Google stops censoring its search engine in China

[Masada]

Australian politicians are meant to express a mandate which the electorate are meant to implicitly endorse when they vote. This is meant to inform and guide Australian politicians as to the percieved desires of the electorate. Prospective governments are likewise meant to follow the electoral mandate under which they ran. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work when the mandate consists of bland electoral slogans which cannot under any circumstances be construed to be an implicit assumption of voter approval for anything, except vague elecotral slogans. Governments and politicians are quite happy to ignore that point. In their eyes anything they come up with and want to pass into law automatically falls under their slogan orientated electoral mandate. That's the theory.

The reality is even worse. There has been little to no discussion of the matter by either party. It was not mentioned during the election. It wasn't part of either parties electoral pitch. And it will not be subject to the level of scrutiny that is required by the Westminister system since the plurality of both major parties -- and to a lesser extent the Greens -- are a pack of totalitarian pricks. And yes the Greens operate in the same strand of Australian political thought that the others operate in the one which operates under the assumption that if evil is done in the service of good, that evil is entirely justifiable.

 

[Tee Kay]

(Edit: never mind. incoherant post on my part)

(To Mods: I'd really like a "delete post" button.)

 

[Kraznaya]

Ugh, I can't use the Google.com portal anymore. I'm now being forcibly redirected to Google.hk. Although Chinese computers used to automatically redirect Google.com to Google.cn, my USA-bought computer was able to access Google.com all this time, a loophole they have inadvertently removed with this change. =/

 

[Dachs]

The obvious solution, Kraz, is to go back to the United States. Or, hell, even the United Kingdom. I hear Oxford's lovely...

 

[Kraznaya]

Or, hell, even the United Kingdom. I hear Oxford's lovely...

I would probably give up my left arm to go there if I could. =/

 

[Shekwan]

Good on Google. Too bad it can't last.

No it doesn't.

In a democracy we (well, not me, other people) select our "representatives". These representatives once they get into parliament can do what they want without these actions actually being directly supported by the people. A bill only has to pass through other representatives, not a referendum.

I worded that one wrong. I meant that at least the Australians are the only people who are to blame for voting in an authoritarian government, the Chinese had no such control over their destiny.

Australian politicians are meant to express a mandate which the electorate are meant to implicitly endorse when they vote. This is meant to inform and guide Australian politicians as to the percieved desires of the electorate. Prospective governments are likewise meant to follow the electoral mandate under which they ran. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work when the mandate consists of bland electoral slogans which cannot under any circumstances be construed to be an implicit assumption of voter approval for anything, except vague elecotral slogans. Governments and politicians are quite happy to ignore that point. In their eyes anything they come up with and want to pass into law automatically falls under their slogan orientated electoral mandate. That's the theory.

The reality is even worse. There has been little to no discussion of the matter by either party. It was not mentioned during the election. It wasn't part of either parties electoral pitch. And it will not be subject to the level of scrutiny that is required by the Westminister system since the plurality of both major parties -- and to a lesser extent the Greens -- are a pack of totalitarian pricks. And yes the Greens operate in the same strand of Australian political thought that the others operate in the one which operates under the assumption that if evil is done in the service of good, that evil is entirely justifiable.

I think you're being a bit naive. Maybe Australian parties don't make their policies available, but in most countries its quite simple to get a policy guide from any of the political parties. They're not going to highlight all their policy issues on the campaign trail, just the most contentious and important issues. The campaigns and media can only hold your hand so far, if you want to make an informed vote you have to a bit proactive in finding out the true extent of a parties policies. And if theres consensus among the parties like you say there is on this issue, why would they mention it? Why bother?

As for the assertion that all the parties are "totalitarian", well I dunno, I guess sensible Australians must be outnumbered by closed minded religious/moral police types. Don't know how to help you on that one. I face the same issue here, liberal social reforms will not happen for the foreseeable future and I've just got to deal with it or emigrate.

 

[Mise]

FWIW, I think this is splendid news. The world needs more optimists!

 

[Camikaze]

And it will not be subject to the level of scrutiny that is required by the Westminister system since the plurality of both major parties -- and to a lesser extent the Greens -- are a pack of totalitarian pricks. And yes the Greens operate in the same strand of Australian political thought that the others operate in the one which operates under the assumption that if evil is done in the service of good, that evil is entirely justifiable.

This comes across as if the Greens are supporting internet censorship.

 

[Tee Kay]

I worded that one wrong. I meant that at least the Australians are the only people who are to blame for voting in an authoritarian government, the Chinese had no such control over their destiny.

