20 Years After Tiananmen, China Stifles Online Dissent 235
alphadogg writes with this snippet from Network World: "The Internet has brought new hope to reformists in China since the country crushed pro-democracy protests in the capital 20 years ago. But as dissidents have gone high-tech, the government in turn has worked to restrict free speech on the Internet, stifling threats to its rule that could grow online. China has stepped up monitoring of dissidents and Internet censorship ahead of June 4, when hundreds were killed in 1989 after Beijing sent soldiers to its central Tiananmen Square to disperse protestors. The authoritarian government wants to ensure that date and other sensitive anniversaries this year pass without public disturbances, observers say. In recent months, China has blocked YouTube and closed two blog hosting sites, bullog.cn and fatianxia.com, known for their liberal content."
It's still inconvenient? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still inconvenient for the Chinese government that this not be seen by the public? Although not easy to pull off, perhaps there should be some plans to bring this issue up world wide when it's not around the anniversary. Catch the Chinese authorities off-guard.
And the secret sauce is... (Score:5, Insightful)
secrecy.
It isn't ubiquitous surveillance that does the trick, it's ubiquitous potential surveillance. Likewise iron fisted rule is crude and inefficient. The true art is to rule without rules. China has high sounding and extremely vague legal principles. Put the two together and you are never (a) sure if you are not being watched nor (b) if what you are doing is legal.
When you've achieved this, you don't need Big Brother. Every citizen is his own Big Brother.
You almost have to admire this system. It is tyranny, perfected.
Like this not happens in America (Score:0, Insightful)
You so happy to talk of China censorship but what of censorship in the West?
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Like this not happens in America (Score:5, Insightful)
China is the product of Chinese culture. (Score:4, Insightful)
When the overwhelming majority of people in a nation truly want democracy and human rights, the nation quickly and peacefully transforms into a liberal Western democracy. Case in point is Eastern Europe. Once the Kremlin ceased suppressing Eastern Europe, the Eastern Europeans peacefully and quickly transformed into liberal Western democracies. Except for Romania (where the dictator was killed), there was no bloodshed. There was no violence.
In the late 1980s, what was the strength of desire for creating Western democracies in Eastern Europe? Consider Czechoslovakia. In one day of 1989 November, about 800,000 people gathered in Prague and rallied for the creation of a Western democracy [wikipedia.org]. 800,000 people is about 5% of the population.
By contrast, in one day of 1989 June, about 1 million people gathered in Tiananmen Square to demand the creation of a Western democracy. 1 million people is only 0.1 % of the Chinese population.
In other words, in the late 1980s, the strength of support for democracy in Eastern Europe was 50 times the strength in China.
I admire the Eastern Europeans.
China is what it is due to how the Chinese people act and think. No foreign power is imposing the CCP on China. The Chinese people support the CCP.
Re:Like this not happens in America (Score:2, Insightful)
how would you know?
Re:And the secret sauce is... (Score:5, Insightful)
they live in a state of ignorance because of the governments cultural sandbox.
This statement is half right. The lessons of twentieth century totalitarianism is that what you call a "cultural sandbox" doesn't work. If so, a little perestoika wouldn't have been enough to cause the Soviet Union to fly apart. The truth was that the pablum of the state had never been internalized by the citizens. A thinking totalitarian would learn from this failure. You can't assume that because they're values are different from ours that they are too stupid to learn.
There are plenty of Chinese people who travel overseas for business or deal with foreigners. Each one of these is a potential vector for what the authorities would consider malignant ideas. I don't deny that the state acts like things like the Great Firewall are politically important. Perhaps they have their uses, but I actually think they may be as symptomatic as they are cause.
It's not enough to create a vacuum of information in peoples' heads. You have to put something there.
Re:Like this not happens in America (Score:2, Insightful)
The scale of censorship is much smaller. The US has minor problems with censorship. The US has not, for example, blocked major news sites. Nor has it blocked Wikipedia and made its own version that the government likes. The comparison is simply not accurate.
Smaller? Maybe, certainly softer. Instead of outright censorship, they engage in manipulation. Deny access to the battlefield for all but embedded reporters who see everything from the perspective of the soldiers in their unit but never get a chance to spend more than a few minutes talking to the "enemy" and then almost never in an open situation. Similarly control access to other sources of news like interviews with high ranking officials so that you only get the interview if you only pitch'em slowballs. There is also the hiring of private individuals to promote the government's point of view. [sourcewatch.org]
So no, technically its not censorship under the absolute strictest definition of the word, but the goals are exactly the same and the means are just as, if not even more, underhanded.
