Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Sunday February 08, @05:24PM   Printer-friendly

A very interesting article was published by The New Republic, which centers on the intersection of social media, government censorship and activism, China style. It is a long read but very much worth you while, as the "spring" of public freedom becomes the hard, cold winter at the hands of an authoritarian regime.

A very interesting article was published by The New Republic, which centers on the intersection of social media, government censorship and activism, China style. It is a long read but very much worth you while, as the "spring" of public freedom becomes the hard, cold winter at the hands of an authoritarian regime.

Weibo, the Chinese uber social media platform, is an unlikely vehicle for protests, demand for change and surprisingly results, in the form of government reform, changes to the law and favorable judgments in courts.

While China, and its famous Great Firewall, (built using "American bricks" in the form of technology from Cisco and others) is known for its unforgiving censorship of citizen's protests, something changed with social media. This is not to say that China has given up on censorship, some subjects are very much forbidden, for example the so called "Three Ts": Tibet, Tiananmen and Taiwan. No criticism or protest on those subjects is allowed, not even a suggestion of a protest.

Other subjects are open for debate. Some examples follow:

On a cold Valentine's Day in 2012, three women walked down a Beijing shopping street in white wedding dresses smeared with red to look like blood. (It was lipstick.) They had bruises on their faces, as if they'd been beaten. (It was dark-blue eye shadow.) They chanted, "Yes to love, no to violence." Photos of the protest spread instantly across the Chinese microblogging platform Weibo

The "bloody brides" were the invention of Lü Pin, founder of Feminist Voices, a digital magazine that had grown into a viral Weibo hub for young women unwilling to stay quiet. Activists called 2012 "Year One of the Chinese feminist movement." Women shaved their heads to protest higher-education quotas that favored men, rode the subway with placards denouncing gropers, and Li Maizi's "Occupy the Men's Bathroom," demanding more women's stalls, trended on Weibo.

These actions produced real legal and policy shifts. The Ministry of Education discontinued discriminatory college quotas, and a Beijing court for the first time issued a domestic violence protection order, ruling in favor of a U.S. citizen who sued her Chinese husband, a millionaire celebrity English teacher. China passed its first national anti–domestic violence law, and new buildings were required to add more women's bathrooms.

[ More examples follow - Ed ]

[Weibo] launched in 2009, it quickly became the nervous system of China's civic sphere. Before Weibo, feminist organizers could hand out newsletters or hold a small meeting but never get on state TV; afterward, they could turn a street protest into a nationwide conversation. A clever slogan or striking image could trend for weeks.

[...]

This rise of the mobile web in China in the 2010s produced a flowering of digital creativity even as suppression intensified—a tension at the heart of Yi-Ling Liu's eye-opening book The Wall Dancers: Searching for Freedom and Connection on the Chinese Internet. Writing as someone who grew up alongside this digital universe, Liu reveals how censorship does not simply extinguish voices, but reshapes them—training a generation to speak sideways, turning repression into a culture of coded speech, creative improvisation, and stubborn survival.

[...]

Western observers have long swung between two caricatures of China—booming economic miracle or iron police state—and then demanded to know which is "real." Cultural historian Ian Buruma tried to look past that binary. In his 2001 book,Bad Elements: Chinese Rebels From Los Angeles to Beijing, he traveled through the Chinese-speaking world to portray a scattered cohort of mavericks pushed to the margins yet still feeling out the system's blurred edges: disillusioned activists, political prisoners-turned-businesspeople, human rights lawyers, Christian sect leaders and followers, and online critics. By tracing this unruly mix, Buruma punctured the myths of Chinese sameness and pointed to a messy underground current.

An early online dissenter was Liu Xiaobo, who had been released from a labor camp two years earlier, in 1999. He recognized quickly how the emerging internet could allow everyday people to reach one another without passing through official channels. Cases that once were ignored—corruption scandals, police abuses, violence against women—could suddenly circulate everywhere. Liu, who would win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2010, encouraged this new civic scrutiny, supporting figures such as Dr. Jiang Yanyong, whose revelations about the true scale of the 2003 SARS outbreak ignited a fury. Commentators began calling 2003 "the year of online public opinion."

From the state's perspective, this was dangerous in a new way. [...] In 1998, the Ministry of Public Security launched what it called the Golden Shield Project—an effort to create an integrated surveillance-and-filtering system that would let the authorities watch, sort, and erase content, and block and arrest violators. Outside China, it became better known as the Great Firewall of China, the title of a Wired article. As Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu note in Who Controls the Internet?, the wall was built partly with "American bricks," with key technology from Cisco and other firms.

[...]

The good times would not last. In 2011, amid protests over illegal land grabs and Weibo chatter about a Chinese "Jasmine Revolution," party leaders were terrified of social media's ability to organize mass movements. Then-President Hu Jintao ordered significantly greater control of the internet and public opinion; within a year, Xi Jinping was elevated as his successor. Nicholas Kristof infamously predicted that Xi would be a reformer, and that Liu Xiaobo, who had been imprisoned in 2008 for a fourth time, would be freed.

nstead, one day the "Big V" writer Murong Xuecun found his social media accounts deleted. Months later, the outspoken billionaire investor Charles Xue was jailed for soliciting a prostitute, in what appeared to be a warning aimed at social media users. Xi created the Cyberspace Administration of China and installed Lu Wei, a zealous former propaganda official, as its first chief. The CAC drafted a cybersecurity law requiring that data on Chinese citizens gathered within China be kept on domestic servers and mandating that platforms edit content and monitor private chats. Unauthorized virtual private networks, or VPNs, hitherto used to bypass the Great Firewall, were criminalized, and several sellers were jailed; Apple removed hundreds of VPNs from its Chinese app store.

