Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 13th Jan 2010 00:27 UTC
Google So, I was about to go to bed when major news regarding Google and China hit my browser. Google has stated on its blog that after a number of attacks upon Google's servers, and attempted cracking of GMail accounts from Chinese human rights activists, the company is thinking of ceasing its operations in China. Google will, in any case, cease censoring search results on Google.cn.
Order by: Score:
Less evil?
by Hypnos on Wed 13th Jan 2010 00:43 UTC
Hypnos
Member since:
2008-11-19

Well, they may be annoyed at being double-crossed by the Chinese gov't, having censored their search results but still getting cracked by what are likely gov't agents.

But being behind Baidu in the Chinese search market might also have something to do with it -- this just may have simply been the proverbial straw.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Less evil?
by pompous stranger on Wed 13th Jan 2010 04:11 UTC in reply to "Less evil?"
pompous stranger Member since:
2006-05-28

Spot on analysis. After all that's why MSN pulled out of the American market after getting served with federal subpoenas for user data, because they were running behind Google anyways and figured it wasn't worth it anymore.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Less evil?
by kragil on Wed 13th Jan 2010 10:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Less evil?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

?????

MSN is Live Search is Bing now.


AND Google has 25% of the chinese market, which is still nearly as many users as they have in the US. So the stock holders won't be happy.

IMO Google has balls.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Less evil?
by pompous stranger on Wed 13th Jan 2010 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Less evil?"
pompous stranger Member since:
2006-05-28

What planet are you living on? Hypnos is right on here, Google is just being pissy they can't rule China and so are taking their ball and going home.

This happens all the time with large companies; if you're losing in a market and somebody gives you an opportunity to save face you take it and fold up. 30% of the Chinese market is worth nothing if your competitor has 60%. People spinning this into an ethical event are clueless as usual.

My point still stands: the same thing happened in 2006 when the federal subpoenas went out. MSN balked, then pulled out of the American market in order to save face. Google, being the market leader, naturally complied completely with the subpoenas, turned over all user data, then turned over all user names it considered suspicious to the government and helped in the investigation.

I am deeply committed to my cynical opinion and historical interpretation on this.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Less evil?
by boblowski on Wed 13th Jan 2010 11:55 UTC in reply to "Less evil?"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

Well, they may be annoyed at being double-crossed by the Chinese gov't, having censored their search results but still getting cracked by what are likely gov't agents.

You underestimate the nationalistic (and ethnic) sentiments of the Han majority in China. Go to a cybercafe in Beijing and ask somebody there why exactly it is the average Chinese citizen dislikes their pro-democracy activists. The answer might surprise you. Government incentives are not needed, just the government's acquiescence.

But being behind Baidu in the Chinese search market might also have something to do with it -- this just may have simply been the proverbial straw.

I highly doubt it. I don't want to be too cynical, but personally I think this should be seen in light of Google's recent marketing slip-ups (regarding the privacy of their users). Their will be some small changes in China's censorship policy, Google looks good, and business will be as usual.

There is however a deeper issue here. We in the 'free and democratic world' tend to have a somewhat overly romantic image of the power of information and access to information in authoritarian countries. Even if the Chinese government would stop those 'inelegant' censoring efforts, it's far from sure that the then available information would lead to any societal changes. I would not be surprised if it would actually lead to an even harder oppression of dissenting voices, because the dissenting voices would still be minority voices and as such are only proof of the necessity of the authoritarian sentiments. Only if those authoritarian sentiments fade, does free information have a chance of changing anything.

(For another interesting point of view: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2009/11/how-dictators-watch-us-on... )

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Less evil?
by someone on Wed 13th Jan 2010 15:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Less evil?"
someone Member since:
2006-01-12


You underestimate the nationalistic (and ethnic) sentiments of the Han majority in China. Go to a cybercafe in Beijing and ask somebody there why exactly it is the average Chinese citizen dislikes their pro-democracy activists. The answer might surprise you. Government incentives are not needed, just the government's acquiescence.


That's also a gross simplification of people's sentiments in China. Otherwise, terms like "harmonized", "50-cent party" and "very erotic, very violent" wouldn't be so popular on Chinese forums (and not just forums discussing politics and news).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Less evil?
by boblowski on Wed 13th Jan 2010 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Less evil?"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23


That's also a gross simplification of people's sentiments in China. Otherwise, terms like "harmonized", "50-cent party" and "very erotic, very violent" wouldn't be so popular on Chinese forums (and not just forums discussing politics and news).

Yes, I'm familiar with those terms, but distrust of government and a preference for clear authoritarian societal structures are not mutually exclusive. Very few Chinese took issue with Jackie Chan's remarks regarding the 'chaos' in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Or to put it in perspective: most GOP members profess a profound distrust for anything government, but seem to have no problem with increased spending for a 'secure' (the Chinese government would call it 'harmonic') society.

Edited 2010-01-13 15:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Less evil?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 13th Jan 2010 18:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Less evil?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


You underestimate the nationalistic (and ethnic) sentiments of the Han majority in China. Go to a cybercafe in Beijing and ask somebody there why exactly it is the average Chinese citizen dislikes their pro-democracy activists. The answer might surprise you. Government incentives are not needed, just the government's acquiescence.


The Han are not the only people in China, don't you get it! Of course the Han will agree, they're on top oppressing the rest of their minorities - or didn't you know that? As others have pointed out, we form the opinions based on what is presented to us by our media. This is why the censorship in China (and elsewhere) is actually a big deal. Of course people side with their government if they're being presented with a particular point of view (reinforcing cultural tendencies to defer to authority) - it allows unscrupulous governments and businessmess to exploit this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Less evil?
by boblowski on Wed 13th Jan 2010 18:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Less evil?"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

The Han are not the only people in China, don't you get it! Of course the Han will agree, they're on top oppressing the rest of their minorities - or didn't you know that?

If you read my post again, you'll see we're in perfect agreement on this. No need to accuse me of ignorance, I'm very well aware of the ethnic make-up of China.

Of course people side with their government if they're being presented with a particular point of view (reinforcing cultural tendencies to defer to authority).

Not quite, the interesting point put forward by 'someone' is that most or many Chinese are very well aware of criticism on their local and national government and in many cases even subscribe to this criticism. The 'they are ignorant, we enlighten then, all will be well' line of thought doesn't explain, let alone change, anything.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Less evil?
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 13th Jan 2010 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Less evil?"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"The Han are not the only people in China, don't you get it! Of course the Han will agree, they're on top oppressing the rest of their minorities - or didn't you know that?

If you read my post again, you'll see we're in perfect agreement on this. No need to accuse me of ignorance, I'm very well aware of the ethnic make-up of China.

Of course people side with their government if they're being presented with a particular point of view (reinforcing cultural tendencies to defer to authority).

Not quite, the interesting point put forward by 'someone' is that most or many Chinese are very well aware of criticism on their local and national government and in many cases even subscribe to this criticism. The 'they are ignorant, we enlighten then, all will be well' line of thought doesn't explain, let alone change, anything.
"

It's not a matter of enlightening them. It is a matter of removing most of the censorship so they can be properly informed. They can then decide their own future based on better information than they have now. That is the whole point of this discussion. But someone had to say that the censorship was good because it resulted in a stable China - that's where the fuse was lit.

Personally I don't have a problem if China has a communist government. I can see the possibility that it could work better than alternatives (eg. US style elections). However at the moment it doesn't appear to be.

But my point was not that there should be direct "regime change" but that the people should know what their government is up to without the government controlling what gets reported. The label of the government matters far less than what it does.

If independent courts and media were allowed in China there would no doubt be a corresponding reduction in corruption and improvement in governance. Would this not be better for the Chinese citizenry and also the rest of the world?

Google's stand (for selfish reasons or not) is a step in the right direction.

Reply Score: 2

Bravo, Good Show!
by intangible on Wed 13th Jan 2010 00:55 UTC
intangible
Member since:
2005-07-06

Google is basically forcing the Chinese gov to show their hand.

This should be interesting to see how it plays out.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Bravo, Good Show!
by linumax on Wed 13th Jan 2010 06:55 UTC in reply to "Bravo, Good Show!"
linumax Member since:
2007-02-07

It would work better if others follow, that is MSN, Yahoo!, Twitter, Facebook, etc. That will put some pressure on China.

Chinese government likes the money a free market system brings, but doesn't want the other freedoms that come along with it. It's time to let them know it's all or nothing.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Bravo, Good Show!
by Ford Prefect on Wed 13th Jan 2010 09:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Bravo, Good Show!"
Ford Prefect Member since:
2006-01-16

Nice try. As if China would give a shit about MSN (already not there any more), Facebook, Yahoo. Or even Twitter.

