China Unblocks the BBC (In English)

An anonymous reader writes in with news that China has unblocked the BBC Web site — the English-language version at any rate. No announcement was made, because China has never acknowledged blocking the BBC for the last decade. The Chinese-language version of the site has been blocked since its inception in 1999. The article speculates that the easing of censorship may be tied to the upcoming Olympic Games.

regarding the olympics

I'd imagine the reporters from other countries will not be censored, through the great firewall or otherwise. If so, they must have a devil of a time separating the chinese from the reporters. Anyone heard anything on this?

Re:regarding the olympics

This will be interesting.

People from all over the world will be visiting and all kinds of reporters will be onsite. How many reports do you think we will see that tell us China blocks part of the internet. Telling us stuff we already told them but they refused to listen.

This will be a big black eye for China because the whole world will be faced with the details and feel the impact.

This could get interesting.

I saw one person mention tor as a work around. I think using a VPN could also work for them.

It is open if you understand English

As I lived in China for 3 years, you can surf most English foreign media websites like CNN, New York Times, etc., most of the times. They don't really care. Because if you are so fluent in English, you already know all about human rights and you are likely a member of the better-off class. In China, like everywhere else, the people that want to and will revolve against the government are the poor people -- never the middle class or rich people. Remember who in the U.S. joint the L.A. riots in the 1990's?

In China, they are most interested in blocking oversea/HK/Taiwan Chinese sites. Like sina.com is a Chinese company operating two sites -- one for domestic and others for oversea with contents not allowed in China.

Re:It is open if you understand English

Actually the middle class has been the core of most revolutions in the last two centuries. You need educated people to lead a revolution.

Re:regarding the olympics

I very much doubt we'll see any significant unfavorable coverage from the major corporate news media. All the big corporations are desperate to get or keep access to Chinese markets -- it's hard to ignore a billion potential customers. And they know very well that the Chinese government will remember who said bad things about them when it's time to negotiate licenses and deals.

Re:regarding the olympics

Bet you that china is also clearing out people from the cities that the games are being hosted in as well. Forcing them to move away so that the only people that reporters will have access to are high paid officials, loyals, or paid pretenders.

You may laugh, but Beijing is planning to kick out a bunch of migrant workers during the Olympics (link [shanghaiist.com]) to make room for everyone else.

Expats got around it anyway

On my first trip to China several years ago, the expats I met complained bitterly about the firewall. When I was there last summer, however, it seems that the use of Tor has widely spread in the expat community and now anyone wishing to read English-language media has no problem accessing it.

Re:Expats got around it anyway

That's progress, but not of the sort that the international community is trying to foster.

Keep in mind that part of the reason the International Olympic Committee gave China the games was to create international pressure for change... and not of the TOR variety.

I find it ironic that, despite publicly stating they wanted to create pressure, now the IOC is condemning calls to boycott the Beijing Olympics, amongst other things.

if you only read mandarin

what's the point?

Re:if you only read mandarin

Only the relatively well off among the Chinese are educated enough to be literate in English. You know: heads of state-owned companies, those in high levels of government, espionage, and maybe some repatriotized persons. In any case, relatively few people. Of those, they are all in comfortable surroundings made possible by the state. If they start learning about "democracy" and "freedom" they realize that, all in all, they aren't doing too bad themselves. And if those learnings lead to funny ideas about bringing them to within China, the state could easily replace them and any one of their peers would jump at the new opportunity.

The majority of Chinese, the only ones with a smidgen of possibility of success to revolt and start a revolution due to their sheer numbers, are the ones the Chinese establishment wants to keep dumb and oblivious. The ones with perhaps most to gain from a new democratic China.

So much for the classless society communism promises.

Re:if you only read mandarin

So much for the classless society communism promises.

You're incredibly naive. Do you actually believe that China is a communist state? If yes, I might have a bridge to sell you.

Seriously, the fact that someone claims they're something doesn't make it true. Would you point at North Korea and say "democracy doesn't work" because they call themselves a "democratic republic"? Of course not.

That's not to say that communism does or can work - it doesn't, and it can't. But no matter what, communism hasn't got the slightest thing to do with modern China.

Maybe you should go to China and learn Chinese

I will suggest you to do two things: (1) get a travel visa to China, go to a large city like Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou and visit some English corners (if you don't know where to find one, try google [google.com]; (2) start learning written Chinese and visit the discussion forums of Chinese news website like sina.com [sina.com.cn] for sometimes, especially for discussions about corruption cases, housing prices, or even news when the stock market heads down.

(1) will show you who and how many people are fluent in English; (2) will show you if people there know about "democracy", "freedom" and "equality" and if people can criticize the government or not. don't take my words here. go try the above two things. Of course, you can also choose just to listen the mainstream opinions you have heard from CNN and Slashdot -- that's your right as well.

Submit to the authorities!

I love the tag at the bottom of the article:

Are you in China? What is your reaction to this story? Is this your first time reading the BBC News website?

