reading more about the china/google/censorship item. for me the question comes down to this: is incomplete information better than no information at all? In general, i’m not one to support the idea that engaging with china on its own terms will somehow magically foster the impetus for westernised democracy. I think china will take the best of what’s offered to it, whilst completely reserving the right to reject any demands made in return. it’s like feeding a lion, and expecting the lion to feel some sense of obligation for that. i thoroughly disagree with giving the olympics to beijing – they would never have given them to cuba or north korea, and those regimes are just as repressive.

and i even have mixed feelings about visiting. i still remember, so vividly, the tienanmen square massacre, and the student staring down the tank. it’s impossible to remain unmoved by the plight of people so desparate for change they are willing to face death head on.

but the internet is something else – it’s a portal of information. the information coming through provides the recipients the necessary tools to widen the portal. it only takes one leak in the dam to break the dyke. and i think those of us who have the luxury of unrestricted information at our fingertips can stand afford to stand on principle, and say that google should have held out for something which may never materialise – but we forget that’s a luxury many people in the world still don’t have.

so is a narrow portal better or worse than no portal at all? i think that’s what’s at the crux of the argument. and i think i know which way the chinese people would vote – if they could vote at all.

Like this post

Unlike