Slashdot Mirror
Chinese Censors Are Being Watched
Rambo Tribble writes "The Economist is reporting on two research teams, one at Harvard and another at the University of Hong Kong, who have developed software to detect what posts to Chinese social media get censored. 'The team has built up a database comprising more than 11m posts that were made on 1,382 Chinese internet forums. Perhaps their most surprising result is that posts critical of the government are not rigorously censored. On the other hand, posts that have the purpose of getting people to assemble, potentially in protest, are swept from the internet within a matter of hours.' Chinese censors may soon have to deal with an unprecedented transparency of their actions."
The other first posts must have already been censored.
Watches the watchmen.
But who watches those who watch the watchmen, eh?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The question remains, however: Who watches the watchers watching the censors? Those at U of Hong Kong may have to soon deal with an unprecedented amount of attention upon their actions.
in america posts of copyrighted music are swept from the internet within hours. every society has a different opinion on what should be taken off the internet. china wants to prevent riots, america wants to prevent music.
Lets see, a billion people with how many devices - try censoring that! I'm assuming they aren't using tech to do it per se but people.
"... have to deal with an unprecedented transparency of their actions"
...will be censored into oblivion within seconds instead of hours....
Chinese censors may soon have to deal with an unprecedented transparency of their actions.
I kinda doubt that the Chinese government has anything to fear from these research teams.
Perhaps their most surprising result is that posts critical of the government are not rigorously censored. On the other hand, posts that have the purpose of getting people to assemble, potentially in protest, are swept from the internet within a matter of hours.
That's not surprising. By leaving the critical posts up the government gives the illusion they aren't as oppressive as they are on free speech. The rally to protest on the streets is a much more public thing. The last thing the Chinese government wants is another "international news incident". Keeping the revolutionaries in their parents' basements is how they do that.
Talk is cheap, so they let it run.
" " - that's the posting of words which are often edited ("assembly", "protest") in baidu after baidu, tweet after tweet. A billion people sending false positives, like "assemble a sandwich" or "protest the car engine" will make it extremely difficult for the censors to see what they are blocking. (I have posted the Simplified Chinese translation of "False Positive" at the beginning of this post, but it appears to be censored).
Gently reply
In order to stop their motions being tracked, those censors need to censor their actions by not doing them at all. That'll teach us.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
I recently read an article in a international-edition newspaper (sorry - can't remember which) by an apologist writer for the Chinese government censorship. He claimed that the Chinese government doesn't have an issue with reporting corruption by local government officials - indeed they see this as a useful public service and a vent for the public - and so won't censor these stories, but he did say they will censor stupid rumours (sham cures for radiation) but primarily anything that might cause a public gathering to take place. (After all, that's how revolutions get started! ;-) This project will find a way to verify this, though what happened with T^2 and the blind dissident GC obviously doesn't fit his model.
But don't pretend for a moment we are any better. The news is heavily censored everywhere, even in liberal western democracies:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/18/google-getting-more-requests-from-democracies-to-censor/
Libel laws are a very effective way to cause self-censorship by the media:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britains-libel-laws-are-stifling-free-speech-says-un-894519.html
http://overland.org.au/blogs/loudspeaker/2012/03/defamation-laws-the-real-threat/
http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/archivedfactsheets/freespeechanddefamationpre2010.html
http://www.studentatlaw.com/articles/130/1/Defamation-and-Freedom-of-Speech/Page1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/12/opinion/self-censorship-at-cbs.html
http://www.japanlaw.info/law2003/2003_LIBEL_LAW_AND_CORRUPTION.html
There's also soft self-censorship too even in the US: "Sure you can print that... if you are prepared for consequences... Ah wonderful. I knew we could find common ground."
http://rt.com/usa/news/editor-at-top-us-newspaper-resigns-over-censorship/
http://cofcc.org/2011/03/new-york-times-editor-confesses-to-censoring-information-about-black-crime/
http://usmediaandisrael.com/intimidation-at-the-new-york-times/
http://omnologos.com/watch-out-for-self-censorship-at-the-new-york-times/
"Tell the truth and run." - Yugoslav proverb
It seems interesting that Hong Kong has been very vocal recently in criticizing Beijing. In fact, it seems interesting that 1 country 2 systems has been maintained for so long with little change, especially since it is clear that Hong Kong (and Macau) has it much better than mainland China, for example, life expectancy in mainland China is only 73, in Hong Kong it is 82, nearly a decade of difference. Between the vast differences in wealth and standard of living in the 2 areas of China, I'm really surprised that those in mainland China don't rise up and demand the system that Hong Kong has. Do the Chinese not equate the system of government to the greater wealth and health of Hong Kong? Or do they simply not have the facts to compare the two?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Abusive governments do not care about people liking them or not. They care about nobody organizing anything close to a resistance.