Nobody does. They have their own search engine (Baidu) which is probably the real reason #1 why Google is comfortable with letting the chinese market go. They have their own (controlled) other services as well.

They just don't need it and propaganda in China will simply tell that Twitter & Co is evil and forbidden. Problem solved for China.

Next idea? Probably not to lend money from China anymore -- U.S. government would be f--ked then; not to import steel from China anymore (50% or so of Steel market is in Chinese hands) -- economy would go to a halt again. Etc. These would be the real deals, not some lame social networking service.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: Bravo, Good Show!
by SReilly on Wed 13th Jan 2010 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Bravo, Good Show!"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Chinese government likes the money a free market system brings, but doesn't want the other freedoms that come along with it.

What makes you think that one necessarily equates the other? Frankly, a free market economy has absolutely nothing to do with political freedom, as Iran and China have shown.

You wouldn't happen to be a US citizen by any chance? Frankly, Americans can be forgiven for thinking such fallacies are true considering the vast amount of control the capitalist have over eduction and the media in their country.

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: Bravo, Good Show!
by pompous stranger on Wed 13th Jan 2010 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Bravo, Good Show!"
pompous stranger Member since:
2006-05-28

It is unlikely you can develop a robust market economy without a viable middle class, which cannot stabilize without political freedom — that is to say, political power.

Otherwise you can't get the innovation and consumer confidence you need to drive market expansion; people hoard under political stress and that's exactly what China's saving rate indicates is going on.

China's gone very far by developing raw resources, bringing in foreign companies and engaging in industrial espionage, but eventually they'll have to stop borrowing from Western political and cultural capital and develop their own "free market of ideas" if they want to take the next step to a mature economy.

But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a dumb American.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Bravo, Good Show!
by SReilly on Wed 13th Jan 2010 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Bravo, Good Show!"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

It is unlikely you can develop a robust market economy without a viable middle class, which cannot stabilize without political freedom — that is to say, political power.

First off: How does what you just said actually answer my question? Do Iran and China have or not have free market economies? The answer there is, yes they do and no, one does not necessarily equate the other.

Secondly: Every time I've seen a true open market economy in action, it has led to corruption and monopoly thereby directly favouring an oligarch elite. How else do you explain WorldCom, Enron and the countless follies of the two Bush administration, not to mention the riots under Thatcherism in the UK? And keeping that in mind, how do Oligarchy and monopoly favour a middle class? You can have it one way or the other but you can't have both.

Market economists and capitalists keep repeating that when left alone, the market will sort itself out but in reality, if we don't exercise control and regulation of our markets, we get f*cked by greedy people and corporations. I dare say that eventually the market would sort itself out but at the cost of how many broken lives?

All you need to do is looking at all the truly stable and successful economies in the world today; they are all mixed economies, bar non.

But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a dumb American.

What makes you think I would label you dumb? Being deluded and being dumb are not the same thing at all. I think you, sir, are far too quick to misunderstand what I'm saying.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Bravo, Good Show!
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 13th Jan 2010 18:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Bravo, Good Show!"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"It is unlikely you can develop a robust market economy without a viable middle class, which cannot stabilize without political freedom — that is to say, political power.

First off: How does what you just said actually answer my question? Do Iran and China have or not have free market economies? The answer there is, yes they do and no, one does not necessarily equate the other.

Secondly: Every time I've seen a true open market economy in action, it has led to corruption and monopoly thereby directly favouring an oligarch elite. How else do you explain WorldCom, Enron and the countless follies of the two Bush administration, not to mention the riots under Thatcherism in the UK? And keeping that in mind, how do Oligarchy and monopoly favour a middle class? You can have it one way or the other but you can't have both.

Market economists and capitalists keep repeating that when left alone, the market will sort itself out but in reality, if we don't exercise control and regulation of our markets, we get f*cked by greedy people and corporations. I dare say that eventually the market would sort itself out but at the cost of how many broken lives?

All you need to do is looking at all the truly stable and successful economies in the world today; they are all mixed economies, bar non.

But feel free to ignore me, I'm just a dumb American.

What makes you think I would label you dumb? Being deluded and being dumb are not the same thing at all. I think you, sir, are far too quick to misunderstand what I'm saying.
"


The free market doesn't work. Neither does 'pure' socialism. The approximations to them do goive better results. For the market you need regulated entrepreneurship - which is close but does have protections from monopolies. For government you need the rulers to answer to the people (either through the ballot box or some other way) plus the government to be responsible to the sick and poor while still being businesss friendly (many governments around the world have this more or less). And, you an independent judiciary to impartially enforce the rule-of-law, free press, and regulated private enterprise. How you do those things is up to you, but they seem to work best (look at the countries that have those vs those that don't, there is a reason why those countries prosper today [ok, they were exploitative in the past but the growth of the last few decades wasn't due to that]).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Bravo, Good Show!
by pompous stranger on Wed 13th Jan 2010 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Bravo, Good Show!"
pompous stranger Member since:
2006-05-28

This is high comedy. The most outrageous bit of humor is that you believe Iran and China are free market economies and the rest of the world are mixed economies. While I am sympathetic to the point there is no "true" free market either due to regulation on one hand or trusts and collusion on the other hand you have the tendencies backwards.

The rest is just... It's like you've been waiting to get into a debate with an American libertarian over examples you've pulled out of a macro economics textbook, and my response wasn't the one you were waiting for.

You are not talking with a laissez-faire capitalist. Property and law are the foundation of the mature economic system China wants its citizens to participate in, but this participation is hampered by the denial of access to law or even basic human rights.

The free political process is essential precisely due to the evils you mention; the consumer without political power cannot support a free market, because that will dissolve into your "oligarchy" of powerful corporations that have accrued all the capital, and the Thatcherian riots you mention are symptomatic of a healthy process, one which Chinese citizens don't get to participate in.

Again, as the technological espionage Google uncovered demonstrates, China is starving for innovation and ideas. The government doesn't want foreign corporations to leverage their expertise into owning the whole pie: understandable. Yet it also doesn't want to give its citizens the rights and freedoms necessary for them to spontaneously create and innovate their own IP and independant companies.

Consequently they steal this stuff from companies created by Western societies that allow individuals much greater political and intellectual freedom, which creates the IP that creates new marketplaces. Thus the point that free markets are conjoined with political freedoms, China is just borrowing the fruits of that second bit from other places.

The one thing China wants more than anything — other than a healthy middle class that can suck up some more consumer goods and put more of that vast population into employment in manufacturing and (especially) services — is the university/venture company relationship that's been driving virtually all the major breakthroughs in the West for the past century. They fly school deans and officials in from Europe and America and ask "How do we create a Silicon Valley?" Then every time students start to demonstrate (or look at porn, those poor computer science students) they put the brakes on the whole thing and reinforce the status quo.

Edited 2010-01-13 20:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Bravo, Good Show!
by SReilly on Wed 13th Jan 2010 21:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Bravo, Good Show!"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

This is high comedy. The most outrageous bit of humor is that you believe Iran and China are free market economies and the rest of the world are mixed economies. While I am sympathetic to the point there is no "true" free market either due to regulation on one hand or trusts and collusion on the other hand you have the tendencies backwards.

A quick look on wikipedia in relation to China:
"China's economy is mainly characterized as a market economy based on private property ownership."
Frankly, I don't see how redefining the meaning of free market economy is in any way helping you prove your argument.

The rest is just... It's like you've been waiting to get into a debate with an American libertarian over examples you've pulled out of a macro economics textbook, and my response wasn't the one you were waiting for.

I have regular debates with both American and European Libertarians so I'll just state here for your benefit, your assumption is again only that, an assumption. Frankly I couldn't care less if your a Libertarian or not, it's of no consequence to this argument.

You are not talking with a laissez-faire capitalist. Property and law are the foundation of the mature economic system China wants its citizens to participate in, but this participation is hampered by the denial of access to law or even basic human rights.

I would agree with you entirely if it where not for the display of sheer ignorance on your part. China has a very well developed legal system and human rights are guaranteed by it's constitution. I'll grant you that those rights are thrown out the window any time a Chinese citizen come up against the state but I fail to see how your definition of a denial to access to law and basic human rights has anything to do with the rest of the world's definition of a free market economy.

The free political process is essential precisely due to the evils you mention; the consumer without political power cannot support a free market, because that will dissolve into your "oligarchy" of powerful corporations that have accrued all the capital, and the Thatcherian riots you mention are symptomatic of a healthy process, one which Chinese citizens don't get to participate in.

