
China’s scary lesson to the world: Censoring the Internet works - molecule
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/chinas-scary-lesson-to-the-world-censoring-the-internet-works/2016/05/23/413afe78-fff3-11e5-8bb1-f124a43f84dc_story.html
======
bad_user
Of course it does. I wouldn't bet that it will last though. I often tell
people how I was born under communism and that what happened before 1989 in
Romania and maybe in other Easter European countries makes the 1984 novel seem
unrealistic and boring. We had far worst forms of censorship and propaganda,
paranoia about being caught with doublethink by nosy neighbors was at al times
high, yet everything looked normal, roses red, sky blue, etc. But the social
dissent was there, buried within all layers of society, because you cannot
stop thought or even word of mouth. And it didn't happen overnight, it took
more than 40 years, but in the end we shot our dictators on Christmas day. Not
a smart thing to do, not real justice, but you know, when the revolution came
people feared for their lives and in the end the many trump the few, a fact
that governments tend to forget.

I don't care much about what the Chinese do within their borders. The far more
aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with
Chinese companies and buy Chinese products.

Now that's fucked up, because we are trading our values, for which people
freaking died to win, for short term convenience, also sending the message
that it's OK as a country to violate basic human rights, as long as you're
powerful enough. Money trumps everything, great thing to teach our kinds,
kudos folks.

~~~
justsaysmthng
> The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do
> business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products.

A trade embargo (aka cold war) would be a lot worse for everyone involved..
Leads to arms race and threats of war, even less freedom and more injustice
for the people (eg North Korea).

> we are trading our values, for which people freaking died to win, for short
> term convenience ..

Yeah, we do that with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq and many more. That's
the essence of business - trade one thing for another. We trade our "freedom
to do whatever we want" for a salary. We trade our "freedom to party" for the
happiness of raising a child... It's one of those laws of life which we might
not entirely like, but cannot escape.

> people freaking died to win

People die - that's the only absolute we can rely on. Don't get carried away
with "dying for .. something", most often this is not true - most died because
delusional leaders sent them into battle ... only after the fact their death
got dressed into "honorable cause"..

In the end, the higher morals are dictated by whoever managed to seize power..

Which, by the way brings us back to the censorship thing..

~~~
bad_user
I don't think we have the same definition for freedom. Here's one freedom that
we do have: I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship
and you're free to counteract with other arguments, leading us to dialog, on a
public forum.

And on people dying, that's just another way of saying that great sacrifice
has been made for us to enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms that we do have, so
we can't trade those so easily, because then our children will have to repay
that price.

~~~
PavlovsCat
> I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship

Just like the Chinese have the freedom to denounce US imperalism. Now, try
something more serious, like calling for actual Western war criminals, and
those of Western allies, to be brought to court. You won't go to jail; because
nobody (who matters) will listen to you. And what would happen if you managed
to actually start something that had a _real_ chance at getting people in
front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has
done it before.

~~~
seletz
Oh, I think Mr. Snowden would disagree on the "nobody has done it before." And
he wasn't the first.

~~~
the_af
I don't know that Snowden is a good example: he had to flee his country in a
hurry. There is a great deal of uncertainty about whether he would have a fair
trial in the US, a country where many are calling him a traitor.

~~~
fixermark
That's seletz's point.

It's easy for people to embrace the rhetoric that China is a bound society and
the West is made of free societies. In reality, the shape of the bindings is
different. A free society wouldn't have forced a man to flee because he knew
he wouldn't find justice after revealing an uncomfortable political truth to
the public that is oppressed by it. America's methods are different, but being
a superpower and an empire demands supreme authority in key areas.

~~~
the_af
Oh, if that was seletz's point, then I agree with it.

I thought he was claiming in the US it was possible to be a dissident without
censorship or repression. My mistake!

~~~
seletz
Well -- I think it's a bit more subtle than that. And maybe a bit more scary.
While one would believe that there can be "dissidents" in the US w/o
repression based on what one reads on the net -- e.g. the the "US"
representing the "free world" yadda yadda ... -- the repressions and
censorships are more subtle in general.

Also, one must not confuse the US with "the western world". I live in Germany,
and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o censorship. I also
believe this is true for most other European countries.

My original point was that the statement: > And what would happen if you
managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people
in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody
has done it before.

Is simply not true. Mentioned Mr. Snowden as an example -- but there are more,
like the huge leak of the panama papers.

~~~
fixermark
> I live in Germany, and I believe that you could be a dissident here w/o
> censorship.

Just don't say "The Nazis are great and I really wish they were back in
power." That'll get you straight-up jailed under section 86a of
Strafgesetzbuch, if I understand correctly. Everything else is on the table.
;)

[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

~~~
seletz
Well -- apart from the fact that you probably wouldn't ( _) -- one can always
come up with something which is against "rules". Be it social rules, rules you
made up in your head, law and so on. Rules are what it takes apparently to
uphold a coherent society.

The question is what happens if you break the rules. Are there rules on how to
handle individuals who break rules? Do the ones who have the power also have
to follow the same rules? What about those wo make the rules? Do they have to
follow the rules? How is the process of rule-making, rule-checking and
punishing separated?

I'm pretty sure that in most european countries this is pretty OK -- yes there
are gaps, holes, and sometimes just plain unjust or unfair processes.

I'm also pretty damn sure that for some countries this is way off. China is
IMNSHO one of them.

(_) There are still people wandering about who say this and similar things who
are not in jail. You much more likely would get in trouble if you call someone
a "goat-fucker" (google erdogan and jan böhmermann).

------
zhte415
China's firewall is largely constructed to create technology transfer towards
China.

This may be in the form of hindering sales for comapanies they may have
interesting opportunities for investment, from sports shoes to embedded
microchips, to financial products.

It is also part of a much greater Golden Shield network.

