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.
Slashdot, among others.
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.
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.
Yea, but most Chinese are far better off now than they were just a generation ago. A woman I worked with returned to her grandparents' village in China a few years ago; she thought it was unbelievably primitive - but they told her of all the improvements: a road to the village that you could ride a bicycle on instead of walking. Good water in the community well, etc. etc. Their biggest complaint was that all the younger generation had left the village for the cities to work; nobody wanted to work in the rice paddies anymore.
If you RTFA (no really), one of the conclusions is that the goal of the censorship is to provide a form of safety value. Let the people criticize the party/government, and even let that root out corruptions and law breaking. But when the discussion turns to protest or other forms of mass action, start censoring and nip it in the bud.
Not in favor of censorship, but I have to admit it is a pretty effective strategy.
The more important question that remains is about preemptive censorship. Who can count the posts and other internet activities that don't make it into the monitoring software of the researchers because of blocking, filtering, whatever?
As technology improves, Chinese censors may need to deal with unprecedented transparency, but the researchers will certainly have to deal with ever more effective methods of controlling the Internet. And it is not clear who will come on top in this kind of arms race, especially in the short to medium run.
Besides, it isn't happening only in China, the push for censorship under various pretexts is very much active in the West too, as well as technological development that facilitates such filtering and a strong and concerted PR to justify the push.
Kiteo, his eyes closed.
But when the discussion turns to protest or other forms of mass action, start censoring and nip it in the bud.
To add to that, and to show why the censors aren't shaking in their little space boots, a discussion of censorship would also trigger the censorship. This is how the censors "deal" with transparency of their actions, they hide it from The People. They don't really care if the rest of the world knows about it.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
" " - 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
The cynic might suggest that the Chinese have caught on to the existence of 'slacktivists', who find bitching on the internet to be cathartic; but are generally quite harmless, especially if you don't bother them in their favorite hobby.
(Says the guy whose username is 'fuzzyfuzzyfungus', on Slashdot, before no doubt going back to working for world peace or something...)
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.