like "all niggers are fags" result in punishment from the government in America? Wow. America's even worse then I've heard. Or else you're full of shit.

      • Really? Is saying something like "all niggers are fags" result in punishment from the government in America? Wow. America's even worse then I've heard. Or else you're full of shit.
        You might get a thank you note from the G.N.A.A., in lieu of punishment.

        However, if you said, "all niggers are fags, so we have twice as many reasons to kill them", that would considered a hate crime, and you could be prosecuted for it.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by rstultz ( 146201 )
          No, if you said "all niggers are fags, so we have twice as many reasons to kill them" and then killed one, then it would be considered a hate crime, and you could have an increased sentence for the crime. But if you just said it and did nothing to kill them, no crime. Now, of course, if you said it to a large crowd, and said "Go out there and kill them now" that would be inciting violence, and you could be charged.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by morcego ( 260031 )
            In that specific case, the killing part would be the crime.
            In some other countries (Brazil among them), any public and offensive racist statements can lead to civil action/prosecution, or even jail time.
            Example: If I own a shop, and I say to someone "Get out of here nigger" and force that person to exit my shop, I can be arrested.

            • Re:On which country... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by eraser.cpp ( 711313 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @02:40PM (#18913113) Homepage
              Right, but the point was that the GP believed you could prosecuted in the US for simply making a racist remark or generally promoting their murder. You can't unless it's really specific, to the point where you're inciting a particular incident of violence. We know other nations have laws that restrict (or arguably discard) freedom of expression, but despite what /. seems to think the US is one of the only nations that truly still protects that right. Comparing US limits on expression (those which infringe on the liberty of others) to China's (those which conflict with popular opinion or government interest) really trivializes the plight of all of those people who have been arrested, tortured, or killed under China's oppressive government. It's also counter-productive to any effort to try and improve the situation in nation's where expression is unduly limited when people will so quickly draw comparisons between that nation and the US and only really prove that they don't understand the gravity or reality of the issues they speak of.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Omestes ( 471991 )
          You notice the logical flaw? I did.

          You said you can't say "all niggers are fags, so we have twice as many reasons to kill them".. but... Did the liberal decency police come to your door yet.

          Yes, I'm being pedantic. In most of the civilized world ungood words are judged by people, since they are a breach of a social more or norm, or such. Your going to get nasty glances, and perhaps private punishment (trouble at school, fired from work etc...), the government has no role in this. It is not legalistic.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Are you actually chinese? It's possible you're believing your government's propaganda about other nations...

      There's no such a country which would let people to do some action to broke nations unity.

      This is complete rubbish. In fact, in european societies, it's considered healthy to allow people *try* to break "unity" (so long as it doesn't endanger people's lives) - if unity remains in the face of such challenges, then it's strong. If it doesn't, then there was no unity worthy of protection in the first

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
        Being a public nuisance is punishable (though usually just a misdemeanor) in most western countries. While "disturbing unity" is usually only claimed by communist countries and militaries (not limited to communist militaries) other countries usually just use different terms to the same effect and if you do anything the police doesn't want you to do there's a good chance that they can take you in at least for a few days.

    • Re:On which country... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrbluze ( 1034940 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @07:20AM (#18910619) Journal

      Yes it's censorship. Yes it is annoying to some. But that's the price of living whealty. That's the price of surviving with limited resources.

      Whilst I agree with you partly, I think the reason people are aghast at these kinds of news reports is because suppressing debate, perpetuating fear and generating an 'us and them' culture prevents China from advancing to become a liberal society (liberal as in beer.. or something).

      Oppression doesn't have to be the price of surviving with limited resources. Part of the reason China remains poor and in many respects a 3rd world nation is precisely because it has a stupid system of government. It is an oligarchy, it remains a totalitarian state. I'm not saying China has to be a 'Democracy' like, for example, Canada, but anywhere in the world you find the absence of a meritocracy, you have this problem. The US is no shining example anymore of promotion on the basis of merit, either.

      On the other hand, anyone who wants to point the finger at China had better sweep in front of their own door first. Everyone's liberties are being eroded at this time, and we all must fight the fight on our own turf.

    • Re:On which country... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by joto ( 134244 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @07:30AM (#18910665)

      On which country on the earth these are totally free actions?

      I'd like to think every single one except China. But since I can't say that with 100% confidence, let's just say: The vast majority.

      Every country have their own regulations to protect their own sensitivity to a matter. In US it's racism, in Europe it's mostly ethnical discrimation of genocide.

