Censorship and policing of the Internet for political purposes is morally ​unacceptabl​e.

... according to the UK Governments Select Committee on Foreign Affairs who are the group that help create our foreign policy have said ...

"FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: THE INTERNET

340. The restriction of the internet in China has emerged as a key infringement of the right of freedom of expression.[530] Numbers of internet users in China have been estimated at between 110 and 200 million.[531] However, the system for filtering, censoring and controlling the internet has been described as "the most sophisticated effort of its kind in the world".[532] Government regulations prohibit the use of the internet for a variety of activities, which include "harming the honor or the interests of the nation", "disrupting national policies on religion, propagating evil cults and feudal superstitions" and "inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations, or gatherings that disturb social order".[533]

341. In a new development, and to the dismay of human rights organisations, several Western internet companies have recently adapted their products in order to gain access to the Chinese market, by developing technology which censors their web-browsers in accordance with government diktat. Particular criticism has been aimed at Microsoft, which last year launched a portal in China that blocks use of words such as 'freedom' in the text of weblogs ('blogs')[534]; Yahoo!, for identifying journalist Shi Tao at the request of the Chinese authorities, leading to his arrest and sentencing for posting on the internet an internal Communist Party minute;[535] and Google, for launching a self-censoring version of its website in China.[536] Yahoo!, Google and Microsoft submitted evidence to our inquiry.[537] The argument they put forward, in various ways, was that the choice faced by foreign companies in China was either to comply with domestic legislation, or to leave the country, and that remaining in the country has the beneficial effect of offering Chinese internet users increased access to information and internet services. However, in June, Sergey Brin, one of Google's founders, admitted that Google's actions had compromised its principles.[538]

342. Human Rights Watch raised the possibility of other countries with repressive regimes observing China's successful manipulation of Western companies and following suit, stating that "China is already exporting technology for monitoring the Internet to other repressive governments, Zimbabwe, for example".[539] The companies which submitted evidence to us advised that China was not the only country in which their product was modified according to the requests of government, but did not give specific details of the nature of such regulation.

343. We conclude that the collaboration of Western internet companies in the censorship and policing of the internet for political purposes is morally unacceptable. We further conclude, however, that it is in the interests of Chinese internet users that as much information be available for browsing as possible. We recommend that the Government put pressure on the Chinese government to relax its censorship of the internet and its requirement for foreign companies to restrict the political content of their pages. We further recommend that the Government represent to the Chinese authorities the damage which is done to economic growth by continued restriction of the free flow of information. "

Source: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmfaff/860/86008.htm#a43

It sucks, but as they say "when in Rome...". The Chinese government will never let this go. They have quite the user base, and companies that wish to exploit that user base are required to conform to their rules. The damage that is done does not concern China(as a country), rather the rest of the world.


EDIT: cut post.

Sabot wrote:

... according to the UK Governments Select Committee on Foreign Affairs who are the group that help create our foreign policy have said ...

It's a nice enough quote, capturing both the basic problem of pluralism/acceptance of other cultures when their values conflict with yours, as well as the standard rationalization used by corporations trying to make a profit and bypass local regulations, moral standards and ethical culpability.

It's the same excuse used by Western companies that have sweat-shops in third-world countries. "We may be grossly underpaying and overworking them compared to the situation here at home, but they're still better off than they would be without us". While this may be true, and it is probably legal, it is no different morally than running sweat-shops at home. 

The reason that social legislation like minimum wage or freedom of speech exist is because of a moral imperative in our society that people deserve better treatment and deserve free expression. Not because of some cost-of-living calculation or a painful compromise. If it's a moral point, it doesn't change between the UK or China. By changing business practices in China, the corporation in question is saying that it doesn't acknowledge the moral imperative, only the legal imperative. If you accept the assumption that the original legislation is based on the moral imperative, you should accept that it should view the moral infringement the same way it does a legal infringement, and see itself as justified in punishing the offending corporation.

Hmm. Sorry for hijacking the thread, and I'm not even sure I fully agree with what I wrote above, but the article got me thinking.

This commitee - does it have any teeth? Does this publication have any power?

Incredible naivety to think that speech won't be spindled, folded, and mutilated for political purposes, in any media.

That being said, it is of Principled Importance to make this statement.

I personally don't think that Individualism will ever take hold in Asia.
Nor Individual Responsibility, the Chinese are mired in the past and ancestor worship... no? Life seems much too cheap in Asia. What am I missing?

I would love to be able to hold corporations accountable for ethics and morals across the globe. Who lobbys for this cause?

JohnAskew wrote:

I personally don't think that Individualism will ever take hold in Asia.
Nor Individual Responsibility, the Chinese are mired in the past and ancestor worship... no? Life seems much too cheap in Asia. What am I missing?

I'm not sure what ancestor worship has to do with wanting individual liberty. Could it not be that many are still authoriarian governments --- with incredible economic success? "Take this money and shup up or I'll kill you" is a pretty compelling message.

    Internet censorship? please don't fuss about it, look, I'm still able to post on C9;)

Sheva

If China were to annex the USA, I would not like the new Government. See, we are quite used to fussing...

Minh wrote:



JohnAskew wrote: I personally don't think that Individualism will ever take hold in Asia. Nor Individual Responsibility, the Chinese are mired in the past and ancestor worship... no? Life seems much too cheap in Asia. What am I missing?

I'm not sure what ancestor worship has to do with wanting individual liberty. Could it not be that many are still authoriarian governments --- with incredible economic success? "Take this money and shup up or I'll kill you" is a pretty compelling message.

My opinions are based largely in ignorance, I confess, regarding Asia and the people who live there. It is just that the Individual is always relegated to a lower status than "the majority". To the extent that an individual would rather die than allow their ancestors to be maligned unfairly. I warned you of my own ignorance. I just don't see the 'Cowboy' gun slinger mentality taking root in the East anytime soon.
:O

Well gotta love this coming from the UK Politicians/Government.
Cleanfeed system Implemented by BT anyone that is also been pushed hard to other UK based ISPs ?