But a lot has changed over the past 5 years. A contrast of goals/objectives:
the Golden Shield formerly largely about public security and media control, a
network prided under the former premier (national harmony being the end-game),
but now goals are much, much, more nationalistic at a strategic level across
China.

~~~
eob
> China's firewall is largely constructed to create technology transfer
> towards China.

That's been a huge effect of the GFW, but is there material indicating it was
the original purpose? My understanding was that much of the explosion in
Chinese censorship tech happened as a way to prevent social media from gaining
control over the news cycle. (i.e., when a train wreck occurs, the Party
prefers stick-to-the-facts news coverage over whose-to-blame social media
mobs)

~~~
zhte415
Original purpose? Multifaceted, but certainly not just internet focused, it
was a part of a much bigger thing (Golden Shield) that involves submitting
photocopies of IDs to get a mobile phone SIM to an urban alley-way with CCTV
and a cartoon of a friendly cop pasted on the wall.

>when a train wreck occurs, the Party prefers stick-to-the-facts news coverage
over whose-to-blame social media mobs

combating whose-to-blame scaremongering isn't in the GFW's scope, as in
regarding blocking foreign access, but is in the grey area with the rest of
Golden Shield, such as requiring ICP licences in order to host a website.
Today, however, Golden Shield is pretty mature, high-speed train-wrecks being
covered by diggers is generally accepted as not OK, and most of the action
happens on WeChat anyway with gov't ID papers issued to get a SIM, therefore a
number, therefore a WeChat account.

A huge amount of fraud happens on WeChat, despite these paperwork needs.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> a much bigger thing (Golden Shield) that involves submitting photocopies of
> IDs to get a mobile phone SIM

I can assure you this is not current Chinese policy.

~~~
zhte415
>> a much bigger thing (Golden Shield) that involves submitting photocopies of
IDs to get a mobile phone SIM

> I can assure you this is not current Chinese policy.

It is the law: to get a SIM card, must submit ID card scan or passport scan.

~~~
khrm
In India too, you need ID card to get sim card. And your sim card is activated
after verification. In west you don't need to? How does Security agencies
collect data? India is quite free albeit there's a recent surge of fascism.

~~~
intended
India is _practically_ free, but technically not. We're hilariously stumbling
into becoming a security state.

Its funny, even though it is so tragic.

I remember that you didn't need Govt ID to get a phone line, to enter an
airport, or to get on a plane (you just needed the ticket hard copy).

I definitely remember a time when you didn't need Govt ID when you checked
into a hotel! Now you do, and hotels have to keep copies of them.

There's been so many, many assaults on privacy in India, and no one to oppose
it because Indian's inherently are fond of the idea of a parent state.

If its hard to believe a random person on the internet - consider that the
Government of India recently argued that _there is no right to Privacy in the
constitution._

And Aadhar. Man, if you want to see a better example of "Not my Problem" and
doublspeak, then look no further than our Biometric program.

Its like watching Kafka author history.

------
dasil003
I don't subscribe to common western black and white views on US vs Chinese
freedom, and in fact I am fairly paranoid about the US government overreach of
power, however I don't see that Chinese-style internet censorship has any
applicability to the US or European governments.

I'm far more concerned about the power exterted by increasingly large
corporations who want extract as much rent from the network as possible. I'm
also more concerned about covert government surveillance. But in terms of
outright censorship, that will just piss off too many people for little gain.
There's no competitive advantage to be gained the way there is for China.

~~~
agumonkey
Anecdote: On Omegle a while ago, I chat with a Chinese girl, all Chinese guys
I met there were always anxious about how other people would see their
country, so I proceed to explain that I grew up very fond of many things about
China, martial arts, silk clothes, temples, food, pictural art, kanjis. The
girl listens happily and then tells me 'you know, not everything in China is
good, <this> <that> <this> ... ' Then 3 seconds blank. Then 'oh god .. god ...
no' then left asking me to forget what she said, that her country is great and
she loves it very much. Then quit.

I guess she was worried her messages would be logged and have consequences.

~~~
allemagne
Seems more like you were successfully trolled.

~~~
agumonkey
Could be, but I spent a huge amount of time on Omegle, stats from 10K
conversations, and that kind of troll was almost non existant. American teens
trying to spot sex seekers (to leverage in positive or negative ways) = 70% of
the users over a 9 month period. The rest were mostly bored cubicle workers.
Chinese users had recurrent pattern: struggling to type, low english level,
similar center of interests. That girl was very similar (except for the
english level). Maybe you're right but it didn't feel like this at the time.

------
schuke
Maybe it doesn't work. I've always wondered why, among so many long-ruling
authoritarian regimes, China is almost the only one with such strict
censorship. Yes there was the Arab Spring but look at Saudi Arabia, Russia,
Belarus, Vietnam..., they don't ban Facebook yet the incumbents' rule do not
face exceptionally greater challenge than China. Maybe all censorship does is
to give the Communist Party is false sense of security. Maybe it's something
else that's working and censorship is simply free-riding.

~~~
SXX
China don't have as much natural resources per citizen as Russia, don't have
huge totalitarian sponsor next to like Belarus and don't have as much oil as
Saudi Arabia. Never did any research on Vietnam so have no idea.

Reason why Russia regime still exist without heavy censorship is billions and
billions of dollars burn to sustain level of consumption. Russian economy is
nothing compared to China, but hey most of people there still able to earn
more than average chinese and even more money dumped into Moscow (only city
budget is $24B). So in past they just bought votes directly or indirectly
instead of enforcing censorship.

But since oil prices are low and they run out of money there is more and more
censorship appear. For instance more censorship-related laws adopted since
2014 than in 14 years prior that year.

~~~
tim333
Vietnam has mild censorship - the block the BBC unless you use a VPN - and the
government isn't that unpopular with free health and education and 7% growth
so they don't have to try that hard. You can still end up
fired/imprisoned/deported if you do the wrong thing though.

