Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

the search engine china outcry

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    Jaz

    so everyone and their dog is taking an intrest in what's happening to search engines in china.

    what intrests me is if the govt of whichever country suddely said to a search engine, please stop dishing out results to citizens of our country, sites that have the f word (you know starts with f ends with k two letters inbetween u and c).  Would there be an outcry and if so why.  Essentialy thats whats happening anyhow, here we are censored, the TV is censored till 9pm, the newspapers seem to censor themselves (which is why i read the guardian because they're grown up enough not to bother with censorship) the radio is censored till 9pm.

    though i suppose i can see you all saying "well you said it yourself, "till 9pm"". 

  • User profile image
    Stephen

    Have a read of this

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    Censoring the f-word (which they do to keep TV appropriate for children) is different than censoring things having to do with democracy and anything else that goes against your political ideas.

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    Those governments that require special handling should pay for that service, very dearly. It shows how weak the leadership and technology is in China to have to rely on foreign companies to enforce bad state policy. They should be embarrassed officially.
    Tongue Out

    U.S. companies that PROFIT from the work of oppressed citizens of any country are unethical, and this now must include search engine companies. U.S. companies that work to help oppress citizens of another country are pathetic and contemptible.

    Where's the "Principle-driven" policy of our own leaders? Failure is the f-word I give to Bush and his good-old-boy network; corrupt failures. Go ahead and tell me that Bush can't affect anything about this issue, if you are adequately brainwashed.

    It's pathetic that Chinese intelligence has become the responsibility of U.S. companies.

  • User profile image
    Jaz

    well my political idea is to alllow words to be free where there are no tags of swearword associated with them

  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    In my home, freedom of speech includes all manner of vulgarities.

    Practice makes perfect.

  • User profile image
    ScanIAm

    I think there are 2 issues here that may be confusing the issue:

    1) Many companies have given in to China's desire to ban sites.
    2) Some companies have provided evidence to China's govt. that allowed the govt. to prosecute a dissident.

    Issue #1 is a non-issue.  There are plenty of things that we find offensive that other's do not.  Let the society and/or govt. choose what they want for their people.

    Issue #2 is the problem.  Yahoo (and others) are welcome to censor their search results...it is their right as a business.  It is not their right to tattle on customers. and if Yahoo (and others) wish to continue to do business in the USA, they should stop cooperating with oppresive (to the USA) govts.

    This should hold in the rest of the world as well.

  • User profile image
    Yggdrasil

    ScanIAm wrote:
    Issue #1 is a non-issue.  There are plenty of things that we find offensive that other's do not.  Let the society and/or govt. choose what they want for their people.


    I don't mean to hijack the thread or anything, but do you realy feel this sort of moral relativism is really a good thing? Will you shrug at a society that encourages things you find wrong and say that it's their right to do things their way?

    ScanIAm wrote:
    It is not their right to tattle on customers.


    Did anyone have the patience to wade through the legalese and see if it's actually a violation of the Terms of Service?
    Otherwise, it's their perfect right to tattle (and our perfect right to avoid using their services).

  • User profile image
    cheong

    I think China's move to talk with search engine service providers to remove sensitive content is a mild way already.

    If they don't cooperate, the Chinese government may just ban those websites with firewall, and leave only those who obey "the rule".

    Or they can go the extreme way to make the firewall immediately drop the connection when it see those "forbiden words", leaving those web pages with those words always load incompletely, with those words never shown.
    (Agreed it'll increase the workload of the firewalls and tend to be slow, but the network connections in most area of China is not fast anyway)

    Recent Achievement unlocked: Code Avenger Tier 4/6: You see dead program. A lot!
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    JohnAskew

    Yggdrasil wrote:
    ScanIAm wrote: Issue #1 is a non-issue.  There are plenty of things that we find offensive that other's do not.  Let the society and/or govt. choose what they want for their people.


    I don't mean to hijack the thread or anything, but do you realy feel this sort of moral relativism is really a good thing? Will you shrug at a society that encourages things you find wrong and say that it's their right to do things their way?

    ScanIAm wrote: It is not their right to tattle on customers.


    Did anyone have the patience to wade through the legalese and see if it's actually a violation of the Terms of Service?
    Otherwise, it's their perfect right to tattle (and our perfect right to avoid using their services).



    Terms of Service can be forced when one party is at a disadvantage. Does this not constitute moral relativism? Isn't it immoral to draw legal contract when one party is in duress? That's what I don't like about those who hide behind rule of law as absolute; name an infalible court, find a set of punishments to fit crimes that isn't immoral. What is right and wrong?

