Bay Networks in bed with commie censors?
avg at pluris.com
Thu Jan 16 00:18:33 UTC 1997
Edward Fang <edfang at visi.net> 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
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