      Bullshit! Nobody in US has ever been jailed for being a racist. Why do you think Ku Klux Klan still exists?`And whatever you mean by "ethnical discrimation of genocide", I can't even start to guess, as it makes no sense at all.

      In China their worries are different due to their history.

      Such as being an oppressive communist state, with only a farcical political facade that tries to imitate representative democracy.

      Yes it is annoying to some. But that's the price of living whealty. That's the price of surviving with limited resources.

      Make up your mind. Are they wealthy, or are they surviving on limited resources?

      If anyone thinking wars, which created those worries, are due to greed of people,

      I fail to see what you are getting at here

      else our bodies won't store any energy, will it?

      Now, I really fail to see any meaning at all. Please consider therapy.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
        I'd like to think every single one except China. But since I can't say that with 100% confidence, let's just say: The vast majority.

        Don't forget that there's more to the world than the west and I'd wager by numbers the unfree (military dictatorship, monarchy, theocracy, one party "democracy", etc) outnumber the free.

      • Re:On which country... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by porpnorber ( 851345 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @10:27AM (#18911539)
        Interesting. The parent is modded 'insightful.' Perhaps this is some strange new meaning of the word, of which I was previously unaware.

        No, contrary to your belief, many countries do have banned religions. Many countries do watch seperatist movements sufficiently carefully that speech about them is (whether because of censorship or self-censorship) far from free. Many countries do have charismatic figues whose presence they do not tolerate and whose influence they seek to diminish. Even if you see Europe and America through rose-tinted glasses, surely you aware of the more politically intense parts of Africa, Asia, South America? Or perhaps you are unaware that there are even reasons for concern about Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and parts of the Arab world? (Where do you get your news?)

        I admit I am not an American, and I may not have all the details of American history right, but I have the distinct impression that being, for example, a black supremicist has not, over the years, been condicive to one's personal freedom. And today, even white racists keep quiet about it. No, I agree, it does not normally get one jailed; but it certainly get one fired. And in (otherwise very calm and pleasant) parts of Europe, yes, public holocaust denial will get you locked up.

        You may argue that there is a difference of degree, or a difference in emphasis; and I will agree with you. I am not apologising for China. But the person you are replying to is entirely right: China is not, as you would like to believe, unique merely in controlling speech.

        Now as to Chinese history. Perhaps you are unaware that China has a history. Rather more of it than the USA. Go look it up. The person you are responding to is again right: China does indeed have a history of thousands of years of attempting to maintain coherence of a huge and disparate empire through rigid control. This has at times been startlingly successful; at other times undeniably catastrophic. The current no-longer-communist regime is just the last of many. Chinese history and chinese attitudes are indeed different from American ones.

        Finally, you seem to have an objection to the juxtaposition of the phrases, 'living wealthy' and 'with limited resources.' How quaintly American. Wealth is caused by waste, is it? That attitude is not one that will see you among the leaders of the world for very long, and thankfully it is not one that the entire rest of the world shares. Wealth can arise from managing what you do have, wisely; or from waste and theft. Civilisation lies in choosing the former path. 'Living wealthy' with limited resources is not merely consistent, it is a laudable goal towards whch we should all strive.

        None of this is to defend the original post; but your attack on it is impressively off-target. Certainly not everyone's English is as good as yours. Thankfully, however, many people are better informed and more charitable.

        • Perhaps this is some strange new meaning of the word, of which I was previously unaware.

          It's like doubleplusgood, but in another way

          No, contrary to your belief, many countries do have banned religions.

          Yes, we call them totalitarian states, and an unhealthy number of them have been communist. Ditto for discussion of banned groups. In the Free World(TM) people can discuss what they want as long as it doesn't contain libel or slander, and even then the party concerned is the one expected to take legal action against you, not Big Brother.

          The current no-longer-communist regime

          Err, what? But I thought we were always at war with Eastasia?

          Finally, you seem to have an objection to the juxtaposition of the phrases, 'living wealthy' and 'with limited resources.'

          Yes, and he's right. Wealth implies excess; abundance; luxury. S

          • Re:On which country... (Score:4, Interesting)

            by FunWithKnives ( 775464 ) <<ten.tsirorret> <ta> <tcefrePxodaraP>> on Saturday April 28, 2007 @04:50PM (#18913851) Journal
            I have to take issue with some of your statements here.

            Yes, we call them totalitarian states, and an unhealthy number of them have been communist.