Repeating your definition of a free market economy does not suddenly make it true. Again, from wikipedia:
"A market economy is economy based on the division of labor in which the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system set by supply and demand."
I agree that a free political process is essential, but not to a free market economy. It's essential to the development of a progressive and healthy society and the only way you are going to make sure your economy is healthy enough to support that society is when your curtail the excesses of greedy individuals and entities, at least when talking about capitalism. But all of that is completely off topic as it has nothing to do with a how everybody else defines a free market economy.

Again, as the technological espionage Google uncovered demonstrates, China is starving for innovation and ideas. The government doesn't want foreign corporations to leverage their expertise into owning the whole pie: understandable. Yet it also doesn't want to give its citizens the rights and freedoms necessary for them to spontaneously create and innovate their own IP and independant companies.

Consequently they steal this stuff from companies created by Western societies that allow individuals much greater political and intellectual freedom, which creates the IP that creates new marketplaces. Thus the point that free markets are conjoined with political freedoms, China is just borrowing the fruits of that second bit from other places.

All of what you say could very well be the case but I'm not going to waste my time talking about something as off topic as this. Please see above for an answer if you haven't already guest.

The one thing China wants more than anything — other than a healthy middle class that can suck up some more consumer goods and put more of that vast population into employment in manufacturing and (especially) services — is the university/venture company relationship that's been driving virtually all the major breakthroughs in the West for the past century. They fly school deans and officials in from Europe and America and ask "How do we create a Silicon Valley?" Then every time students start to demonstrate (or look at porn, those poor computer science students) they put the brakes on the whole thing and reinforce the status quo.

Again, you display a shocking level of ignorance when it comes to China. China has a large middle class that has very little respect for the Peasant classes, something it seems the government shares. Again from wikipedia "..a farmer has to pay three times more in taxes even though his income is one sixth that of the average urban dweller." Welcome to a free market economy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Bravo, Good Show!
by BluenoseJake on Wed 13th Jan 2010 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Bravo, Good Show!"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I would agree with you entirely if it where not for the display of sheer ignorance on your part. China has a very well developed legal system and human rights are guaranteed by it's constitution. I'll grant you that those rights are thrown out the window any time a Chinese citizen come up against the state but I fail to see how your definition of a denial to access to law and basic human rights has anything to do with the rest of the world's definition of a free market economy.


WTF? Regardless what the constitution says, if human rights are thrown out the window constantly, THEN THEY ARE NOT GUARANTEED. If the legal system can be co opted by the government to allow it to ignore it's own constitution, then IT DOES NOT HAVE A WELL DEVELOPED LEGAL SYSTEM.

Your statement is ridiculous.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Bravo, Good Show!
by spiderman on Thu 14th Jan 2010 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Bravo, Good Show!"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


Again, as the technological espionage Google uncovered demonstrates, China is starving for innovation and ideas. The government doesn't want foreign corporations to leverage their expertise into owning the whole pie: understandable. Yet it also doesn't want to give its citizens the rights and freedoms necessary for them to spontaneously create and innovate their own IP and independant companies.
What the f--k are you talking about? You think China is starving for the 'click to buy' concept, or yellow buttons on web pages? They're just spying like every other freaking nation in the world. When Boeing sells a plane to the Chinese government, they stuff it with bugs everywhere.

Consequently they steal this stuff from companies created by Western societies that allow individuals much greater political and intellectual freedom, which creates the IP that creates new marketplaces. Thus the point that free markets are conjoined with political freedoms, China is just borrowing the fruits of that second bit from other places.

The one thing China wants more than anything — other than a healthy middle class that can suck up some more consumer goods and put more of that vast population into employment in manufacturing and (especially) services — is the university/venture company relationship that's been driving virtually all the major breakthroughs in the West for the past century. They fly school deans and officials in from Europe and America and ask "How do we create a Silicon Valley?" Then every time students start to demonstrate (or look at porn, those poor computer science students) they put the brakes on the whole thing and reinforce the status quo.

This is extremely naive. Most breakthroughs in the west come from the military, state sponsored research and yes, espionage. You think the NASA invented the satellite? No, it was the USSR government who conquered space and the US spied on them. The corporations then come, put patents on military research and profit from it. I concede the 'free entrepreneurs' invented the 'click to buy' concept themselves.
Now about china, remember they were a third world country for the most part of last century. They're not 'sucking up' your beloved intellectual property. They're just getting better and better and the westerners freak out about not being able to rule the world anymore.

Edited 2010-01-14 10:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Bravo, Good Show!
by adricnet on Thu 14th Jan 2010 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Bravo, Good Show!"
adricnet Member since:
2005-07-01

I'd just like to mention that a Western science fiction writer invented communication satellites in a novel.

The remainder of your argument stands as strong as before, I'm certain.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Bravo, Good Show!
by boldingd on Thu 14th Jan 2010 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Bravo, Good Show!"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

This is extremely naive. Most breakthroughs in the west come from the military, state sponsored research and yes, espionage. You think the NASA invented the satellite? No, it was the USSR government who conquered space and the US spied on them. The corporations then come, put patents on military research and profit from it. I concede the 'free entrepreneurs' invented the 'click to buy' concept themselves.


I strongly disagree with your position here. Most breakthroughs in the West, I would say, come from either (possibly government-sponsored, if we're talking about a state school) academic research, or private research. The military is only very rarely a driver for generally-applicable technological development, and I'd be real surprised if we'd exported any significant technology by espionage in the last ten years (or, at the very least, if we don't home-grow more than 20x as much as we might ever import through espionage). Private research and academic research are huge drivers for innovation o'er here in the West, probably contributing more than most other sources combined.

But, that's just a guess, mind. Based on the fact that most articles and press-releases seem to come either from universities or private firms with long-standing, known research efforts.

Edited 2010-01-14 16:28 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Bravo, Good Show!
by boldingd on Thu 14th Jan 2010 16:31 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Bravo, Good Show!"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I Wish I Could Mod You Up

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bravo, Good Show!
by Governa on Wed 13th Jan 2010 22:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Bravo, Good Show!"
Governa Member since:
2006-04-09

It would work better if others follow, that is MSN, Yahoo!, Twitter, Facebook, etc. That will put some pressure on China.


I'm sorry don't take this as a personal attack but I really have to say: I don't know what surprises me the most... your comment or the fact that you have +5 mod.

Do you really think in your wildest dreams that pulling Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, The Mickey Mouse Blog or whatever, out from China, is going to put even the slightest bit of pressure on the Chinese Gov?

The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, now that was pressure and look how it ended! Social networking pressure? That's almost insulting...

Either you were being sarcastic or you are really naive.

Reply Score: 3

Yikes..
by JacobMunoz on Wed 13th Jan 2010 00:58 UTC
JacobMunoz
Member since:
2006-03-17

That's a big issue for a private company to deal with - state espionage. I'm sure this kind of thing goes on all the time, and I'm sure the US gov't has done this kind of thing themselves (or more) - but going public was a very strong action to take, and I agree with them. The very nature of the attacks are a serious accusation, and I doubt the current administration wants to make a claim of this sort until things are investigated further - but Goggle's not bound to the same diplomatic conditions as the government. Yikes.

Go Google!

Reply Score: 6

RE: Yikes.. - it may not be government
by jabbotts on Wed 13th Jan 2010 17:02 UTC in reply to "Yikes.."
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Even being targeted at activists, it may not be government employees or even government sanctioned but simply government allowed. It wouldn't be the first time that self motivated crackers had attacked other nations while the gov turned a blind eye. Code Red wasn't gov after all, just gov permitted.

Reply Score: 2

Its a Bluff
by kap1 on Wed 13th Jan 2010 01:20 UTC
kap1
Member since:
2006-05-12

Google would be mad to exit a market as large as china based on a few hack attempts.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Its a Bluff
by neticspace on Wed 13th Jan 2010 01:22 UTC in reply to "Its a Bluff"
neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

Google would be mad to exit a market as large as china based on a few hack attempts.


It's simple as the Chinese ISPs block the Google search engine in few weeks. Google China just killed itself.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Its a Bluff
by PLan on Wed 13th Jan 2010 01:26 UTC in reply to "Its a Bluff"
PLan Member since:
2006-01-10

Mad ? Perhaps, or maybe Google has a conscience after all.

EDIT: More info -

"gossip inside google China is gov hackers found infiltrating google source code repository; gmail attacks an old issue."

