Microsoft Supporting Authoritarian Tyranny
A lot of people have always hated Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft. In the past, I'd always chalked their hatred up to jealousy over his vast wealth.
Boy, was I ever wrong about that. Bill Gates is actually an evil, conniving bastard who helps authoritarian regimes crush the free exchange of ideas:
Microsoft's action raises a key question: can the Internet really be a force for freedom that repressive governments cannot control as easily as newspapers, radio, and television?
Ironically, Microsoft's founder and chairman, Bill Gates, has been an enthusiastic advocate of this view.
Just last October, he said ''There's really no way to, in a broad sense, repress information today, and I think that's a wonderful advance we can all feel good about. This is a medium of total openness and total freedom, and that's what makes it so special.''
Despite these sentiments, Microsoft is helping the Chinese authorities to repress information as best they can.
A Microsoft spokeswoman was reported as saying that the corporation has blocked ''many sites'' in China, and it has been known for several months that Microsoft's blog tool in China filters words like ''democracy'' and ''human rights'' from blog titles.
Did you get all that? Microsoft is basically helping Beijing to oppress the Chinese people. Hypocrisy much? Read Microsoft's outright lies:
Microsoft's defense is that it must ''comply with local and global laws''. But the MSN Spaces sites are maintained on servers in the United States. The relevant local laws would, therefore, seem to be those of the United States, and Zhao Jing's discussion of the Beijing journalists' strike does not violate any of them.
Nor are there any global laws that prevent Chinese people from discussing events that their government would prefer them not to discuss.
The New York Times, for example, is free to publish its report on the strike, even though it operates a Website that anyone with unfettered Internet access can read.
If the Chinese government does not want its citizens to read a foreign newspaper, then it is up to them to figure out how to block access to it. The newspaper is under no obligation to do it for them.
So Microsoft's defense misfires.
Why would Microsoft do such a thing? Well, Bill Gates obviously needs a way to keep himself well-supplied with hookers and blow:
We can only guess at the company's real reason for taking down the Website, but fear of repercussions against its commercial interests in China seems likely to have been an important factor.
It's all about the Benjamins, baby. Life ain't nothin' but bitches an' money.
I'm a capitalist. I have no problem with people making an honest buck and enjoying the fruits of their labor. But this doesn't seem like true capitalism to me. Rather, this is more like what I'd call crass commercialism.
Bill Gates, you're an sadistic, heartless bastard who desperately needs to have his ass kicked by a group of Chinese bloggers you forced into silence. I used to defend you on occasion. Instead, I'm going to mock you with a joke:
I was in a restaraunt the other day waiting for a friend to arrive. And who should sit down at the table next to me? None other than the world famous Bill Gates. I walked over to his table and fawned over him and told him that a prospective business client would soon join me at the restaraunt. I asked if he could come over to say "hello" to me when my "client" arrived, as that would probably impress him enough to do business with me. Gates acted annoyed and hemmed and hawed, at first. But eventually he agreed after I pestered him long enough.
My friend arrived and Bill Gates came over to my table and greeted me warmly. He even asked how my mother was doing.
I just looked at him like he was stupid and said, "Fuck off, Gates! Can't you see I'm meeting with a prospective client?"
Hahahaha!
In a related and highly controvecial story, the United States Justice Department is trying to force Google to hand over data regarding web searches. Make of that what you will because I'm too busy to analyze that one.
Boy, was I ever wrong about that. Bill Gates is actually an evil, conniving bastard who helps authoritarian regimes crush the free exchange of ideas:
Microsoft's action raises a key question: can the Internet really be a force for freedom that repressive governments cannot control as easily as newspapers, radio, and television?
Ironically, Microsoft's founder and chairman, Bill Gates, has been an enthusiastic advocate of this view.
Just last October, he said ''There's really no way to, in a broad sense, repress information today, and I think that's a wonderful advance we can all feel good about. This is a medium of total openness and total freedom, and that's what makes it so special.''
Despite these sentiments, Microsoft is helping the Chinese authorities to repress information as best they can.
A Microsoft spokeswoman was reported as saying that the corporation has blocked ''many sites'' in China, and it has been known for several months that Microsoft's blog tool in China filters words like ''democracy'' and ''human rights'' from blog titles.
Did you get all that? Microsoft is basically helping Beijing to oppress the Chinese people. Hypocrisy much? Read Microsoft's outright lies:
Microsoft's defense is that it must ''comply with local and global laws''. But the MSN Spaces sites are maintained on servers in the United States. The relevant local laws would, therefore, seem to be those of the United States, and Zhao Jing's discussion of the Beijing journalists' strike does not violate any of them.
Nor are there any global laws that prevent Chinese people from discussing events that their government would prefer them not to discuss.
The New York Times, for example, is free to publish its report on the strike, even though it operates a Website that anyone with unfettered Internet access can read.
If the Chinese government does not want its citizens to read a foreign newspaper, then it is up to them to figure out how to block access to it. The newspaper is under no obligation to do it for them.
So Microsoft's defense misfires.
Why would Microsoft do such a thing? Well, Bill Gates obviously needs a way to keep himself well-supplied with hookers and blow:
We can only guess at the company's real reason for taking down the Website, but fear of repercussions against its commercial interests in China seems likely to have been an important factor.
It's all about the Benjamins, baby. Life ain't nothin' but bitches an' money.
I'm a capitalist. I have no problem with people making an honest buck and enjoying the fruits of their labor. But this doesn't seem like true capitalism to me. Rather, this is more like what I'd call crass commercialism.
Bill Gates, you're an sadistic, heartless bastard who desperately needs to have his ass kicked by a group of Chinese bloggers you forced into silence. I used to defend you on occasion. Instead, I'm going to mock you with a joke:
I was in a restaraunt the other day waiting for a friend to arrive. And who should sit down at the table next to me? None other than the world famous Bill Gates. I walked over to his table and fawned over him and told him that a prospective business client would soon join me at the restaraunt. I asked if he could come over to say "hello" to me when my "client" arrived, as that would probably impress him enough to do business with me. Gates acted annoyed and hemmed and hawed, at first. But eventually he agreed after I pestered him long enough.
My friend arrived and Bill Gates came over to my table and greeted me warmly. He even asked how my mother was doing.
I just looked at him like he was stupid and said, "Fuck off, Gates! Can't you see I'm meeting with a prospective client?"
Hahahaha!
In a related and highly controvecial story, the United States Justice Department is trying to force Google to hand over data regarding web searches. Make of that what you will because I'm too busy to analyze that one.