Google stops censorship in China

[JohnyD]

Google ends self-censorship, defies China govt

Google Inc defied China’s self- censorship rules by redirecting mainland Chinese users to an unfiltered Hong Kong Web site, threatening its ability to operate in the world’s largest Internet market.

The move escalated a two-month dispute as the government said Google broke its promise and was “totally wrong,” according to the official Xinhua news agency. Google, which had censored results on the Chinese site since its 2006 debut, said yesterday it plans to keep its research operations in the mainland.

The US government said it was “disappointed” Google and China failed to reach a compromise. The conflict has contributed to a deterioration in relations between the two countries, following disagreements over weapon sales to Taiwan and the valuation of the yuan.

“Google is playing a very dangerous game,” said Rob Enderle, president and principal analyst at business consultant Enderle Group in San Jose, California. “They could end up doing more damage than good.”

The size of Google’s China sales workforce will partially depend on the accessibility of the Hong Kong site, the company said in a statement yesterday. Google employs more than 600 workers in the country and it “can’t rule out the possibility of lay-offs,” company spokeswoman Jessica Powell said in phone interview today.

Searches from Beijing and Shanghai for outlawed terms related to the Falun Gong movement and 1989 Tiananmen Square military crackdown yielded error messages today, indicating the Hong Kong site is subject to the same restrictions as overseas Web portals including Google.com. The nation’s Web censorship system has been dubbed “The Great Firewall of China.”

China had an estimated 384 million Internet users at the end of 2009, more than the total US population. Baidu Inc held 58.6 per cent of China’s online search market last quarter, compared with 35.6 per cent for Google, according to Analysys International, a Beijing-based technology research company.

“It’s very likely that Google.com.hk will be blocked at least as aggressively as Google.com was and, more likely, probably more aggressively,” said Ben Schachter, an analyst at Broadpoint AmTech Inc. in San Francisco.

Sergey Brin, who co-founded Google, pushed the company’s executives to end censorship of Web-search results in China, a person familiar with the matter said in January. The two sides held discussions on January 29 and February 25, according to Xinhua.

These talks never produced any serious progress because China wasn’t willing to bend in its demand that search results be censored, the three people familiar with the matter said this week.

Google ends self-censorship, defies China govt

 

[gambit]

Exactly. Governments are representative of all the citizens of the country.

Governments SPEAKS for the countries. Whether any government is 'representative' of the citizenry or not is another discussion.

The process of electing/selecting/nominating the members of the government vary from country to country.

True.

China has its own system within the single party where the selection is done based on meritocracy. All decisions are taken based on discussions & consensus within the party. Any Chinese can become a member of the party, as long as they meet some certain criteria ( persons education level, political ideology etc..)

Why a single party? What is inherently wrong with having multiple parties representing and speaks for multiple opinions?

Democracy is good, but not the perfect system. It has its flaws. It needs adaptation for every country based on its cultures, traditions, history, development level, diversity, size, complexity, education levels of the people, awareness of the people etc.

Demanding the alternative to be 'perfect' is an escape ploy. Nothing of man is perfect. However, everything of man is relative. Some are more desirable than others.

We saw the flaws in the US presidential system in year 2000 elections. Bush became president even when he lost the popular vote, because of the electoral collage system. And the whole world had to pay the price of this flaw for 8 years.

Heck...I can argue that China's single party system with its claim to communism made the world paid dearly in many ways for the past several decades. See how rhetorically nonsense your argument can be? Dismissed.

India has parliamentary system of democratic government based on Westminster model. We see what kind of leaders we get. Recent trends is towards coalition governments, wherein even a unworthy candidate with a support of few elected Members of Parliament can become a key person in the government.

Most European governments are parliamentary with emphasis on creating and maintaining coalition governments containing representatives from many political opinions. There is nothing wrong with this as this is one method of allowing diversity in governance. This is better than China's single party system.

Functional democracies have many methods and institutional mechanisms to protect the rights of the minority against the interests of the majority. Take the Swiss and their rotating presidency for example. The Swiss does not directly elect their president but the office is rotated among council members...

History Today - Switzerland: Mountains and minarets : Switzerland?s recent vote to ban the building of minarets drew widespread criticism. Natasha Proietto looks at the historical background to that decision, the result of a typically Swiss mixture

They ingrained a rotating presidency among the seven federal councillors, so that no one leader would be able to assume personal power for long enough to mould the nation to his image. This guarantor of freedom through constant change was backed up by regular updates to the constitution throughout the course of the 19th century.