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/7688415363

Edited 2010-01-13 01:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Its a Bluff
by 3rdalbum on Wed 13th Jan 2010 01:38 UTC in reply to "Its a Bluff"
3rdalbum Member since:
2008-05-26

Google would be mad to exit a market as large as china based on a few hack attempts.


You'd move house if it kept getting broken into.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Its a Bluff
by werpu on Wed 13th Jan 2010 08:20 UTC in reply to "Its a Bluff"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

Google would be mad to exit a market as large as china based on a few hack attempts.

Only if you just look at the money and want endlessly more, but this move makes google way more sympathic to me, Google does fine without China and as long as they can keep Microsoft at Bay will also in the future. The problem with the US mentality is the never get enough thing, you can find that in most corporations, the US currently sells out big time to other nations because US corporations never have a limit of what they think is the right they can earn. Googles move is more along the lines of having higher priorities than endlessly rising profits for the sake of everything else. Not quite the US corporate mentality but I applaud them for this.

Reply Score: 3

Interesting.......
by ballmerlikesgoogle on Wed 13th Jan 2010 01:57 UTC
ballmerlikesgoogle
Member since:
2009-10-23

Maybe internal politics at Google is pushing back against a corporate mentality in favor of a more activist one.

I certainly hope Google does make a stand in this matter, and I would certainly hope other companies, such as Microsoft would take notice as well and reconsider their approach on dealing with the People's Republic.

China cannot become a economical powerhouse while at the same time denying freedom to its citizens; whether in is individual, religious, or cultural, it will be doomed to failure.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Interesting.......
by neticspace on Wed 13th Jan 2010 04:07 UTC in reply to "Interesting......."
neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

China cannot become a economical powerhouse while at the same time denying freedom to its citizens; whether in is individual, religious, or cultural, it will be doomed to failure.


China's already an economical powerhouse. Look at South Korea decades ago when Park Cheong-Hee (America-based military "borderline socialist" dictator) made South Korea into a economical powerhouse through denying human rights in the past.

I might offend people because of saying this. As for the internet censorship in China, I couldn't care less. China needs good stability in this rapidly changing world and censorship is at least helping China.

Edited 2010-01-13 04:10 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Interesting.......
by pompous stranger on Wed 13th Jan 2010 04:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting......."
pompous stranger Member since:
2006-05-28

Yes, very often censorship does help those doing the censoring.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Interesting.......
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 13th Jan 2010 06:01 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting......."
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"China cannot become a economical powerhouse while at the same time denying freedom to its citizens; whether in is individual, religious, or cultural, it will be doomed to failure.


China's already an economical powerhouse. Look at South Korea decades ago when Park Cheong-Hee (America-based military "borderline socialist" dictator) made South Korea into a economical powerhouse through denying human rights in the past.

I might offend people because of saying this. As for the internet censorship in China, I couldn't care less. China needs good stability in this rapidly changing world and censorship is at least helping China.
"

That is indeed an offensive comment for its shortsightedness and craven cowardlyness. You must be young and possibly rather self-absorbed.

Yes China needs stability but crushing the opinions of its own people isn't the way forward. Sure, there needs to be some limits on what people can say (no hate speech or racial discrimination) but the Chinese government suppresses legitimate dissent of the masses so as to not 'lose face' even in episodes such as:

1) Corrupt overnment officials allowing a Chinese diary supplier to put melamine in milk to pass protein tests. This resulted in the deaths of thousands of Chinese babies and the supression of all independent reports, resulting in a long time until it was corrected.

2) Corrupt government officials pocketing the money intended for those made homeless by the Three Gorges Dam. Then jailing all dissidents.

3) Racist government policies that discriminate against Tibetans and Uighur in their own states (or occupied country in the case of Tibet).

4) The killing of student demonstrators in Tianammen Square in 1989. Yes the students were rowdy, but did they need to be killed with tanks? Hardly?

We won't even talk about business corruption or the State Security apparatus expecting it's citizens to commit economic or security espionage while overseas.

Let us hope the ordinary Chinese people learn and fix these failings (no they're not the only country with problems but we are discussing China in this thread). Unfortunately those people will never get a chance to improve their humanitarian conditions since they'll never learn of all the bad things the government does to their fellow citizens, thanks to the suppression of dissent which you endorse. Perhaps when you mature you can reconsider your position. The rest of the world hassles China about human rights not because they want to humble China, but because the rest of the world feels more fraternity with the Chinese citizenry than the government of China does (given its continuedactions).

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: Interesting.......
by neticspace on Wed 13th Jan 2010 06:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting......."
neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

That is indeed an offensive comment for its shortsightedness and craven cowardlyness. You must be young and possibly rather self-absorbed.


Nah, I'm from a country (South Korea) where democracy and free speech failed completely. Democracy and free speech don't mean anything to me anyways. You know what they say in Seoul. "Democracy is more of a religious folk belief than a political belief".

Assuming that you are a Westerner, I apologize I have a very different view of the world.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Interesting.......
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 13th Jan 2010 06:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting......."
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"That is indeed an offensive comment for its shortsightedness and craven cowardlyness. You must be young and possibly rather self-absorbed.


Nah, I'm from a country (South Korea) where democracy and free speech failed completely. Democracy and free speech don't mean anything to me anyways. You know what they say in Seoul. "Democracy is more of a religious folk belief than a political belief".

Assuming that you are a Westerner, I apologize I have a very different view of the world.
"

I disagree. South Korea might not be a perfect democracy but it's a darn sight better than either of your northern neighbors. Nowhere has perfect democracy but does that mean that democracy is worthless and we should be ruled by a feudal elite with no say by the people of what goes on?( doesn't matter whether they gain their power by birth, political views, connections, or coup d'etat).

Do you really think totalatarian control of the press is better than a 'free' press - or at least, a press free enough to call your government to account without you and your family hauled off to prison or worse. A a free enough country that you can jest at, "Democracy is more of a religious folk belief than a political belief", without worrying that you'll be imprisoned or shot?

Anyway, I don't pretend to understand the complexities of your country or China, and don't mean to offend you either. I just disagree that total censorship improves the plight of the ordinary folk.

Peace amigo

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Interesting.......
by spiderman on Wed 13th Jan 2010 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting......."
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


I disagree. South Korea might not be a perfect democracy but it's a darn sight better than either of your northern neighbors. Nowhere has perfect democracy but does that mean that democracy is worthless and we should be ruled by a feudal elite with no say by the people of what goes on?( doesn't matter whether they gain their power by birth, political views, connections, or coup d'etat).

Do you really think totalatarian control of the press is better than a 'free' press - or at least, a press free enough to call your government to account without you and your family hauled off to prison or worse. A a free enough country that you can jest at, "Democracy is more of a religious folk belief than a political belief", without worrying that you'll be imprisoned or shot?

Anyway, I don't pretend to understand the complexities of your country or China, and don't mean to offend you either. I just disagree that total censorship improves the plight of the ordinary folk.

Peace amigo

No offense, but your view of the world is rather bipolar. It's either democracy or totalitarianism. Either feudalism or democracy. Actually there are a lot of other political systems than just those two.
You've been raised to think that democracy is the always best form of government. And that all other political systems are totalitarian. And you have a specific definition of democracy that actually means 'rule by the market'. You think that democracy equals freedom and you think that freedom is the lack of government.
Actually, the world is much more complex than that. Freedom is a relative term. You are free from something. If you are free from the government, then you give up other freedoms. "Religious freedom" means that the religious leaders can raise you to follow them, or you can be free FROM religion. You can have free market, or you can be free FROM the market. Having no government and starving, being "educated" by religious leaders and beaten to death by thieves is no freedom!

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Interesting.......
by isaba on Wed 13th Jan 2010 11:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting......."
isaba Member since:
2006-12-30

Thank you. It has been a long time since I hadn't read such a simple but profound defense of the 'free speech system' we have in many places around the world. I can't add any more valuable words to what you have said.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Interesting.......
by Vanger on Wed 13th Jan 2010 12:52 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting......."
Vanger Member since:
2007-11-28

It's funny how you tell someone that he is thinking wrong about his own country and that you know the truth better.

Rly.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Interesting.......
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 13th Jan 2010 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting......."
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

It's funny how you tell someone that he is thinking wrong about his own country and that you know the truth better.

Rly.


It is funny you cant read. The guy was from South Korea not China.

Disregarding that, what you are saying also has flaws. You are saying that how dare an outsider point out the injustices of a government other than their own. Yeah, I know this riles up the local inhabitants, but to stay silent is to be complicit in the crime.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Interesting.......
by Vanger on Thu 14th Jan 2010 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting......."
Vanger Member since:
2007-11-28

It's funny you can't understand I was talking about Korean guy.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Interesting.......
by werpu on Wed 13th Jan 2010 08:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting......."
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

"That is indeed an offensive comment for its shortsightedness and craven cowardlyness. You must be young and possibly rather self-absorbed.


