(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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Anthony <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