Fat and Happy (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod to the max (Score:2, Insightful)
This is by far the most useful post, and needs to appear above the other rubbish about secret police, and government conspiracies.
Chinese culture dictates that personal freedoms are completely sacrificed, for the sake of social stability. Authoritarian government is the natural result, and the meta-stable bizarro world we see now is a result of sustained government meddling.
Also, before the cultural relativists come out to disagree, you already lost.
The universal nature of human rights and freedoms is beyond question
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:3, Insightful)
I keep seeing these comparisons, but the last time I checked, at no point in US history has the government been able to get away with not only driving tanks in to extinguish protests, but also being able to make it so that no one can talk about it AND have everyone act as though the Chinese government can do no wrong.
No one is pretending that US policy has always been free of hypocrisy, nor that China is always evil and wrong, but their actions in regard to free expression only appear to compare to those of the US when you are using a logarithmic scale. In other words, when you fail to be discriminating.
I think China is on a path to democracy, but it's going through its fascist phase. The reality is likely that it just needs to work itself out. People in China just want a government that they can live under that the rules are stable and there is opportunity to have some degree of success. Compared to decades of civil war, invasion and Maoist shenanigans, even tanks running over protesters may seem like a walk in the park.
The major thing that needs to happen with China is to ensure that they don't go militant and try to go conquer the world to deal with their internal issues. Internally, the people of China need to learn for themselves the value of liberty.
Re:China is the product of Chinese culture. (Score:2, Insightful)
Much of what you say is true, but I think you attribute too much to "Chinese culture" and not enough to plain old human nature.
Now, I'm not standing on terrible solid ground here; I'm just a former American who now lives in and is a citizen of Japan. But most of the "cultural differences" everyone talks about between the East and the West are just a load of crap from what I've seen. Culture only affects superficial stuff like greetings, language, manners, and the like, in my experience.
Humans end up being the same deep down though. The reason the Chinese government is as it is isn't because the Chinese are intrinsically more submissive or something, but because most Chinese people would rather something that works.
Right now, the CCP works in China. I'm fairly certain that once China is affluent and almost all of her people are able to take the food on their plates and the roofs over their heads for granted, movements for freedom of speech and such will begin to crop up. Of course, there will also be movements trying to keep those movements from rocking the boat and potentially fucking things up. Till then though, that's all on the backburner.
Re:And the secret sauce is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I won't disagree with the financial aspect of the collapse. I'm just pointing out that Soviets were well aware of how screwed up their government was, and that when things started to fall apart, it was remarkable how all the ideas the government spent decades suppressing turned out to be alive and well and in the wild.
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:2, Insightful)
> I personally know a number of very smart Chinese Ph.D. students who honestly believe that everything the Chinese government does is right and has always been right because they have been told so back home
I also personally know many Americans who honestly believe that everything the American government does is right an has always been right because they have been told so back home.
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And the secret sauce is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Rather, the Chinese don't protest because protest is unsafe. Here's an example:
When my sister was in China about a year ago, she asked her guide about Tiananmen. Her guide replied:
"One day there were 50,000 people. The next day there were 50,000 bicycles."
The meaning was clear: 50,000 dead people (or however many, but that's the number the Chinese guide used) left behind 50,000 bicycles. BUT -- no one will say outright that anyone was KILLED, let alone by the gov't.
Re:China is the product of Chinese culture. (Score:2, Insightful)
"Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny."
-- Lloyd Biggle Jr.
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't know overseas Chinese until you've been blasted with the evils of the US media industry (substitute publishing, indymedia, ad nos.). I have been in the overseas community since I met the lady who became my wife a decade ago. Since then, every Chinese person I brought the subject up with was unaware that North Korea invaded South Korea. None knew how many Chinese died in the war. One out of many knew that China fought the UN in the Korean War. Overseas Chinese do not know that China invaded Tibet. Many were unaware that China fought a war with India. Most did know of the Sino-Vietnam War, but did not know China lost. Many were also aware that China fought a low intensity war against the USSR for a decade.
