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."
are in jail
Something like... "The chinese national news reports tonight that 85% of chinese citizens like censorship".
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Look, a censored survey!
85% Chinese is afraid of the government.
are made up.
If I were living in China, I'd be wary (and probably afraid) of speaking out against gov't censorship and control of the Internet.
*Statistics compiled by the Ministry of Statistics.
*Ministry of Statistics Motto:We're here to make sure you're happy about your statistics.
You mean people that spend all their life being managed and controlled want the internet to be managed and controlled?
I'm shocked I tells ya, shocked~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How did they perform this survey? I would have a feeling that the majority of people in China are in three or more similar categories:
1. Afraid to answer anything "anonymously" as they know better.
2. Afraid to answer anything other than what they think the State wants them to say (see #1).
3. Are so ingrained in the sheep mentality that they just don't know any better.
4. Are just like Americans and don't really care but don't lie about it.
...or another ostensible democracy, and asked the same question, I wonder what percentage would say "yes" here as well?
I think it might me much higher than most Slashdotters would believe.
When people are raised in a certain way, they think a certain way. Often, children in abusive households become abusive themselves...
...
so... what about children raised in a red china communism 'I love the government' household?
To add to that problem, how can 85% of chinese vote for an option they've never experienced - if they are living 'well' enough, by their standards, and don't know differently, then why would they change?
I'd go as far to say that 99.99% of humanity thinks that censorship is a good thing as long as they get to pick what is censored from the rest.
Everyone wants the government to be their censorship tool. The government will happily censor stuff. It's just various groups want different things censored and want to be allowed to view their chosen content.
it's not enough to justify the infringement of a human right.
There is no majority large enough that stripping even one person of their rights against their will is justified.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
In a repressive government people will public speak party lines, most of them say it so much they start to beleave it. So the stats are not that unbeleavable. But I am sure if you can find a non-repressive government I bet you will still find a good number of people pro-censorship. Just as long as it is blocking information they don't want to hear.
Even on Liberal anti-censorship slashdot. Oposing view points are often quickly modded down just because people don't want agree with it or beleave it to be true. While it is not censorship in true sience of the word, it is a way for the moderators to say Hey I don't want people reading this, and if they do I don't want them to think it is a valad argument.
People are humans and humans feel threntoned by different ideas then their own, it doesn't matter if you have just a GED or a PHD you will feel threantoned by different ideas. When people feel threntoned they will try to move to higher powers to prevent the threat.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If there was a poll among Americans asking if they felt that terrorism needed to be "managed or controlled" and if they wanted the government to do this managing, I bet the numbers would be similarly high. People aren't magically different across the globe. As long as the average individual isn't too badly off, they tend towards maintaining the status quo. In China this apparently gets translated to "I'm happy now. An influx of radical new ideas may upset this happiness. I'd rather things stay the way they are. The government needs to protect me from this." In the US this is "I'm happy now. An influx of radical terrorists may upset this happiness. I'd rather things stay the way they are. The government needs to protect me from this." You can substitute the fear du jour from almost any point in modern history with similar results.
it also is the question your asked and who asks it.
Take voting in the DNC primary, by all accounts and polls one candidate should be getting even more votes than they are getting yet once behind the privacy of the voting booth they don't get them.
Some questions make people uncomfortable whether their freedom is in jeopardy or not. It is also instinctive in some people to give the answer that they believe the questioner wants regardless if its a true one.
While I do agree China is a special case I have seen friends answer complete strangers in what I knew wasn't what they believed but instead what they wanted the questioner to believe.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
How many people in Europe and the US want the net to be censored?
Including child pornography, illegal material, the anarchist cookbook, DeCSS, Nazi propaganda sites, etc?
The level of censorship in China is obviously leaps and bounds beyond anything else in the world, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. but I think that people overestimate the meaning of free speech to the average citizen. As long as it doesn't bother them, most people don't have any problems whatsoever when extremists, deviants, weirdos, and the like are censored, as long as it doesn't directly concern them and the stuff they're interested.
The majority of people in China are not interested in politics, both traditionally, and because it's been a bad idea to be involved in politics for the last 50 years. So if they don't read Dalai Lama's speeches, Japanese version of history, or Germany's take on political freedom in China, they don't particularly care, as they're not interested in it in the first place.
Even here, people clap happily as the FBI and similar agencies in Europe freely read our emails, search our computers, confiscate hardware, all in the name of counter-terrorism. Make a Pew poll in Europe and let's see how many average people have a problem with this?
The situation in China is obviously far worse, but instead of patting ourselves on the back and going on about evil Chinese and how much better we are, it would be wise to draw some parallels.
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.
I live in a post-communist country and I remember the communism very well. Most people in the Czech Republic, before the fall of communism, would probably answer "yes, we agree with the goverment" in any poll, regardless of the question, if they just weren't absolutely sure that the authorities wouldn't know their answer. Because free expression of opinion, in such a country, may mean anything from financial loss to death.
SHE does throw dice.
Question 1. Do you believe that there should be a way for Law Enforcement officials to identify those on the internet who engage in illegal activities, for the sake of protecting the naive or easily prayed upon?
Question 2. Do you want us to have the power to know what you buy online, what your daughter looks like in a bikini, and read the email you sent to your working-away-from-home husband (Paul) with that photo of you(?) in the black and scarlet red corset (and not much else)?
If you answered differently to both of those questions, your opinion is not valid for this survey.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Guo said that the explanation for this increase probably lies in the spate of widely publicized incidents of fraud, blackmail, sensationalism, and other abuse of Chinese citizens via the internet. The Chinese word used for "politics" in this survey, zhengzhi, is not confined simply to political rights or competition for political control but may be understood to include larger questions of public morality and social values. While I love bashing Communists, the report simply doesn't allow it. It appears to be more of a cultural, rather than political, difference.
Pretty damn interesting, actually.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
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.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Oh please. Stop this. Seriously. This gets regularly trotted out by people who have no concept of what censorship actually is. Do you know who actually does the "censoring" in Slashdot? You do. You, by setting your preferences to filter out comments under a certain threshold, you remove someone's ability to be read. As a result, you're the censor on slashdot. Not CowboyNeal, not the moderators, but you - and you alone. So stop blaming others for your actions.
Not to mention that telling others that an opinion is worthless is not the same as censoring. Sometimes, I wish people would spend some time in a country that actually does censor speech, so that they understand the difference. Censoring speech: someone breaks your fingers or throws you in the slammer for propagating illegal/unwanted opinions. Moderating: a mark that tells others "Warning - stupid person talking."
Normally, confusing the two is a sign that the person is 13 and hasn't gotten to political science in high school yet, but that'd make your UID too low. I can only assume you're just confused.
I also have no idea how you managed to misspell "threatened" like that.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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
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.
I surfed the Chinese internet and media and found nothing that would make me believe this practice isn't perfection itself.
The gov't also has these nice pamphlets handed out by the armed peace-protectors telling me so.
True. Just look at how many of the DailyKOS posters have been jailed or executed for speaking out against the government. FYI that number is 0 (ZERO)
They are being sent there because they were allegedly captured as illegal combatants and/or provided support to a terrorist orginization
FTFY. Everyone in Gitmo is an innocent man according to our laws.
"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
Actually, people have certainly been jailed in the US for daring to appear at a Bush speech without having first drunk the kool-aid. For example, Nicole and Jeffrey Rank were arrested just for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts (without even creating a disturbance). But unlike in China, people in the US are generally released pretty quickly afterwards (and in this case, actually won a legal settlement against the federal government).