A Look Into China's Web Censorship Program

kev0153 writes "MSNBC is offering a good article explaining some of the details behind China's web censorship program. 'Google's face-off with Beijing over censorship may have struck a philosophical blow for free speech and encouraged some Chinese Netizens by its sheer chutzpah, but it doesn't do a thing for Internet users in China. Its more lasting impact may lie in the global exposure it has given to the Chinese government's complex system of censorship – an ever-shifting hodgepodge of restrictions on what information users can access, which Web tools they can use and what ideas they can post.'"

Comments

Re:what a giant load of horseshit

[dugjohnson]

There's a difference in the way a person treats the people in his life and the way the government treats people in its life.

Original poster's point is that a government that doesn't fear consequences as a result of mistreating the governed will do pretty much what it wants.  There is no other reasonable motivator.  Altruism in government is seen even more rarely than in everyday life, and I'm hoping you won't try to make the point that my government loves me.

How to beat the Chinese FW

[sebaseba]

A friend has recently been to China, that is PRC. IRC worked normally, although he couldn't access facebook. So I've set up a normal HTTP proxy which was blocked immediately after the first page shown (facebook.com). IIRC it didn't even resolve facebook.com, we've had to put IPs in... but still my point is: they analyze the packets and they've seen the CONNECT in HTTP headers as it worked only on once request. After that I've set an another proxy (on an another IP), this time HTTPS. That worked, although you must route DNS requests somehow outside China or have a local nslookup table ;)

Confusicanism's perspective on censorship

[TheNarrator]

Confucius, one of the most influential philosophers in Chinese history. He has something to say about censorship and the role that the government should play in communicating with the people that I think makes what the Chinese are trying to accomplish a bit clearer:

XIX. The Duke Gae asked, saying, “What should be done in order to secure the submission of the people.” Confucius replied, “Advance the upright and set aside the crooked, then the people will submit. Advance the crooked and set aside the upright, then the people will not submit.”

XX. Ke K‘ang asked how to cause the people to reverence their ruler, to be faithful to him, and to urge themselves to virtue. The Master said, “Let him preside over them with gravity;—then they will reverence him. Let him be filial and kind to all;—then they will be faithful to him. Let him advance the good and teach the incompetent;—then they will eagerly seek to be virtuous.”

Source

So notice how Chinese censorship not only applies to political messages but also to non-political messages that are deemed to not be representative of virtue. They shutdown people who have stock tip blogs, who are writing sex gossip columns, who become popular in signing and dancing competitions and professional sports culture. They don't want people who the government considers to be not good role models for the people to achieve any degree of fame. The government would never permit the kind of gangster/mafia glorifying culture in China which is so popular in many parts of the rest of the world no matter how non-poltiical.

BTW, I urge anyone who wants to understand China better to read Confucius. He was writing in about 200BCE, before China had any contact at all with the West so in order to fully appreciate it, one has to temporarily disregard everything one is familiar with in the western traditions and carefully digest his words.

Re:Confusicanism's perspective on censorship

[ljgshkg]

You're a bit twisting the meaning here if you think Confucius approves censorship. In fact, the translation is not all that correct.

The first paragraph you quote is simply saying "you should put the upright in power because people respect upright, not power".

The qustion part of your second quote is more like "How to cause people to reverence and loyal to their ruler, and be strive". Note that the last point is not about virtue, but striveness.

The answer part of your second quote is "Act solemnly, and they will respect you. Let them filial to their parent/anybody-above-them-in-family, and let them be kind to their kids, then they will be loyal to you. Let the competent and good to teach the once who are not (yet), and they will be strive."

There is nothing here to do with censorship. In fact, confucius lived in the free-est age in China when different kind of philosophy just started to flourish, trying to find a better way to rule good and end hundreds of years of endless war. And he is the one who bring all the knowledge that were held in the hand of nobles to the people. With just a small string of dry meat, he'll teach you all you can learn from him. His teaching style also encourage his students to discuss with him whatever they see or thought of in their journey around different countries in the then China. So basically, it's quite opposite to censorship.

Unlike the western world back then, China never really do any real censorship ( with a few exceptions). In the culture of Chinese, people may just pretend they can't see, or just talk as "entertainment" if you do something that is not "right" in our the culture but is not breaking the most important values "visibly" or "publicly" or in more formal situations.

For example, your comment about "writing sex gossip columns". China in most time in history not only has books with drawings about different "style" of sex positions. We also have private brothel and government opened once. Scholar etc. going to those places are considered not having good practise, but since it doesn't touch the most important stuff like filial to parents, people more "follow the rule" may just talk about it. But never see it as very serious. And in any period of time, there are always differnt schools of confucius taking different view among themselves or in favourite or against preious confucius scholars. They openly debate about differnet views etc. Later on, colleges are form at many places allowing schoolars to discuss and further learn or develope. At the time, colleges often represents schools of thought and they do have a relatively strong political power because traditionally, most government officals are selected through national wide exams and are often part of a certain school of confucius.

So in fact, censorship has no relationship to confusius. Chinese culture's degree of acceptance in diff things is very high as long as it doesn't touch family matters (e.g. filial) and country matter (e.g. loyalty). Otherwise, you wouldn't have buddism in China since there was actually a serious discussion among the top officers during the Dynasty of Tang because some practise of buddism is against some Chinese traditions. But they finally let it pass and decide it's up to the people to decide if they accept it or not.

Re:Impact

[Low Ranked Craig]

Except that in the US we do not have a lot of censorship. Look at Glenn Beck for example. Whether or not we agree with him is not the point. The point is that he can say what he does under the 1st amendment without fear of being arrested, at least currently. I personally believe that the "mainstream" media in the US does a horrible job of reporting facts, and instead mostly editorializes, but to suggest that the censorship in the US is in anyway comparable to that in China is laughable. The very fact that websites like breitbart, deudgereport and the huffington post exist, whether or not you like what is posted therein, should tell you something about the freedoms we enjoy in the US as compared to China, Iran, North Korea, etc...

Re:Impact

[Anonymous Coward]

What is more dangerous?

1) Knowing that your government censors certain information and that the gov't news is biased, as most Chinese people do?
or
2) Having media that act essentially as political arms of the government, and subtly alter what they feed you as "truth" so that the average citizen believes that the news is actually factual?

Re:Impact

[Hurricane78]

You don’t need censorship. Your social engineers — which you call “mainstream media” — are much better. You don’t have as much censorship, but your perceived reality is just as twisted. (Oh, and bleeping out some of your words definitely is censorship. And shows how well the mind-twisting works.)

We here in Germany aren’t a bit better by the way. I think the population is even more gullible since they still think that the mainstream media is really trustworthy.

It’s as art, to twist the minds in a way that makes opposing statements look like confirmation of your own statements. And if you approach it like science, you can become really good at it.

Mass social engineering is the censorship of the 21st century. It’s the art of creating botnets made of human minds.