------
studentrob
This article fails to define what "works" means

Does censorship give China a better economy? Does it make people more happy?
Safe?

Does censorship eradicate certain ideas? Does it prevent people from
communicating domestically or internationally?

There's no data in the article that suggests any of this is true.

~~~
appleflaxen
Works means "is technically feasible".

It doesn't matter if you think it's a good idea or not: the ruling class in
China thinks it is. And any government who thinks it's a good idea in the
future knows it's technically possible based on China's example.

~~~
studentrob
Right, all they need to do is convince their population to abandon Facebook
and use the government sanctioned social media. I'm sure that will go over
well.

~~~
appleflaxen
Agreed that the public won't abandon facebook.

But I don't understand what point you are making.

------
comex
So what about Tor and obfsproxy? Does it actually (still) work? If so, why
don't more people use it?; if not, why not?

I can't easily find up-to-date information about this through Google - which I
find odd, since China is such an important use case for Tor that I would
expect them to maintain some sort of status page. Maybe the information is
more readily available in Chinese...

~~~
nullnullnullnil
I just got back from a few months in China. These services are definitely
blocked through DPI. It's frustrating. It's also interesting what happens to
your mind when you can't read what you'd like to, talk about what you'd like
to, and revert the accepted status quo for everything.

~~~
13of40
While you were there, did you get a feel for whether people there would pay
for a semi-reliable bridge through the firewall?

~~~
nbevans
"Will they pay for freedom"? Seriously?

~~~
GantzGraf
I thought it was a good question.

"Do people in China in general care enough about censorship to pay for access
to uncensored internet?" doesn't have an explicitly obvious answer, does it?

They could be happy with their internet as is. They could be unhappy and
willing to pay. They could be unhappy but unwilling/unable to pay.

------
SFJulie
You can censor by scarcity (China) or censor by overabundance of trivia
(Western).

When Kardashian out weigth cultural news, PR of corps outweigth economical
analysis, half baked tutorial replaces consistent tutorial, unproven science
replaces science : you drown signal in noise.

How many Western citizens have read that the middle eastern wars are mainly
about the top 4 weapon dealers (UK, USA, Fr, Russia) bribing locals (see
#clintonmails & #panamapapers) in order to ensure the growth of their economy
and the disposal of scarce resources (oil, Phosphate, Uranium, Copper, Gold)?

How many citizens knows that we are fueling education/health bubbles based on
good intentions (NHS) without control (incompetence?) that results in counter
productive results?

There are 2 ways to censor: cut the access to information (earth friendly
solution) or hide the information in a haystack (resulting in 2-3% of global
energy burned in spin doctoring).

~~~
Flimm
The Chinese government does censor by overabundance of trivia
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party)
. Do you have evidence that Western governments are doing similar things?

~~~
Frqy3
Not too hard to find.

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-
op...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-
social-networks)

------
eva1984
Not surprising. And I doubt other country can do the same. Several factors
makes China a unique case: 1\. Massive domestic market, China along can have
its own internet ecosystem, which is the fundamental reason why GFW can
endure.

2.Conformist culture due to its Confucian tradition

3.Communist government has firm grasp of its power and stay vigilant to any
sign or power that acts against it.

~~~
usrusr
#1 trumps everything else. Try doing the same in a market the size of a
typical European nation and you end up with an embarrassing digital backwater.
Do it in a market the size of China and you can trail silicon valley by a few
years at most, constantly gaining relative competitiveness as the global
market of "online stuff" slows from wild, exiting exploration to
establishment.

I suspect that #2 and #3 are far behind what I would put on #2, plain old
language barrier, but I am surely no China expert.

------
guelo
The sad fact is most people do not care about political freedom as long as
they feel that their economic situation is adequate.

------
fpoling
It may work now, but I suspect in the longer term it could be very harmful. As
with stocks, it is like getting short-term calmness for the price of blowing
up in the future. Noise of internet freedom train society deal with rumors
etc., that may be essential for survival.

------
bsder
I would argue that even without the Great Firewall, China starts isolated by
the fact that its language isn't really shared by anybody else.

~~~
tellarin
Nitpicking, but Mandarin Chinese is one of the official languages in Singapore
(with English, Tamil, and Malay).

Also, there is an immense Chinese diaspora throughout the world (especially in
neighbouring countries), of which many became multilingual and have access to
other media and can still communicate back.

------
vonklaus
The thing is, information is the weapon of the 21st century. We are already
litigating the cold war in the 3 most popular courts: the olympics, the media,
and financial markets.

We cooperate with China, but what will become obvious if a horrifying 1984
censorship scenario evolves more forecfully is that nations and powerbrokers
have different information thay want buried/codified. So while China censors
it's internet, there will be many places that actively promote (or at best do
not dissuade) the content that China is burying.

Just as Russia publishes content the U.S. would prefer not to be published/ is
critical of America. So Censorship does work as does fearmongering and threats
of violence. However, even in China's situation (which is horrifying) where
you can be killed for promoting information/speaking out about some things
there will always be groups outside the region with the information and as it
becomes scarce it becomes more powerful. Peacekeepers, activists, anti-chinese
nationals and subversive governement agents all have incentive to work against
chinese censorship, so censorship as a whole can not be successful hopefully
as there will always be factions and these factions will gain the highest
leverage disseminating the information that is the most policed and downright
censored shit in their counterparties region.

------
peteretep

        > In April, the U.S. government officially classified
        > it as a barrier to trade
    

Interested to see what happens if this gets taken up at the WTO.

------
alexchantavy
> On the Sina Weibo microblogging site, his post was deleted by censors, and
> his newspaper soon afterward published an opinion piece defending the
> barrier and attacking Western media for hating it so much.

I'd love to read this piece, I'm genuinely curious on how the GFW can be seen
as a positive thing for ordinary people because I really can't see it as
defensible.

------
whack
To play devil's advocate: The US does also engages in censorship. Non-citizens
are heavily restricted in the kind of political lobbying and contributions
that they are allowed to make. We can argue about the distinction between
political contributions/lobbying vs speech, but let's examine the intent
behind the US laws: to limit the influence that foreign
countries/organizations can have on domestic politics.

One could credibly argue that Chinese censorship of the internet falls along
the same vein. A completely open internet would immediately result in China
being inundated by western perspectives and arguments. An inundation that
would be disproportionate, simply due to the west's economic lead and online
headstart. One can understand any non-western-aligned nation being concerned
about its domestic politics being strongly influenced by the western-free-
speech-megaphone.

Overall, I still think that internet censorship does more harm than good, but
it's worth considering the above.

------
mc32
Why is it surprising that it works? It comes from strength as well as buy-in.
People know its censored, but they accept the bargain.

In this case, I think Chinese buying the Han homogeneity helps in that there
isn't an us vs them struggle. But rather an us vs the agitators mentality. And
being nationalistic [affinity to the homeland] helps.

So long as people see the service provided by the government to be worth the
deal, they'll put up with it. Just as we make an arguably similar, but
obviously different bargain when we put up what some people call security
theatre. We "put up with it" so long, in balance the government gives us an
acceptable deal.

For China, where in a communist country you have daily labor riots or protests
against corrupt officials, people buy into the case that with a scandalous
press they, the population, by and large, could be worse off due to unrest and
instability which could arguably threaten the viability of the CCP as well as
the one nation notion.

