Censorship of Chinese Social Media Is Real, Comprehensive 62
chicksdaddy writes "Threatpost has a write-up of a study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University that provides the first conclusive evidence that Chinese government censorship extends to social media sites like Sina Weibo, the popular micro blogging Web site that many have likened to a Chinese Twitter. 'The study ... found that censors in China delete around 16 percent of the messages submitted to Sina Weibo ... The study, released in March, concludes that "soft censorship" in China — the removal of controversial subject matter from blogs and Web pages — is at least as popular as hard censorship, like the blocking of offensive sites. The result is suppression of news about events or individuals that are deemed threatening to the ruling Communist party.'"
Poetry. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a certain poetry in the fact that this article appears immediately after the TSA/Schneier hearing article [slashdot.org] in which the TSA's silencing of Bruce Schneier's testimony against it in Congress is discussed.
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech doesn't mean much when your political leaders don't listen to it. In China, they simply delete information they do not want to address. In the United states they ignore it, or more often then not, drowned it out by creating fake controversies
This is the dumbest conception of Freedom of Speech that I've heard in a while.
You have freedom of speech, you don't have the right to force people to listen. Which is good because otherwise I might have to read the rest of your post, where you draw a false-equivalency with China, sprinkled freely with fact-free pessimistic predictions of the future. You fail at the basic logic fallacies Richard Feynman warned about [lhup.edu]
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech doesn't mean much when your political leaders don't listen to it.
The freedom of speech is MOST important when leaders don't listen, because with it one can spread his/her thoughts, create ripples in society, and begin a movement. When that movement changes society, government has no choice but to follow. Perhaps in this case of your pet causes you can make the argument that society changes too slowly for your liking, but that's not a criticism of the value of the freedom of speech.
Re:Uh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading your post again, it seems as if you believe the purpose of the freedom of speech is to beg government to do what you want. I think if you believe that, you've already thrown your hands up in defeat. Defeatist thinking like this is already endemic in the Chinese populace, you can call it the Mei Ban Fa syndrome -- when you speak to Chinese people about politically charged issues, the most common answer is "mei ban fa" (can't be helped), as in "we're just the rabble, government won't listen" Americans would do well to not infect themselves with it.
Re:Uh... (Score:2, Insightful)
America is a republic. The political leaders don't have to listen to you. You voted them in as your representative. If you don't like how they do their job, vote them out next time. Just because someone you don't like got reelected, isn't proof the system does not work. This is also a democracy. You don't get everything you want.
And this system IS different than China. If you had written those words as a Chinese citizen, you would be eligible for a free trip to a work camp for the rest of your life. The fact that you can say such disparaging remarks about our leaders is proof that our system is different and better than China's.
If you don't see the difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you have a serious problem in terms of your perception.
I am not saying in any way shape or form that I think congress's choice is a good one. However this is NOT silencing the man. He is free to speak his mind on and off line and he does, with great eloquence. He is free to testify in any other venue he is asked to testify in, including the lawsuit by EPIC against the TSA. He is free to write his congressman about how fucking stupid it is that he was invited and then uninvited, and to do so without fear of repercussion. He is free to (and hopefully will) go on the news and out this to the country.
What it comes down to is congress is having the hearing, they can listen or not listen to who they want. That is their right, it is their hearing. They owe it to their constituents to get the best available testimony and I encourage everyone who is represented by someone who is involved in removing him from the witness list to do what is in your power to ensure your congressman does not return next term. However it is their right to listen to who they want, or to just not have a hearing at all.
This is real, REAL different than the government suppressing political speech on the Internet. If they'd had his blog shut down, or blocked Slashdot from linking to it, then hell yes it would be the same. As it is they are doing what all to many people do, including you and I: Listening to what they want to hear, not the whole truth. That is poor job performance, it isn't censorship.