We are not to blame. We have no control over what authoritarian policies the governments implements once they're in power.

This comes across as if the Greens are supporting internet censorship.

They certainly haven't been vocal in opposing it.

 

[Camikaze]

They certainly haven't been vocal in opposing it.

Well, they have pledged to oppose it, and participated in the Australia Day website blackout protest, although no, it doesn't seem to be at the top of its priority list. Maybe when it comes time for a vote.

 

[Masada]

I think you're being a bit naive.

I live in the system and work in government policy making. I'm not naive in the least.

Maybe Australian parties don't make their policies available, but in most countries its quite simple to get a policy guide from any of the political parties.

You really need to understand just how bad the situation is here.

The key points of the Australian Government policy include:

* Investing in infrastructure and skills needed for future productivity and economic growth;
* Ensuring the stability of our financial markets;
* Providing timely, targeted and temporary stimulus to cushion the economy and support jobs; and
* Returning the budget to surplus.

What the hell is that. And let me remind you this is the result of endless focus group sessions and party meetings. The Australian economy rendered down into bullet points with no concrete policy or means of achieving it. That's really conducive to the creation of an electoral mandate, no?

They're not going to highlight all their policy issues on the campaign trail, just the most contentious and important issues.

Sure. Except their 'policies' are usually not even policies, let alone enough to be really called an issue. Witness the above.

The campaigns and media can only hold your hand so far, if you want to make an informed vote you have to a bit proactive in finding out the true extent of a parties policies.

I don't see what difference it would have made if I was the most informed voter in the history of the world. This is supported by both major parties and yet it was never discussed in the lead up to the election.

And if theres consensus among the parties like you say there is on this issue, why would they mention it? Why bother?

Because they've never discussed it. Heck, the censorship is only the smallest part of the problem the complete refusal by the government to allow public oversight is the worst part.

As for the assertion that all the parties are "totalitarian", well I dunno, I guess sensible Australians must be outnumbered by closed minded religious/moral police types. Don't know how to help you on that one. I face the same issue here, liberal social reforms will not happen for the foreseeable future and I've just got to deal with it or emigrate.

Religion has almost nothing to do with it. The Australian political scene is authoritarian and paternalistic by nature. There's nothing new about this.

This comes across as if the Greens are supporting internet censorship.

They don't, yet. Its not like their concern for civil liberties is really all that strong.

 

[Camikaze]

They don't, yet. Its not like their concern for civil liberties is really all that strong.

I'm actually quite curious as to what this is based on. I mean, in no way am I saying that the Greens are infallible, but I certainly wouldn't have thought that they're not concerned with civil liberties.

 

[Shekwan]

We are not to blame. We have no control over what authoritarian policies the governments implements once they're in power.

Well you know what to do then come election time. If Australians don't like censorship, then they can make their government pay for it.

My point was that I don't see how the Australian and Chinese cases are comparable.

I live in the system and work in government policy making. I'm not naive in the least.

Cool beans. My apologies.

What the hell is that. And let me remind you this is the result of endless focus group sessions and party meetings. The Australian economy rendered down into bullet points with no concrete policy or means of achieving it. That's really conducive to the creation of an electoral mandate, no?

Surely though you have access to the focus groups proposals from which these bullet points are rendered?

But economic policy aside, was there no information made available to voters summing up the parties' policy on censorship?

Sure. Except their 'policies' are usually not even policies, let alone enough to be really called an issue. Witness the above.

Is there some document that outlines how these vague bullet points are going to be implemented?

I don't see what difference it would have made if I was the most informed voter in the history of the world. This is supported by both major parties and yet it was never discussed in the lead up to the election.

So it wasn't part of their policy before the election? I suppose its the voters job to make them pay for it come the next election.

Because they've never discussed it. Heck, the censorship is only the smallest part of the problem the complete refusal by the government to allow public oversight is the worst part.

Well if theres uproar over it then surely the Australian electorate will hold them accountable?

Religion has almost nothing to do with it. The Australian political scene is authoritarian and paternalistic by nature. There's nothing new about this.

So Australians in general must be happy with the government being their moral police? I can sympathise, its the same thing here. I think that religion has to take the blame though, directly or not. The idea that people can force their morals on others through institutions is at the heart of religious (certainly Christian anyway) beliefs.

My original point was that the Australian and Chinese cases of censorship are not comparable. I don't see, by any stretch of the imagination, how the government of the PRC and Australia even come close to similar levels of autocracy and authoritarianism. The Australian government may not have been transparent about their policy with regard to censorship, but at least the people can influence that policy by making a key issue in the next election and making them pay for it.