~~~
nullnullnullnil
FWIW, my personal experience says differently. I recently got back from a few
months in China, and while I was there I had a conversation with a young man
who was 100% convinced Tiananmen Square was a rumor started by anti government
'bad guys'.

~~~
narrator
Think of a person of median intelligence. Now realize that half the population
is dumber than that guy. That's who propaganda is intended for, not the Hacker
News crowd (apologies to anyone on Hacker News with below median intelligence,
you're welcome here too :) ). Same thing in China. The people who are easily
convinced of things is who the propaganda is intended for and who the
government wants to protect from foreign opinion.

~~~
manmal
Median might be about right - here in Austria we witnessed yesterday that
almost 50% of the ppl fell for a rightwing wanna-be dictator running for
presidency. And there wasn't even brainwashing involved, apart from ads and
word of mouth.

------
UVB-76
Link to the actual report: [https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-
net/freedom-net-2015](https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-
net-2015)

Let's not kid ourselves, though. The US scored 19 and UK scored 24 (on the
scale of 0-100, 0 being most free)

Censorship is alive and well in the West.

~~~
okc
The criteria for censorship at the 20 points level - could be debated as -
quite healthy criteria.

Criteria such as the government controlling online harassment is classed,
rightly, as censorship. Political anarchy would be the reflection of 0 point
score.

Is 0, 10, 20, even 30 or 40 points the optimum score: thats debatable. At the
80+ level, its really not debatable.

------
studentrob
The metric saying 1/3 of the world faces heavy internet censorship seems large
until you remember 1/5 of the world lives in China

China is one of two countries that doesn't have access to Facebook and
Twitter. The other is Iran.

I'm not in love with FB or Twitter, but for tracking censorship, they are a
useful measurement.

------
jonstokes
"The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it" \-- John
Gilmore.

Even back in the slashdot days I always thought this oft-repeated quote was
more of a hopeful rallying cry than an actual statement of fact. And I think
it's been clear for at least ten years that it's definitely not true.

~~~
tomc1985
I wouldn't say that... but what if you could block all the routes? That
appears to be the case here....

------
IIAOPSW
The Chinese own China and can decide for themselves what is best for their
country. But as an American living in China, I fear that some of what I see
here can and will happen in America one day.

~~~
hamstergene
If you're locked in a kitchen, even though there is more than one choice of
food are you free to decide what to eat? What if you was born there and don't
really know all variety options you could have?

Centralized propaganda makes "freedom of choice" very controversial topic.
Especially when its source has all the power to censor and prosecute.

~~~
IIAOPSW
You know, this is a great example. Let me continue the kitchen analogy.

Those of us born in the West are lead to think that being stuck in the kitchen
sucks. That people stuck in the kitchen will suffer and/or be in a constant
state of revolt and unhappiness. I know thats how I thought before I left
(whether I realized it or not). Consequently we think that America is quite
far from being stuck in the kitchen because things don't look remotely close
to what we imagine being stuck looks like.

Let me tell you what's truly scary about China: the censorship, authoritarian
rule, all the "stuck in the kitchen things" are _a lot_ more palatable than we
are lead to believe. The Americans have a cartoonish view of authoritarianism
so-much-so that we will not recognize it on our own shores. That terrifies me
and that's why I left my comment. I wish I had the words to explain this
better.