Followed by a block to enter your name, address and phone number. Yea right, that's a good idea, log on with your real info and complain about how your government censors you....and leave your contact info.

Re:Submit to the authorities!

Yea right, that's a good idea, log on with your real info and complain about how your government censors you....and leave your contact info.

Or the contact info of someone you don't like.

I am posting from China

I am posting my comment from China right now, and I can tell you that [xxxxx] [xx] [xx] [xxxx] and [xxxxxxx] [xx] [xxxx] BBC [xx] [xxxx] so that [xx] [xxx] [xxxx] [xx] [xx] [xxxxx] Chinese government. What I can't figure out is, why is this the only article on Slashdot today? Slow news day? Hmm.

It's Transistor Radios All Over Again

The conventional wisdom [theatlantic.com] is that in the lead up to, and during, the olympics that Great Firewall is going to be deactivated for those with IP addresses originating in parts of Beijing where foreigners are expected to be. The idea is that foreigners will come to China, not see anything a miss and then go back to their home countries and spread the false impression.

It's a page right out Chairman Mao's playbook. When Nixon went China, the handlers routinely gave people on the street transistor radios [time.com] to listen to. That way Nixon and Kissenger would say, "Wow. What a nice scene. China truly is wonderful place." Then as soon as these people were out of sight of dignitaries, goons (I'm sorry, "the advance team") would collect the radios for redistribution to other Potemkin Villages.

As David Byrne said, "Same as it ever was."

I'm going to be in Beijing next month in a hotel down by the Bird's Nest. I'm going to have to check out the Great Firewall.

Re:It's Transistor Radios All Over Again

It won't work though. I have long predicted that this is going to become the protest Olympics. Not like the 1980 boycott nonsense - indeed the exact opposite, everyone goes, and everyone goes (or attempts to) where they like. I would be amazed if all of the major human rights organisations have not very well thought out plans to make public protests at the games. If they protests, it is reported - if they get caught and jailed it is reported (coupled with the "outrage, they kept me in a 3x3 cell" headlines).
If the journo's attempt to go outside the "gated world" you foresee then they will either, a: find the real story and report it (scoop!), or b: have some "obey all orders" state authority tell them they are barred - the journo's will report that (scoop!) and China will still look bad.

This Olympics were only ever going to be a success for China if the media played along with their "lets all play happy families, look everything is nice" game - I was pleased to see the widespread reporting of the Tibet protesters interrupting the torch lighting in Greece (coincidentally I can see the 5 rings depicted as handcuffs becoming a oft repeated protest symbol for this games) - that is indicative that the media aren't going to play the brush it under the carpet game.

I partly feel sorry for the honest Chinese people who want to be proud of their country. And in truth the oppression and censorship isn't really 100 miles away from some practices in the western world (camp X ray, extraordinary rendition being two examples where the moral code of conduct has just been chucked in the fire). But at the same time the Chinese government is just far too easy a target - the appallingly hilarious cold war communist part ways that they attempt to deny the plain truth ("the sky is blue" - reply "no it isn't" end of discussion) is just far too easy to make a mockery out of.

Let the games commence.

Re:It's Transistor Radios All Over Again

I partly feel sorry for the honest Chinese people who want to be proud of their country. And in truth the oppression and censorship isn't really 100 miles away from some practices in the western world (camp X ray, extraordinary rendition being two examples where the moral code of conduct has just been chucked in the fire). But at the same time the Chinese government is just far too easy a target - the appallingly hilarious cold war communist part ways that they attempt to deny the plain truth ("the sky is blue" - reply "no it isn't" end of discussion) is just far too easy to make a mockery out of.

Yes, the US has done some nasty things, but come on, to compare it in any way to the vast machinery of propaganda that PRC uses to control the Chinese people with the idiocies and sins of your average US Administration is pathetic. I didn't notice anybody getting trundled off to jail for reporting on the various abuses. The Administration makes its loud noises, but the NY Times is still there, and still critical of the government.

Governments, by their very nature, will abuse the rights of people under their control (citizens and non-citizens alike). The key here is not that any country have some sort of perfect government, but that the key checks of a free press and the freedom to voice one's opinion are sacrosanct.

cat and mouse.

Whenever I visited China, I always had a feeling of playing cat and mouse with the unseen and much hypothesised great firewall. BBC back then? no chance. but you could hunt around and use other UK based new sites - daily main, guardian, thesun (if desperate), the times. Sometimes they would grind to a halt and I imagined my unseen monitor in the great firewall office checking what I was doing - then, as if he/she decided I was not a subversive threat, it would spring back into life. Other times I would VPN or proxy and find any site I wanted - but at a pitifully slow rate as if everything I did was intercepted and checked by my unseen intermediary. Other fun things that had odd effects on the speed on which pages would load would be to proxy them through the dialectizer - I always imagined one severly culterally puzzled state firewall operator calling his boss. The 'net access was always different depending on where I hooked up - im the 5* hotel in shezhen was always the fastest, in the office soso, in a street cafe you could forget it.