            It seems to me that you may be painting an ideology with a broad brush. I think you should really delve deeper into the specific reasons for this. The abject failure of traditional communism was due to the governmental side of things. The ideology itself seeks to maintain a classless and stateless social organization, which is based upon common ownership of the means of production. All of the past incarnations which claimed to be communism have certainly not placed economic power in the hands of the people. By far, the ruling regimes used the idea of communism as a means to keep the populace in line; a way to make the people believe that they had some control. However, because the people had absolutely no say in their government, which was the true possessor of the means of production, it was all in actuality one great lie. Of course, correlation does not imply causation, and even moreso in the case of communism. The only forms of communism to ever really be practiced have been Stalinist "Marxism" (in Soviet Russia, ideology defines YOU! Sorry, I know that was lame.) and Maoism (in the PRC). Maoism is, for all intents and purposes, a Chinese variation of Stalinist "Marxism." Neither of these can be considered socialist by any stretch of the word.

            Contrast this with Trotskyism, which is, in a nutshell, a form of democratic socialism. The February Revolution in Russia established a liberal and socialist provisional government which could be safely called Trotskyist. Lenin then led the October Revolution, establishing, in effect, a dictatorship (although he proclaimed it to be a temporary one). Stalin began his rise to power around this time and, after Lenin's death, established the totalitarian USSR. I highly recommend Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed," which explains this all in much detail.

            As for the PRC, it is a form of totalitarian Stalinism which has in recent years started to adopt more and more capitalist tendencies.

            I know that this is coming off like a fucking boring history lesson, but basically, I'm just trying to show that communism isn't inherently wrong. Instead, the ways in which it is redefined and practiced out of true context is the real problem. Of course, the majority in the United States, thanks to both Stalin's grotesque interpretation and McCarthy's snipe hunt, atomatically equate the word 'communism' with 'totalitarianism,' and condemn it without even a cursory examination. Quite a few people, though, are finally beginning to see the exploitation and extreme class disparity that come with capitalism as a bad thing, and seek out alternatives. Of the viable alternatives, I personally believe that democratic socialism is the fairest and most realistic (as did George Orwell, ironically), but to each his own.

            • Re:On which country... (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Plutonite ( 999141 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @05:50PM (#18914241)
              That's ok, I see what you are trying to say, although it doesn't really invalidate the statement you refer to at all. In reality, every group in history that has tried claimed a communist state has instead established a totalitarian dystopia very much in line with Orwell's fiction. It is not by accident that Russia AND China AND Cuba AND North Korea and every other commie state you can think of happened to evolve into the nightmare you shy away from.

              Why are you blaming Stalin? What happened was only natural. The genius behind Orwell's 1984 was that he showed how all the claims of common ownership of resources cannot be realized without a pyramidal scheme of control, freedom is achieved through slavery, and absolute peace is in fact, war. The wonderful "Trotskyist" universe you are defending does not exist, because human nature mandates that it cannot exist. What exists instead are websites with little red buttons on them that you can use to report your friends to the benevolent State.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by catxk ( 1086945 )
      I don't see how declaring racist behaviour illegal compare to the anti-governmental censorship this article is about. One is about stopping certain people from attacking, mentally or physically, people of various ethnicities etcetera, and one is about protecting a government from its own people, which by all means should be a contradiction in terms. I see how the first, stopping Nazis for example, is problematic since it is indeed a constraint on democratic principles, but then again, it's no where near th

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by nomadic ( 141991 ) *
      In US it's racism, in Europe it's mostly ethnical discrimation of genocide. In China their worries are different due to their history. There's no such a country which would let people to do some action to broke nations unity.

      I'm going to do something that I haven't been able to do much lately, and that's defend the U.S. While the current administration is cheerfully chipping away at the Constitution, we still do have pretty broad protections regarding speech. In the US you can't discriminate because of

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thebdj ( 768618 )

      On which country on the earth these are totally free actions? That's not specific to China, they just want to control it, which is fine.

      A hell of a lot more then you know. No it is not fine; it is oppression.

      Every country have their own regulations to protect their own sensitivity to a matter.

      Please enlighten us.

      In US it's racism, in Europe it's mostly ethnical discrimation of genocide.

      Well, you failed to enlighten. There are no laws in the US that prevent you from saying racist things. Racism is taboo, but it sure as hell isn't illegal. Racist speech (and other "hate speech") is actually illegal throughout large portions of Europe. I would talk about your Europe example but that sentence doesn't even make sense.

      In China their worries are different due to their history. There's no such a country which would let people to do some action to broke nations unity.

