Scobleizer - Latest Comments in MSN’er adds to China discussion

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

stoc — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:13:45 -0000

I love this site. Good work...

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

win — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 16:13:45 -0000

looking for information and found it at this great site.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

staerling — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:07:35 -0000

Perfect pages... tnx

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

kaiser_soze — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 10:30:59 -0000

http://www.monstersgame.co.... ...everything u need:D

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

flower — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:05:34 -0000

make msn for someone

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Ann — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:11:11 -0000

"But with China’s economic power, when China says “jump”, MS says “How High”.

So does every other company. That’s just the way it is."

But we can change "the way it is". If enough American consumers protest (boycott?), we can make these decisions too costly for Microsoft, Yahoo and even Google. Now, the easy way out for companies is to favor the Chinese Communist Party and other repressive regimes. But if people that are against censorship of ideas such as democracy and independence would adjust their buying decisions accordingly, the Chinese Communist Party would find fewer US companies willing to do everything they could to help in the repression.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

judson — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:45:46 -0000

Bill, I agree companies exist to make money, what I am saddened by though is individuals who lack the courage to stand up and reign that drive in. Humans can do things other than make money, and when you find yourself curtailing other's rights in an effort to make money yourself it is time for some reflection.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Jonathan Gibson — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 21:06:23 -0000

No BILL of Rights, hey?

This is life under dominion.
The merging Venn diagram of "communist" China and our Command-and-Control corporate structures feels inevitbale as they both are Statist enterprises to their very genetic core. This touches deep nerves running through all of us - as evident by these comment threads.

Our founding fathers were explicitly anti-corporate from the Boston Tea Party to laying out how corporations should never live longer than a human being and were actually meant to be dissolved like the figments they are lest heady power blur frail human vision. They'd just suffered under chubby King George and his no-bid chummy contracts to bleed the colonies {arguably economic slaves} pallid and the Framers and Founders were in no mood to allow this to happen again.

So, hey, Bill, MSofties, if I take over a country and buy enough copies of Longhorn you'll help my henchman crack down? I suppose if most of you look the other way while a few of you get hands dirty it's all OK once the stock-options ripen - right?

WRONG - You don't have to comply with local laws if you refuse to do business with local strongmen... but it all depends on how close one keeps billfold-to-soul, I suppose.

Money is not the measure of all things and waving opportunities in front of me with tempting deals or job offers doesn't buy my respect, nor silence.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Matt Aych — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:21:29 -0000

"Certain aspects of speech" -- the fact that he used this phrase reeks of bullshit used to obfuscate the main point. Why not spell out what those aspects of speech are? Oh, I know: it would sound really awful if he did.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Bill Ross — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 09:10:48 -0000

Unlike many, I have not had a beef with Microsoft until this moment. Their aggression is good business. The Justice Department went after a monopoly that had not yet formed (though I think it would have eventually formed). But this conformity to China's censorship policy has incredible implications concerning the element of trust - and now a touch of fear. I have finally become convinced that Microsoft is not a benign power but one that sucks up to money and power because that is where its priorities are.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Joseph Wang — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 04:44:42 -0000

FYI. Michael Anti has moved to another site which is blocked by the Chinese firewall. A fairly large number of Chinese bloggers are now reproducing his blogs verbatim on MSN spaces.

Do you now plan to shut them all down?

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

judson — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 01:43:32 -0000

What law would be too much for Microsoft to bear? What law would be too much for you, Scoble, to personally bear being affiliated with Microsoft if they enforced? I think you should really think about these questions.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Joseph Wang — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:44:17 -0000

I'm sorry that "we are just following the law" argument is nonsense.

Michael Anti's blog did not violate any Chinese law nor is there any law or regulation which compels MSN to take down his blog. You can prove me wrong by quoting which law or regulation compelled MSN to remove the blog.

People in the Chinese blogging community are very knowledgable about what the rules are and what they can get away with and what they can't.