[...]

The state's attitude toward culture shifted from wary tolerance to active engineering. Hip-hop was banned from state television. A single quip by a stand-up comic prompted regulators to accuse him of insulting the People's Liberation Army and resulted in a multimillion-dollar fine for the company that booked him, casting a chill over the entire comedy scene. [...]
On March 6, 2015, while Lü Pin was away in New York, five other core members of the feminist movement, including Li Maizi, were detained and charged with "picking quarrels and provoking trouble." That summer, in the "709" campaign of July 9, more than 300 human rights lawyers were interrogated or arrested on accusations of "subverting state power." When China's #MeToo movement began spreading under yet another animal homophone—mi tu sounds like "rice bunny"—Feminist Voices joined in, but soon the account was purged by Weibo and WeChat, erasing the country's most influential feminist outlet from cyberspace.

[...]

Does this sound familiar? What begins as bare-knuckled politics ends as outright silencing. It is no longer culture war—it is delegated repression and state persecution. The First Amendment still offers a legal shield, and the United States lacks a centralized Great Firewall. Yet the pattern of control is unmistakable. The tools differ from China's; the methods rhyme. We are not living behind China's wall, but America's own dance of censorship has already begun.


Original Submission

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AnonTechie on Sunday February 08, @08:42PM

    by AnonTechie (2275) on Sunday February 08, @08:42PM (#1433021) Journal

    Unfortunately, I see this kind of social media censorship happening in most other countries as well. It seems the Chinese Model is being used as an instruction guide by so many countries ... Very unfortunate, but I guess we will see much more of it in future !

    --
    Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday February 08, @09:37PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday February 08, @09:37PM (#1433027)

    "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

    The less that people feel free to express their grievances, the more rebellious they become. Various cultural "innovations" have conspired to bring more order to society: concepts of: karma, reincarnation, the afterlife, Omnipotent Omniscient Sky Daddy, Santa Clause... many many more, but in the end: when people don't have sufficient outlets for their grievances, they improvise.

    The USSR ruled with "an iron fist" and what that appeared to do by 1990 on the East side of the iron curtain was thoroughly de-motivate the population: no visible hobbies, almost no landscaping, various construction projects abandoned here and there, very little new anything - it was almost like time stopped in the first world war and never really restarted. Population slowly dwindled from 18 million to 16 million across 50 years, compare that with the world as a whole which more than doubled population in the same time period, and US population which grew from 150 to 250 million... They were "orderly" but that's not the way to win the long games.

    So, I'm sure China has some of the best political psychologists in the world studying how to compete on the global stage while still "maintaining adequate control" - allowing some protests is a part of that.

    --
    🌻🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by krishnoid on Sunday February 08, @09:42PM (1 child)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Sunday February 08, @09:42PM (#1433028)

      Even the robots in the Matrix knew that you need to provide humans freedom of action and expression, even if it's only simulated.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10, @03:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 10, @03:22PM (#1433252)

      Doesn't require much freedom. North Korea's control seems to have lasted fairly long and are there really signs that it will really break down due to internal forces?

      From what I see freedom to protest is way overrated by the West. They think it's important but it's not important at all.

      Just look at the various Dictatorships around the world and history. Give the people enough Bread and Circuses and they'll tolerate a lot. Give them Hope and they'll tolerate even more.

      The protests and revolutions start when too many people can't get enough Bread.

      "When a man's stomach is full it makes no difference whether he is rich or poor." ~ Euripides

      North Korea even managed to retain control when the Bread was not enough and people were starving. But that's definitely not the way to stay in power.

      So, I'm sure China has some of the best political psychologists in the world studying how to compete on the global stage while still "maintaining adequate control" - allowing some protests is a part of that.

      The Chinese people are used to Dragon Parents. So they'll put up with Dragon Government as long as the Government appears to be doing a good enough job in taking care of them (or pretending to). Sure many get "taken care of" too but as long as the Dragon or Pooh Bear doesn't eat you if you don't poke them most people will go "just don't poke the Dragon or Bear then", or go d'oh his fault for poking the Dragon.

      The Chinese Government can also point to the US, its freedoms and what's happening; and the majority in China will probably agree they don't want that sort of thing at all.

      US people "we get to have guns and we shoot each regularly, you're worse off than us, you don't have our freedoms!"
      Chinese people "no thanks, we good".

      The US people too often seem like near-abandoned step-children bragging they have freedom to insult their step-parents who barely give a fuck, who just throw them a bone from time to time. Meanwhile the blood children get the good stuff. 🤣

      p.s. The Chinese Government may not actually care, but they've been doing a better job of pretending to care.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, @12:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 09, @12:16AM (#1433050)

    is more like a mosh pit/rave.

(1)