
China Bans Livestreaming - owens99
http://mashable.com/2017/06/23/china-bans-livestreaming/?from=groupmessage#ieH.shUHUqqR
======
Animats
Better coverage from the South China Morning Post.[1] (SCMP, which is based in
Hong Kong, isn't as independent as it used to be be, but they do have actual
reporters gathering news.)

Censorship requirements for live streaming in China have been in effect since
2008, and were tightened up in November 2016, with new regulations issued.[2]
Now, apparently, three sites not in compliance have been told to shut down
streaming. Sites are supposed to have licenses and in-house censorship staffs.

Over at People's Daily, we can read the party line.[3] _" A documentary
program promoted by the Finance Channel of CCTV has recently attracted public
attention for encouraging ordinary people to plan and produce their own films.
Amateur filmmakers can choose from a wide range of topics related to China’s
achievements in recent years - for instance, the 4G telecommunications tower
installed on a cliff, the Shanghai-Kunming high speed rail that has shortened
travel time between the two cities to 10 hours, and artificial intelligence.
Once the videos are shot and selected, they will be played on a number of TV
programs, and will also be promoted by a dozen online video platforms."_ So
that's what good Chinese citizens are supposed to be doing.

China's approach to censorship is not leakproof, but is effective. There's a
combination of subtle pressure and explicit control. Once something becomes
big enough to get attention, something is done about it.

[1] [http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-
politics/article/209...](http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-
politics/article/2099761/chinese-online-video-programmes-told-get-licence-or)
[2] [http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-
politics/article/204...](http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-
politics/article/2043012/chinas-internet-regulator-tightens-restrictions-live)
[3]
[http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0623/c90000-9232613.html](http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0623/c90000-9232613.html)

------
btw0
I have been running a live streaming app here in China for two years.

The title of this gets so wrong - China did not ban livestreaming. Yes, the
regulation of livestreaming services gets very very tight recently, we have
been fined due to inappropriate content.

The website mentioned in the article like Weibo, AcFun are not about
livestreaming, they're YouTube-like video sites. You need special license to
run YouTube-like video sites, just the license is almost impossible to apply
for non state-run company. There are only 500 something licenses ever issued,
you need to acquire a company that have the license, surely the price is
extremely high due to scarcity.

~~~
Ajedi32
I'm confused. So are you saying China is banning Weibo, iFeng, and ACFUN from
displaying videos (But not from livestreaming, since those sites don't do
livestreams?) since they don't have a license?

The article says:

> On Thursday, the government ordered Weibo, iFeng and ACFUN to stop all its
> video and audio streaming services, according to an FT report.

~~~
btw0
Government ordered Weibo, iFent and AcFun to 关停上述网站上的视听节目服务 stop the video and
audio programme service because of not having license [1].

So what's video and audio programme? It has a definition, but in practice it
has to be interpreted some way. That's why regulation can GET tight sometimes.
China is complicated.

[1]
[http://www.sapprft.gov.cn/sapprft/contents/6588/338032.shtml](http://www.sapprft.gov.cn/sapprft/contents/6588/338032.shtml)

~~~
Ajedi32
I'm still not sure I understand. Maybe something is being lost in translation
here, but I don't see how you'd interpret, "audio and visual programing" in a
way that doesn't include livestreaming.

Are Weibo, iFeng, and ACFUN popular sites in China for livestreaming or
sharing videos? I know if a western government ordered YouTube, Twitch, and
Facebook to "stop their video and audio program service" in their country that
could most definitely be interpreted as a ban on livestreaming (or even on all
forms of streaming in general), even if the ban didn't include smaller sites
like Vimeo or Periscope.

~~~
netheril96
First of all, it is not a complete ban. It is a very strict requirement of
license.

Second of all, live streaming is definitely censored in the same way. But the
sites mentioned, Weibo, iFeng, and ACFUN, have no live streaming service, only
(what is the word for not live?) streaming service.

~~~
Sharparam
On-demand streaming?

------
hd4
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of
information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people
whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with
freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on
public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who
would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your
master" \- Pravin Lal, Alpha Centauri.

The difference here being that the CCP don't only dream themselves the masters
of the Chinese people.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
Historically, China wants what is good for China, and the rest of the world
may as well be a sideshow. If being a global leader and running global
industries is what it takes for China to remain stable and controllable by the
Comminist Party, then that's how they'll go.

China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism
that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an
absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned
British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide.

Compared to British/American conquests and subversion in East Asia, Latin
America, the Middle East, and so on, the far out (from the rich
coast/interior) Chinese provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang are practically in
China's back yard.