      Again, bullshit. Many countries have suffered political revolutions and civil

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by coaxial ( 28297 )
      On which country on the earth these are totally free actions?

      The vast majority of the elections, for the vast majority of the people, for the vast majority of the time. Sure there's occasional irregularies here and there in every election, but in the end they're incredibly minor local affairs.

      That's not specific to China, they just want to control it, which is fine. Every country have their own regulations to protect their own sensitivity to a matter. In US it's racism, in Europe it's mostly ethnical disc

    • On which country on the earth these are totally free actions?

      In no country I know would simply signing up for a meaningless social networking site involve a criminalization check. It's not just the fact that speech is censored that is outrageous; it is that the website itself seems to provide a list to the authorities concerned.

      That's not specific to China, they just want to control it, which is fine.

      While there are possibly some countries that regulate free-speech, there are very few that murder th

  • So? (Score:1)

    by Threni ( 635302 )
    Many countries (the UK certainly does, and perhaps the US too) have schemes where you're rewarded financially for telling the police about anyone who's up to no good.

    • Many countries (the UK certainly does, and perhaps the US too) have schemes where you're rewarded financially for telling the police about anyone who's up to no good.
      But will the police prosecute you if you failed to tell them someone was up to no good? That's what could well happen to those who failed to push the button on someone in China.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ettlz ( 639203 )

        But will the police prosecute you if you failed to tell them someone was up to no good?
        I believe so in the UK if it pertains to terrorist activity.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by KDR_11k ( 778916 )
        Depending on the crime that can be considered conspiracy so yes.
    • But in the UK and US, police don't care about those who "subvert national unity" or talk about "taiwan independence"
    • You make out the police shell out cash for any offence, it has to be serious and even then not all the time.

      As for this news, sadly yet another company has sold out to put more money in their greedy pockets. My Space is overrated dross anyway, no one who users it has any clue about aesthetics (or what the world probably means). One page for your entire life, gaudy graphics and ghastly music, clutter heaven.

      Companies such as Google and My Space should be doing the opposite and vocally speaking out against su
  • Since the Chinese equivalent of most services are so perverted as per the governments requirements Don't be evil, why are they used at all. Not sure how MUCH safer it would be to use MSN messenger vs tencent QQ, for example, since i'm sure MS would hand any information over as soon as it was requested, but chinese language versions of most online services are out these, and at least the servers can't physically be ceased.

    Those last two, "spreading rumours or disturbing the social order" are vague enough to
  • The phrases and keywords that are considered "bad" may be different, but this is no different than the policies currently in place by the regime in Washington, DC. King George rattles on about threats to national security, activities that are unpatriotic, etc, every time someone goes against him. The only difference between the current US Government and the Chinese government in this respect is the Chinese government doesn't hide the fact that they're doing it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AlexMax2742 ( 602517 )
      Name one person who was locked up soley because of something critical they said of the president.

      Don't get me wrong, he's incompetant and his entire administration is crooked, but if the US was really like the Chinese, you would be in jail right about......

      *knock knock*

      Oh shi....
      • No, in Amerika instead you get locked up for pissing off the corporations. DMCA anyone? Who's that russian dude who got locked up? etc...

        I won't pretend that what's going on in China is "ok," but let's not pretend that we have a totally open society here. Well in the USA anyways. Canada still has some rights left :-)

        Tom
        • Wait a second, are you seriously trying to equate a bunch of kids getting (rightfully) fined for downloading music for free that they haven't paid for with fascism or totalitarian? Forget for a second that you're reframing the argument from "King George" over to "King Corperation", but your assertion is still ludacris.

          And if you haven't noticed, in cases where the RIAA was truely overstepping their legal bounds, they are getting the shit kicked out of them in the court system for not being damned sure th

          • Get a clue [eff.org] please. He was locked up for writing software that breaks copyright protection schemes [DRM] to enable people to use screen readers. He was jailed in the US after giving a talk.

            CLUE ON!
            • Oh man, a forigner being incarcerated for four months before being released and having the charges against him dropped (which the EFF FAQ seems to conveniently leave out). We might as well cower in our homes now while we wait for the execution busses to stop by our house.

              The US system of laws is not perfect. It's also not written in stone. Change takes time, and you need time to lose the goodwill of the people before change happens. The current president of the United States was a power-hungry crook,

              • Maybe I'm not explaining this well enough, oh how can I do better....

