The Chinese government's censors? I'm not Chinese. You obviously have gone far beyond your depth of understanding anything about the nation and obviously have never lived here in an effort to understand more about, or circumvention of, or work closely with industries most affected by internet related obstacles or suppression. I have er, and am. So --- I'll take your laughable article which IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH clearly states that viral misinformation/rumours which may cause riots or protests or anything like that, as in, if it gets reposted or spread across the 'net with haste hence causes some sort of political issue, is illegal. That's what I said, no? As long as I'm having my own conversation or consuming my own information with some privacy, not ranting about the government on f'n twitter equivalent (weibo, lets say) hoping my message gets out to a few hundred million people, then I'm OK. Who suffers most under this type of law? People like Alex Jones, he'd be locked up for life.
You obviously don't know anything about China, do you.
Downloading anything Tian'An'Men is not going to get me in trouble. Protesting in public and gathering people to try to get them to join me - is. Get it? Fuck. Monkeys talking about shit they simply don't understand - keep banging the bone against your computer, eventually you'll write Shakespeare.
Offtopic, wouldn't expect more from AC, but..:
Less than they care in the US lately. School kids arrested for saying they killed their neighbours dinosaur?
I regularly have discussions online -- including via China's weixin network -- about the gov't, often about 'sensitive' topics like the controlled media hit-pieces against ethnic minorities or about the 'cleansings' of the past in Tibet or Xinjiang. Why don't they care? Because I'm not stirring up protests or riots, or trying to create viral media phenomenon. People who fall under the gov't thumb here are typically activists and such who are trying to create public disturbance or spread false information, not people who simply criticise (especially in small groups or private conversations) over Chinese networks. So, I suppose I can summarise with: while I feel for the plight of people who are seriously trying to make positive change in big ways, the gov't doesn't care about people's discussions on a private level, so the feeling of 'oppressed speech' isn't nearly what you'd think it is here.
I should add. Fibre packages aforementioned often include IPTV in those monthly costs. And - that IPTV includes tons of movie channels and western TV channels as well.
So, in China, a 20mbit fibre package can cost you approx. $12 USD (varies by city). Electricity, for me, in Chengdu, costs about $20-$30 per month for a family of 3 in a reasonable size place with a lot of appliances, computers, and gratuitous 24/7 air purifiers running. Water is far less at maybe $15/month, and gas is also quite low around $15/month.
Internet is extremely cheap. There is an option to bump it up to a 100mbit fibre connection in most areas, which runs a whopping $45 or so per month.
Those are fixed prices, because traffic is unlimited - and speed tests from everyone I know who runs the various speeds actually come in at close to the advertised speeds for downstream traffic (although upstream is usually like, 2mbit in comparison).
Unlimited. Oh, and no DMCA, nobody gives a FUCK what you download - as long as you don't need a VPN to connect to the content (which is like 99.9% of the torrents in the world) in which case make sure you get a VPN provider that ignores DMCA
There are two different scenarios we are talking about; spare room rental and short term apartment sublet. The former should be allowed with minimal regulation. The latter needs to be watched very closely.
I agree with this completely.
Yeah - good points, both of them. I think one difference here is it isn't for example, Walmart vs. the little guys. It's several giants competing with each-other as well, we've got the biggest players in the industry with strong interest in this market. I don't think Google is thinking Amazon and MS will be "forced out of business" and then later they can "ultimately recoup its losses through higher prices", or anything like that.. but it is good to pay closer attention to the nuance in these cases than I perhaps indicated in my post.
I think you're describing the problems with big government regulation squeezing regular people. You're saying that if I make arrangements with someone to allow them to stay in a spare room and they give me $30 a night, I need to adhere to all regulations a full fledged hotel would have to. I say that, while what I'm doing may be illegal in the strictest sense, it shouldn't be - and adhering to the same regulations as a hotel in such a case is beyond ridiculous. I say that the scenario above SHOULD be a *private arrangement*, and the fact that you think it isn't is part of the problem.
It's similar to Uber's situation with individuals providing rides in their own vehicles to people who want rides. Do you think that a private arrangement between two individuals to allow someone to stay in a room or apartment or whatever belonging to another in exchange for some cash means that the room/apartment or whatever needs to abide by the same heavy regulations as a hotel? The government has 2 pressures and incentives here: hotel/lodging lobbyists, not getting their tax revenue. If you really think they're doing this from a perspective of public safety, I think we'd just have to disagree.
This is the type of thing that destroys innovative businesses like AirBNB. Nobody will want to play host if government starts targeting and fucking over the 'bad actors' who may just be regular people using a service. AirBnB has all the interest in the world to play the situation down as much as possible..it'll be interesting to see what really happens here.
I'd love to see Murdoch go down in flames, but this wont be the cause.
However, he's ancient, he'll be dead soon anyways. He looks like a turtle that has crawled out of its shell, tick tock Murdoch, TICK....TOCK.
What do you consider fair competition, bigger players keeping prices high (like Dropbox, way overpriced limited offerings.) so they DON'T capture more market share? Is that considered fair competition? It sounds more like no competition, more like price-fixing agreements between similar service offerings, no?
When companies compete, prices often drop - in this case drop significantly.. a company is willing to operate at a loss in order to own more of the market share and other companies simply can't compete, is that unfair? Or simply winning the competition? If you manufacture something in the US for $5 and sell it for $10, and I manufacture the same in China for $1 and sell it for $5, you may complain that you can't compete because to match my price you'd have to operate at a loss....well, sorry to say, but sad day for you. Sad day for dropbox. Improve the offerings and make the prices more reasonable or suffer the consequences that most every company has to deal with in their given industry.
Medical advice in China is extremely cheap. Like a few RMB (less than a dollar).. the problem is, it's often wrong, and it's often intended to get you to buy medicines which is where their profit is.
with the story about 'doctor visits' over Skype, and how many posters were railing against how they were afraid of eavesdropping/decrypting of their Skype conversations. Where are they now!
Apple *should* sue Xiaomi in any country Xiaomi is selling, except China..where they would waste a ton of money on a lawsuit that is pretty much guaranteed to fail, for reasons other than the company's HQ being in Beijing city proper's CBD with close gov't support. Xiaomi's entire concept, at the beginning, was to duplicate an iPhone at a far lower price point..wait, not just an iPhone, but *all* of the products Apple puts out there, look at their line-up. They have copied presentations, commercials, even Jobs himself, so UI similarities are to be expected.
I am curious whether Apple even cares. Xiaomi competes in the 'shanzhai' level of pricing, very low priced devices aren't really in the same park as Apple's premium priced devices, even though the Xiaomi's actually have reasonably valued hardware for what you're paying....so, while Apple *should* be suing them from a principal standpoint, maybe Xiaomi just isn't competing for the same customers in a significant enough way yet or something?