Google Blogoscoped

Forum

Yu Ling Says Yahoo Betrayed Her Husband  (View post)

/pd [PersonRank 10]

Friday, March 16, 2007
17 years ago5,773 views

.."who now entered the US to hold Yahoo accountable for their complicity"

Sue Yahoo for $1Billion.. Heck if viacom could sue for $1B for copyrights, why the heck is a person's life/privacy not worth the same eh ??

I wish there was a campign on the net for her .. I hope she wins!!

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

A sadness story. At least, Google not betray anyone. I think Yahoo also did his best, only can not carry that big press.

For the leading actor, Wang Xiaoning should know how to be safe. Do not touch politics. It is danger at any place, not only in China.

Economy, Politics, War; Politics is the 2nd layer. So danger, near the war. You can have a dream, but first think if you can make yourself to be safe.

Stay at economy is clever. I suggest, Google can build a common censorship API, the information can not pass censorship will be stoped. So this sad story will not happen again.

This is world, this is china, this is politics, just make everything mildness. Both happy, both rich, and both safe.

Colin Colehour [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

You can't blame Yahoo for this though. Any US company that does business in China has to follow China's laws. If they don't like the laws they don't have to do business in China. Companies choose to stay in China because its a huge market. I agree on a personal level that this is the worst thing that could happen but its not entirely Yahoo's fault.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

Who do you think is to blame though Colin? The police offers who arrested Xiaoning? They too were just following orders. Or do you think the only person to be blamed is the on who *gives* orders? Well, that would mean on a hypothetical planet of 999,999 moral and innocent inhibitants, 1 evil inhibitant is enough to destroy the whole planet – he'll just have to give the order.

We can only know how much Yahoo is to blame if we know the specifics of the case, but if they were indeed involved, then yes, they are partly to blame, IMO.

Colin Colehour [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

Blame the government, they are the ones who created these laws. They are the ones who force censorship on the entire country. Why do you think Gmail is not available in China? Its because Google does not want to give the chinese gov't full access to everyone's email messages.

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

The Chinese government is much more to blame than any western IT company. But that fact doesn't defend the likes of Yahoo who receive a part of the blame in this case. When IBM back in the 30s helped the Nazis to categorize its people using the IBM machines, which were partly manufactured and maintained specifically for this purpose (back then IBM's boss received the highest medal of honor a foreigner could formally get from Hitler!), then that doesn't mean we should blame IBM for the Holocaust – but we must still point out IBM's responsibility in it. And no, I'm not comparing Yahoo to IBM, or China to Nazis, etc., I'm just illustrating the type of argument we're having.

Colin Colehour [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

Philipp you make a great point there. All of the blame can't be focused on just the chinese gov't. American companies enter that market because they want to make money for their shareholders. Hopefully some day we won't see things like this happen in any country.

Google will hopefully make the right decisions on which area they put their focus on in China.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/01/google-in-china.html

/pd [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

oh thats an interesting factriod Philipp!! thanks for sharing

==>>"Blame the government, they are the ones who created these laws."

yeah, how about starting with the current Admin – FBI scandal(s) , Wiretapping and all that blah blah stuff..

The point in making – is that if the .gov.us asks YHOO, GOOGs or MSFT then this the companies crys wolf and tries to lobby with its users... How come they dont do the same in other countries ?? Yeah, how about China sending h/w and s/w to the Africian states to monitor the wire there ??

and lets not forget the corporate espionage happening in china.so its just not about its citizens its also about $$$$$

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,21362878%5E15841%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

I only can say, in front of huge market, nobody is HERO. Yahoo should selected keep the secret and stop the business in china. But this Here only acting at Holleywood.

I think Yahoo no rights to decide, it is a public company. It is everyone's voting make Yu's husband in the prison.
It is not a joke, that means, it is the American's democracy bring this result.

It is complex for politics, if Yahoo is a company like an arbitrary country, maybe Yahoo can be a hero and save Yu's husband. It the democrarcy betrayed Yu's husband.

Also, for Google, his no evil, some elements for politics really a little arbitrary, if it is a public vote company, Google should not like this in china.
Google is a public company, but not a public vote company. I think. But it is also a risk for this company.

Tommy10s [PersonRank 0]

17 years ago #

Yahoo is turning away from being a technology company towards being a content/media company. This is a good decision, given their absolute high level failure to be a (or the) technological leader. Yahoo Panama is in process of being recognized ever more as a complete failure- though the market has yet to recognize the extent to which this statement is true.

That being said, content, content, content. UGC. User base loyalty. That's where Yahoo places its bets. A media company. That derives value from user experience, user loyalty. Yahoo had a chance to become the underground communication vehicle for the progressive pro-business pro-western Chinese thought leadership.