All educated Chinese I have met, who should through their "education" know better regarding their government and its actions, are deliberately ignorant of recent history.
Re:Like this not happens in America (Score:3, Insightful)
"My objection isn't to torture"
Yes I had noticed you dont object to torture.
Personally I would rather see torture illegal in both countries. Disembling about the reason for torture is to say the least amoral.
When you get your own house in order then you can criticize others.
Personally I condemn ALL torture, for ANY reason.
What a pity you dont.
Re:Some surprising results searching google.cn (Score:2, Insightful)
> Is google.cn only censored when it detects IP addresses within China?
Yes.
So Google helps China stifle free speech, but hides it to us outsiders?
Sounds kind of evil.
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do many westerners know about those events as well? It's also interesting how many westerners know about Tiananmen, but don't actually know what happened.
Re:YOU ARE A FUCKING LIAR, SO STFU! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait...
On a more serious note, you might be taken seriously if you wrote coherently.
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:5, Insightful)
All I could think of while reading your comment is the Jay Leno pieces where they ask similar questions of Americans on the street and get just as many blank stares.
The Chinese Government Censors... (Score:3, Insightful)
And the vast majority of Chinese don't care.
And why should they? As long as you don't say inconvenient things, you can DO whatever you want in China. With freedom of action, and a growing economy, why would most Chinese care? If it weren't for the amazing economic growth presided over by the CCP, most Chinese wouldn't have access to computers to even make these websites.
Ignorance of recent history (Score:3, Insightful)
Do many westerners know about those events as well?
Those events aren't as close to us - they're trivia questions whereas for Chinese it would be their history. How many people in the US know that the US liberated Kuwait from an Iraqi occupation in 1991, invaded Afghanistan after 9/11, and invaded Iraq in 2003? That is the equivalent question.
Selected for that... (Score:4, Insightful)
From what I know from the similarly totalitarian communist regime that existed in eastern Europe in the past century (my parents lived there), these kind of government prefer to hand pick the people to whom they give authorizations to go abroad.
Either select people who genuinely believe so much in the government that there's no way they could get "corrupted" even when "exposed to the evil westerner capitalists".
Or select people who have enough allegiance to the government.
And then in addition to that perform regular checks, both open (interviews organized by the local embassy) and covert (have the abroad community member spy on each other to find if someone has dared to walk aside from the "golden rules set by the government").
I'm ready to bet that the same is happening with modern China.
There are people who don't believe in the current government. But those aren't the one who'll obtain an authorization to go study abroad. To much risks of defection or getting corrupted and converted by the evil westerners.
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't know overseas Chinese until you've been blasted with the evils of the US media industry (substitute publishing, indymedia, ad nos.). I have been in the overseas community since I met the lady who became my wife a decade ago. Since then, every Chinese person I brought the subject up with was unaware that North Korea invaded South Korea. None knew how many Chinese died in the war. One out of many knew that China fought the UN in the Korean War. Overseas Chinese do not know that China invaded Tibet. Many were unaware that China fought a war with India. Most did know of the Sino-Vietnam War, but did not know China lost. Many were also aware that China fought a low intensity war against the USSR for a decade. All educated Chinese I have met, who should through their "education" know better regarding their government and its actions, are deliberately ignorant of recent history.
There is a dilemma that means educating the overseas students is never likely to be sufficient. If you tell an ex-pat how rotten you think their government is, they will probably defend it even if they would normally criticise it at home. A less sensitive example: there are very few Brits who are imperialist or who think non-democratic colonialism is a good thing; tell them how terrible you think the British Empire was, though, and they will defend it as being historically much more just and self-correcting than any of the other empires of the era. They don't really see it as you criticising a system, but see it as you belittling their people. So if you tell overseas Chinese students how bad the Chinese government is, depending on how you put it, they might not thank you for it. And they are unlikely to pass on your criticisms back home. Actually, for China it is worse than that: many Chinese students overseas are asked to monitor other Chinese students, to make sure they don't hang out with the wrong crowd, etc. So, even if a student is open to your criticism of his country, it can be personally a bit risky for him to hang out with groups that openly and vehemently criticise the government. The upshot is that it has to be handled sensitively, and it's unlikely we'll make much real progress until it is possible for Chinese people to criticise their government more openly at home, rather than abroad.