I can't change China. Even if it was democratic I don't and shouldn't have a
voice here. It is not my country. China belongs to the Chinese people, not to
me. What I can say is that I don't want to see America copying China with
respect to civil liberties.

~~~
studentrob
> Let me tell you what's truly scary about China: the censorship,
> authoritarian rule, all the "stuck in the kitchen things" are a lot more
> palatable than we are lead to believe

China is livable for people so long as they do not criticize the government.

People who do so are often thrown in prison indefinitely without trial, and
only released if they sign a form saying they will never protest again.

------
nihonde
It's really odd when my Chinese friends go home and go "dark" on "free world"
social media until they return. They usually get emails while in China,
though.

------
agentgt
I have wondered if there is a VPN in China so that you can see what China
actually sees (the opposite is easy to find).

I would imagine such a service not to be very public. I suppose you could buy
hosting service in China and do it yourself... or is that not even possible?

EDIT.. apparently there are now lots services that do this (I had looked a few
years back).

------
snnn
They didn't tell you the most dangerous part: The TV box in everyone's home.
It is far more powerful than the Great Fire Wall.

1\. It's a part of the internet. More than a half internet traffics are video
streams. 2\. It's a bug 3\. It can do End2End monitoring and filtering.

------
qd6pwu4
To everyone who hold the 'western value': do you know that one of the biggest
jokes of your 'western value' is that you think it applies everywhere in the
world in the same form, and you take it as a disguise and do harmful things to
the people of other countries(of course, this is all done by the hands of
politicians). You don't understand that there can be different values. So when
you look at things from this perspective, you always think that the Chinese
government is evil.

You put 'human rights' all day long beside your mouth, haha, but never really
investigate if human rights in China really worse than western countries. US
government criticizes the Chinese government for this all day long but never
say nothing about their arabic friends. And Snowden is from US, right?

You have never had experience to truely live in a country of 1.4 billion
people, let alone governing one. You don't understand how to unite people with
such great quantity and diversity. You don't understand what chaos will come
if everyone can purse his political dreams.

Western value emphasizes on the value of individuals, while in china we
balance between individual and the whole nation. Interestingly, I want to use
the word '集体(jiti)' in Chinese, but I can't find a suitable word in English,
so I used nation. Maybe you never thought of that.

As to why CCP is blocking the internet? Because, the blocked sites contains
values that is not really about freedom or human rights, instead that is like
virus, that will do harm to our values and the interest our the Chinese
people. For now, as a newborn ancient nation, our value is not strong enough
yet. Your values will not bring Chinese people human rights and prosperity. No
revolution can be done without being based on history, we have our tradition
and our value. When it's powerful enough, enough that Chinese people won't be
harmed by western politicians, that you are all convinced the world can have
different values and still a harmony world. our value will be more open to the
world.

To those who won't like to trade their values for Chinese goods, my advice:
Don't Buy ANY Chinese Goods. We can see whose life will become tougher.

P.S.: As a Chinese, I have every means to access the 'free' internet(as anyone
who really want in China) and know what's all about in it, know all the bad
words about China and CCP and know most of them are not real. So I think
censorship for now is a great idea for we Chinese to focus on forging a
beautiful life for ourselves. for our people.

~~~
Thriptic
> As to why CCP is blocking the internet? Because, the blocked sites contains
> values that is not really about freedom or human rights, instead that is
> like virus, that will do harm to our values and the interest our the Chinese
> people.

Who defines what is in the best interest for the Chinese people?

~~~
qd6pwu4
If Chinese people start to argue about this, haha, then damn it, our lives are
doomed. Deng Xiaoping has said: "Don't argue, just try it, just do it." China
has made mistakes arguing, and the outcome is horrible.

However, there is something close to a common sense now, the best interest for
Chinese people in the first 100 years of PRC is to lead all the Chinese people
to live at least in moderate prosperity, to build a modern country.

------
smartbit
_Leiden University_ is founded in 1575 in The Netherlands, not in Germany

------
crasp
So by the looks of the picture halfway down the page the porn filter in the UK
has also been removed because they are labeled as 'free'? or is porn not a
part of (internet) freedom anymore?

~~~
UVB-76
Apparently there are many shades of 'free'

The UK scored 24 out of 100, 0 being the most free.

~~~
aavotins
With Germany prosecuting people who download torrents, UK banning internet
pornography and US manhunt against Edward Snowden and Assange, there is
definitely more than one shade of free. The image of freedom is being shaped
and tailored for everyone individually, it's a Brave New World out there.

------
ausjke
What a good comparison to Berlin Wall that is. Never thought about it.
Whenever I went to China the VPN-fight-with-GFW has always been a nightmare,
and my Android phone could not get updated either as google is 100% blocked
there.

On the other hand, in USA the is near 100% freedom including the internet, but
that does have some side effects itself, e.g. nowadays any gender can get into
any restroom depends on what he/she feels, that's when I hate "too many
freedom", where a few forces their will on the majority public that is
normally silent or staying-politically-correct, yes transgender does deserve
their rights, but what about the rights for the 99.9% of us that are not
transgenders?

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Please educate yourself about what being transgender actually means.

To give you a rough idea: If you think that people should use the bathroom
that matches their birth certificate, you should expect to meet these people
in your bathroom (and yes, I am assuming that you are male):

[http://www.gardenstateequality.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/0...](http://www.gardenstateequality.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/Andy-file-photo.jpg)

[http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/695/cpsprodpb/10BA6/production/...](http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/695/cpsprodpb/10BA6/production/_88381586_dsc_0647.jpg)

[https://d1j2diro5xke84.cloudfront.net/photo-
articles/feature...](https://d1j2diro5xke84.cloudfront.net/photo-
articles/featured_images/455/original/MarciBowers2012Headshot3-cq600.jpg?1422306229)

[http://womenofrubies.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/Geraldin...](http://womenofrubies.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/Geraldine-Roman-first-transgender-politician-elected-
in-the-Philippines.jpg)

~~~
ausjke
the key is not about transgender itself, it's about the law, who defines you
can be a transgender at will based on what's in your mind when you reach the
restroom door, that means any man can get into women's restroom and vice versa
any time.

I'm sure bad thing will happen due to this rule directly.

Some identity card might mitigate this situation, of course it will not get
passed as it will be yet another discrimination.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> I'm sure bad thing will happen due to this rule directly.

Like what?

> Some identity card might mitigate this situation, of course it will not get
> passed as it will be yet another discrimination.

So you would prefer that you cannot go to the toilet without showing ID?

------
chillacy
> China has achieved this. It can communicate with the outside world,
> meanwhile Western opinion cannot easily penetrate as ideological tools

Media is powerful. And even in the US, most of us self-censor our news
(liberal vs conservative media) to the point where we're largely reading only
views we agree on (HN is no different in that regard). I always find it
amusing that we can all read the same news with different conclusions and come
out thinking that we're right all the time.