Nah, I'm from a country (South Korea) where democracy and free speech failed completely. Democracy and free speech don't mean anything to me anyways. You know what they say in Seoul. "Democracy is more of a religious folk belief than a political belief".

Assuming that you are a Westerner, I apologize I have a very different view of the world.
"

Sorry to say that as a westerner, democracy is not perfect, in Europe we also have a lot of gripes with our governments, the best working democracy, all over europe, is the one they have in Swizerland where the people have to vote for everything, but yet that also does not work perfectly, but it has been working well enough for hundreds of years now for them. But as I said no system is perfect, but what are the alternatives, just look at your north neighbour. Ok that is an evil example, but it comes down to that, at least you can vote bad rulers out in a working democracy, in anything else you cannot. Every government system can work if the rulers of the system really work for the people and dont expect it vice versa, but history has shown over and over again, that power in most cases is misused and the people have to pay the bill for it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Interesting.......
by Aragorn992 on Wed 13th Jan 2010 09:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting......."
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

... but it comes down to that, at least you can vote bad rulers out in a working democracy, in anything else you cannot...


This is highly debatable. In countries where campaign budgets correlate with votes, is this real choice, or more a tyranny of the wealthy?

But anyway, even if in a so called working democracy, a "bad ruler" can be voted out. This means the mass of public opinion decides what/who a "bad ruler" is. Then it becomes a popularity contest because as we have all seen (from all the "bad" people who end up leaders of democratic countries) the mass of public opinion is not particularly good at consistently picking "good rulers".

Every government system can work if the rulers of the system really work for the people and dont expect it vice versa, but history has shown over and over again, that power in most cases is misused and the people have to pay the bill for it.


Agreed.

Btw: This is probably getting slightly off topic ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Interesting.......
by spiderman on Wed 13th Jan 2010 09:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting......."
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


This is highly debatable. In countries where campaign budgets correlate with votes, is this real choice, or more a tyranny of the wealthy?

But anyway, even if in a so called working democracy, a "bad ruler" can be voted out. This means the mass of public opinion decides what/who a "bad ruler" is. Then it becomes a popularity contest because as we have all seen (from all the "bad" people who end up leaders of democratic countries) the mass of public opinion is not particularly good at consistently picking "good rulers".
In western countries, the "ruler" is not the one you think. It does not matter who is elected by the votes actually. They will all tell you that the market decides and that they are powerless anyway. "I can't tax the rich or they will move elsewhere". They will act according to what the real rulers say. In the west, the rulers are those who have the money. the westerners call that a democracy, but actually it is an oligarchy.

Edited 2010-01-13 09:28 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[6]: Interesting.......
by Laurence on Wed 13th Jan 2010 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting......."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


This is highly debatable. In countries where campaign budgets correlate with votes, is this real choice, or more a tyranny of the wealthy?


Excellent point

I'm been really fascinated reading your opinions.
Like most over on here (judging by some of the knee-jerk -1's you've received) I do believe in democracy. However, being rather cynical, I do believe that most democratic countries have a broken system for democracy:
* the press (who have their own agendas) often rule public opinion,
* bigger budgets are awarded more exposure (so "honest" politicians with small budgets will often go unnoticed
* rather than dealing with real (and potentially unpopular) issue that genuinely need addressing - politicians are usually just after quick fixes for headlines knowing full well the whole system will collapse once they've left power
* the public often seem more obsessed with celebrity culture than real issues - and this rubs off with the quality of the broadcasting on politics
* (in the UK) rather than each political party representing a moral stance (left wing, right wing, etc) - these days they all flip-flop between opinions depending on what's most popular. So you ultimately left with a party that doesn't actually represent anything (and then people wonder why nothing ever happens)
* and even in democracy, the government is corrupt. Politicians have their fingers in so many proverbial pies that most of their big decisions end up having a financial reward for them - be it extra income for a company they're on the board for or whatever.

I'd love to have the power to rewrite the rule book for democracy here in the UK. But I guess, ironically, that would make me a dictator hehehe.

But yeah, to quote a later comment you made* - this is off topic, but a fascinating read** none-the-less. ;)

* "This is probably getting slightly off topic

** for me at least

Reply Score: 5

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

You could be a Despot instead. (now where did I leave my shiny sword..)

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Interesting.......
by boldingd on Wed 13th Jan 2010 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting......."
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

While I agree that political problems (like corruption, or ineffective government) do exist in a Democracy, I think that they are more limited than in pretty much any other form of government -- and equally, that the problems with Democracy are highly over-stated.

Speaking as a U.S. citizen, there have certainly been some highly visible recent events where my government has failed... but there've also been lots of recent events where U.S. democracy have worked quite well. The people do exert at least some control over the government here in the States: the Republican party got mauled for it's recent sins, loosing control of Congress and the Presidency (and I hold that up as an example of the success of Democracy, even as a Republican myself). Both Net Neutrality and moderate health-care reforms may be put into effect by that new left-leaning administration, against the wishes of entrenched corporate interests, because of a strong desire to see those things put into effect by more than half of the populace of the country (and those plans may well be moderated, to be endurable by the slightly-less-than-half of the country that doesn't like them). While the process may be messy and slow, I think it's producing good results, and I think it's working a damned site better for me than Communism is working for the average Chinese citizen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Interesting.......
by Aragorn992 on Wed 13th Jan 2010 07:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting......."
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

... Unfortunately those people will never get a chance to improve their humanitarian conditions since they'll never learn of all the bad things the government does to their fellow citizens...


Never get a chance to improve their humanitarian conditions? Are you kidding? Do you realise how many years China has been growing its GDP and to what degree (from memory, 2009 was 9%). And you don't call this "improving humanitarian conditions"?

Oppression of free speech is one aspect of this. When its used to maintain stability and indirectly helps promote a wealthy economy then its a means to an end and arguably justified (depending on your morality, which is subjective). I've heard this same thing several times from Chinese people I knew while I was it university.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Interesting.......
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 13th Jan 2010 08:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting......."
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

"... Unfortunately those people will never get a chance to improve their humanitarian conditions since they'll never learn of all the bad things the government does to their fellow citizens...


Never get a chance to improve their humanitarian conditions? Are you kidding? Do you realise how many years China has been growing its GDP and to what degree (from memory, 2009 was 9%). And you don't call this "improving humanitarian conditions"?

Oppression of free speech is one aspect of this. When its used to maintain stability and indirectly helps promote a wealthy economy then its a means to an end and arguably justified (depending on your morality, which is subjective). I've heard this same thing several times from Chinese people I knew while I was it university.
"

All sounds good until it is your wife or brother or son who is unfairly imprisoned for trying to publicise injustice and corruption. Economic progress is not the only measure of civilisation.

"The end justifies the means" is a well-known phrase that invokes revulsion in anyone with an understanding of history. It has been used throughout the ages to perpetrate tyranny and injustice on anyone whose point-of-view differs from either the establishment or the anti-establishment. It is hard to recognize evil if it doesn't look like a Hollywood villian, but easy to recognize if see if you judge a government or society by the deeds it permits (usually to minorities, the poor, or the weak).

Yes, the Chinese people I've talked with also agree with dispensing of "troublemakers" to maintain societal harmony. Of course you would believe this if any dissenting view telling the actual facts is squashed. I'm sure many North Koreans would also agree and yet their regime can clearly be considered evil if you examine the known facts.

I'm glad Google has made a stand on this issue (even if it is probably economically driven). At least their hands are clean, "No blood for dollars".


The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke

Edited 2010-01-13 08:44 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Interesting.......
by Aragorn992 on Wed 13th Jan 2010 09:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting......."
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Economic progress is not the only measure of civilisation.


Totally agree but neither is free speech the only measure of a civilisation. As I said oppression of free speech is one aspect.

"The end justifies the means" is a well-known phrase that invokes revulsion in anyone with an understanding of history.


Well I have read quite a bit of history and philosophy and I am not revolted. There are just as many examples in history where you could argue the end did, indeed, justify the means (of course, again, depending on your morality).

...and yet their regime can clearly be considered evil if you examine the known facts...


Although I do not in any way agree with the self-serving regime of North Korea. This kind of blanket statement "...can clearly be considered evil..." sounds suspiciously like the kind of justification a government might use to justify oppression of activists. Who decides what is evil and what is not?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Interesting.......
by dragossh on Wed 13th Jan 2010 12:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting......."
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Who decides what is evil and what is not?