 

[Tee Kay]

Well you know what to do then come election time. If Australians don't like censorship, then they can make their government pay for it.

My point was that I don't see how the Australian and Chinese cases are comparable.

In both cases the government is trying to be repressive bastards. In both cases they're suppressing or avoiding discussion on censorship, keeping public awareness low.

was there no information made available to voters summing up the parties' policy on censorship?

None AFAIK. In fact I first found out about this here at CFC-OT.

 

[Shekwan]

In both cases the government is trying to be repressive bastards. In both cases they're suppressing or avoiding discussion on censorship, keeping public awareness low.

What about civil society groups? Surely theres some group fighting against it, raising public awareness?

 

[Masada]

I'm actually quite curious as to what this is based on. I mean, in no way am I saying that the Greens are infallible, but I certainly wouldn't have thought that they're not concerned with civil liberties.

Taillesskangaru more or less made the point. In terms of stated opposition to something they tend to be quite good. Implementation makes me wonder if they're in the least bit serious about it. Its kind of like the other two major parties issuing press releases which specifically denounce something only to spend the rest of the time seemingly endorsing it. Incidentally the Liberal Party initially objected to the censorship, released some material and said a few things to that effect then promptly changed stance. So, I guess I could argue that the Liberal Party in principle opposes the internet filter while it in practice endorses it. The Greens don't quite fall into that category. But with possibly the most significant infringement on civil liberties since the Anti-Terrorism legislation more or less in the bag, I'm wondering where they're much vaunted stance on civil liberties is... I certainly can't see it.

Surely though you have access to the focus groups proposals from which these bullet points are rendered?

Nope, not a hope in hell. You don't focus group for the fun of doing it.

But economic policy aside, was there no information made available to voters summing up the parties' policy on censorship?

No. And I read two national papers, a Territory paper and a number of regional papers during the work day. (I'll admit that I ease up for the weekend but I still consume one national and a Territory paper on the Sunday). I also peruse the leading news websites routinely during the course of the day both during the week. I also read a whole host of publications both national and international as they come across my desk things like the Koori Mail, the Weekly, Times and the Economist. I doubt anyone else here manages that.

Is there some document that outlines how these vague bullet points are going to be implemented?

Not, really. Not anything with any merit as a means of explaining to the electorate, that is.

So it wasn't part of their policy before the election?

Nope.

I suppose its the voters job to make them pay for it come the next election.

Won't happen. It isn't a wedge issue here.

Well if theres uproar over it then surely the Australian electorate will hold them accountable?

There's uproar amongst the internet demographic which is white, middle-class and internet savvy. They vote for Labor anyway. I'm the exception to the rule here being neither white nor particularly middle-class. Granted, some might contest the middle-class epithet but the Australian middle-class is pretty large and all encompassing.

So Australians in general must be happy with the government being their moral police? I can sympathise, its the same thing here. I think that religion has to take the blame though, directly or not. The idea that people can force their morals on others through institutions is at the heart of religious (certainly Christian anyway) beliefs.

Australians on the whole are irreligious. I suggest it has something to do with the implicit assumption by the populace that government paternalism is entirely justified.

My original point was that the Australian and Chinese cases of censorship are not comparable. I don't see, by any stretch of the imagination, how the government of the PRC and Australia even come close to similar levels of autocracy and authoritarianism. The Australian government may not have been transparent about their policy with regard to censorship, but at least the people can influence that policy by making a key issue in the next election and making them pay for it.

My avatar, location and so forth are entirely relevant to this debate.

What about civil society groups? Surely theres some group fighting against it, raising public awareness?

Australian's don't like intellectuals. And they don't seem to like namby pamby civil libertarians.

 

[Shekwan]

Well cheers Masada for filling me in on the internet censorship thing in Australia.

Its a completely ridiculous that party policy on such an important issue was not made transparent. You made an interesting point on "government paternalism" in Australia:

Australians on the whole are irreligious. I suggest it has something to do with the implicit assumption by the populace that government paternalism is entirely justified.

If its not from religious institutions, then from what did this political culture emerge, in your opinion?

 

[plarq]

A tribute to Google services blocked in China:

Link to video.

 

[plarq]

To Kraznaya: stick to www.google.com/ncr to access Google.com in English.

To Dusty Springfield: I should post "Time after Time" as well. I guess it's so lucky to once have something good. Edit: I should add "But it's a nice dream".

 

[vesley1987]

Google just cost me 200 yuan.(for VPN)