
China is trying to police what people are saying about it around the world - adventured
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/technology/china-technology-censorship-borders-expansion.html
======
forapurpose
China has great influence in Hollywood, where major studios edit their films
to meet Chinese censorship demands. When Disney made a film about the Dalai
Lama, several years later the CEO of Disney traveled to China and apologized
in person, saying it would never happen again. The Chinese government is
literally censoring political content in the United States and other Western
countries.

Here's a cite for the Disney story. I've read about Chinese censors reviewing
films, and Hollywood self-censoring, but I don't have time to find those
cites.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/international/ch...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/business/international/china-
disney.html)

~~~
sehugg
There's a bunch: [https://screenrant.com/movies-changed-for-
china/](https://screenrant.com/movies-changed-for-china/)

~~~
megaman22
The one that really sticks out is the recent Red Dawn remake. I mean, really,
North Korea is going to invade the pacific coast? It was clearly written about
Communist China, that's the only way the movie could have made the slightest
bit of sense, but they kowtowed and turned it into a dumpster fire, and they
_still_ didn't procure release rights there.

~~~
blackrock
True, they requested that Red Dawn be re-edited, so that China was not the bad
guy. I have not seen the movie, nor do I care to.

However, let's think about this situation for a moment, as rational adults.
And if you can, then try to think about this from the other side.

There is a lot of bad blood coming out of American media about China. It's in
the news, the movies, the TV shows, the literature, it's everywhere. Unless
you are dense, then I think this can be established as a fact. China is
continually being painted as the big bad scary commie, that's out to eat your
children (or something like that), or at least, they're taking your iPhone
assembling slavery jobs.

A movie like this, would add more fuel to the fire. You, as an intelligent
individual may be able to distinguish that Red Dawn is a fictional movie, with
good and bad guys. And this sells tickets. And Americans love this! They want
a big bad evil enemy, that their country can destroy. And right now, China is
it!

However, can you guarantee that another American, of lesser educational
intelligence than yourself, can distinguish such a thing? That this is pure
fiction, and not a proxy of reality.

Nobody wants to be painted as the bad guy. Americans movies will certainly
never paint America as the bad guy, despite the fact that millions have died
at the receiving end of American weapons. In fact, I can't recall any media
where America is painted as the bad guy.

The Chinese people certainly don't want to see themselves as the bad guys.
Especially not when it's a historical fact, that they have been severely
dominated by Western nations. And hundreds of millions of their people have
suffered and died. And to this day, there are certain white people, that are
proud of what their race did to China in the 1800s. And if you find this
shocking, please let me know. You can find this perception all over the
internet, and you can poll your close friends, and ask them what they truly
think.

Anyways, movies are political statements. When you make it too real, then it
hits too close to home. And there are certain dangers with that kind of
propaganda. And it will certainly upset the people on the receiving end of it.

Stick to making movies about aliens and their probing devices, zombies, and
superheros in tights. Or killing the evil German Nazis. Nobody will question
these kinds of movies.

~~~
derriz
I understand that no one likes being painted as the bad guy, but this is a
very odd claim: "Americans movies will certainly never paint America as the
bad guy, despite the fact that millions have died at the receiving end of
American weapons. In fact, I can't recall any media where America is painted
as the bad guy."

I'm not American but this suggests you have experienced very little of the
variety of American movies or general media? There are not only plenty of
American movies and media critical of America and American policy but there is
a long history of such. Without going back too far in history, the media
presentation of the Vietnam war, for example, may be something of a cliché but
it's a valid example.

~~~
forapurpose
The GP comment has the hallmarks of Chinese gov't propaganda, which reaches
even here. You'll see it every time criticism of China appears: 'The U.S. does
it too.' Sometimes the application of it is just laughable:

> Americans movies will certainly never paint America as the bad guy

Wow.

> There is a lot of bad blood coming out of American media about China

The paranoid, we're-picked-on perspective.

Much of the comment is directly from the rhetoric of the Chinese Communist
Party and government:

> Anyways, movies are political statements. When you make it too real, then it
> hits too close to home. And there are certain dangers with that kind of
> propaganda. And it will certainly upset the people on the receiving end of
> it.

Everything is political. Avoid politics that challenge the Chinese Communist
Party for reasons of public order, which just upsets people - the public
doesn't want to think about politics and become upset. Promoting Chinese
Communist Party-approved politics is ok, because that increases public order.

> Stick to making movies about aliens and their probing devices, zombies, and
> superheros in tights. Or killing the evil German Nazis. Nobody will question
> these kinds of movies.

Uh, I'll try to keep that in mind. We wouldn't want to make a movie that
anyone questioned!