Apparently funded, in part, by large payments from larger companies (including telcos & ISP, from some reports), a popular but moderated Australian forum site, namely:
+ Whirlpool.net.au
has - in recent past - allowed posts to be removed by its growing gang of unknown & anonymous moderators.
It is forbidden to -discuss- moderation or even wonder aloud why a particular post was removed, except either directly to a closed "Ask a Moderator" forum or - with some restrictions - in a forum on the topic.
As a case-in-point, one -puzzling- deletion took a post which referred to one of the entry-level Internet plans of the de facto monopoly telco & ISP (ie, Telstra "Big Pond") as a "poverty trap."
(The plan appeared cheap to new & would-be Internet users, by its -apparently- low (eg, Au$ 29.95 / mon for as low as 500 MB of include data, on a -wired- ADSL or faster service) monthly cost, but often generated revenues that soared to levels formerly seen on business accounts, ie, as/when the user's "excess" data usage rose. This was due to a very high Au$ 150.00 / GB "excess" fee. The fee was listed as Au$ 0.15 / MB in the company's ad's & marketing brochures.)
As the posts were factually accurate, we surmise that Whirlpool owner(s) had no reason to fear any legal challenge to allowing them to remain posted. After all, they simply reported facts and continued with a bit of commentary, that indicated the posters' feelings about "placing a boulder before the blind [new Internet user]."
Others can give you their lists of posts that got slashed, by one or another over-zealous moderators.
Even active & long-time Whirlpool users have been known to be "banned" - one way or another - from posting, after (reportedly) minor infractions of "don't ask / don't tell" (about moderation, in public, near where your post(s) were originally posted, ie, before their removal).
Calls for web sites where deleted posts could be arkived - both so that others can be aware of what actually gets removed by moderators AND so that readers, for whom the controvertial posts were intended can read them, if they desire - have been proposed, but such posts seem also to be removed, when noticed by mod's.
If you think the iron fist here in the west appropriate it's citizen with complete and accurate information then you are an idiot working at Harvard or Hong Kong.
It's pretty much unanimous that the Chinese are doing very well, thank you very much.
This begs the question what motivates Harvard (and the west in general) to "help" a country that clearly don't need "help"?
Perhaps Harvard could do more good directing it's resources on sub-Saharan Africa or India, or other world's real depraved locations that I'm sure the smart people at Harvard can Google out.
But instead we get a endless diarrhea of "Big Bad China" bowel movements.
So is Harvard's true motivation to "help" somebody who don't need our "help"? Or are there hidden, more nefarious agenda?
Inquiring minds want to know.
For the last 15 years I travelled 3 or 4 times a year to China for my work. (purchasing cheap stuff I can sell for high dollars in the west)
Each trip averaged two weeks and in those trips I travel all around China.
From HongKong to deep inside of China. I speak with high officials and with factory workers because I am intrigued by their culture.
The Chinese government is really afraid for revolutions. They had many in their history and the Chinese people will start a new revolution if needed.
Especially now the communication freedom is uncontrollable. The government can block some sites but not all of them and if they do block everything than people will start a revolution for sure.
The sole purpose of the government is to satisfy the majority of the people. It is naïve to think you can satisfy everybody but at least they try.
In my home country (The Netherlands) we have a multi-party government. Every 4 years we have a popularity contest (elections). After forming the actual government (which can take months) decision making is slow and always a compromise nobody wants. Then I really favor the Chinese way.
But the Chinese government has a lot of corruption and in some cases no merci for the minority. :)
So I still prefer to live in my own country and hope our Monarch will seize the power again.
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
learn it, post it. make it your underground battle cry
Here in the West, we outsource all manufacturing to China. In China, they outsource all rights protections to the West.
A curious, obviously temporary, global arrangement. The West's economy will collapse, and angry Chinese will rise up and demand their rights. Give it 10-20 years.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"You beat your wife, so why can't I beat mine?"
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
"The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And it's generally true of corporations. It's true of Fascist states, for that matter. But the institution itself is parasitic. It's dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who don't adjust to that structure, who don't accept it and internalize it (you can't really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don't do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don't do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren't lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on. "
And:
http://disciplined-minds.com/
"In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline."
The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy."
http://www.jaw-breaker.org
http://www.sandmakingplant.net
http://www.vibrating-screen.biz
http://www.mcrushingstation.com
http://www.cnimpactcrusher.com
http://www.cnstonecrusher.com
http://www.mcrushingplant.com
http://www.hydraulicconecrusher.net