    Moral relativism and Terms of Service. How jaded.

  • User profile image
    Deactivated User

    Comment removed at user's request.

  • User profile image
    Stephen

    In the Australian Newspaper 'The Age' today were a couple of articles with respect to China. This one on re-opening a shutdown newspaper and this on censorship.

    The Age wrote:
    Several Chinese journalists who have written for sites abroad are in jail, and in two cases Yahoo! provided evidence used against them. Li says it might make business sense for international companies such as Yahoo! and Google to comply with China's censors, "but morally it's wrong to sell people's freedom".


    If word of mouth is a key strategy in Chinese citizens having access to 'useful' information then the word of mouth will contain 'Do not use Google, Yahoo or MSN as they filter content that YOU really want to know more about'

  • User profile image
    Yggdrasil

    JohnAskew wrote:
    Moral relativism and Terms of Service. How jaded.


    Ok, I think you've mixed things up a bit. There are two issues here - the moral and the legal. They are seperate and distinct.

    On the moral front, I am all against moral relativism. I think a country, society or company has a perfect right to disapprove of practices of a different culture, and should be morally culpable for cooperating with them. This is not to say that the US should go to war on Afghanistan or for Microsoft to embargo China, but there are moral considerations here, and they shouldn't be ignored. This is similar to the same-sex marriage bill incident last year in Washington State.

    On the legal front, morality has nothing to do with it. People have been frothing at the mouth about Yahoo's actions and demanding legal retribution. Doing something wrong isn't necessarily breaking the law, and so reaction against Yahoo, assuming you feel they are in the wrong, shouldn't necessarily come from above, but from below. I think the competition between the major players in the Internet services space is quite huge, and any substantial shift of customer loyalty could make or break a company.

  • User profile image
    leighsword

    Jaz wrote:
    the f word (you know starts with f ends with k two letters inbetween u and c).

    filter({'f','u','c', 'k'});

    then your post would be :
    so everyone and their dog is ta*ing an intrest in what's happening to sear*h engines in *hina.

    what intrests me is i* the govt o* whi*hever *o*ntry s*ddely said to a sear*h engine, please stop dishing o*t res*lts to *itizens o* o*r *o*ntry, sites that have the * word (yo* *now starts with * ends with * two letters inbetween * and *).  Wo*ld there be an o*t*ry and i* so why.  Essentialy thats whats happening anyhow, here we are *ensored, the TV is *ensored till 9pm, the newspapers seem to *ensor themselves (whi*h is why i read the g*ardian be*a*se they're grown *p eno*gh not to bother with *ensorship) the radio is *ensored till 9pm.

    tho*gh i s*ppose i *an see yo* all saying "well yo* said it yo*rsel*, "till 9pm"".

  • User profile image
    footballism

    leighsword wrote:
    Jaz wrote: the f word (you know starts with f ends with k two letters inbetween u and c). filter({'f','u','c', 'k'}); then your post would be : so everyone and their dog is ta*ing an intrest in what's happening to sear*h engines in *hina. what intrests me is i* the govt o* whi*hever *o*ntry s*ddely said to a sear*h engine, please stop dishing o*t res*lts to *itizens o* o*r *o*ntry, sites that have the * word (yo* *now starts with * ends with * two letters inbetween * and *).  Wo*ld there be an o*t*ry and i* so why.  Essentialy thats whats happening anyhow, here we are *ensored, the TV is *ensored till 9pm, the newspapers seem to *ensor themselves (whi*h is why i read the g*ardian be*a*se they're grown *p eno*gh not to bother with *ensorship) the radio is *ensored till 9pm. tho*gh i s*ppose i *an see yo* all saying "well yo* said it yo*rsel*, "till 9pm"".

    Gosh, why not match the whole cursing word rather than its individual containing characters?

    @"\bfark\b" shoud work

    Sheva

  • User profile image
    eagle
  • User profile image
    harumscarum

    Is the UK gov up in arms about this? I believe our congress is only grandstanding and wants to look good for the elections coming up. Like almost every special hearing congress has held there will be no action afterwards. They should stick to something they are good at like taking bribes from Indian tribes.

    If there was a fuss about searching for the f*ck word then I am sure congress would have a special hearing and grandstand for cnn/fox.

    Personally I do not think it is any of our govs business what companies do in the global market. I guess working conditions, wages, and child labor are less important then filtered search results.

    edit:i guess you are better off using * in curse words since the filter breaks formatting.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.