Slashdot Mirror
85% of Chinese Citizens Like Internet Censorship
cynagh0st writes "A Pew Internet & American Life Project report indicates that of an overwhelming majority of Chinese people that believed the Internet should be 'managed or controlled,' 85% want the government to do this managing. This is resulting from surveys on Internet use over the last seven years in China. 'The survey findings discussed here, drawn from a broad-based sample of urban Chinese Internet users and non-users alike, indicate a degree of comfort and even approval of the notion that the government authorities should control and manage the content available on the Internet.' The report goes further into describing the divide in perspective between China and Western Nations on the matter and discusses the PRC's justifications for Internet control."
Yeah, I opened the .pdf and ended up going straight to the references which were overwhelmingly chinese. I noticed a reuters reference in there and that was in regards to a little nugget of information regarding rising popularity of videogames...
A report about the reliability of it's own references? This report would have to be taken with a block of salt.
And the question we all have to ask is whether we believe that anybody can be trusted to say that they know best when it comes to what is and isn't allowable for us to access. I believe that even if we did come up with a theoretical list of content that we all found abhorrent and agreed should be blocked, it would still be a mistake to do so because at that moment we would be placing the infrastructure for anybody in power to take it further, 'for our own good'. Nobody can be trusted with that power, especially because it is exactly the power needed to cover up ones own abuses.
So: "do you beleive in free speech?" 99% of the respondents say yes (1% don't know)
Or: "Should the internet be regulated, to protect your children?" .. now we're getting into interesting territory - I'd be willing to bet that most parents of 18 or less year-olds would say yes.
How about: "Should the ISPs do more to reduce pornography on the internet?"
Try this: "Is it reasonable for your employer to restrict your net surfing?"
Finally: "Do you think the government should protect internet users from violent or inappropriate content?"
Now tell me: which one of these questions defines censorship? The answer will depend on your individual outlook and where you live, whether you're responsible for other people. The final point about censorship is that no matter what your personal opinion of it is, you don't have the right to impose your view on others. Even if they're in favour of it and you think you know better.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
This is very true. Overall, with eastern philosophy, the emphasis on the group rather than the person. Many people in China have a difficult time understanding the individualistic nature of western culture
In a similar vein, 70% of American think the first amendment (right to free speech and worship) should be scrapped.
(shrug)
The Founders always said that "democracy is are worst disease", the masses were not competant enough to run the government, and therefore we should have a Republic run by educated men. i.e. People with enough common sense to realize scrapping the first amendment is a bad idea.
The government is not your daddy. Its purpose is not to raid middle-class neighbors' wallets and give it to you.
It's easy to think, "Wow, that's crazy," but then, an atheist doesn't stand a chance in hell of being President of the United States of America. (Pun only slightly intended.) I think that's pretty stupid.
Not saying one's better or worse than the other, just that no country has a monopoly on stupid citizens.
Do you mind sourcing that? The closest I'm able to find is that "74% would prevent public school students from wearing a T-shirt with a slogan that might offend others." Source I've no doubt that many people have very different views than me on what the first amendment guarantees, but I honestly doubt your figure, particularly considering the other data on the same site.
Yep, there's a big difference between disagreeing with the First Amendment, and believing certain clothes shouldn't be allowed in public schools attended by minors. If you want to wear an offensive t-shirt, you can do it all you want at home, or walking on public streets or public parks etc. Public schools aren't free-speech zones. The attendees are minors, and don't have the same rights and privileges as adults. They can't decide not to go to class, or to sit outside class with signs and protest. If they don't have the right to even decide if they want to go or not, they certainly don't have any inherent rights to wear offensive t-shirts, or say offensive things (such as in the middle of class when the teacher is talking). Even public university students don't have that right.
"illegal combatants" is an arbitrarily defined term invented by the very government that does the jailing for it. Likewise, "terrorist organization" is an arbitrary term that doesn't even have an official definition. I'm pretty sure I know at least one reason why: It would be awfully hard to find a definition that would not include the CIA, Mossad or other "friendly services".
So in summary, arbitray foreign people are sent to Gitmo for arbitrary reasons. That's slightly better than for speaking out against the government, but only very slightly, and only because of the "foreign" in there.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Unless the Chinese asked were older than 65, they are unlikely to even know what it's like without government "control". It's akin to asking a wild mustang if he likes horseshoes.
On the other hand, if that wild mustang gets all the food it can eat, has owners that groom it regularly and let it have free run of the ranch, then why should it want a life without horseshoes?
Westerners, and especially Americans, seem to have a really difficult time understanding other cultures, and specifically cultures where authority is still trusted to do the right thing. You saw in the news just over the past few weeks how shocked we seem to have been by the fact that Chinese citizens actually came out to protest in favor of their government on the issue of Tibet as it relates to the Olympic torch relay - the tone of the news reports was "what's wrong with these people?" Well, there's nothing wrong with them. Under their present government, the vast majority of Chinese live in peace, their economy is growing at 8-10% per year, they're about to host the most prestigious sporting event in the world, etc. etc. Beyond those abstracts, personal wealth is at levels never before seen in China.
Why shouldn't they trust the government? The government seems to have done pretty well for them - unlike our "democratically elected" government that can barely manage 1-2% growth, gets us involved in unnecessary foreign wars and has presided over a doubling of gas prices and foreclosures in the last year. Given warrantless wiretapping, detention without trial of "enemy combatants", the movement towards prison sentences (even life sentences) for copyright violations, not to mention the Patriot Act, I would argue that we really don't have a hell of a lot more freedom than they do either. Yeah, so they've got an internet firewall. But my bet is they don't have stormtroopers knocking down their doors if they say the words "ammonium nitrate" over the phone and it gets flagged as a keyword in some NSA remote listening database.
Which side is more "brainwashed"?
We've simply learned to distrust government based on how non-functional and even harmful our own is. Well, theirs (like most of the world's) actually works pretty well for the vast majority of the country, so they've learned the opposite lesson.
Wrong.
China has always been a dictatorship. Even the so-called "nationalist government" was little better than a congregation of power-grubbing warlords. Democracy in Taiwan only works because it's so small. And that's where things are different from the US. Chinese prefer one ruler over multiple regional warlords. Because if history is any indication, multiple rulers means war and strife. And that has happened so many times in the past that the peaceful periods in between the wars are more than welcome. Democracy brings about instability. It is, by its very nature, unstable. It is undesirable, and the reason why the populace fled to the communists in the 30's and 40's. Communism promised stability.
Besides, democracy doesn't exist in Chinese thought. Confucian values dominate, and Confucious was very strict on following the hierarchy of the faily (grandparents, parents, older siblings, self, younger siblings, children, grandchildren, etc.). This comes from the still-living tradition of ancestral worship, and makes absolute sense in that framework. Democracy has no place in this ideology.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."