                He was JAILED for writing software in a country where it's legal that violates what should be a CIVIL LAW in the USA. Upon arrival in the USA he was arrested at the behest of Adobe for circumventing their DRM scheme ... in Russia.

                Ok, how about this, I'll strip you of your freedom for 4 months at a time because, um, you watched a DVD in Linux. See how that works out for you. The DMCA is just an example of how the government is bending ov
                • He was JAILED for writing software in a country where it's legal that violates what should be a CIVIL LAW in the USA. Upon arrival in the USA he was arrested at the behest of Adobe for circumventing their DRM scheme ... in Russia.

                  Adobe came out against the FBI's roughshod methods. And a couple of months later, the charges were dropped. Law enforcement is not a science, and the simple fact is that sometimes people get locked up for shit they shouldn't be. But instead of being tossed in a hole and forgo

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by philwx ( 789834 )
      Eh, this seems to be a tinfoil fantasy that has not yet been fulfilled in the US. I'm not saying there hasn't been an erosion of rights, but I am saying that I have 0 fear of saying something political on myspace, and having repercussions from it. Now I bet you can split hairs and say that if I said something about a terrorist act I could draw unwanted attention to myself. Since I have no interest in such activity, I consider that 0 risk also. Bottom line, I simply do not have any fear of a political di

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwater ( 72834 )
        > But until that time, we should actually be concerned for people in other countries who do not have it so good and cannot speak up for themselves.

        You think they can't? How do you know for sure?

        The vast majority of people here (in China) I know actually like it here. As far as they're concerned, there's little or nothing to speak up for.
    • What? There's a *huge* difference! I can sit here and talk about how much I hate George Bush all I want, for as long as I want and nothing's going to happen. In China if you talk about it long enough they execute you. HTH.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwater ( 72834 )
        > What? There's a *huge* difference! I can sit here and talk about how much I hate George Bush all I want,
        > for as long as I want and nothing's going to happen. In China if you talk about it long enough they execute you. HTH.

        On the countrary. People here (in China) talk about how much they hate George all*the*time (ok, a lot anyway) - they really hate him here - and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has been locked up for it yet.

  • Genius (Score:5, Funny)

    by 6Yankee ( 597075 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @06:58AM (#18910529)
    Thr real genius here isn't in the addition of the button per se, but rather in putting it in front of emo kids.

    "I don't want to live any more, I'm going to end it all! *clicks on own Myspace button*

  • As opposed to what ? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    MySpace's definition of 'misconduct' includes actions such (...) or disturbing the social order'

    And how is this different from writing up an essay and getting busted for misdeamnor ? SLashdot article from a few hours/day ago. [slashdot.org]

    • And how is this different from writing up an essay and getting busted for misdeamnor?

      1. People have been freely critisizing that since it happened.

      This is is exactly the freedom that they're blocking

      2. It's noteworthy as an exception as opposed to the rule

      The arrest raised social concern because it was a deviation from the freedoms that we as Americans expect (as opposed to standard operating business)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by santiago ( 42242 )

      And how is this different from writing up an essay and getting busted for misdemeanor?


      The difference is that in the US, this is still national news that gets people riled up, and it results in a series of lawsuits over people's rights being stepped on by overzealous law enforcement or not. In a place like China, you might just disappear or at least be put into a "mental health institution", and anybody who talked about it would risk the same.

  • So? (Score:1)

    by bokane ( 36382 )
    So? These are standard terms of service for any online service in China. The keyword filtering, likewise, is standard -- and if Myspace weren't doing it, the Great Firewall would be blocking access to the site every time the filter got tripped. So how is any of this newsworthy?

  • Time to be constructive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kizor ( 863772 ) on Saturday April 28, 2007 @07:06AM (#18910571)
    This is nothing we haven't seen before and nothing we won't be seeing again. The Chinese government will go to great lengths for its powerlust and especially to protect itself from the people, and every year the march of technology hands them more power. So what can we do about it? Making brooding, cynical posts is the usual M.O. and the generated online badwill has no doubt brough them to their knees. [penny-arcade.com] How can we do what little we can to end this obscenity?

    Run Tor?
    Join Amnesty International and buy some of their nifty hoodies [amnestyusa.org]?
    Hold a public protest?
    Boycott Chinese goods (yeah, right)?
    Organize a fuck-off massive online attack and hammer on the Great Firewall? [wikipedia.org] ("one of the most important projects for ensuring its political power..." indeed.)