Instead, it decided to (myopically in my opinion) play ball with a leadership structure that represents the past and only the near term future. Perhaps my view is too pro-western skewed. But imagine the Internet existed as it does now, in 1987... and we had Soviet citizen thought leaders blogging in the same spirit, and we turned our backs on them at the 11th hour... hmmm.

Yahoo had a chance to side on the side of the righteous- the side of free thought, free information flow... and champion the long side of a huge evolving market that from a western business is not nearly as interesting in what they currently are, as what they will be... talk about a chance to win the hearts and minds of a market share that eclipses their current world-wide user base. Yahoo failed. Yahoo gains short term to stay in a restrictive market that (history has proven) will incite internal uprisings- the leaders of which will be future political/business leaders. In a competition of future hearts and minds, Yahoo’s will carry a scar of betrayal.

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

[put at-character here]Hong Xiaowan: Politics is too important to stay away from. The lesson people should draw from this is not simply to stay away from politics in authoritarian regimes like the PRC; rather, people should also realize that the government tries to scare people away from politics because they are afraid of the consequences of an informed electorate; loss of power and control. I'm not saying that people ought to take big risks like Wang Xiaoning did, and potentially pay the price, but the moral shouldn't be to stay away from politics, especially in *free* and *democratic* countries outside China where people *can* and *should* make a fuss to encourage their elected leaders to condemn such oppression, and the companies that allow this.

As for democracy causing this... No, democracy did not cause this. Rather, a lack of democracy caused this. Greed and authoritarianism caused this terrible incident. A "public" company just means that people are allowed to buy shares of that company and use those shares to influence decisions; unfortunately, the biggest power brokers here are the wealthiest (and often greediest) investors who hold the majority of the stock. Even so, the greater blame by far falls upon Yahoo's corporate leadership. Not only are they often the biggest stockholders, but they made the decision on how to go into China. They made the decision to not only respect the law, but to get into bed with the one of the most oppressive forces in the country, the censors. You can not blame democracy; the blame lies with those consumed by greed for money (Yahoo's leaders) and power (China's leaders).

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

China's main policy is to hug the peace and the rich, so have to keep the stabilization. Wang Xiaoning did not play a big game, but china have to prevent everything from small to big.

In China, if you work hard, also can have the good life. The salary low, but the price also low. Also if you likes, you can also join the voting for the officials.

China GCD now just become a mark. Many officials are not GCD. And, if you ask a official if he is a GCD member, he will feel you are strange or brain bad. Like China is still marked a soviet country but really a capitalism country same as USA.

China is a GCD constitutionality country, like Japan, a monarchy constitutionality country. GCD or monarchy, just a Mark. Now, GCD rules are replaced with the public law. Different country should on the different settlement plan. Everything changing better, China Politics also have its own way towards democracy.

Not matter China law is right or not, as the basic rule, before the law modified, person must obey the law.

The truth is Wang Xiaoning broke the law. Yahoo runing at china, so must obey the law. It is not a democracy case, it is just a law case. Simple.

By the way, Hero on the HW film always break the law and keep the justice. Is this right – believing a hero instead of believing the law? It is complex too. Who as a hero can get the real justice and anti the stupid law really great. But also really crazy......

My friends asked: "Are you crazy?"
Me: "Sometimes"

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

> Not matter China law is right or not, as the basic
> rule, before the law modified, person must obey
> the law.

No – if the law is highly immoral, then it is morally right to show civil disobedience. Or are you saying that deporting people like it happened in Nazi Germany is moral because it was officially ordered & sanctioned? This does not mean it's simple to show civil disobedience, quite the opposite, it's the bravest thing in the world to do so if your life is threatened.

(Disclaimer, as usual: I'm not arguing that China's government is like Nazis.)

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

So I said I am crazy sometimes.

1.If Wang Xiaoning is my friend and the law really immoral, I will try my best to save him.
2.If Wang Xiaoning not my friend and the law really immoral, I will told him to be careful. And remove all his records on Yahoo.
3.If the law is under common understanding, no matter Wang Xiaoning is my friends or not, I will suggest he cop-out and tell him I will call police.

I did not know what content does Wang Xiaoning emailed. Anyway, anti-law is not safe. This is a hard work. We should use some rules against another immoral rules(or disregards these). At least, China law is right on the paper. So I wonder what content does Wang Xiaoning emailed. Can you tell me?

