Are you denying that Google is a repository of information. Even duckduckgo is banned. They're not even close to a monopoly. I'm making the point that they're restricting information.
Also I'd be happy to read article 590 if you could provide me with an English translation.
how is banning Google restricting information and why did you not touch on the State Council report about the 1989 Beijing protests?
Since there is an edit: you can OCR the document and run it into an online translator. The State Council of the People's Republic of China writes, understandably, in Chinese.
Would you trust a human-made translation if someone made it? The only people that would care enough to go through the document and manually translate it would be Marxist-Leninists who want to prove a point. I doubt Maoists for example, who consider the Deng government revisionist, would take the time to translate a document that vindicates the 1989 government.
Are you denying that Google is a repository of information. Even duckduckgo is banned. They're not even close to a monopoly. I'm making the point that they're restricting information. Also I'd be happy to read article 590 if you could provide me with an English translation.
how is banning Google restricting information and why did you not touch on the State Council report about the 1989 Beijing protests?
Since there is an edit: you can OCR the document and run it into an online translator. The State Council of the People's Republic of China writes, understandably, in Chinese.
I was wondering if something like that would lose some meaning as things like that are infamously inaccurate.
Would you trust a human-made translation if someone made it? The only people that would care enough to go through the document and manually translate it would be Marxist-Leninists who want to prove a point. I doubt Maoists for example, who consider the Deng government revisionist, would take the time to translate a document that vindicates the 1989 government.