~~~
blackrock
Everything you said, just reinforced my positions.

You can't even acknowledge that my positions may have some merit.

And that's the problem with trying to have a rational discussion on sensitive
things like this. You get people like this guy, that only sees it from his
angle. And this whole thing just becomes another echo chamber.

You should consider reading this:

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/the-social-media-
ech...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/the-social-media-echo-chamber-
is-real/)

At this point, you can have your say. And we can agree to disagree.

~~~
forapurpose
Right out of the playbook. The parent comment attacks me, but not the content
of the discussion, which would be valuable.

EDIT: Deleted response to personal comments.

------
ilamont
_Facebook suspended Mr. Guo’s account. In a statement, the company said the
account published the personal information of others without their consent,
which violated the platform’s policies._

Zuckerberg wants to be in China in such a bad way. He's learned Mandarin,
plays up his family connections (via his wife's family), and puts on the charm
when visiting China. He's created relationships with officials at every level.
His representatives have talked with companies which may be partners or
acquired at some point.

It does not surprise me one bit that Facebook will bend over backwards to
accommodate officials on censorship demands. This is the cost of doing
business in China for a tech company. Media companies learned this decades ago
- read up on how Rupert Murdoch was able to operate there, it's quite
fascinating.

Now it's Silicon Valley's turn, especially companies that specialize in
communication -- social networks, phone manufacturers, companies that sell
networking hardware, etc. The Chinese government's survival depends on
information control, and if they can't do it themselves, then they force local
and foreign companies to do it for them.

Don't think that this issue will be limited to human rights activists. It
doesn't matter who you are -- your social media comments, family
relationships, WeChat and Facebook messages, work connections on LinkedIn, and
other digital footprints that reflect your attitude or influence will be used
to build a social media score that determines your level of access to the
country and ability to do business in China.

The scary prospect is that other countries will do the same thing ... if they
haven't done so already.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The way Zuckerberg has gone about it, I think he is awkwardly a sinophile, he
isn't doing those things just to (or even primarily to) get Facebook into
China.

~~~
coldtea
As if he lets his personal whims, and not billion(s) of dollar FB profit
dictate his actions?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Ya, isn't it obvious? The guy is definitely awkward. I think Chinese like to
think he is doing it for the money, because they feel like it gives them face
and they can't imagine anything else being possible. Americans look at it
quite differently of course, they see some guy who obviously has a thing for
China and is doing a bunch of cringey stuff because of that.

If he was doing that for the money, you'd think he would consult first with
someone who actually knew better.

~~~
coldtea
> _The guy is definitely awkward._

The guy is the CEO of a multi-billion dollar behemoth. He was always awkward,
but he is also very calculated. He wants in on the Chinese market.

> _If he was doing that for the money, you 'd think he would consult first
> with someone who actually knew better._

And do what differently?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> He was always awkward, but he is also very calculated. He wants in on the
> Chinese market.

That is of course the only possibility Chinese can think of, while Americans
just think he is being awkward.

> And do what differently?

Not do a bunch of cringe worthy stuff like asking Xi to name his child or
jogging in Beijing smog.

~~~
coldtea
> _That is of course the only possibility Chinese can think of, while
> Americans just think he is being awkward._

Well, I'm not Chinese, and I think those who think he's being awkward are
naive.

> _Not do a bunch of cringe worthy stuff like asking Xi to name his child or
> jogging in Beijing smog._

Cringe-worthy to whom? Because the Chinese audience will probably eat-up that
kind of soapy stuff, the same way Americans cherish the cliche stuff performed
by people coming into the US and seeking their business (businesses, actors,
etc).

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I was there when it happened, there was a lot of cringe, especially in
Beijing.

~~~
coldtea
Yeah, but upon the public at large, or among more sophisticated audiences?

------
Gustomaximus
Australia is deeply involved in this. China are actively trying to control
conversation with Chinese students and immigrants here. The govt has literally
bought all Chinese language press and semi regularly run full page 'articles'
in the major press. They have been caught out several time pressuring
universities and placing disruptive people in lectures that discuss areas they
don't want. I believed agents recently were found to have broken into lectures
houses.

Its a delicate situation and hopefully the government will not be afraid to
deal with it, whilst not turning it into a xenophobic support point.

~~~
robtaylor
Sources?

~~~
John_KZ
Yeah, some of that sounds way too far-fetched.