A lot of people assume that people in China are unaffected by all the
censorship, but even if they're aware of it, I wonder if censorship in China
actually reduces cognitive dissonance at this point, and it's actually more
agreeable to read censored news than not. Much like advertising or the
opinions of our friends/family, ideas can be subtle but extremely influencing.

~~~
jgreen10
When I'm in Russia, I find the state-controlled media surprisingly critical of
government policy and very outward looking. They are clearly ignoring the
elephant in the room: the country being an ungovernable pool of corruption
that can only be kept together by instilling nationalism and foreign threats
and an authoritarian leader, but then again, it's not like US media are really
asking critical questions. With or without free press, no one wants to hear
that they're in a mess. It's much nicer to think that everything is good, but
the evil-doers are trying to ruin it.

~~~
argonaut
The US media as a whole may not be asking critical questions, but that's not
the point of free press. The fact is that the US media is free to ask critical
questions, and therefore _some_ , though not all, of the media ask critical
questions.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

~~~
chrischen
Free to still allows another way to allow the powerful to control and
manipulate.

In order to truly be a free system the system has to be fair as well, which
means more income equality in addition to a free press system.

If money controls the "free" press and money distribution is heavily skewed,
then it's not really a free press. This is how the US system works.

~~~
digi_owl
Bingo. I keep seeing the US chatter being about boo scary government, but then
turn right round and supplicate themselves to the big US brands as some kind
of deities of freedom.

fuck that shit. Every large org is a problem, as it will develop a internal
culture and world view.

when you have corporations existing in the world that has bigger revenue
streams than nations, it should bring pause for thought.

------
HowardMei
There're a lot of valuable points in this topic's comments.

I'd like to add one more which has been ignored: the GFW/Golden Shield was
built to uphold the central government's authority over other provinces.

One-to-many propaganda is the most important leverage for Beijing to suppress
provincial rivals.

And I assert the same propaganda leverage applys to the relationship between
Washington D.C./Newyork and other states in the U.S. as well as the
relationship between the U.S. and its allies.

Censoring/manipulating the internet is not merely for silencing individuals.

------
nitwit005
I'm not so sure that countries will be all that enthused to follow China's
example. Aside from the technical and infrastructure costs, it's evident that
they're using a huge amount of human manpower. A lot of countries don't have
the knowhow or billions to do it.

At this point, I suspect the lesson will be to block all sites except those
that force people to use their real names, and arrest them if they say
something unapproved. Intimidation is pretty cheap.

------
narrator
There would not be a hundred billion dollar ad industry if propaganda didn't
work. We wouldn't run multi-million dollar presidential campaigns if
propaganda didn't work. The whole field of social psychology and public
relations would be a useless exercise if propaganda didn't work. This is the
fundamental problem with democracy: people are easily influenced.

The antecedents of the current Chinese communist party, the Bolsheviks knew
this and they decided that the inner party must be the vanguard of the
proletariat in order to prevent the proletariat from being easily led astray
by the faith of the masses in the monarchs. Of course, they were wrong, for
different reasons, but objective truth is a hard thing and often a weak voice
amid the bullhorns blasting propaganda.

Anyone interested in this topic should watch the great documentary "The
Century Of The Self"[1] that goes into the history of the public relations
industry and mass persuasion in general.

[1] [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d29tf_the-century-of-
the-...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d29tf_the-century-of-the-self-
part-1-of-4-happiness-machines_school)

~~~
studentrob
> This is the fundamental problem with democracy: people are easily influenced

That's not a problem with democracy. It's how people learn. We learn something
and form an opinion about it.

The problem comes when only certain media sources are allowed. In that case,
it's harder for people to discuss alternate viewpoints

~~~
TeMPOraL
No, the problem isn't when only certain media sources are allowed - honestly,
the problem is when any media sources are allowed at all. Frankly, I think
Amercians are as deceived by propaganda as the Chinese. Did we somehow forget
in this thread that in western press, one can rarely find an article that
isn't full of bullshit? Even if the reasons differ (western media do this for
profit), the end result is the same.

~~~
studentrob
> honestly, the problem is when any media sources are allowed at all

Lol. Yes let's just stop all people from communicating. That will solve
everything.

> in western press, one can rarely find an article that isn't full of bullshit

There's plenty of good reporting in the West. The way to get informed is to
read many viewpoints and form your own opinion. Stopping all non-government
press would be terrible for a country's education, economic development, and
general happiness.

~~~
Mikushi
A vast majority of people do not have the time to do any of that, simple as
that.

And the mainstream press is not to be counted on the good reporting side of
things so while good reporting is out there, it is not accessible to the mass.
That being the reason why good reporting still exists, because in the grand
scheme of things, it does not matter.

~~~
studentrob
> A vast majority of people do not have the time to do any of that

A quality education is not spoon fed. It is the responsibility of the
individual to educate him or herself. Making media available is only half of
the equation

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "A quality education is not spoon fed."

It can be, you just have to be picky about the spoons. It's also useful to
avoid relying on a single source of information, a diet of opposing views is
healthy.

Self-directed education is probably the best overall, but nobody has time to
keep up with everything going on in the world, at some point you have to find
trustworthy news sources if you want to be aware of activity outside of your
main interests.

~~~
studentrob
> nobody has time to keep up with everything going on in the world

Exactly. Self directed education is as much about ignoring information you
don't need as it is about absorbing information.

> at some point you have to find trustworthy news sources if you want to be
> aware of activity outside of your main interests

At _many_ points we need to re-examine already-trusted news sources. For
example, the Discovery Channel which lost its ability to be scientific.

