Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday February 28 2015, @03:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the the-free-world-will-copy-in-5..4..3.. dept.

Starting March 1, China will ban internet accounts that impersonate people or organizations, and enforce the requirement that people use real names when registering accounts online, its internet watchdog, the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC), said on Wednesday.

The new regulations are part of efforts to impose real-name registration requirements on internet users and halt the spread of rumors online, the CAC said. Internet companies will have the responsibility to enforce the rules.

On Tuesday, the CAC accused NetEase Inc, a U.S.-listed Chinese web portal, of spreading rumors and pornography. And last month, 133 WeChat accounts were shut down for "distorting history", state media reported.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @04:33AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @04:33AM (#150919)

    My name is Li.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:21AM (#150936)

      We're on to you, Li "Chip" RM35M4419.

  • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday February 28 2015, @04:40AM

    by ikanreed (3164) on Saturday February 28 2015, @04:40AM (#150921) Journal

    That's an interesting word for "facts about China's government"

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday February 28 2015, @04:58AM

      by c0lo (156) on Saturday February 28 2015, @04:58AM (#150929) Journal
      Yeah, well... there's still that "pornography" word.
      Mmmm... makes me wonder... does the US political life make a claim it? (methinks it would be a valid claim: biggest orgy - a small number of people f**k the rest of the 1/3 billion population, with impunity. NSA anyone?)
      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:24AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:24AM (#150937)

    So, does this apply to services outside of China as well, or only those hosted within China on their ISPs?

    What about services that don't support or allow Chinese kanji when registering usernames; is it acceptable to romanize the person's name?

    Considering those two questions ALSO leads me to ask: what happens when The Other People On The Internet start taking up the names of real Chinese folks to use as their online aliases? I feel like it might be a very inevitable outcome just out of spite and protest, but it's just a guess considering that it was my first thought when I heard about this to begin with.

    Please fill out the above survey and have it on my desk by noon!

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:25AM (#150938)

    How else could anyone explain how a nice old spinster like Silence Dogood wind up being a leader in a revolt against a God ordained government.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:26AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:26AM (#150940)

    NT

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:29AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:29AM (#150942)

    So what if two Chinese people happen to have the exact same first and last names? I feel pretty certain that such a case is possible but I'm not exactly sure.

    Anyway, would they have to start appending more and more information to the end of their name to avoid the "This username is already taken." errors? Birth years maybe? The last four digits of their credit card number?

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:43AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:43AM (#150981) Journal

      There are only one hundred surnames in China, so the chances of multiple persons of the same name, even from the same village, is huge. So we need about a billion social security numbers, comrades! I love it when we are all equal, you know!

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:51AM (#150985)

        > There are only one hundred surnames in China,

        I had heard that too. I was even going to post that. But I decided to double check before doing so and found out it is not really true. [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday February 28 2015, @08:03AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday February 28 2015, @08:03AM (#150990) Journal

          Jeez, facts? How will we ever get anything resolved here on SN? OK, how about "only one hundred names for Han Chinese"? Better? (And besides, 4000 for a population of a billion is not much of a difference, proportionately. )

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by mendax on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:53AM

    by mendax (2840) on Saturday February 28 2015, @05:53AM (#150944)

    My ass! Essentially, China is doing what has been tried in this country on several occasions, that is to make anonymous speech and association illegal, or at least very impractical.

    Fortunately, Americans generally don't have to worry about it thanks to numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the last 50+ years have made it abundantly clear that anonymous speech is a First Amendment right, one that is very difficult to infringe without a very, very good reason.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:29AM (#150948)

      anonymous speech is a First Amendment right, one that is very difficult to infringe without a very, very good reason.

      That's terrorist talk! "Terrorism" is any speech we don't like. You have no rights or freedoms. Lick the jackboot, peon.

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:37AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:37AM (#150955) Homepage Journal

        anonymous speech is a First Amendment right, one that is very difficult to infringe without a very, very good reason.

        That's terrorist talk! "Terrorism" is any speech we don't like. You have no rights or freedoms. Lick the jackboot, peon.

        Says the Anonymous Coward. You do see the irony, I hope.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:09AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:09AM (#150965)

          Proud to be an Anonymous Terrorist.

      • (Score: 2) by mendax on Saturday February 28 2015, @09:37PM

        by mendax (2840) on Saturday February 28 2015, @09:37PM (#151219)

        Sieg heil!

        --
        It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:29AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:29AM (#150949) Journal

    Pay attention to this as to how a government stifles freedom of expression because the there's only reason to know your identity if repressive action is planned.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:32AM (#150951)

      And yet you logged in to post. There's only one reason to be logged in. You want to gain reputation from your posts, because you're a karma whore.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:35AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:35AM (#150953)

        And yet you logged in to post.

        Voluntarily logging into a site that you voluntarily visit on an account that very likely isn't even your real name is the same as the government repressing freedom of expression? Silly AC...

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by NotSanguine on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:42AM

        by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Saturday February 28 2015, @06:42AM (#150960) Homepage Journal

        And yet you logged in to post. There's only one reason to be logged in. You want to gain reputation from your posts, because you're a karma whore.

        Actually, logging in has quite a few other benefits, friend. Like modding you down for trolling. Which I won't do, as your inept attempts at same should be seen by as many folks as possible, if only to prove the adage "'tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

        Doubt has been removed. Good. I hate doubt.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:15AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:15AM (#150968)

      > Pay attention to this as to how a government stifles freedom of expression

      Kind of like facebook [lastrealindians.com] and native americans. [countercurrentnews.com]

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:46AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @07:46AM (#150983)

      FWIW, in Brazil anonymous speech is constitutionally forbidden: [mit.edu]

      Article 5, IV : the expression of thought is free, anonymity being forbidden;

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday February 28 2015, @08:05AM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Saturday February 28 2015, @08:05AM (#150992) Journal

      Pay attention to this as to how a government stifles freedom of expression because the there's only reason to know your identity if repressive action is planned.

      There must be a total avalanche of rumors on the internet in China.
      TFA also says:

      Many users of social media create parody accounts of prominent figures and institutions to poke fun at them.

      Why wouldn't they just watch for Registrations using THOSE names?

      You can find the same stuff here, total crap postings, but most people in the US and Europe are educated enough not to trust any random rant on the internet. You would think that teaching their citizens to think for themselves and check facts would be more educational than suppressing rumor posts.

      Nothing is said about non-rumors (truths) that they would like to suppress.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @11:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 28 2015, @11:21AM (#151017)

        > Why wouldn't they just watch for Registrations using THOSE names?

        Because that's not really the issue they care about. They want to control the dissemination of information.

        They have already decreed that authors will be charged with defamation if 'false information' is reposted more than 500 times via social networks. [theguardian.com]

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:13PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 01 2015, @06:13PM (#151594)

        You would think that teaching their citizens to think for themselves and check facts would be more educational than suppressing rumor posts.

        I guess the very last thing they want to teach their citizens is to think for themselves. Because they might use that ability also on the government's propaganda.