Common sense. Bad/evil actions are not debatable. If I punch you in the face and then steal everything from you, is that a good thing or not? (Hint: it's clearly not)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Interesting.......
by spiderman on Wed 13th Jan 2010 12:38 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting......."
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

"Who decides what is evil and what is not?


Common sense. Bad/evil actions are not debatable. If I punch you in the face and then steal everything from you, is that a good thing or not? (Hint: it's clearly not)
"
What about Robin Hood? didn't he punch the king of Notingham (don't know how to spell it) and steal everything from him? Is he good or bad? (Hint: it clearly depends on your point of view/cultural experience and what kind of propaganda is brain washing you)
In this case, you sympathize with Robin Hood, because you know him. He is the central hero of the book. You've been told that the man is good.

Edited 2010-01-13 12:45 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Interesting.......
by Aragorn992 on Wed 13th Jan 2010 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting......."
Aragorn992 Member since:
2007-05-27

Bad/evil actions are not debatable.


Thinkers from before 300 BC would disagree with this.

If I punch you in the face and then steal everything from you, is that a good thing or not? (Hint: it's clearly not)


If I intended to kill your family and had a bomb to do so, would you punching me in the face and stealing the bomb from me still be a bad thing? (Hint: not so clear now is it).

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Interesting.......
by Vanger on Wed 13th Jan 2010 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting......."
Vanger Member since:
2007-11-28

Emm, no.

Having a motorcycle instead of bike, having car instead of motorcycle, eating meat more often then one time per week - this all totally outweighs that someone somewhere got under pressure.

That poor sob surely did something silly and unreasonable.

Of course you would believe this if any dissenting view telling the actual facts is squashed.
Nah, it's all the matter of interpretation. All the matter of subset of facts which is used. The battles are fought solely around it.
Say, Nazis used Katyn as a propaganda, Poles use solely Nazis interpretation and noone cares about 20-25 thousand of Soviet POWs that died in Polish camps in 1920.
Sure sounds different from that Stalinists killed 20 thousands of Polish POWs in 1939?
It is not the war of facts, it is war of interpretations.

I'm sure many North Koreans would also agree and yet their regime can clearly be considered evil if you examine the known facts.
Most of North Koreans don't know much about other countries (except from these that trade with China).
But, actually, noone needs them to be free.
South Korea does not want to carry the burden of supporting additionally half of it's current population, does not want to expend trillions in making at least something from the North Korean industry.
North Koreans after a short moment of euphoria will feel that world sucks too - they are poor, their richer distant relatives treat them as beggars.

Edited 2010-01-13 13:13 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Interesting.......
by mithnae on Wed 13th Jan 2010 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting......."
mithnae Member since:
2006-03-29


Say, Nazis used Katyn as a propaganda, Poles use solely Nazis interpretation and noone cares about 20-25 thousand of Soviet POWs that died in Polish camps in 1920.
Sure sounds different from that Stalinists killed 20 thousands of Polish POWs in 1939?
It is not the war of facts, it is war of interpretations.

A dare to differ - facts are just this - facts: talking about using Nazi interpretation in case of presence of this very document: http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plik:Katyn_-_decision_of_... is ridiculous - I doubt there is a place for any interpretation here.

Trying to compare the fate of 19.000 polish POWs - soldiers of invaded country - killed with a shot in the back of their head in April and May of 1940 with a fate of 18.000 or 20.000 soviet POWs - soldiers of invading country - that died in several polish camps during the period of 3 years mostly because of epidemic diseases (with comparable number of polish POWs dying of the same causes during the same period in soviet camps) - is simply outrageous and abominable.
Or maybe for you "The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic" and indeed it is statistics that you are trying to compare here?

Edited 2010-01-13 17:05 UTC

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

North Korea includes one metric I'd consider important when judging a government; can people willfully leave the country and seek a better life elsewhere. How many people choose to try and leave NK only to be caught by neighboring countries and returned for criminal prosecution by NK rather than forwarded on to an immigration friendly nation?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Interesting.......
by Vanger on Thu 14th Jan 2010 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting......."
Vanger Member since:
2007-11-28

Yep.

Using wikipedia as an argument totally sums that up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Interesting.......
by razor on Wed 13th Jan 2010 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting......."
razor Member since:
2010-01-13

StaubSaugerNZ: "Let us hope the ordinary Chinese people learn and fix these failings..."

dude, you are a hopeless romantic. let me explain to you how the real world works in China... Survival is a much stronger instinct than the urge to say whatever you want. A typical chinese family is just trying to make enough money so their kid can get a good education, find a decent job and a good wife/husband.
Sure the political system in china sucks. i know cuz im from there. but how many ppl should die to create YOUR ideal system? why would i stand up against the government and possibly lose my life, when the alternative is a fairly comfortable living? That is in mind of every law biding citizen in china. it is everyone for themselves.

sure when a certain group of ppl gets the shaft (ppl near the dam, tibetans, muslims) they dissent and seek help from the western world. but the VAST majority of chinese are apathetic, and i cant blame them. your infatuation with a free world & poetic justice is as naive as communism.

pls write back and tell me im everything that is wrong with this world. ;)

Edited 2010-01-13 15:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Interesting.......
by Vanger on Wed 13th Jan 2010 16:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting......."
Vanger Member since:
2007-11-28

Nah, he's just at the top of the Maslow's Pyramid.
And we're at the bottom.

But he does not realize this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Interesting.......
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 13th Jan 2010 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting......."
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

StaubSaugerNZ: "Let us hope the ordinary Chinese people learn and fix these failings..."

dude, you are a hopeless romantic. let me explain to you how the real world works in China... Survival is a much stronger instinct than the urge to say whatever you want. A typical chinese family is just trying to make enough money so their kid can get a good education, find a decent job and a good wife/husband.
Sure the political system in china sucks. i know cuz im from there. but how many ppl should die to create YOUR ideal system? why would i stand up against the government and possibly lose my life, when the alternative is a fairly comfortable living? That is in mind of every law biding citizen in china. it is everyone for themselves.

sure when a certain group of ppl gets the shaft (ppl near the dam, tibetans, muslims) they dissent and seek help from the western world. but the VAST majority of chinese are apathetic, and i cant blame them. your infatuation with a free world & poetic justice is as naive as communism.

pls write back and tell me im everything that is wrong with this world. ;)


You are no different than anyone else in the world. We can't do it for you and I'm sure you wouldn't let us if we tried. But until you rid yourselves of the system you have things aren't going to improve.

I understand strong central government is needed and the dangers but China is hardly the first country to face this problem. Even Europe didn't get itself together and (mostly) stop killing each other until recently (of course it's not perfect by a long long way, but it is better, yes?).

Good luck. Your grandchildren will thank you for it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Interesting.......
by talaf on Wed 13th Jan 2010 09:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Interesting......."
talaf Member since:
2008-11-19

You know nothing. You know nothing about China's history, its people, its society, nothing.

Your view is also heavily biased, despite what you might think about "free press". It's almost entirely the Chinese fault for not being open about information, but you're no better than Xinhua. Your "reality" of China is completely distorted by western medias, whose only source of reliable info are dissidents, because they aren't allowed access to inside events. How is that better than the Chinese government? If anything, both are equally as "wrong".

I'm not defending the Chinese govt actions though, mind you. Almost all they do are despisable (then again, not like other big countries are shining selfless freedom knights). I'm all for people's freedom. But I do not wish for China to crumble or the government to be thrown out because I do think that they're evolving, slowly, towards the right direction. Stability in a country this size, sporting 1/6 of the world's population, is more important than Google.cn results.

Civil war would be horrible. Countless people would die, the country would explode and the small countries and ethnies would be broken for years (once again, not like this is some new scenario). How could you wish someone that in the name of immediate freedom? Let's just be realistic here. Pushing diplomacy, even if it mostly fails, is the least bloody path. I for one advocate anything avoiding civil wars in countries that size.

I'm sure you are in contact with Chinese people somewhere. Try and talk to them, understand them, especially overseas students. Be the advocate of free speech by showing them that you're allowed to talk, and that through that education you're LISTENING and open to people's opinions and debates. Show them how good it is. Show them what democracy gives you and make them take it back home. This is the most productive thing you can do. Meeting Chinese and bashing them for 1989, Tibet or w/e is counter productive at best.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Interesting.......
by neticspace on Wed 13th Jan 2010 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Interesting......."
neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

Consider China's heavy insecurity since the mid 1800s (I'm looking at you, United Kingdom) until the end of Mao, censorship is at least helping to preserve a stable rule.

