
Censorship in China Allows Govt Criticism but Silences Collective Expression [pdf] - gitrog
https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/11878767/33531/censored.pdf?sequence%3D1
======
chewbacha
This is why the first amendment of the US constitution had the notion freedom
of assembly. Collective or mutual knowledge is important for a social body to
protect itself from tyranny. Stephen Pinker [1] gave a talk and related this
to the story of the emperors new cloths. The gist is that independently,
everyone knew that the emperor was naked, but it wasn’t until it was publicly
exclaimed by a child that the independent knowledge became mutual, thus making
it socially OK for the population at large to say what they already knew.

Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes understand this and remove the ability
to congregate openly on how the system works. They disappear dissidents and
control the media. They essentially gaslight the citizenry in the hopes that
independent suffering stays independent and never is discussed openly where it
could incite rebellion.

[1]
[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3-son3EJTrU)

------
yogthos
Exactly same thing can be said about US [1]. It really fascinates me how much
focus there is on China when exact same things like suppression of political
opinion and mass surveilance are happening in the West. I think it would be
far more productive to focus on fixing shit here than to obsess about China as
if everything was fine in the West. Meanwhile the West is still fueling the
genocide in Yemen by the Saudis making it clear that all the outrage about
human rights is just cynical posturing.

[1]
[https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...](https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf)

~~~
gitrog
For the record, I posted this specifically because I feel that it provides a
clearer picture of what censorship in China really is like, as opposed to the
cartoonishly evil portrayal that most of Western media paints it in.

Although I don't condone censorship overall, I do find it interesting and
identify that governments will always find it necessary to impose some form of
societal control.

From this study, it seems to me that the Chinese government chooses to prevent
events that may cause conflict and violence. That is almost noble, were it not
for the fact that it also helps the government maintain a firm grip of control
in all situations. I think there is also something to be said for the Great
Firewall and how it manages to keep gigantic companies like Facebook and
Google from interfering with foreign countries and how it spurs local
companies to come up with similar solutions. The drawbacks are all obvious and
I don't think it's necessary to repeat those here.

The way that political dissent is managed in the West is so much more chaotic,
and generally more violent. The public is split in two (usually) and played
against eachother which often results in violence on the streets. Although
being able to protest is at least symbolically a good thing, I often wonder if
it isn't mostly just another tool used to create the illusion of freedom. If
the public is constantly bombarded with misinformation and fear-mongering
tactics it's highly unlikely that any sort of unified protest could convert to
real, regime threatening change.

So I agree with you that we should be critical of the West, and honestly this
post wasn't a jab at Chinese politics in favour of the West, it was more of a
learning experience for myself.

~~~
sterileopinions
>it seems to me that the Chinese government chooses to prevent events that may
cause conflict and violence. That is almost noble, were it not for the fact
that it also helps the government maintain a firm grip of control in all
situations.

Every single state acts this way. Every single effective state system at
least. It's called "Monopoly on Violence." It is one of the defining
characteristics of "modern" state organizations.

Unsanctioned use of violence directly threats the state's power and will
quickly call into question the state's legitimacy if the state can't control
coordinated or wanton violence.

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

~~~
gitrog
That may be the official policy, but I think you only have to glance at the US
to see that it doesn't always act on this. Of course, at some scale,
government would be forced to act, but there is a lot of space in between
where allowing violence to play out could even be beneficial to a ruling
party.

~~~
sterileopinions
>but there is a lot of space in between where allowing violence to play out
could even be beneficial to a ruling party.

That's why I used the word "sanctioned", publicly or privately.

------
yorwba
The supplementary appendix about predicting important events by observing
changes in censorship rate _before the event happens_ is very interesting.

------
roenxi
Living in Australia, I've been exposed to both Hong Kong and mainlander
Chinese people and I've developed an opinion. Australia really needs to start
working harder to understand them than they do to understand us. In light of
the recent disturbances in HK I read things like this paper with renewed
interest.