To hear even more different perspectives, learn a foreign language so you can
read their news or talk to foreigners.

~~~
ZenoArrow
> "Exactly. Self directed education is as much about ignoring information you
> don't need as it is about absorbing information."

Not everything that you're interested in will end up covering the most
important new developments of the day. For example, if you spend most of your
self-directed learning focused on learning about physics, you may miss news
related to the economy, and it could turn out that there's an important event
related to the economy that you should be aware of. In such cases, you will be
relying on the expertise of others in the field.

Speaking generally, it's healthy to have a passing interest in many things, as
long as you can also acknowledge that your understanding of things you don't
spend a lot of time on is likely to be limited.

~~~
studentrob
I agree with all that. I think we're both being picky about each other's
words, or we're both not. You pick, or I will.

------
peter303
Is news.ycombinator.com visible in China?

------
kitchi
> VPN Software is pretty simple

Can someone explain why VPNs are "simple"? What do they mean by simple?

~~~
unlinker
They mean easy to detect and disconnect.

------
kitchi
> VPN software is simple

Can someone explain why VPN software is "simple"? I thought it encrypted your
data so they cannot be inspected, plus if you tunnel over the HTTP/HTTPS ports
how can VPN traffic be separated out from "regular" traffic?

~~~
fiveyearsinarow
Because to establish the tunnel, you need to send some "handshake" packets to
the server. Those packets are not encrypted and can be easily identified and
dropped.

~~~
netheril96
Which is why `shadowsocks` has become popular to bypass the GFW: it has no
such handshake phase and hence cannot be easily identified.

~~~
fiveyearsinarow
...and when GFW has trouble stopping `shadowsocks`, it threatens the author of
the software. GFW is not only the technology, which is easy to bypass, but
also the system that average citizen cannot escape.

------
windmaple
Does it?

~~~
slezyr
You can try to as them about tank man

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man)

~~~
paradite
I, as well as my parents, my grandparents, and many other Chinese, know about
the incident, but we do not necessarily agree with the Western media's
opinions on it. After all, our parents were the ones that witnessed it, and
they should have a better understanding of what really happened.

You can read this article by Western media to get a different perspective:
[http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinas-leader-talks-
to-60-minute...](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chinas-leader-talks-
to-60-minutes/)

~~~
pessimizer
I'm pretty sure that all but a very few of them watched it on TV just like
everyone else did. Well, not exactly like everyone else did - a lot later, a
lot shorter, and edited and presented by the tank.

edit: I'm overestimating Chinese media freedom here. Furtive word of mouth and
descriptions from people who have travelled outside of China are probably a
more accurate way that Chinese people have learned about this facet of their
own history - am I right?

~~~
paradite
You are right. It's good to get opinions from people who are living abroad.
But I would be cautious over the recounts of the "Chinese dissidents" who are
expelled or fled from China.

They are more likely to be motivated to give a biased recount against the
government as a way of expressing their resentment with the government. They
also often have supports from people/organizations who are eager to find ways
to paint Chinese government black (for whatever reason they might have).
(Think the situation of Snowden)

------
litaohackernews
Remember Edward Snowden?

------
venomsnake
China is just making real the wet dreams of RIAA and MPAA executives.

It is coming in the west too - for copyright, hate speech, terrorism, child
porn - the internet will be as tightly locked here too. The fact that so much
of it is already a walled garden makes it easier. Remove the web browser from
the iDevices and you have a very compelling ecosystem for any dictatorship. It
may take 50 years more, but the trends are unmistakable.

We need next generation of communication networks. That make laugh of national
sovereignty. I think google's project loon and the likes are a good way. Fill
a country sky with relaying stations and the government will make itself broke
trying to take them down.

------
tmptmp
What bothers me more is the chilling silence on the issue of human rights
violation carried out by the followers of communism [1],[2] by most of the
intellectuals (mostly humanities professors) in USA who are very keen on
criticizing USA for whatever perceived/projected censorship and violation of
human rights. There is a huge possibility that these intellectuals are either
crooks who have been paid and bought by the communists and/or are fools
("useful idiots")[3] who believe in the communist propaganda.

For every criticism dealt out against USA for human rights abuse and other
governmental crimes/sins, the communist nations must be criticized a 1000
times.

Communism as a ideology is still a great threat to world peace. The followers
and believers of communism have wreaked havoc on various parts of the world
that matches nothing and these crooks blame the free market based democratic
western nations for problems in their own countries.

I don't deny that capitalism has its disadvantages but it is by far the most
humane, most successful and most benevolent government/societal system that
has existed ever before whereas communism has resulted in extremely corrupt
and very abusive government/societal systems in the world.

The things like the communist party chairman, the politburo members, and a
bunch of their cronies got the entire benefits in a very skewed manner whereas
most of the general public got only hardship should not be forgotten at any
cost by freedom lovers.

So, we must not forget that the USA has served the world by taking a stance
against this vicious ideology called communism and its equally vicious
followers. We must raise this issue every time USA and capitalist free and
open market based democracy gets criticized in favor of communism/socialism by
the communists/socialists.

Some links you may find interesting here [2], [3], [4].

[1] [https://sentinelblog.com/2015/12/10/maos-monstrous-record-
ha...](https://sentinelblog.com/2015/12/10/maos-monstrous-record-has-been-
suppressed/) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laogai)
[3][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)
[4] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017839/Madman-
starv...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017839/Madman-
starved-60-million-death-Devastating-book-reveals-Maos-megalomania-turned-
China-madhouse.html) [5]
[https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/tag/m...](https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/tag/maos-
tyranny/)

------
wahsd
See Reddit and Facebook for a domestic examples.

I know there are differing views on Reddit in particular, but reality simply
is that the "moderation" has become well beyond moderation and is well into
censorship and authoritarian type of control and domination of the
conversation that totally and fundamentally breaks the foundation of how
Reddit is supposed to work.

There is really no legitimate excuse (which is what they always are) to
censor, remove, and ban users and comments that are not all out direct threats
to commit criminal acts or spam. What is going on on Reddit in particular is a
thoroughly liberal authoritarianism that is heavily dominated by a kind of
perverse paternalistic supremacist, i.e., protecting users from hearing and
seeing things that the authoritarian types deem unauthorized.