If you think about it, this justification of (internet) censorship in China is more from a historical reason, not from a political reason.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Interesting.......
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 13th Jan 2010 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Interesting......."
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Consider China's heavy insecurity since the mid 1800s (I'm looking at you, United Kingdom) until the end of Mao, censorship is at least helping to preserve a stable rule.

If you think about it, this justification of (internet) censorship in China is more from a historical reason, not from a political reason.


One could argue that the reason Western powers could so ruthlesslessly exploit China's weakness was due to the information advantage held by the West. It was terrible of the West for sure - I wish we could say we'd totally grown out of it - but that is the past and doesnt justify the current oppression of the people by the government (permeated by corruption and business interests).

This does not justify the censorship practiced at the moment. The censorship is couched as maintaining stability but this just means allowing continued governance of the Party no matter how badly, oppressively or corruptly they rule. This censorship conveys certain advantages for maintaining the ruling elite but actually prevents healthy debate and release of public dissatisfaction. At some point some issue will inflame the public anger and it will boil over since there is no legal way to vent or change things and *that* is the real threat to stability.

I'd like to not see that happen as it is not good for anybody. Pregressive freedoms for the burgeoning middle class could defuse. Otherwise the Party will have to become more and more oppressive to try and prevent the people gaining the natural freedoms they see others enjoy.

Part of this censoring to maintain power does result in a weaker, less-innovative China. It is a shame.

Edited 2010-01-13 23:25 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Interesting.......
by neticspace on Wed 13th Jan 2010 23:49 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Interesting......."
neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

One could argue that the reason Western powers could so ruthlesslessly exploit China's weakness was due to the information advantage held by the West. It was terrible of the West for sure - I wish we could say we'd totally grown out of it - but that is the past and doesnt justify the current oppression of the people by the government (permeated by corruption and business interests).


It still justifies China's position to mistreat the West today.

I'd like to not see that happen as it is not good for anybody. Pregressive freedoms for the burgeoning middle class could defuse. Otherwise the Party will have to become more and more oppressive to try and prevent the people gaining the natural freedoms they see others enjoy.


I wasn't enjoying democracy when I lived in South Korea. Democracy is not a "one solution fits all" thing in real life.

Part of this censoring to maintain power does result in a weaker, less-innovative China. It is a shame.


In truth, China's wishing to indirectly rule America. It's not a bad thing since America is relying too much on China and now America's relying China's foreign policy to deal with North Korea. A democratic country like America is relying a socialist country called China to handle its own partial foreign policy?

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Interesting.......
by _txf_ on Thu 14th Jan 2010 00:59 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Interesting......."
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

No matter what people say, china is not a socialist country. At least not any more....

And frankly North Korea is a problem for everyone in the region including China.

Edited 2010-01-14 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Interesting.......
by rockmen1 on Thu 14th Jan 2010 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Interesting......."
rockmen1 Member since:
2006-02-04

China's already an economical powerhouse. Look at South Korea decades ago when Park Cheong-Hee (America-based military "borderline socialist" dictator) made South Korea into a economical powerhouse through denying human rights in the past.

I might offend people because of saying this. As for the internet censorship in China, I couldn't care less. China needs good stability in this rapidly changing world and censorship is at least helping China.


As a citizen, I don't think an international factory is a true powerhouse, at least such economy do not benifit to average Chinese.

Poeple do complain, trying to stop this will only build up a bubble, when it breaks, everything is too late. Let people speak, fight for their own rights, can release the stress, the right way to stability.

Edited 2010-01-14 04:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

...
by Hiev on Wed 13th Jan 2010 02:08 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Now all China's goverment has to do is block google.com, brilliant.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ...
by DigitalAxis on Wed 13th Jan 2010 02:12 UTC in reply to "..."
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

I bet they already do.

I once (a few years ago) read about a site called elgoog.com; it was some php? hack that reversed the letter order of all input and output giving you a Google Mirror (right down to typing in backwards into a right-justified box). Yeah, the entire site was a bad pun.
The sites' creators discovered it was amazingly popular in China, because it was a way to access Google/the internet that the Chinese government didn't know about.

Edited 2010-01-13 02:14 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: ...
by Bryz on Wed 13th Jan 2010 05:18 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Bryz Member since:
2010-01-13

Not just yet. But if they proceed with pulling out or insisting on going unfiltered, I'm sure they will, which is terribly unfortunate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by adinas on Wed 13th Jan 2010 07:34 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
adinas Member since:
2005-08-17

Great! thanks to you they now know about it :-p

Reply Score: 1

Comment by ballmerlikesgoogle
by ballmerlikesgoogle on Wed 13th Jan 2010 02:13 UTC
ballmerlikesgoogle
Member since:
2009-10-23

They have to get Baidu back up again, heard it was hacked by the "Iranian Cyber Army" today.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Mark Williamson
by Mark Williamson on Wed 13th Jan 2010 03:12 UTC
Mark Williamson
Member since:
2005-07-06

"attempted cracking of GMail accounts from Chinese human rights activists"

This, to my ear, makes it sound really like the human rights activists were the ones trying to crack the accounts, rather than - as far as I can tell - the victims. Could this be rephrased?

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by Mark Williamson
by anevilyak on Wed 13th Jan 2010 03:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by Mark Williamson"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

"attempted cracking of GMail accounts from Chinese human rights activists"

This, to my ear, makes it sound really like the human rights activists were the ones trying to crack the accounts, rather than - as far as I can tell - the victims. Could this be rephrased?


I was going to say the same thing... "belonging to Chinese human rights activists" would probably work better there.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Mark Williamson
by Savior on Wed 13th Jan 2010 10:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by Mark Williamson"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

Exactly. Having read the first paragraph on the main page, I was pretty confused about why Google would cease censorship after a hacking attempt by human rights activists. I thought it must be some sort of a reverse psychology-thing. ;)

Reply Score: 1

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Exactly. Having read the first paragraph on the main page, I was pretty confused about why Google would cease censorship after a hacking attempt by human rights activists. I thought it must be some sort of a reverse psychology-thing. ;)


The text was misleading. Google are upset because the Chinese Government is usibng it's cyber warfare units to hack the activists accounts in Google systems (the Chinese government is actively practicing large scale cyberwar at the moment, just as the US is practicing a small-scale one too).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Mark Williamson
by Soulbender on Wed 13th Jan 2010 18:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by Mark Williamson"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yeah,i noticed that too with a "WTF, that's not how it is".
"from" should be replaced with "of" in that sentence.

Edited 2010-01-13 18:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

What is best?
by spinnekopje on Wed 13th Jan 2010 09:53 UTC
spinnekopje
Member since:
2008-11-29

I don't know which system is best. I do know what a good system needs: it has to make sure everybody has enough money to spend in all cases, but give the people who do the hard work more to spend. Certainly that first bit is a major problem in the free market system.

I always try look at other systems with an open mind and in most systems you can find pros and cons. I'm happy to live in Belgium now, which certainly isn't the worst country to live in.

Reply Score: 2

About rights, obligations and freedom
by arturasb on Wed 13th Jan 2010 14:48 UTC
arturasb
Member since:
2010-01-13

Hi all.

I liked the part of discussion related to the freedom, democracy, human rights and so on.

I'd like to tell you my point of view. I live in the country, which got its independence 20 years ago, I was 16teen back then. Democracy and freedom was the "silver bullet" which was supposed to kill our past ghosts and lead us to happiness. And in fact it worked quite well - now my country is a member of modern world, we have (almost) nothing to afraid of, well may be ourselves ;) only.

As "freedom and democracy kids" we noticed that people of the free world tend to take their rights only and to forget about the obligations. Obligations to THINK, to QUESTION EVERYHING ((C) Discovery Channel), to BE TOLLERANT and OPEN-MINDED, to have enough COURAGE to SUPPORT freedom. On one hand, nations and countries which have stronger control (Singapore, S.Korea), they also have quite high living standards and majority of citizens are happy. On the other hand, free world countries have many "democratic" control mechanisms. So tell me which "free" is better? I'd say neither is better....

And the last thing about democracy - do you think it is ok when 51 percent can dictate everything for the rest 49 percent? I know, my example isn’t ideal, but still ;) . Let’s take a look few thousand years ago to Greece where the democracy was born. They had only hundreds or thousands citizens in each city (polis), so it was possible to get to the consensus with almost all and every person. That was real democracy where (almost) anyone could participate in person. But not these days, when we have mass media, PR and so on. The vote in the modern world is a market.