My conclusion was that the firewall was very very definately real, and the moment it found a foreign news story, the wrong keyword then suddenly wierd timelags and delays in page lookups would occur as my unseen companion blocked or cleared at whim. I also could of sworn that the system could tell the difference between the net being accessed from a posh hotel occupied by Western Engineers and a street cafe.

Tibet a factor

The current Tibet situation is probably also a factor in the dropping of the BBC block. "What?!?!," you're probably saying, "But China likes to hide that kind of stuff from their citizens, they don't like news getting out about unrest." Ahh, but this is a special situation.

When it comes to Tibet, the more Western media that gets in the better for the Chinese government. There is an intense vein of nationalism in China when it comes to Tibet. With outpourings of rage about "biased" western media, distorted facts, and CIA plots to break up China. The more Tibet-sympathetic reports that come from the West and leak in the China, the stronger this nationalism seems to get, and the more the people, even the poor, rally around their government.

My other half is a Chinese national, we've had some very intense conversations lately, and she's sent me links to views coming out of China about the Tibet situation. Ordinary Chinese see this as a direct attack on their sovereignty.

Many Chinese are learning English, especially the under 20 crowd. In the major eastern cities it's now required for all students in elementary school. If the government can channel their unrest against the Imperial West who's trying to break up their country, it takes the heat off the government. The Chinese government has long used nationalism, an us vs. them mentality, to deflect attention from itself domestically.

Of course they certainly wouldn't be the only country doing this, it's a long standing tradition for any unpopular regime. If you can draw this line between you and another group, and get your people to rally around you on some point, you can easily manipulate and pacify a population.

Re:Tibet a factor

The pretext used for the invasion of Tibet was pretty damned flimsy. There had been brief periods of meaningful Chinese control in Tibet. By their argument, China ought to have been invading any number of countries in East and Southeast Asia.

Actually, from an intellectual level, listening to her side of the debate on what justified the invasion is quite interesting. She firmly believes, from her childhood education, that the Chinese government was "liberating" Tibet when they went there. Just like they believe the CCP was liberating the rest of the country from dictatorial oppression during the revolution.

There is strong belief that the Dali Lama was an illegitimate monarch who enslaved his people. And it's fascinating how the West and China see him so completely differently. Cruel dictator? The Dali Lama? Surely not.

But of course listening to arguments on why there IS democracy in China is fascinating too.

She did admit that one reason for the invasion was to create a defensive barrier, to take control of a strategic area when it came to mountain fortification. But yes, the idea of historic control of Tibet by China, by that argument Italy should claim control of most of Europe, they controlled it 2000 years ago (a longer claim then China over Tibet). And from the history I've read, for parts of this period, the control was the other way around - Tibet controlled large parts of China, they weren't always pacifist monks. :)

That a government that has so frequently decried Western Imperialism (and in some cases rightfully so) has done precisely the same thing is bad, but to have a bunch of people overawed by the flawed logic that allows them overlook this behavior in their own government is a sad testament to just how evil nationalism truly is.

Indeed it is my friend, nationalism is a scary thing which has probably in one way or another lead to most wars in human history. But it's such an easy emotion to exploit, the us and them. The idea you can externalize and blame another group for all your problems. And until we wake up and stop listening to the Bushs of the of the world when they say "you're either with us or against us," and see the world instead as shades of gray, I don't see much changing.

Re:

Upon first witnessing the glory and splendour of unfiltered media, they casually, whimsically, decided to destroy it, remarking, "It'll have to go".

Re:And the BBC blocked...

Stop talking bollocks. The Thatcher government banned Mr Adams from all broadcast media in the UK, the BBC (along with ITN and all the other UK broadcasters) had no choice but to do it or they would be prosecuted - it has bugger all to do with the BBC themselves.

Re:And the BBC blocked...

The BBC also refused to show the Star Trek Next Gen episode "The High Ground" because Mr Data mentioned that terrorism sometimes works and that Northern Ireland became independent. Also a while back the BBC had an open discussion on Google's collaboration with censorship in China. A few people pointed out that the BBC also engages in censorship and the BBC deleted their comments. In the end they had to give up as a torrent of people started to complain. If you look at the BBC's "Have Your Say" today, you will see that all discussions are totally locked down and pre-moderated despite the BBC's initial promise of an open discussion system.

The more general issue though is that the BBC (and other outlets) engage in widespread self-censorship. Just look at the way the BBC handles the official statements of different governments. When it comes to Russia the BBC treat them with suspicion and try to second guess them and look at all the possible ulterior motives. When it comes to the US or UK, there is no such analysis and the arguments become confined within the narrow parameters laid out by those governments. So BBC discussion of Iraq becomes an analysis of how our good intentions have gone wrong, or why we messed up with the intelligence, rather than trying to look at any possible ulterior motives etc.

Re:ironic...

That different because your were being blocked for western capitalist legal reasons. It's only ethically wrong when it's for eastern communist legal reasons. Duh!