What has everyone upset is that as far as anyone is aware of, Michael Anti did not violate any rule imposed by the Chinese goverment yet his blog got taken down. He is currently still in China, blogging quite openly on other sites.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Mike Pence — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:51:59 -0000

Wow. Microsoft having no integrity. What a shock.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

met — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:16:57 -0000

Hasn't this happened with any other company?

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Mike Friedman — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:09:44 -0000

"Leah, as far as I understand it it was servers run over in China by our Chinese employees."

Ah... so why not just help him set up an MSN Spaces account based on a US server?

Then you wouldn't need to follow Chinese law and censor him, right?

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

scobleizer — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:28:47 -0000

Leah again, oh, and as far as I know MSN doesn't have the ability to block Spaces for just one country. It's an all or nothing deal.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

scobleizer — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:28:07 -0000

Leah, as far as I understand it it was servers run over in China by our Chinese employees. The American guys I know over in MSN Spaces didn't even know about this decision (including the folks who run the team). I still haven't heard the details. They promise to get back to me on that, though.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

met — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 04:10:27 -0000

“Or is everyone just rushing to support coz thats how its done?”

Bob: "What do you mean by this? If supporting someone’s ability to get their thoughts and ideas heard (no matter whether we like those ideas or not) is “how it’s done”, then I’m all for it. I don’t need to know the contents of this guy’s blog to decide that it shouldn’t be censored. "

I wanted to know the cause for MSN's censorship. Aren't we speculating a lot of things. I'd like to see facts before...
The reason I asked for the content, was to better understand the reason for MSN's censorship.

Allowing his blogs to read in the US would still be a violation of the law (if it isn't they'll make it into one).
Did MSN deny the censorship?
Does their contract specify that they won't censor?

Or is everyone just rushing to support coz thats how its done?

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Micael Baerens — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 03:30:53 -0000

Someone should set up a new MSN space and act as a proxy for the guy (i.e. have him send a blog record to someone outside China which publishes it on the blog).

As far as I can read from the terms, you then wouldn't be acting in violation of the terms which state that your not allowed to publish information that violate local or national laws in _your_ area.

(As long as you indicate it's not written by yourself)

:-)

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

John C. Welch — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 21:45:19 -0000

Oh the money issue is the only reason MS cares. If China wasn't China, and was instead, say, Papua New Guinea, they'd tell the government to pound sand.

But with China's economic power, when China says "jump", MS says "How High".

So does every other company. That's just the way it is.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Leah Guildenstern — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:37:57 -0000

Scoble,
It's a good start but there are some good questions above as well. Is it servers in China that have the web pages pulled, customers that sign up from china, or all Chineese language blogs that are subject to this kind of restriction.
The differences between the three scenarios are significant.

Servers in China - I understand and it makes sense
Subscribers from China - Kinda shaky but I can also understand - to some extent.
Chineese language blogs - That I would have serious problems with.

I could see justification for not serving US Based Chineese blogs to Chineese addresses as a condition of business - but not the outright removal of the blog.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Mike Stiber — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:18:16 -0000

I find it interesting that a company that stonewalled the US and state governments for years, saying that it was technically infeasible to remove a web browser from its OS distribution, seems to find no way to prevent blogs from being removed from MSN Spaces.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Charlie Crystle — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 20:11:10 -0000

So, then, Microsoft, I'd expect this is consistent behavior, you've done it before, you're likely to do it on behalf of other countries, and given the Patriot Act and NSA spying on US citizens, you're doing it within the US on US citizens?

I'm baffled and repulsed.

Re: MSN’er adds to China discussion

Mike Drips — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:25:31 -0000

"we need to adhere to local regulations and laws" that statement makes me wonder what Microsoft's position would have been had they been doing business in Germany in the 1930s.

It simply comes down to the fact that Microsoft is placing money ("Money doesn't talk; it swears" -- Bob Dylan) above human rights.