Clinton seeks to fight internet censorship

Mar 2009
2,188
2
In light of the recent Google-China issue, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton is expected to announce a greater focus on fighting international internet censorship. Part of this plan includes funding grassroots organizations which fight censorship.

reference: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...461404882830.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

Thoughts?
Google must be happy that they now have the Government on their side as well! What a marvelous public relations campaign this must have been for them. Even when they were sending messages everywhere threatening to leave China, I really and truly wonder if that has ever been their intention. For me this has to be a giant corporation trying to get greater market share in China. I am certain that this will become a text book campaign to be remembered, and am very curious to see what the outcome of it is going to be.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Google must be happy that they now have the Government on their side as well! What a marvelous public relations campaign this must have been for them. Even when they were sending messages everywhere threatening to leave China, I really and truly wonder if that has ever been their intention. For me this has to be a giant corporation trying to get greater market share in China. I am certain that this will become a text book campaign to be remembered, and am very curious to see what the outcome of it is going to be.
I really don't see it as such. The move could be the opposite- to avoid bad publicity for giving in to censorship- but I don't see this as something planned. Google already has a great reputation in the United States and Europe, among its millions of users as well as green groups and worker rights groups due to their amazing treatment of workers and very green corporate complex. Also, you said this will help them get greater market share in China, so do you expect them to not pull out?
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
Okay here I go again.:( I agree we should get on their case about the Chinese hackers. But I am not so sure the US is doing everything so well that we need to tell the Chinese how to handle internet censorship in China.

Can we ever take a break and let the rest of the world take care of their own business? When some other country tries to tell us how to do things here, I am one of the first with the one finger salute. And since I believe so strongly in our rights, it is only fair that I argue for their right of self rule. If we only stir the pot over things that are our business we will have more than enough soup.
10.gif
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
Can we ever take a break and let the rest of the world take care of their own business? When some other country tries to tell us how to do things here, I am one of the first with the one finger salute. And since I believe so strongly in our rights, it is only fair that I argue for their right of self rule. If we only stir the pot over things that are our business we will have more than enough soup.
I completely agree with you on this. While censorship is horrible, it is the Chinese people who should be fighting for their rights if they want them, not Clinton or our already red-inked budget.
 
Mar 2009
2,188
2
Okay here I go again.:( I agree we should get on their case about the Chinese hackers. But I am not so sure the US is doing everything so well that we need to tell the Chinese how to handle internet censorship in China.

Can we ever take a break and let the rest of the world take care of their own business? When some other country tries to tell us how to do things here, I am one of the first with the one finger salute. And since I believe so strongly in our rights, it is only fair that I argue for their right of self rule. If we only stir the pot over things that are our business we will have more than enough soup.
10.gif
Well said!

Also, Google may have a great reputation with most people, but I find Google much too intrusive with their little bots. I don't trust Google. They were great when they were still up and coming, but for me they are going the typical way of most large corporations. Their point of view to me is very arrogant. I did not buy it! Either they should have moved out of China or not said anything at all. Like threatening to kill someone with a water pistol!
 
Mar 2009
2,188
2
Don't you think it "arrogant" of politicians to think they have a mandate to make decisions on your behalf?:rolleyes:
I thought that had nothing to do with arrogance. Their mandate is written in the law? That is what all the elections are about? Or is that just so that they can charge everyone taxes? :unsure:
 
Last edited:
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
I thought that had nothing to do with arrogance. Their mandate is written in the law? That is what all the elections are about? Or is that just so that they can charge everyone taxes? :unsure:

Nah, it shuts people up, so they complain less about a lack of democracy. Also, people thinking they change things by voting for people, means that they're less likely to actually try to change things.

They think ordinary people are too stupid to look after themselves. In fact, that's their excuse - there's a lot of literature in the early 1900s intellectual culture. In the US and in Europe.
 
Mar 2009
2,188
2
They think ordinary people are too stupid to look after themselves.
I thought that the Government was by the people for the people, and that the problem is more along the lines of people not knowing how to look after themselves rather than being too stupid to do so. So all these different parties then come up with some choices for them (distorted by the media), which may even confuse them more?:unsure:
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
I thought that the Government was by the people for the people, and that the problem is more along the lines of people not knowing how to look after themselves rather than being too stupid to do so. So all these different parties then come up with some choices for them (distorted by the media), which may even confuse them more?:unsure:

The idea that Government is by the people, for the people is somewhat naive, though i presume you were being ironic there. Basically, apparently, the "bewildered herd" (Lippman) are to be "spectators, not participants" (Lippman again) - that's their role in a democracy. They are ruled. They do not rule.
 
Mar 2009
2,188
2
The idea that Government is by the people, for the people is somewhat naive, though i presume you were being ironic there.
Right. I sometimes wonder whether people give their freedom away to Government during elections, so that they don't have to be bothered with Government for the rest of the time except in arm chair capacities in front of TVs and the Internet?
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
Right. I sometimes wonder whether people give their freedom away to Government during elections, so that they don't have to be bothered with Government for the rest of the time except in arm chair capacities in front of TVs and the Internet?

Probably. That's my thinking. They say "well, i voted - i've done my democratic duty", and then that's it.
 
Mar 2009
2,188
2
Probably. That's my thinking. They say "well, i voted - i've done my democratic duty", and then that's it.
I would rather think that they would say:"I've elected them to do the job, and that is where my responsibility ends", or better yet, maybe it has become so much of a system, they do it automatically and don't think about it at all?
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
Probably. That's my thinking. They say "well, i voted - i've done my democratic duty", and then that's it.
I vote instead of just waiting to see if I like the one the voters elected. I have failed to vote 4 times in 40 years. Once I was in the hospital and twice I was out of the state. The last time was when I switched from democrat to republican. That year they would not let me vote in the primary.:mad:
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
I vote instead of just waiting to see if I like the one the voters elected. I have failed to vote 4 times in 40 years. Once I was in the hospital and twice I was out of the state. The last time was when I switched from democrat to republican. That year they would not let me vote in the primary.:mad:

My problem is that no candidate, whatever party they are affiliated with, repreents my views. Only i can truly represent my own views. Even if a libertarian socialist ran - which i doubt (there aren't very many of us and we generally see voting as giving legitimancy to politicians to run our lives) - i'd imagine a few of our views would remain different.

If i ever vote, it'll be for myself or my clone.
 
Mar 2009
2,751
6
Undisclosed
My problem is that no candidate, whatever party they are affiliated with, repreents my views. Only i can truly represent my own views. Even if a libertarian socialist ran - which i doubt (there aren't very many of us and we generally see voting as giving legitimancy to politicians to run our lives) - i'd imagine a few of our views would remain different.

If i ever vote, it'll be for myself or my clone.
I would never vote for me. I would probably be accused of "protectionism". Not to snub any other countries, but just to get our business in order. We need to start making our own products and raising our own food again. Stay out of other countries business and keep them out of ours. The old sweep our own doorstep kind of thing. Look how much less government that would take.

See why I should never run things?:p
 
Top