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:2, Insightful)
The question is whether the Chinese raised in the communist propaganda can handle the criticism of their own government without taking it at the personal level and getting all emotional and defensive.
When I had a discussion with an expat about how the Chinese propaganda I saw about it said that the PLA installed "democratic reforms" in Tibet after the 1950 invasion, and how I said that was the most glaringly obvious lie (as opposed to having an element of truth) he proceeded to attack the US and brought up The Bonus Army [wikipedia.org](!). Wow! Nothing violent happened at Tiananmen Square, and anyway if it did. the US is just as guilty because of the MacArthur shot the Bonus Army. My Chinese friend was dumbfounded when I responded, with "Yeah. I know about that. The veterans didn't get paid, and then during their protest they got shot. It shouldn't have happened. It was wrong. What's your point?" Honestly, it was like his mom never told him, "Just because everyone else does it doesn't make it right."
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:5, Insightful)
See, this is where your propaganda cool aid shows up. *Despite* claiming that the chinese have an unbiased view of the events and other countries, the bias still shows up in your views.
As an Indian, I can confirm that we are actually *taught* in school and colleges that India lost the Sino-Indian War. There is no delusion there. We lost. China won. As such, not even a school child in India thinks that we did not lose in any way. The Indian schoolbooks say that we won(or drew) every single war with Pakistan. They clearly say that India lost the war with China.
*Your* bias is clear however, when you stated your belief that some "hardcore Indian nationalist" do not believe India lost. I have yet to come across an Indian who believes so, specially when we get taught otherwise in schools.
From our version of history, Tibet was a territory conquered sometimes by Indian kings and sometimes by the Chinese(Since a unified India did not actually exist pre-mughal period). Britishers snatched it from the Chinese empire several centuries ago, and China simply sat quietly since it didn't think it was capable of taking on the British naval forces etc. at that point. Once the British decided to leave India, China evaluated the weaker Indian army and decided to stake its centuries old claim again. The Indian army which is still weaker than China and even then in its nascent stage, lost against the Chinese forces.
The Chinese Invasion came unexpected when negotiations were going on, and China was actually extending friendly overtures to India. This situation was the result of the idiocy of Nehru to attempt an alliance with China and at the same time antagonize China by giving refuge to the Dalai Lama(Which was obviously seen by China as interference in its internal affairs). Nevertheless, in background of the negotiations and Zhou Enlai claiming that there was no dispute between India and China, the unexpected attacks are seen by India as a stab in the back and betrayal of trust. So strong was the belief that India and China were allies, that Indian air force, which could have possibly succeeded in repelling the Chinese, was told to stand down.
The Indian perception of the Indo-sino war is that Nehru was an idiot to attempt an alliance with China, and that no matter how justified the Chinese claim over Tibet was, China/Zhou Enlai should have not pretended to "be friends to India", if China intended to invade over the territorial dispute.
And in that light, *of course* the Indians see Chinese as double-dealing backstabbers, but kindly stop claiming that any Indian claims that India won the Indo-Sino war. Indians do hate/mistrust the chinese in general, but they don't have any delusions about losing the Indo-Sino war.
Re:Like this not happens in America (Score:3, Insightful)
$ sed 's/Tibet/Ireland/g' 's/China/England/g'
Ireland always had a "historic" connection to England. At times a very close connection. But that does not mean that it was inherently a part of some grater "British Empire", or that it was necessarily better off in one.
Sure, there were some benefits from being subsumed into a larger empire. But there were also drawbacks, and they outweighed the pros significantly enough for the Irish people, or most of them at least, to want to leave. And while it's true that the fortunes of the Irish state have not always been great since gaining independence, you would be hard pressed to find a significant body of people who regard independence as a net negative.
We already know what they think about it. The great empire, strong and united. All it's people grateful and proud to be a part of such a magnificent society, with freedom, prosperity and justice for all. And they'll think that even as they occupy, persecute, terrorise and loot all the peoples under their boot.
Empires are schizophrenic entities. Everyone living under them knows this. Though people in the prime nation will never awknowladge it. The English fancied themselves as ruling a great and happy British empire too, yet one by one every nation in it decided to leave. The same will happen for the Chinese empire too; that is, if those nations still exist by the time the Beijing is done with them.
Re:It's still inconvenient? (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe anon's point was if we who live in the "land of the free" can have people who blindly support the government no matter what, then what hope does your average Chinese have?