~~~
fnulnu
The various scandals have been reported on quite a bit by Australian news
stations

------
adjkant
> “I personally am not sure what the solution is for these companies,” said
> Mr. Rosenzweig. “I don’t see a good answer because the Chinese government is
> really putting them between a rock and a hard place.”

I don't think this is _that_ hard of a decision, is it? Just say no and cut
ties with efforts for China as a market. Any profits there are not worth
jeopardizing all of the privacy and precedents that are being slowly pushed.

~~~
mark_edward
When profits come up against morality, profits will win every time. How do you
think we even got to this situation in the first place?

~~~
hueving
This is not true. There are a bunch of businesses that use there moral
positions as advertising to great effect.

This is why Apple doesn't sell away your data, why every city is filled with
local and organic restaurants, etc.

The market does select for moral positions, you just might not like those
positions.

~~~
rorykoehler
Didn't they just move their Chinese icloud and keys to mainland China?
[https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/28/17055088/apple-chinese-
ic...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/28/17055088/apple-chinese-icloud-
accounts-government-privacy-speed)

------
blfr
_Facebook suspended Mr. Guo’s account. In a statement, the company said the
account published the personal information of others without their consent,
which violated the platform’s policies. A spokeswoman declined to comment on
whether Beijing’s complaints played a role._

 _Chinese authorities have also successfully persuaded Google to pull down
content that had been available around the globe._

How do they use those standing desks without a spine?

~~~
kazinator
+1 for originality: you don't seem to have cribbed the "standing desks without
a spine" from any Googleable source.

------
forapurpose
(Pardon the bit of philosophy, but I think it's on-topic, well-grounded, and
substantially novel (at least to me!):)

The myriad of issues of the present era seem chaotic, but I'm starting to
believe I see the defining theme, the one that will characterize it in history
books, and I see the story in the article as merely a part of it: The contest
between democracy and liberty on one hand, and wealth and power for an elite
on the other. People like Thiel say "freedom and democracy" are not
"compatible" with "capitalism".[0] Similarly, the Chinese government (and
Russian, and others) is a wealthy elite that keeps the power from its citizens
and the bulk of the wealth to itself. It's aristocracy: The belief that power
should be controlled by the elite and inherited, not delegated by a vote of
universal peers with equal rights.

It's not really "capitalism" that that Thiel advocates, but economic power for
the currently wealthy unrestricted by the democratic wishes of other citizens
(i.e. simply more power for himself, the oldest, most base political instinct
- again, see China). He has fellow advocates in the current US government: For
example, the Secretary of State (another business elite) and others have
openly said the US shouldn't sacrifice making money for human rights, and
openly support brutal, oppressive dictatorships. In the US courts,
conservatives have given corporations and wealthy far more power over the
democratic will of the people - corporations have gained Constitutional rights
of real humans; they and the wealthy have gained unlimited, anonymous
financial influence in politics and elections; and they've gained protections
from the courts themselves (class-action restrictions, arbitration
requirements, etc.). Another example is one vein of extreme anti-regulation
dogma that says, on principle, economic powers should not be limited by the
will of the majority (I'm not saying all arguments against regulation are
problematic, only the principle that the issues shouldn't be decided
democratically).

At times there truly is an immediate tradeoff. Daimler-Benz, Google,
Hollywood, and others have to deal with this real problem in China and it will
affect their bottom lines. But from an historical perspective it's nothing new
and is a minor sacrifice. Few of those companies would exist in their current
state or enjoy their wealth if not for the massive sacrifices of life and
wealth made by prior generations; there are 18-year-olds still at the bottom
of the English Channel who never even set foot in France or fired a weapon.
What are the corporations and we doing for the next generation? Will we be
merely parasites that consume the benefits bestowed on us and pass on less,
rather than invest in and expand freedom as our ancestors did? The U.S.
Declaration of Independence ends "we mutually pledge to each other our Lives,
our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" for liberty. It wasn't the opposite: they
didn't pledge to give up their liberty for greater fortunes - but that's what
Thiel, et al want.

In the long run, it's not a tradeoff. Giving freedom and opportunity to more
people makes them more productive; it's a wonderful, mutually-reinforcing
phenomenon between democracy and freedom on one hand and prosperity on the
other. It has made the democracies the wealthiest, most free countries in the
history of the world. It has given hope and liberty to more than a billion
people; today's wealthy were yesterday's poor. It's worked throughout the
world, from Japan to Latin America to Taiwan to Europe and the US to many more
places.