Philipp Lenssen [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

From the Wired article: "Wang writes about politics, anonymously e-mailing his online e-journals to a group of Yahoo users". Xiaoning was a dissident, according to another source, and he was convicted for "incitement to subvert state power." See:
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2006-08-11-n42.html

Let me put it differently, Xiaowan: I write a lot about Google China censorship. I believe if I'd be a Chinese in China, and not completely safe in Germany, my life would now be in danger, simply because I speak about something. You know this, that's why google.blogoscoped.cn doesn't include certain article translations from here, which are moved to googleblogoscopedcn.blogspot.com. Do you believe Chinese laws are moral for jailing Chinese that criticize Chinese censorship, politics, and so on?

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

Yes, you are part right. If you in China, you can use multi names and multi router servers to hide your real IP. Just to prevent be annoyed. But you are still safe if you only speak about this.

In fact, many persons speaking this in China, they not afraid of Annoying. Play with Police sometimes really funny.

They are the foxes that know the law detailes. You can criticize GOV, or even scold, it is safe, only a little busy. Some officials will often ask you some questions, alway calling you for their new ideas, they afraid of your criticism.

If I not like China or even hate China, I can move to USA, to any place, also can stay in China, saying China is bad, no problem. But the base line is this, not to hurt China.

This topic seams to be endless. China is changing. I believe everything will be better and better.

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

[put at-character here]Hong Xiaowan: Yahoo must obey the law, yes, but it should have stayed out of personal information gathering like this, as I think Google has aimed to do, rather than deciding to run services that it knows the government would want information about "dissident" from.

I also agree that immoral laws should be protested. If China allowed free speech and civil protests (with minimal hassle over "protest permits"), then people could lawfully express their opposition. Since China's leadership has decided such freedoms and rights are too dangerous to allow, at least for now, though, the people have no choice but to turn to civil disobediance to protest injustice, if speaking your mind is made a crime and labeled "inciting unrest" or other such nonsense.

Moving to another country is not feasible for everyone, sadly, and even if it was possible, many people wouldn't want to go. Just because they don't leave because the drawbacks outweigh the benefits, though, doesn't mean they shouldn't strive against what they see as unjust.

I also agree that China will improve with time, and eventually a democracy will probably form, but how long will that take, and what unecessary sacrifices will be made along the way? Taking a "wait and see" attitude will just slow the transition to a free system of government. Leaders need to be reminded that their people *want* to live under a just system. In the meantime, an unjust system continues to punish those who want their homeland to embrace democratic principles.

To me, China's leaders do not seem eager to adopt a true, democratic constitution any time in the remotely near future. Democracy and human rights (and by human rights, I don't just mean food and water, as the PRC sometimes claims) don't need to mean less stability, security, and progress. Movements for freedom are only detrimental to the country if the country tries to suppress them. China's leadership is wise enough to ease government pressure over time, but not wise enough to willingly begin adopting human rights.

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

[put at-character here]Mysterius

1.China have free speech that limited by the law. After the civil protests controled, China became a safe country for investores. Now you can also register civil protests, after the gov approvaled, you can do this under the paper work that within the permitted.

2.China is a old politics country. In the past old years, politics was the life. But now the GOV try to remove politics in the life. Full bottle can not filled with new water. Remove the old water is the 1st step to fill the democracy.

3.China now running at a special democracy, USA water with soviet bottle. Politics is complex. China need this old bottle(in fact, almost everyone forget this bottle). Politics is the layer between WAR and ECONOMY, try to change it will hurt the ECONOMY and bring the WAR. "Let it be" is safer than "Make it be". Break a old machine and build a new machine is stupid for this huge country. And this way itself is not democracy any more.

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

[put at-character here]Hong Xiaowan:

1. Free speech is not free speech if it's government sanitized.

2. So the government tries to remove knowledge of politics to instill its own brand of correct politcal thought? (Another way to express what you said.)

3. The PRC's "Chinese" brand of democracy is a sham. It's true that transitions are dangerous, but the danger in this slow approach is that the government is tempted to drag its feet and delay change even further. After all, if no one's complaining about the current system, why should they try to improve things for the better? The government needs to have a force pushing them to imrpove, and that must be the governed.

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

1.After your free speech become a action that can hurt others freedom, it is forbidden at any country.

2.Yes, we should forget something that in the old ages. Full of mistakes. Now the new brand is peace and rich. China have copied many elements from USA politics.

3.China democracy works. China gov have a large group to search everything for politics structure informations and then research them and picked some useful items to use. China agree to improve, but changing must be under a reasonable plan.

I am just a common fashion designer. Many persons like me did not want big changes. If the big change for politics hurt ECONOMY, we do not like this change. We just say byebye to the hungry poor lives no so long, who wants to be back?

"Delay always the women's special right." Sometimes, delay really useful.

