Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?

Vadim Antonov avg at
Thu Jan 16 00:18:33 UTC 1997

Edward Fang <edfang at> wrote:

On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Vadim Antonov wrote:
:Their "partnership" with censors of a communist regime
:is repugnant.  Using the modern technology to build a
:giant brainwashing machine is very scary.

>How so ?  Communications is actually loosening communism
>as it was in China.


>Fax machines have helped, and anything
>that facilitates the exchange of ideas will only make
>China bend closer to a 'democracy standard'.

This network facilitates more propaganda; not the "exchange
of ideas".  A Chineze citizen would have to be a naive idiot, or
a hard-core dissident not minding some time in a jail, to post
anything subversive over a state network.

>If you see
>how China has changed from 10 years ago to now (some form
>of capitalism), you will see that they cannot and will not
>run the country as communism was once run.

Capitalism != freedom of spech.  Look at what's going on in Singapore.

>I don't think this has anything to do with
>commercialism.  Are you implying that Cisco and/or
>other US firms would turn this deal down (and or not
>pursue it?).

They didn't do anything like that, ok?

>Should we also boycott Coke, McDonalds, KFC, McDonald
>Douglas, etc ? Since they all profit from the people
>of a 'communist' country that does not endorse the
>same personal freedoms that we do.

They do not profit by creating means for state brainwashing
and censorship.  The trade and communications with _people_
of communist countries is unquestionable good.  Helping the
communist state to spread their propaganda is amoral.

Please make a difference between a person eating a burger
and a state agency running the politically censored network.


More information about the NANOG mailing list