Reddit, as example, is intended to allow the community, through a kind of
civil society, determine the dialogue and conversation; but with ever spiking
frequency, Reddit in particular is being sabotaged as the authoritarians
remove the community's ability to shape the conversation.

The mods on Reddit in particular are thoroughly acting as common authoritarian
goons by patrolling the discussions and routinely removing comments and
conversations they decree as unauthorized or very much like "speaking against
the regime". It's clearly an authoritarian mentality eating its way through
Reddit at the moment.

Sure, some will say "private website, blah blah blah" but that's not the point
really. It's about civil responsibility, which, ironically, the liberal
authoritarian goons on Reddit supposedly frequently espouse regarding all
sorts of other topics. As the internet continues to be consolidated and
shrinks and is ever more controlled by the likes of Facebook that is
controlled by Zuckerberg, who's goal is for Facebook to replace the internet,
you will have ever more increasingly controlled spaces for public discussions
and at some point there will be no non-private spaces for discussion to any
effective degree. At that point we have come full circle and devolved back to
a monarchical and aristocratic type of social structure where all of society
and it's people only operate in "private websites" and the justification is
that because the ruling class control everything and all forms of
communication, like Kings, Dukes, and Princes, you are claimed to have no
right to have conversations.

I know many, rather short sighted people may dismiss what I say, but reality
is that is a rather counter-intuitive and unexpected manner, the internet is
really leading to far more control and consolidation of power and
homogenization of society and collapse of diversity. It's rather odd that
large segments of society are all supportive of things that will end in demise
of the very tings they espouse.

In many ways, the current phase humanity is in with regard to neo-liberalist
views, is akin to investment in a ponzi scheme. Everyone (liberal, tech,
globalist, etc types) is all Golden Age level indulged in excess and self-
gratification because they invested all their money in a ponzi scheme that has
huge returns on paper, but the day will come when you can't withdraw the false
returns or the scheme collapses altogether.

------
xyzzy4
That's ironic because the Washington Post is censoring this article from me
with their paywall.

------
known
Bread and Circuses: bribe the population with free bread and distract them
with circuses whilst the rulers do whatever they want.

------
puppetmaster3
Here is an example of recent FaceBook censorship:
[http://youtube.com/watch?v=25tYyAgejA8](http://youtube.com/watch?v=25tYyAgejA8)

------
jondubois
The Great Firewall actually makes a lot of sense. Everyone thinks of
themselves as being rational and unbiased - But in fact, we are all
irrational, biased and at times hypocritical. Those people who think that they
are rational and objective are usually the least rational and most
hypocritical of all because they lack self-awareness.

As westerners, as much as we like to pretend that we know the whole truth, in
reality, what we know is only a biased approximation of it. The west likes to
impose their version of the truth on the whole world but China is determined
to stick to their version - I don't see anything wrong with that; especially
if it works in their favour.

Regardless of how you look at it; the west is aggressive when it comes to
spreading its ideals and values. If China wasn't so protecive, they would have
become economically dependent on the west (as opposed to being the powerhouse
they are today).

~~~
joe_the_user
I find the many "the West is a problematic too" responses here a bit
troubling.

Not that I don't find the West problematic but the many problems of the West
don't actually make China's problems any better and I'm not sure there are
many who seem to think they do.

~~~
jondubois
China definitely has its problems but my point is that there are problems
everywhere and we shouldn't single-out any specific country because we think
that their problems are worse than ours (maybe they have the opposite
opinion).

The reality is that no one has the moral high ground; we are all competing for
resources and relevance and every country is willing to resort to dirty tricks
to get ahead.

China has the Great Firewall, the US has the NSA...

~~~
kmonsen
One is allowing free information while the other has the great firewall and
random arrests for people writing negative comments about the party in power.

Although the US is not as democratic as it should be your comparison is not
even laughable.

I find it hard that people can be so misled, or maybe you are just trolling.
China has a brutal dictatorship that executes people for trying to get more
power and were responsible for the Tiananmen massacre and still will not even
admit it happened.

If you think you could live in China and even write anything about the party
the way you write about the US government from your comment you are
delusional. The US has a very free press and free speech for everyone.

~~~
charoko
> If you think you could live in China and even write anything about the party
> the way you write about the US government from your comment you are
> delusional.

Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective
Expression

Contrary to previous understandings, posts with negative, even vitriolic,
criticism of the state, its leaders, and its policies are not more likely to
be censored. Instead, we show that the censorship program is aimed at
curtailing collective action by silencing comments that represent, reinforce,
or spur social mobilization, regardless of content.

Source: [http://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-
china-a...](http://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-allows-
government-criticism-silences-collective-expression)

~~~
studentrob
Yeah. Combine that with the fact that protesters are thrown in jail willy
nilly and the above comment still stands

------
jokoon
I don't really know if it's that much worrying. I mean can the entire world
really criticize china, when you see so many companies having influence in
democratically elected governments?

If you look at the political science of it, I think that this firewall is
there to mitigate the potential instability of the chinese government. This is
not new. I mean I'm okay with critics as long as it aims for progress, but the
reality is that you don't just snap your fingers and "tada democracy"! So when
you don't have democracy, you will have other ways to have a country that is
peaceful and thriving enough. Restricted speech is one of those methods.

If you compare the situation in china with the west, it's not so different:
there is still some influence between large corporations and government in
western countries, and we don't like it either, and free speech doesn't always
solve those problems. It's less corrupt, but I think China has really caught
up.

I would be cautious about putting "free speech" on a pedestal. What works for
western countries wouldn't necessarily do for countries which don't have the
same customs, history, or culture. Free speech is one of those double edged
swords that are well regulated in western countries, but is not in other parts
of the world.

~~~
paradite
I agree. But first rule of HN: Do not defend China or you will be down-voted
to the bottom.