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

1. So why aren't more protests against the government's interests allowed?

2. I'm not really sure where #2 is going, though it may be due to a mistranslation. As far as I could tell, what you originally said was that the government has decided that the people should not concern themselves with politics. I don't think I really caught your metaphor with the bottle and "new water" to replace "old water" with. (I'd appreciate it if anyone else would chime in with their own interpretation.) Replying to your last post, though, I'd say that any democratic elements in China's current system of government must be either very weak or warped. An example to the contrary might help.

3. Makes no difference. A principle of democracy is that a well-educated electorate knows better than a select group of leaders. If you're familar with "Web 2.0", then this concept shouldn't be hard to grasp.

And I see that political change has become intrinsically linked to economic chaos in the common view of the people. A shame, because that needn't be so.

I'm not sure where your quote/saying comes from, but I will repeat that though a slow and steady approach is workable, it needs pressure from the people to make sure change doesn't slow too much.

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

1.There is a oil painting, if you let people point the ugly, all ugly, if you let people point the beauty, all beauties.

2.King was a top dangerous work in China before. Also same with the other officials work. Full of blood, dead. You are not chinese, you can not feel this. After 1990, the changes coming, China Gov use many elements from USA politics. Instead of killing, the voting is the standard to select who can fit for a target position.

3.We voting the zone leader based on who can give us more profits. It is simple. For workers, they also care about their life, who can protect them to have more salary with less working.

China is huge, also weak. Little changes can bring big waves. We are tired of too many revolutions before, now, we just need changes a little, then a little. And these changes must pass the voting.

This image can display something, this building will be remove after court decided.

http://news.huash.com/gb/images/2007-03/20/xin_240304200611250977214.jpg

Mysterius [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

[put at-character here]Hong Xiaowang: I'm second generation Chinese-American (my parents immigrated to the US) and I just returned from Shanghai a few weeks ago.

1. Or in other terms: no one (or simply fewer people) notices the flaws without any critics to point out them out. That doesn't mean they aren't there, though.

2. I know that China's leaders shy away from physically eliminating their opponents now. That isn't incorporating "US politics"; there's nothing special about the fact that US politics in general don't involve killing your opponents. It's virtually common sense in stable societies. It's not bringing *democratic* reform to the system. Who votes for the top leaders? The People's Congress doesn't count as democratic body yet.

3. I'm still hopeful that local elections such as this will sooner or later demonstrate that there's no reason full democracy can't work in China.
Now, going back to your original post wtih point #3... I don't see why China is so special that it needs a "special democracy" to run it. What is the average person afraid of? That such a "sudden change" will bring a revolution that'll shatter the economy and plunge the country into war... how?

Gradual change *can* work, and it's wise to implement changes in government smoothly, if you can. It's just this sense of complacency that worries me; will the leaders give up rule by decree for democratic government if the people don't see it as a priority?

And why was that single house left standing so alone? Was the owner of the house paid fairly? And given an equivalent-sized apartment in the same area?

BlindMan [PersonRank 0]

17 years ago #

I've heard about this last year. Since then for me all yahoo pages are blacklisted and I do not care any more about their existence. People want to do something to protest ? Don't use yahoo and send them messages telling them why! Shame on you all people from yahoo!!!

Hong Xiaowan [PersonRank 10]

17 years ago #

[put at-character here]Mysterius

Sorry, I think you are an american.

Within china long history, the politics structure was absolute monarchy, this structure always have some problems when the old King died. It was not a shame, just the fact, you were on the selection, kill yourself or kill your opponents, and usually the opponents were your brothers or your father or other family members.

But you now can see the changes, After Deng Xiaoping, two generation leader groups changed. All peace, no blood.

China is a huge but weak country. "Sudden change" really dangerous although with "Democracy" name that lost real democracy sprit. Gov used 30 years to make china to be a full market country. Should have another years to make china to be a full democracy. You must agree, china now is a part democracy country.

How many years? No time table, let the voting, the basic democracy rule decide.

You just back from Shanghai, did you visit of this famous building at Shanghai?

http://file.guanshui.com/photo/2/65/200712_1757158_531950.jpg
http://file.guanshui.com/photo/2/65/200712_8333194_531953.jpg
http://file.guanshui.com/photo/2/65/200712_7340837_531959.jpg
http://file.guanshui.com/photo/2/65/200712_6454398_531951.jpg

But 3-13, they are moving now. The owner ask for 400 0000rmb and a big size new shop. The owner win.

http://image2.sina.com.cn/dy/s/2007-03-14/cf802b2a41b3373d07314054a8b6d59f.jpg

The other single house I posted before is at Chongqing, owner ask 4000 0000 rmb but finally got 350 0000rmb. Sure, with the same size same positon new house.

What is fair? 350 0000 can buy 10 same buildings at Taizhou.

Forum home

Advertisement

 
Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About
Advertisement

 

This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!