Comments on: Home From China http://www.credoadvisors.com/blog/mba/home-from-china/ Credo Advisors Consulting Blog: Business Ethics & Corporate Social Responsibility Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:11:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Peter Begley http://www.credoadvisors.com/blog/mba/home-from-china/#comment-1294 Peter Begley Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:55:42 +0000 http://credoadvisors.com/blog/?p=255#comment-1294 I found it interesting as well, though I can understand if the blocking was based simply on the appearance of choice keywords. What was confusing, however, was that it appeared that <a href="http://www.google.cn/" rel="nofollow">google.cn</a> (not ".com") successfully indexed this site, yet I was unable to click through, or view Google's cached version. Checking <a href="http://www.google.cn/" rel="nofollow">google.cn</a> this morning from California indeed shows that this site is indexed, and I was easily able to view the cached version of the site. At times, it seemed that some of the filtration may have been occurring at the hotels we were staying at. For example, in Shenzhen, I was able to use iChat (Apple) to do a video conference with my wife and son, though the audio didn't work. In Shanghai, we were unable to use iChat for anything but text messaging, but were able to do a choppy video feed via Yahoo! Messenger. At all of our other destinations, we were only able to communicate through text messaging. I would chalk our difficulties up to connection speed but we supposedly had high-speed access at all of our hotels (and the performance of various sites seemed consistent at each). The more reasonable (though perhaps technically naïve) explanation is that our hotels, or their ISPs, were filtering content and certain data feeds. Regardless, not only was I unable to access this site (front and back-end) but all of the sites hosted on this server were blocked. I was also unable to access <a href="http://www.technorati.com/" rel="nofollow">technorati.com</a> or <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/" rel="nofollow">nytimes.com</a>. On the upside, <a href="http://www.jackyan.com/blog/" rel="nofollow">jackyan.com</a> was accessible in every city! I found it interesting as well, though I can understand if the blocking was based simply on the appearance of choice keywords. What was confusing, however, was that it appeared that google.cn (not “.com”) successfully indexed this site, yet I was unable to click through, or view Google’s cached version. Checking google.cn this morning from California indeed shows that this site is indexed, and I was easily able to view the cached version of the site.

At times, it seemed that some of the filtration may have been occurring at the hotels we were staying at. For example, in Shenzhen, I was able to use iChat (Apple) to do a video conference with my wife and son, though the audio didn’t work. In Shanghai, we were unable to use iChat for anything but text messaging, but were able to do a choppy video feed via Yahoo! Messenger. At all of our other destinations, we were only able to communicate through text messaging.

I would chalk our difficulties up to connection speed but we supposedly had high-speed access at all of our hotels (and the performance of various sites seemed consistent at each). The more reasonable (though perhaps technically naïve) explanation is that our hotels, or their ISPs, were filtering content and certain data feeds. Regardless, not only was I unable to access this site (front and back-end) but all of the sites hosted on this server were blocked. I was also unable to access technorati.com or nytimes.com.

On the upside, jackyan.com was accessible in every city!

]]> By: Jack Yan http://www.credoadvisors.com/blog/mba/home-from-china/#comment-1292 Jack Yan Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:37:04 +0000 http://credoadvisors.com/blog/?p=255#comment-1292 Amazing that your blog was blocked, considering there is nothing in it that I would consider inflammatory to the Politburo in Beijing. It shows that the bans can be rather sweeping. Amazing that your blog was blocked, considering there is nothing in it that I would consider inflammatory to the Politburo in Beijing. It shows that the bans can be rather sweeping.

]]>