In my opinion the whole world should be looking forward to see essential solution of all problems (conflicts, economics, politics, climate change and so on), because existing free and "not-so-free" worlds have no common solution to it.

Edited 2010-01-13 14:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

These days, the term "democracy" is bastardized. It means that you vote, end of story. Actually, it is a little more than that. It is a state in which the people rule themselves. Just voting is not enough. Education and information is a key. If people vote but know nothing, they don't rule anything. They are just puppets of the rulers. Actually, voting is not necessary in a democracy. In the western world, voting is a mean to make people shut up. You are not happy? Vote and shup up!

Reply Score: 2

Wha? But....
by cjcox on Wed 13th Jan 2010 20:49 UTC
cjcox
Member since:
2006-12-21

If we tick of China, where am I going to buy.....


EVERYTHING

Reply Score: 3

RE: Wha? But....
by boldingd on Thu 14th Jan 2010 16:36 UTC in reply to "Wha? But...."
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Mexico?

Reply Score: 2

Is china building a cyber great wall ?
by David3737 on Thu 14th Jan 2010 00:31 UTC
David3737
Member since:
2010-01-14

Is china building a cyber great wall ?
I was reading some great info about China's great wall and I could not help but see similarity on how China wants to build a cyber great wall,
to censor the rest of the world and only allow what it wants through its Internets... anyway, if you find the great wall fascinating here is the article I was reading earlier
link.
<a href="http://ketiva.com/Education_and_Reference/unusual_legend_of_great_w...

Reply Score: 1

righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Your observation is already bin made; it is called 'the creat firewall of China'

Reply Score: 2

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

Is china building a cyber great wall ?
I was reading some great info about China's great wall and I could not help but see similarity on how China wants to build a cyber great wall,
to censor the rest of the world and only allow what it wants through its Internets... anyway, if you find the great wall fascinating here is the article I was reading earlier
link.
http://ketiva.com/Education_and_Reference/unusual_legend_of_great_w...


The correct analogy is not The Great Wall, which was built to keep raiders out (similar to the contemporary Israeli Walls) but the Berlin Wall - to keep its own people in check. Quite a difference. Note that the Great Firewall of China is apparently pretty holey, I doubt it is much of a barrier to the NSA, but it does (mostly) stop it's own people learning news from the rest of the world.

Reply Score: 2

Sorry, not buying Google's explanation
by tomcat on Thu 14th Jan 2010 04:17 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

I'm sure that it must be annoying to have Chinese government agents trying to crack their services, but Gmail and other Google properties are being probed for weakness and attacked every day, by a wide range of adversaries around the globe. What's slightly different in this case is that the Chinese government can more efficiently launch man-in-the-middle attacks, since they control the ISPs/proxies that all Chinese citizens must use. But none of these conditions completely explain or justify Google's reported contemplation to leave China.

Google has a far bigger problem in China, in my opinion: Censorship. No, I'm not talking about Google spontaneously growing a conscience. I had to laugh when I read their public statement that they didn't go into China for the money. As if. Google has been actively censoring content since it entered China on behalf of the government. There's little doubt that Google has served as an active tool for the Chinese government in aiding surveillance, monitoring, data retention, etc.

No, the actual reason that Google doesn't like censorship isn't because of conscience or ideology or belief in freedom or anything like that. Google can't get reasonable search advertising rates in China, because advertisers have no guarantee that Chinese citizens will even see the ads. Thanks to censorship. It's a bitch. China practices one-sided protectionist policies near-constantly. It doesn't want western countries to gain a foothold in its market. It has nothing but disdain for intellectual property laws. Oh, sure, there are occasional arrests in China when the BSA, MPAA, and others lobby the FTC to pressure the Chinese government. It's just how they roll.

Couple that fact with the reality that Google hasn't made serious in-roads against Baidu, and the business case for staying in China becomes a lot cloudier. But here's the really obnoxious part: Rather than actually make a decision on staying vs leaving, Google floats a trial balloon -- really, a veiled threat to the Chinese government meaning "leave us alone or we'll remove some tech jobs from your country" -- and waits for a response from the Chinese government. Meanwhile, they get laurels from the hippies and FSF devotees (I'm sorry for being redundant). Even though they don't give a rat's ass about Chinese citizens' lack of freedom.

It's just business, nothing personal, folks. Remember that.

Reply Score: 2

neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

In fact, it's the Chinese government that is thanking Google. Google's public stunt cost huge and China has a good justification to kick out Google.

Reply Score: 2

tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

In fact, it's the Chinese government that is thanking Google.


Not sure about that. The Chinese government has had a policy since Nixon renormalized relations of inviting western companies to invest in the country -- by building factories, opening offices, employing Chinese citizens -- in exchange for access to its markets; then, after these companies made the investment, the Chinese government makes it very difficult for the western companies to extract any of the money that they made there. I think that the Chinese government would prefer to have Google remain, as long as they continue to employ Chinese workers, and as long as they don't threaten Baidu.

But the last point is really just rhetorical: Google could never pose a threat to Baidu. The Chinese government has been redirecting Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft search queries to Baidu for a long time which guarantees them dominant market share.

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/china-netcom-redirecting-google-...

Google's public stunt cost huge and China has a good justification to kick out Google.


Um, no. Let's not have any illusions here. The Chinese government is comprised of paranoid old men zealously guarding their power -- by being brutally oppressive, actively imprisoning and killing people who speak out against the government, corruptly demanding payoffs and bribes to do business, and engaging in unfair trade practices -- and they have little justification for ANYTHING they do.

If you want to blame Google for anything, blame them for not actually taking a definitive stand on China (no matter what they say, they didn't make a definitive statement on China because they're hoping that China will beg them to stay -- WTF is this wishy-washy "we might leave China" crap), and propagandizing censorship and surveillance practices that Google has long been COMPLICIT in.

Frankly, both Google and the Chinese government make me want to hurl. They're both corrupt.

Edited 2010-01-14 21:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Kudos
by Zyyx on Thu 14th Jan 2010 19:45 UTC
Zyyx
Member since:
2008-10-23

Kudos to google for at the very least making this public. Double Kudos if they follow through regardless of consequences. Perhaps this is in part saving face for Eric Schmidt's comments some time ago regarding privacy. Regardless as to why though its a very commendable action on their part.

Reply Score: 1

An exercise in rhetoric questioning
by muadib on Fri 15th Jan 2010 16:23 UTC
muadib
Member since:
2009-11-04

Wheres the evidence that the hackers were state sponsored?

Will non censorship stop hack attempts by state sponsored or non state sponsored hackers?

Is the U.S. deeply indebted to China?

What is the state of the U.S. economy?

Has the U.S. been selling arms to Taiwan?

Would the U.S. benefit from promugulation of information to the Chinese states that might otherwise cause unrest in the region?

Is Google closely allied to the United States and in particular the U.S. security services most of which have been historically shown to instigate wars in foreign nations for the benefit of the U.S. state?

Reply Score: 1

neticspace Member since:
2009-06-09

Wheres the evidence that the hackers were state sponsored?

Will non censorship stop hack attempts by state sponsored or non state sponsored hackers?

Is the U.S. deeply indebted to China?

What is the state of the U.S. economy?

Has the U.S. been selling arms to Taiwan?

Would the U.S. benefit from promugulation of information to the Chinese states that might otherwise cause unrest in the region?

Is Google closely allied to the United States and in particular the U.S. security services most of which have been historically shown to instigate wars in foreign nations for the benefit of the U.S. state?


America is famous for wrongfully accusing other countries, including her own close allies.

It's interesting that the Tienanmen Incident encouraged tighter censorship later on. Why? This event almost led a huge civil war. Too much criticism against China by the West will make China collapse and the Chinese government knows this. I don't think any Western country would risk this meaningless stunt.

Reply Score: 2

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


It's interesting that the Tienanmen Incident encouraged tighter censorship later on. Why? This event almost led a huge civil war. Too much criticism against China by the West will make China collapse and the Chinese government knows this. I don't think any Western country would risk this meaningless stunt.


It wouldn't necessarily lead to a civil war. Just a change in government. There's no need to defend a bad system just because you fear change.

Change in political systems happened recently and relatively painlessly in Poland, (East) Germany, Romania, Hungary, Czech & Slovak Republics, Ukraine, even Russia/Soviet Union. Only the Yugoslavian breakup was a particularly problematic but there were other underlying issues. If China decided to change it could be painless - it is only when the government resists the will of the people (which appears to be moving towards wanting more personal freedom) that you'd get problems.

Reply Score: 2