5 ms·

Did anyone else draw a parallel to the current Internet censorship in China? There are differences of course, but they are both instances in which the governme

by dailo10 17y ago

Did anyone else draw a parallel to the current Internet censorship in China? There are differences of course, but they are both instances in which the government feels threatened by the power of information that the Internet gives the individual.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
anigbrowl 17y ago
No. Every government and large organization has secrets; a small number are legitimate, a larger number are maintained for reasons of venality, to hide incompetence and so forth. The US has a very open society, notwithstanding its various flaws. China takes a different approach. Not only does its government obscure its own workings from its population, it seeks to cut them off from ideas which differ substantively from its philosophy of governance. I'm not sure that the intent of this is necessarily evil; to mind it's more like an extreme case of paternalism. The Chinese rulers may figure that untrammeled democracy in china would quickly degenerate into mob politics followed civil or externally directed war. On the one hand I find such an attitude most disagreeable and the tactics employed to that end almost comical; on the other hand, the country went through a painful spasm of mob politics during Mao's cultural revolution relatively recently, and it's understandable if they have no desire to repeat the experience. Whatever the reasons, Chinese society predates even western civilization, is historically somewhat more homogenous and also somewhat authoritarian. The long-term direction of such a society changes slowly.
- lenley 17y ago
  Let's not forget that there have been numerous revolutions within American society that made representative government more representative of the actual population of United States citizens. It's hard to evaluate the progression of democracy over time when comparing such vastly different societies as you have mentioned...also we should not use the U.S. example as some sort of normalized index... Not saying you were doing that, just throwing it out there.
ErrantX 17y ago
Yes, and no. Because while clearly there are parallels in that they feel threatened I think that, ultimately, there is a line which the US currently hasn't crossed (e.g. stifling media reports about wikileaks, snatching them and imprisoning them on fluff charges, human rights abuses etc.). Additionally what scares them is the handing out of classified material; which isn't quite the same as stifling criticism of the government etc. Whatever your feeling on whether it should be classified or not they have an obligation to reasonably mitigate information they consider secret. There is a very very fine line and, if true, I feel it's being extremely closely tread on this occasion. (just to add: I support both sides in this, so sorry if I am sat on a fence somewhat :D)
- rdtsc 17y ago
  > Ultimately, there is a line which the US currently hasn't crossed If US government is killing civilians in various countries and is orchestrating arrests of minors, morally it is not really rising above China by much. Yeah, it is not sending 'guidelines' to the media, because there are other methods of influencing what gets published and what doesn't -- namely intimidation of journalists and sources, appeals to the owners of media corporations and so on. > Additionally what scares them is the handing out of classified material; Well what kind of classified material? Yes, if these are nuclear launch codes, or frequency hopping codes of military radios, they would have a valid reason to detect the source of the leak. I think most of us and most US citizens would agree with the government doing that. But these are videos of slaughtering of civilians. At this point, the CIA should be appologizing and not running around arresting and following people. There are now showing their true face (well to the rest of us who didn't know it yet). > Whatever your feeling on whether it should be classified or not they have an obligation to reasonably mitigate information they consider secret. That is what I have a problem with -- "an obligation". Obligation to who? Government? Why should we have an obligation to them that trumps our moral sense of right and wrong? Luckily there is someone there, who is an actual human being, with a moral sense, that knows that killing innocent people is wrong no matter how many classification layers get slapped on top of it. That is why these leaks happened. Someone put their job, freedom (and life?) at risk because they felt that the "obligation to hide murder under the carpet" is wrong.
mo34 17y ago
The parallel appears to be a gross misunderstanding of what sovereignty is and what powers are afforded to sovereign entities. It is naive to assume that governments operate under the same guidelines as corporations and individuals. They do not - they make laws, they break laws, they do and know things that require no explanation to the 'general public' - indeed revealing some of these facts (aliens are invading in 2012, etc.) will escalate panic and confusion and detract from getting to the solution sooner.
lucifer 17y ago
http://counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html http://counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html

by dailo10 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

anigbrowl 17y ago

No. Every government and large organization has secrets; a small number are legitimate, a larger number are maintained for reasons of venality, to hide incompetence and so forth. The US has a very open society, notwithstanding its various flaws. China takes a different approach. Not only does its government obscure its own workings from its population, it seeks to cut them off from ideas which differ substantively from its philosophy of governance. I'm not sure that the intent of this is necessarily evil; to mind it's more like an extreme case of paternalism. The Chinese rulers may figure that untrammeled democracy in china would quickly degenerate into mob politics followed civil or externally directed war. On the one hand I find such an attitude most disagreeable and the tactics employed to that end almost comical; on the other hand, the country went through a painful spasm of mob politics during Mao's cultural revolution relatively recently, and it's understandable if they have no desire to repeat the experience. Whatever the reasons, Chinese society predates even western civilization, is historically somewhat more homogenous and also somewhat authoritarian. The long-term direction of such a society changes slowly.

lenley 17y ago
Let's not forget that there have been numerous revolutions within American society that made representative government more representative of the actual population of United States citizens. It's hard to evaluate the progression of democracy over time when comparing such vastly different societies as you have mentioned...also we should not use the U.S. example as some sort of normalized index... Not saying you were doing that, just throwing it out there.

ErrantX 17y ago

Yes, and no. Because while clearly there are parallels in that they feel threatened I think that, ultimately, there is a line which the US currently hasn't crossed (e.g. stifling media reports about wikileaks, snatching them and imprisoning them on fluff charges, human rights abuses etc.). Additionally what scares them is the handing out of classified material; which isn't quite the same as stifling criticism of the government etc. Whatever your feeling on whether it should be classified or not they have an obligation to reasonably mitigate information they consider secret. There is a very very fine line and, if true, I feel it's being extremely closely tread on this occasion. (just to add: I support both sides in this, so sorry if I am sat on a fence somewhat :D)

rdtsc 17y ago
> Ultimately, there is a line which the US currently hasn't crossed If US government is killing civilians in various countries and is orchestrating arrests of minors, morally it is not really rising above China by much. Yeah, it is not sending 'guidelines' to the media, because there are other methods of influencing what gets published and what doesn't -- namely intimidation of journalists and sources, appeals to the owners of media corporations and so on. > Additionally what scares them is the handing out of classified material; Well what kind of classified material? Yes, if these are nuclear launch codes, or frequency hopping codes of military radios, they would have a valid reason to detect the source of the leak. I think most of us and most US citizens would agree with the government doing that. But these are videos of slaughtering of civilians. At this point, the CIA should be appologizing and not running around arresting and following people. There are now showing their true face (well to the rest of us who didn't know it yet). > Whatever your feeling on whether it should be classified or not they have an obligation to reasonably mitigate information they consider secret. That is what I have a problem with -- "an obligation". Obligation to who? Government? Why should we have an obligation to them that trumps our moral sense of right and wrong? Luckily there is someone there, who is an actual human being, with a moral sense, that knows that killing innocent people is wrong no matter how many classification layers get slapped on top of it. That is why these leaks happened. Someone put their job, freedom (and life?) at risk because they felt that the "obligation to hide murder under the carpet" is wrong.

mo34 17y ago

The parallel appears to be a gross misunderstanding of what sovereignty is and what powers are afforded to sovereign entities. It is naive to assume that governments operate under the same guidelines as corporations and individuals. They do not - they make laws, they break laws, they do and know things that require no explanation to the 'general public' - indeed revealing some of these facts (aliens are invading in 2012, etc.) will escalate panic and confusion and detract from getting to the solution sooner.

lucifer 17y ago

http://counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html http://counterpunch.org/roberts03242010.html