links for 2010-03-22

  • Interesting that this letter isn't anti-censorship. Difference between Chinese & Western perspective.

    "We support necessary censorship of Internet content and communications, whether it is on Google or any other foreign or domestic company," the authors write. "But we hope that such censorship should be conducted as follows:"

    "For instance, It should be based on clear laws, the related regulations and censorship procedures should not violate China's constitution and laws. Vague censorship standards result in over-censorship or make it impossible to self-censor…."

  • "I wonder if we can have it both ways. How would it work to provide an incentive for people submitting to some form of verified identity or registering through Facebook Connect (not verified, but Facebook is a place where most people identify themselves accurately)?

    "What if those comments appear on the same page as the story or post, and you have to click to another page to read or join the anonymous comments? Or could you put them all on one page, but the anonymous comments go to the bottom while comments from verified users go to the top. Either of these approaches would disrupt the flow of conversation (for instance, an anonymous response to a verified-ID comment would appear on a different page or far below). On the other hand, the real flow of comments is often pretty uneven, with responses appearing several comments apart from the original comment, and with some appearing in chronological order and others posting most recent comments on top.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *