On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If censoring some things (like "the most offensive sorts of racial vilification you could possibly find"), and refusing to censor other things (like an historical account of a pro-democracy demonstration), is hypocrisy, then let me be the first to say that I'm in favor of hypocrisy.
Silly Anthony. Don't you know that China was simply asking Google to comply with local laws against morals-destroying smut, the propaganda of life-destroying evil cults, and the subversion of mass-murdering terrorists?
What's some peculiar racist humor compared with *that*? Strange moral standards you have there.
But then, treating one country differently from another country is not hypocrisy. Treating one situation differently from another situation is not hypocrisy. Looking at the relevant part of the Google statement, it was this: "We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all." http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
It was a statement specifically about the Chinese government, and about results on google.cn. Google did not claim or even imply that it was stopping all censorship altogether. So I don't see the hypocrisy.
It is, at the very least, inconsistent. One set of rules for the Chinese (and the world), and another set for the Australians. What difference is there between the 2 situations that justifies this? If there is no difference, then it's a plain contradiction. (Oh, you happen to agree with one and not the other? I see...)
(from smh article)
Mr Newhouse believes the site would be filtered under the Federal
Government's mandatory filter.
The plot thickens... Sure their articles racist and are basically designed offend everyone, however I personally don't feel conformable with the government being able to block a site like ED.
-- Chris
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If censoring some things (like "the most offensive sorts of racial vilification you could possibly find"), and refusing to censor other
things
(like an historical account of a pro-democracy demonstration), is
hypocrisy,
then let me be the first to say that I'm in favor of hypocrisy.
Silly Anthony. Don't you know that China was simply asking Google to comply with local laws against morals-destroying smut, the propaganda of life-destroying evil cults, and the subversion of mass-murdering terrorists?
What's some peculiar racist humor compared with *that*? Strange moral standards you have there.
But then, treating one country differently from another country is not hypocrisy. Treating one situation differently from another situation is
not
hypocrisy. Looking at the relevant part of the Google statement, it was this: "We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be
discussing
with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all." http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
It was a statement specifically about the Chinese government, and about results on google.cn. Google did not claim or even imply that it was stopping all censorship altogether. So I don't see the hypocrisy.
It is, at the very least, inconsistent. One set of rules for the Chinese (and the world), and another set for the Australians. What difference is there between the 2 situations that justifies this? If there is no difference, then it's a plain contradiction. (Oh, you happen to agree with one and not the other? I see...)
-- gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
To be honest I don't totally see it as hypocrisy, inconsistent? Perhaps a bit, I actually saw the Google statement as less "we don't support censorship" and more of a "you broke the implicit (or explicit I don't know) agreement. I think the biggest thing was that Google thought that if we were working with China and going along with their filtering they should be leaving us alone. Instead they decided to attack us and therefore we can no longer trust them.
User:Jamesofur James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu Wiki:jamesofur@gmail.com Wiki%3Ajamesofur@gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :)
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Christopher Grant < chrisgrantmail@gmail.com> wrote:
(from smh article)
Mr Newhouse believes the site would be filtered under the Federal
Government's mandatory filter.
The plot thickens... Sure their articles racist and are basically designed offend everyone, however I personally don't feel conformable with the government being able to block a site like ED.
-- Chris
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
If censoring some things (like "the most offensive sorts of racial vilification you could possibly find"), and refusing to censor other
things
(like an historical account of a pro-democracy demonstration), is
hypocrisy,
then let me be the first to say that I'm in favor of hypocrisy.
Silly Anthony. Don't you know that China was simply asking Google to comply with local laws against morals-destroying smut, the propaganda of life-destroying evil cults, and the subversion of mass-murdering terrorists?
What's some peculiar racist humor compared with *that*? Strange moral standards you have there.
But then, treating one country differently from another country is not hypocrisy. Treating one situation differently from another situation
is
not
hypocrisy. Looking at the relevant part of the Google statement, it
was
this: "We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring
our
results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be
discussing
with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all." http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-approach-to-china.html
It was a statement specifically about the Chinese government, and about results on google.cn. Google did not claim or even imply that it was stopping all censorship altogether. So I don't see the hypocrisy.
It is, at the very least, inconsistent. One set of rules for the Chinese (and the world), and another set for the Australians. What difference is there between the 2 situations that justifies this? If there is no difference, then it's a plain contradiction. (Oh, you happen to agree with one and not the other? I see...)
-- gwern
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
James Alexander wrote:
I think the biggest thing was that Google thought that if we were working with China and going along with their filtering they should be leaving us alone.
So far, so standard for Western corporations in Asia. "Oh, you mean we have to understand the culture as well as the market?" The point being that the implied division makes more sense to one side than to the other.
Well, fortunately, WP appears to be able to get away with its "non-business" model.
Charles