    Help me out here.
    • Well, I think that this is a nice way for users to control what they want to see. If they dont like what they see, they will report it. So no need to get to think so much about it or organise public protests? It is the public which will be reporting the persons and they could just not report anything if they wanted to. What would be the use of public protests? Thats just my 2 cents worth. bye, faraz. author of Who Loves Money [squidoo.com]

  • What do you expect from Murdoch? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You can always trust a Murdoch owned company to whore out completely and totally to anyone that asks if there's money to be made, none of that namby-pamby google-style conscience here.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by sjwest ( 948274 )

      Well not much

      Mind you i never expected that myspace contained state secrets (a leak this secret button), so i do hope his journalists and editors refuse to use mysapce as a source of stories just in case.

    • Does that mean that China has a Page Three Girl section now in its newspapers?
  • > 'endangering national security, leaking state secrets, subverting the government,
    > undermining national unity, spreading rumors or disturbing the social order'

    I'm speechless. No, literally!
  • It's not a sustainable stable solution to the censorship, it helps China save face and claim it still has control. I suppose those who wants to share information freely already use anonymizers and encrypted traffic.

    You can't detect/censor encrypted traffic, unless you ban all of the encrypted traffic.

    China will open up, but by the looks of it, it'll be a slow and painful process (pun not intended).
    • Actually, I believe that in China https traffic must be authorized and your keys deposited at some gov't-controlled entity. It is then possible to detect unauthorized encrypted traffic (because it can't be decrypted) and ban *that* specifically. Not in real time, of course.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwater ( 72834 )
        > Actually, I believe that in China https traffic must be authorized and your keys deposited at some gov't-controlled entity. It is then possible to detect unauthorized encrypted traffic (because it can't be decrypted) and ban *that* specifically. Not in real time, of course.

        I've never heard of such a thing. If that is true, then it certainly isn't enforced, and so I would question your use of the word 'must'.
  • Most of the rest of the world has it better!!!!!!!!!!!
  • While I agree that those topics should be openly discueed, the idea of "Tells Users to Spy on Each Other" is hardly a new thing. Every free upload website has a small button to report "inapproate" content like expilicit, violence. And in physical/real life, isn't it called community watch?

  • Is it really MySpace... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is it really My Space if China has control over it?
  • "Members are told to click a button to report any 'misconduct' by other users."

    Ah, right - same as Craig's List and....and...and...on & on. How is this a problem?

    In someone's weak mind, maybe - in reality, no.
    • You can't go to jail for exercising free speech on CraigsList. The worst that will happen is your account is closed.
    • Ah, right - same as Craig's List and....and...and...on & on. How is this a problem? In someone's weak mind, maybe - in reality, no.

      Well, let's just say that,"Members are told to click a button to report any 'misconduct' by other users." does not quite have the same connotation in China as it does the United States. The primary difference is that by reporting misconduct in China, you are essentially placing that person's freedom and very existence in jeopardy by inviting a visit by the National Police

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by djupedal ( 584558 )
        "Here in the United States, Craig Newmark simply removes the post..."

        Who said anything about CL US..?

        That statement, coupled with a singular proclivity for instantly making this a 'US' versus 'China' debate, indicates a leading bias that can, at best, cloud any further comment. Not a very good position to speak from if one wishes to be taken seriously, sorry.

        "This is a very important and serious distinction that cannot and should not be marginalized."

        And the very reason the undistinguished and m

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dwater ( 72834 )
        > does not quite have the same connotation in China as it does the United States.

        Right. People in the US think that such a statement made in China is a big deal, while people in China don't think such a statement is a big deal.
  • If there are formattting tags that can be inserted into the myspace profiles/blogs, what would stop people from writing one of the forbidden words or phrases, and putting empty tags inbetween the words to fool the filter since the tags don't show up? I mean, if a forum filters the word "shit" , it is possible to type out "sh[b][/b]it"* and have the word come put uncensored, it's a matter of making it work in this situation.
  • ...any instance of ungoodspeak [wikipedia.org] to the Ministry of Love [online-literature.com]. So what's the problem?
  • When did the Republican party start running China? Sounds like their dream Patriot Act to me.
  • Members are told to click a button to report any 'misconduct' by other users. MySpace's definition of 'misconduct' includes actions such as 'endangering national security, leaking state secrets, subverting the government, undermining national unity, spreading rumors or disturbing the social order' -- according to the site's terms and conditions. In China these are all crimes which carry a hefty prison sentence.

    And of course, "endangering national secureity, ..." is not a crime in, say, America? I find it h

Slashdot Top Deals

What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey

Close