But at times there are immediate tradeoffs and sacrifices that we must decide
to make: Will we give up wealth for democracy and freedom? Do we want
democracy and freedom (and long-term prosperity), or unbridled economic wealth
and power for a nascent aristocracy? It seems like an easy choice to me once
you think about it that way.[1]

[0] [https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/educatio...](https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-
thiel/education-libertarian)

[1] Of course, it's even easier when I frame the question that I answer!

------
EggsOnToast
This is just me soapboxing, but I would argue that situations like this
illustrate a need for online social platforms run by the state. I realize the
obvious vulnerabilities of such a setup, but if we believe free speech to be
an essential element of our societies then we need social platforms beholden
only to our own laws even if they simply exist in parallel to private
platforms. The internet, and social media in this context, have become just as
fundamentally important to discussions and grassroots politics as the street
corner once was.

~~~
mirimir
Conversely, it's arguable that we need social platforms that are immune to
censorship by any state or private party. Such as properly implemented Tor
onion services. But readily accessible from the open Internet.

~~~
closeparen
You're posting this comment on Hacker News and not 4Chan for a reason.
Censorship is absolutely essential to make an internet community tolerable to
people outside a tiny cohort of edgelords.

~~~
mirimir
That's true. But that's mostly about different userbases. HN is actually not
all that censored. It's largely community moderated. Very little gets
completely deleted, just downvoted and flagged to oblivion.

Disruptive users do get shadow-banned, but it's trivial to create new ones.
With accumulating karma, there is some pressure to self-censor. But overall, I
like it better than StackExchange or reddit, for example.

Edit: I just noticed that this submission about Bitcoin energy use has been
raised from the dead:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16498776](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16498776)

------
tombh
Whilst I think there's some merit in the recent increase in China articles
here. The tone of this one seems sensational. What I find most intriguing
about discovering China is what it says about me and the so-called West.
China's influence is growing you say? My first reaction is concern, but my
second is humility, as if looking in a mirror. I can't help but feel a little
like this article immaturely criticises a topic that it never has an intention
to understand. The entire premise of being able to so easily stir such ominous
sentiment betrays the existence of the elephant in the West's room: Western
power is so taken for granted we no longer know how to treat it as a
privilege. It's embarrassing, in fact I think we have, at the very least, a
responsibility to be embarrassed, that unironic, one-sided criticism of China
is culturally acceptable. This is not at all to imply that China doesn't
represent the absolute worst of human behavior, I'm not naïve. It's to say
that the conversation about China is really the stirrings of a new awakening
in the West's self-understanding.

~~~
doctorstupid
This isn't about western power, it's about western values being protected in
the west. I'm sure that people wouldn't be so concerned if China kept its
censorship within its borders. As far as I know the west doesn't
systematically subvert Chinese values within China.

~~~
whatyoucantsay
The US sure tries to:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America)

------
zombieprocesses
Isn't everyone trying to police what people say online now? Least of all the
nytimes and the rest of the media? Europe does it. We do it. The media
advocates for it. Is it just bad when the chinese do it?

90% of the time everyone here seems to support censorship and control over
social media. Then the story is about china and everyone is against it.

~~~
anthonyleecook
There's censorship, and there's kidnapping/threats against citizens in other
countries

"After U.S.-Based Reporters Exposed Abuses, China Seized Their Relatives"

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/world/asia/china-
xinjiang...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/world/asia/china-xinjiang-
rfa.html)

"Chinese Police Are Demanding Personal Information From Uighurs in France.
Officials have threatened to detain relatives of those who don’t comply."

[http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/02/chinese-police-are-
secre...](http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/02/chinese-police-are-secretly-
demanding-personal-information-from-french-citizens-uighurs-xinjiang/)

------
mirimir
This is rather biased against China. OK, so Chinese authorities have arrested
citizens who have posted "illegal" material. I don't see that they've grabbed
citizens of other countries off the streets, which the US and Israel have
done. Or pressed other countries to extradite their citizens based on criminal
allegations, which the US commonly does.

And about takedown requests to Google etc. MPAA and other "rights holders" do
this frequently. Indeed, the US government uses DNS poisoning to censor sites
that it considers illegal. Or requests that other countries raid hosting
services, and impound servers. Has China done that?

Anyway, just sayin'. I do believe that everything should be takedown-proof,
for what it's worth.

~~~
incompatible
Gui Minhai, citizen of Sweden, was kidnapped in Thailand and secretly
imprisoned in China.

~~~
justicezyx
citation please

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That one is easy:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=swedish+citizen+china&source...](https://www.google.com/search?q=swedish+citizen+china&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgrZqH_c7ZAhUOyWMKHRoVBOcQ_AUICigB&biw=1378&bih=758)