It can be argued that this method is 'undemocratic' at the popular level but very democratic at the representative level. The councillors are elected thus...

Swiss Federal Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each Councillor is elected individually by secret ballot by an absolute majority of votes.

It is precisely because of these many methods and institutional mechanisms of the democratic process that make the flawed democracies preferable over dictatorships, whether a dictator is of one man or one party.

There is a big difference between dictatorship and single party system. Nobody calls the Chinese premier as dictator, nor he has the absolute powers. Yes, CPC has the absolute power, but the party consists of millions of members, representing all China.

Dictatorships always consider themselves to be 'perfect'. The one man or one party always claim to know what is best for country and citizens. Any dissension is violently squashed. Dissension is not possible unless there are information as to why the current system is not perfect, should be improved or even replaced. Functional democracies do not fear those information and the resulting dissensions because flawed functional democracies have those methods and institutional mechanisms to enact the changes the people want. But perfect dictatorships always fear information and dissensions.

 

[JohnyD]

Simply put...Chinese communism is actually a dictatorship in disguise

 

[BJlaowai]

Governments SPEAKS for the countries. Whether any government is 'representative' of the citizenry or not is another discussion.


True.


Why a single party? What is inherently wrong with having multiple parties representing and speaks for multiple opinions?


Demanding the alternative to be 'perfect' is an escape ploy. Nothing of man is perfect. However, everything of man is relative. Some are more desirable than others.




Heck...I can argue that China's single party system with its claim to communism made the world paid dearly in many ways for the past several decades. See how rhetorically nonsense your argument can be? Dismissed.


Most European governments are parliamentary with emphasis on creating and maintaining coalition governments containing representatives from many political opinions. There is nothing wrong with this as this is one method of allowing diversity in governance. This is better than China's single party system.

Functional democracies have many methods and institutional mechanisms to protect the rights of the minority against the interests of the majority. Take the Swiss and their rotating presidency for example. The Swiss does not directly elect their president but the office is rotated among council members...

History Today - Switzerland: Mountains and minarets : Switzerland?s recent vote to ban the building of minarets drew widespread criticism. Natasha Proietto looks at the historical background to that decision, the result of a typically Swiss mixture

It can be argued that this method is 'undemocratic' at the popular level but very democratic at the representative level. The councillors are elected thus...

Swiss Federal Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It is precisely because of these many methods and institutional mechanisms of the democratic process that make the flawed democracies preferable over dictatorships, whether a dictator is of one man or one party.


Dictatorships always consider themselves to be 'perfect'. The one man or one party always claim to know what is best for country and citizens. Any dissension is violently squashed. Dissension is not possible unless there are information as to why the current system is not perfect, should be improved or even replaced. Functional democracies do not fear those information and the resulting dissensions because flawed functional democracies have those methods and institutional mechanisms to enact the changes the people want. But perfect dictatorships always fear information and dissensions.

We can keep debating the merits and de-merits of all systems of government and never come to a consensus. Let the people decide what is best for their country. From my personal experience, I can say that majority of Chinese are OK with the present system. At least, its a lot better than the governments they have had in the past and its giving them the results. Discussing which other systems would give better results, is purely speculative. Right now in China the Communist political and Capitalist economic models seems to be working well for them.

 

[gambit]

We can keep debating the merits and de-merits of all systems of government and never come to a consensus.

Nonsense...There is a consensus: Functional democracies are preferable over dictatorships.

Let the people decide what is best for their country.

Stalin and Mao never gave their people the chance.

From my personal experience, I can say that majority of Chinese are OK with the present system.

Really? Then why the controversy with an uncensored Google? The individual Chinese does not have to publicly expressed himself to dissatisfaction of the current one-party dictatorship in China. He learned the consequence of that many times over, Tiananmen Square murders for example. His only recourse is an unrestricted access to information provided by a foreign source. The Chinese government have a problem with that unrestricted access and put up a claim of protecting China against **** that no one take seriously.

At least, its a lot better than the governments they have had in the past and its giving them the results. Discussing which other systems would give better results, is purely speculative. Right now in China the Communist political and Capitalist economic models seems to be working well for them.

No arguments there. Better decades late than never.

 

[JohnyD]

Gambit...good one...just noticed one thing..u ve not thanked even a single person for his/her post...how mean..ppl ve thanked u 1,199 Times ...dont be like Chinese and accumulate others wealth give something in return...lol

 

[gambit]

Gambit...good one...just noticed one thing..u ve not thanked even a single person for his/her post...how mean..ppl ve thanked u 1,199 Times ...dont be like Chinese and accumulate others wealth give something in return...lol

Am not here to accumulate accolades. Some knows my appreciation for their contributions in other ways.