The views of the mainlanders on HK are fascinating in how alien they are in
contrast to how the Australian press sees the situation. I don't think the
media is demonstrating an understanding of the relationship the Chinese middle
class have with their government.

~~~
PakG1
I live and work in Shenzhen and am doing an MBA in Hong Kong. As one
mainlander told me, Hong Kong can protest for democracy as much as they want,
but independence from the mainland isn't ok, that's the line that can't be
crossed. Of course, the government's long-term stance on democracy in Hong
Kong is more complicated and he didn't speak to me on behalf of the
government.

Hong Kong is an extremely touchy subject for mainlanders. As told to me by one
of my professors, the taking of Hong Kong by the British Empire was taught in
mainland Chinese schools as one of the most shameful aspects of Chinese
history. Hence, especially now that China has Hong Kong back from the UK,
whenever there is any kind of statement that Hong Kong should go back to the
UK, or that Trump needs to come help Hong Kong, or that Hong Kong should be
independent, it's met with a visceral reaction from mainlanders. That was
apparently a time in history when foreigners would have shops or restaurants
in Hong Kong and the mainland and have signs that said "No dogs or Chinese."
It's extremely easy for mainland people to get extremely emotional about this
topic. The fact is that despite Mao's shortfalls, he was the first one in a
hundred years to set up a government that didn't get bullied by foreign
powers. That period is literally called the hundred years of humiliation in
Chinese history. Due to this historical context, now that Hong Kong is part of
China again, ANY foreign influence or interference is strictly viewed as
unacceptable by mainlanders.

So there's a bit of a powderkeg of non-overlapping priorities between the
mainland and Hong Kong lower and middle classes that make for difficult
conflict resolution.

I mention specifically lower and middle classes because it does seem to be
mostly the lower and middle classes that are unhappy. I guess when you're a
billionaire, you can do whatever you want and don't really care what kind of
system you live in. But there is very good evidence that Hong Kong's economy
and people have been left behind, just as America's "Trump base states" have
been left behind. Through many decades, Hong Kong industries have never really
evolved. For these last few decades have been centred around real estate and
finance, and that's with not much land on which to construct new residences.
So prices go up while there are no jobs to pay rent. There are some crazy
photo essays on the Internet of Hong Kong people who live in what look smaller
than jail cells because rent is so expensive. Meanwhile, Shenzhen totally
caught onto the high-tech craze, jobs are everywhere, and everyone's making
money. So there's a lot of mainlander consensus that Hong Kong dropped the
ball and now Hong Kong is angry without taking responsibility. But there's no
Trump to vote for because the mainland government reserves the right to
restrict electoral candidates, so now they're protesting instead. And
mainlanders look at them and say that no democracy can solve their structural
problems, or else it would have been done already. Read an article shared by a
Chinese friend that talks about how the Hong Kong government set aside a ton
of funding to revitalize Hong Kong with new digital industries, and instead
Hong Kong's super rich people funneled that money into their personal real
estate projects. They'd say any democratic solution in Hong Kong won't have
real teeth because look what happened before.

There are so many complicated factors involved that the two sides aren't
really listening to each other. It reminds me of Colin Kaepernick. He's
protesting about police brutality against black people, but people are angry
at him because they say he's disrespecting the American flag and military.
When two sides are not even on the same page, difficult for them to have a
conversation.

Unfortunately for Hong Kong lower and middle class people, due to their
economic weakness, they don't actually have a lot of leverage in these issues.
2014 Umbrella Movement showed as much. That's why the protestors are more
violent than 2014, and that is slowly making them lose the moral high ground.
The biggest point in a lot of mainlander eyes was when they beat up a mainland
reporter at the Hong Kong airport, thinking him to be a mainland undercover
cop. Mainland social media exploded that night, a lot of mainlanders got
really mad and the next day was filled with the "What a shame for Hong Kong"
meme. It's a bit like Ireland in that the IRA found it really difficult to
give up their guns because their guns were their only big leverage in the
negotiation with the government. Similarly, Hong Kong doesn't have much else
to bargain with right now, so here we are.

Anyone who thinks this issue is black and white has no chance of offering a
solution that will actually work. Scared of what could end up happening.

~~~
chvid
The tragic thing is what the protesters seem to want to return to is the by-
gone era of the British rule. But that was very much the thing that turned
Hong Kong into a place ruled by real estate moguls. The mainland Chinese
vision of opening up and fully integrate the area of Hong Kong, Macau and
Shenzhen/Canton is something that actually can break the rot and get Hong Kong
in on the growth and prosperity that is there right next door.

------
k__
Does this mean, two people can tell each other the government is shit, but 10
people can't get together and tell their collective opinion even if it was the
opposite?

~~~
odiroot
More or less that.

My Chinese friends discuss the politics openly, sometimes even on WeChat. As
long as you don't do it over group chats or in public no one would bother you.

There was just this funny thing that the famous llama pic was automatically
filtered even in 1-1 chats.

~~~
anovikov
Why people keep using the system that censors stuff? Why not just completely
switch to something else? Or it will become impossible to analyze then cos
they won't look "Chinese" then, so maybe they actually in fact do it, just
keep posting on WeChat something meaningless to please the Party?

~~~
namelosw
Except they can't, things like Instagram and WhatsApp are blocked and taken
down from the AppStore. If there's new they would also be taken down.

Any forums or messing app alike must do ISP registration from the government,
the cloud provider has to make sure they can take down any website or web
service on demand.

Those websites without ISP registration has quite a change being blocked, and
cannot use a lot of 3rd party integration like WeChat pay, etc.

~~~
anovikov
But i mean, do anyone seriously try to use non-VPNned Internet in China?
Without obfuscation? Of course only way to meaningfully use anything would be
through an obfuscator. I asked people there (Europeans though, not Chinese)
and they all say ToR with obfs4 works just fine.

------
topynate
This is from before Xi.

------
namelosw
This is more accurate about the current state, people can talk about politic
in person in normal volume in public like metro or mall, or just through
Wechat as long as you don't affect collective.

A lot of People in person say bad words all the time. Everyone has their own
point of view, far from brain-washed from some media.

There are also politic classes from middle school to college, and requires a
high score for Master degree. Everyone hates it, no one really cares about
what Marxism is, they just recite everything and play the game, and forget it
immediately after the exam - just like how SF engineers play the brain teaser
games.

Some media renders China like 1984 where everyone is intensively controlled is
far from reality and oversimplify things. It's much easier to judge if it's
like 1984.

~~~
jjcc
That's correct. It is often misunderstood by Western public.

To complement, for example in WeChat if a lot of criticism or even much worse
than criticism can exist in "Moment". But it can make a WeChat Group be
banned. Another thing is there's no danger for any individual who express anti
government opinion only. Too many people do it all the time. The only chance
to cause trouble is when the individual is trying (or perceived by government
is trying) to instigate some public demonstration. Otherwise is pretty safe.

------
dear
Hey people, it is from 2012. It's a totally different era.

