Globalization and Censorship

A post on MeFi notes that Microsoft took down a blog (or blogs) that were politically incorrect (in the fascist/Chinese meaning of the phrase). The author of the post asks: Is globalization spreading censorship? The knee-jerk liberal geeks at Metafilter think it does. But I think, if we break down the ideas contained within, this argument falls to pieces.
What is globalization in this context? It has three(or two, as I argue) components.

1. Global communication. Microsoft took a blog down all for all internet users, not just Chinese. This would be irrelevant if the internet didn't exist.
   
2. International business. Microsoft is an American company doing business all over the world.
3. The extension of sovereign power over international lines. Chinese government is (ostensibly) able to control Microsoft's actions in other areas of the world.

I think a cursory look will give you the above idea. Because of 1 and 2, 3 means censorship is expanding across borders. But this is silly, amateurish, and even immoral. The net benefit of globalization is enormous. Think about it this way. What have we lost because of globalization, in this specific example? The ability to read one blog. What have we gained? The ability to communicate with one another in a novel way over huge distances. The internet is thus not merely a quantitative extension of communication, but a qualitative change. We can communicate in different ways, meaning, if you believe in any kind of materialist notion of thought, that we can create new ideas and spread them all over the world. This is great. Moreover, #2 (international business) forces people to interact in new ways with people and experience new forms of living. Chinese are given the opportunity to come to the United States, and are able to improve their standards of living.
Finally, #3 is bullshit. China has not extended its sovereignty anywhere. If anything, globalization means that countries simply cannot exert sovereignty in the same way anymore. If you think about liberty in Hobbesian terms, that is, simply asking what people are able to do now as opposed to before, you will find every single time that people have more liberty. The news article should actually make this clear as day: We now have the ability to read the blogs of oppressed people all over the world. Today, we have lost the ability to read one of those blogs. I'm sure, however, that there will be 10,000 people to take this guys place (sounds like a terrorist movie or something). While this guy is apparently one of the most interesting and challenging new bloggers, I'm sure many will understand that those qualities will get them fame/money/sex as well as happiness and thus follow his path. What's more, if this guy doesn't have a new blog in a week, I'll bite off my own scrotum. The answer to the question of the internet and citizenship is a firm no.

A note on politics: One thing the web has created is a forum for reactionary politics. Please go to the post above and you'll see what I mean. This shit is really dumb, not because it is liberal, or conservative; they are dumb because they are not thinking. They move as a hive mind. Go to freerepublic.com or instapundit's comment pages if you want to see something similar by conservatives. The internet seems to be fostering a new form of mob politics. I'd like to hear what the rest of you think about this. For one thing, if we want to talk about psychology and ego formation and that shit, this seems to be a lot more dangerous than consumerism. It is always assumed that politics is higher than other forms of behavior. This is certainly not what Aristotle meant. Only good politics is good for you; the rest is poisonous. Several of Fishstix and perhaps Sheriffs posts have brought up the negative impact of capitalism, especially in terms of psychology. But people consuming are just cows: they aren't hurting anyone else. Tocqueville sees this as dangerous because people fail to pay attention to what their masters are doing. I agree, but think that the effects of this have been minimal so far. On the other hand, mob politics is dangerous and responsible for the Holocaust, etc. If the Internet supports mob politics it could be very dangerous indeed. Do aspects of its design, like the interaction between people of all levels of intelligence, foster or repress good politics (its scale free topology, for instance)?So I guess I would like to pose a new question: Does the Super Interweb foster mob politics?