 

[Sino-PakFriendship]

Simply put...Chinese communism is actually a dictatorship in disguise

dictatorship of China is no relation to India!

USA have support many pro-USA dictators state since cold war (including now colour revolutions.)

Everything USA does for interest, not democracy!

 

[BJlaowai]

Nonsense...There is a consensus: Functional democracies are preferable over dictatorships.

Yeah. Hugo Chavez, Ahmedinajaz, Putin, Hitler... all came to power through democratic process.

Stalin and Mao never gave their people the chance.

Stalin and Mao are no longer around.
Mao didnt capture power all alone. There were millions of Chinese with him.
Todays China and Mao era China are worlds apart.

Really? Then why the controversy with an uncensored Google? The individual Chinese does not have to publicly expressed himself to dissatisfaction of the current one-party dictatorship in China. He learned the consequence of that many times over, Tiananmen Square murders for example. His only recourse is an unrestricted access to information provided by a foreign source. The Chinese government have a problem with that unrestricted access and put up a claim of protecting China against **** that no one take seriously.

Yes. This I agree with you. All these media and internet censorship is because of unfounded and extreme paronia nature of CPC and the need to have absolute control. I suppose there is a lot of scope for improvement and its happening, slowly and steadily. The country has come a long way from days of cultural revolution and there is a long way to go forward.

No arguments there. Better decades late than never.

 

[gambit]

Yeah. Hugo Chavez, Ahmedinajaz, Putin, Hitler... all came to power through democratic process.

The democratic process is independent of the characters of the people. It is telling that dictators often need said process before their evil characters are revealed once in power. It is telling that once these evil men are in power, they seek to remove other corrective methods and mechanisms that could remove them from power. Go back to the Swiss rotating presidency and see for yourself...

http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=33901&amid=30306164

They ingrained a rotating presidency among the seven federal councillors, so that no one leader would be able to assume personal power for long enough to mould the nation to his image. This guarantor of freedom through constant change was backed up by regular updates to the constitution throughout the course of the 19th century.

Chavez would have removed this safety mechanism if he was a Swiss.

Stalin and Mao are no longer around.
Mao didnt capture power all alone. There were millions of Chinese with him.
Todays China and Mao era China are worlds apart.

Millions of Chinese, like millions everywhere, were lied to by the communists. Show me a single communist country that are/were as prosperous and dynamic as the flawed functional democracies. The fact that post-Mao China is far different than Maoist China is proof of that great lie.

Yes. This I agree with you. All these media and internet censorship is because of unfounded and extreme paronia nature of CPC and the need to have absolute control. I suppose there is a lot of scope for improvement and its happening, slowly and steadily. The country has come a long way from days of cultural revolution and there is a long way to go forward.

Unless there is continuous pressure for change, from within and without, institutional inertia will arrest said progress. China's economy will regress and in response, the extremist elements in the PRC's government will emerge and will take China back to the political stone age. This flap over Google is one impediment to that progress.

 

[chinapakistan]

Exactly. Governments are representative of all the citizens of the country. The process of electing/selecting/nominating the members of the government vary from country to country. China has its own system within the single party where the selection is done based on meritocracy. All decisions are taken based on discussions & consensus within the party. Any Chinese can become a member of the party, as long as they meet some certain criteria ( persons education level, political ideology etc..)
Democracy is good, but not the perfect system. It has its flaws. It needs adaptation for every country based on its cultures, traditions, history, development level, diversity, size, complexity, education levels of the people, awareness of the people etc. We saw the flaws in the US presidential system in year 2000 elections. Bush became president even when he lost the popular vote, because of the electoral collage system. And the whole world had to pay the price of this flaw for 8 years.
India has parliamentary system of democratic government based on Westminster model. We can see what kind of leaders we get. Recent trends is towards coalition governments, wherein even a unworthy candidate with a support of few elected Members of Parliament can become a key person in the government.


There is a big difference between dictatorship and single party system. Nobody calls the Chinese premier as dictator, nor he has the absolute powers. Yes, CPC has the absolute power, but the party consists of millions of members, representing all China.

Shame on me, you know more about china than me.
US like pushing their standard to all the country in the world. They always think their system is best. They like talking human right and peace and bla bla bla, but all the war are started by US in recent decades. They are totally double standard.

 

[ssheppard]

Just stumbled upon this image.....