~~~
Nomentatus
Everybody was already Han and Han-dominated thousands of years ago? Really?
Tibet was never invaded in the fifties? Cool! There never was an attempted
invasion of Japan, foiled by disastrous weather? Wow. This is a whole
alternative reality. Fact is, China's history is very similar to everyone
else's history.

~~~
thaumasiotes
There was never an attempted invasion of Japan by the Han. Nor was there an
invasion of Tibet.

Tibet, and Xinjiang, were invaded by the Manchus (who ruled China as the Qing
dynasty at the same time they ruled several other jurisdictions under
different names. Everything was later relabeled "China" as essentially an
accounting gimmick).

Japan was invaded by the Mongols (who, similarly, ruled China as the Yuan
dynasty).

Han aggression has been pretty much limited to Vietnam (and ineffective
there). Blaming China for the invasion of Tibet is slightly less ridiculous
than blaming Nazi-occupied France for the invasion of Poland.

~~~
kgwgk
I don't get the last analogy. Blaming Nazi-occupied France for the invasion of
Poland in September 1939 is quite ridiculous, given that France was occupied
in June 1940. I don't know much about the China/Nepal case, but a quick google
search got me
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamdo](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chamdo)

~~~
thaumasiotes
Yes, the chronology of that analogy is wrong, which is why I said that claim
would be slightly _more_ ridiculous. But the agency part of it is correct. The
Manchus had no more interest in Chinese opinions of what they should and
shouldn't attack than the Germans had in French opinions.

~~~
kgwgk
Did the Manchus invaded Tibet in 1950?

------
Maven911
I am wondering how they plan to perform this ban, what protocols/how do they
detect all forms of livestreaming ? Or will this be a ban on specific services
(Fb, snapchat etc.)

~~~
anonnyj
At least if behavior continues as previously, they'll only bother to ban
sufficiently popular sites/services.

------
agumonkey
Still thinking about whether or not they should ban inhabitants too. So
difficult.

------
louithethrid
Actually, this is quite a nice way to tech-bomb a totalitarian economy- have
some near suicidal or well hidden dissenters using soon to be important tech
and watch the censor-ship department sabotage the countrys economy.

Highly cynical view-point, but hey, if it hurts, why not use it?

------
justicezyx
This is ridiculous. The incapability and bluntness of Chinese government shows
its true color...

------
yladiz
What's the policy on wholly paywalled content if it's the primary source? The
article is light on some the facts presented in the FT article (like revenue
stats, and the fact that Weibo's market cap dropped by $1B after the ban), and
other than mentioning Papi Jiang, it's really just the FT article reworded.
However, the FT article is completely behind a paywall, although it's
accessible from a Google search.

The main reason I'm asking is that while I think the FT article is
substantially better, it is behind a paywall, while the Mashable article
isn't, so neither are ideal.

Article:
[https://www.ft.com/content/8a06dd5e-5752-11e7-9fed-c19e27000...](https://www.ft.com/content/8a06dd5e-5752-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e1)

------
droopyEyelids
How much does the industrial scale subornment of children into quasi
prostitution affect this decision?

The whole "live streaming plus tips" model turns my stomach and I was
disgusted to see Apple give its imprimatur the other week.

For anyone that isn't familiar with what happens on these platforms (Snapchat
Facebook and FaceTime iMessage once apple institutes payments): a streamer
broadcasts herself, and People from the Internet "tip" her when she does
something they like. It's beyond terrifying to find out someone you love
stumbled onto this system.

~~~
pavlov
Mores change.

A few hundred years ago, most shops did not display their goods. It would have
been considered crass to keep wares in sight when customers didn't ask for it,
and outright crazy to let customers look and touch at items without
supervision.

The department store was a 19th century innovation that let people (women,
mostly) browse and shop without pressure. It was widely considered immoral at
the time. Emile Zola wrote a great novel about it:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Bonheur_des_Dames](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Bonheur_des_Dames)

Getting tips from Internet viewers is shocking in the same way as a woman
visiting a department store on her own.

