China Bans 31 Live-Streaming Behaviors (gerona.ca) 60
Long-time Slashdot reader Mr_Blank shares a report from Gerona: China has enacted new regulation for the live-streaming industry, listing 31 prohibited conducts and raising the bar for influencers to speak out on specific topics, in the government's latest effort to regulate the booming digital economy. The 18-point guideline, released Wednesday by the National Radio and Television Administration and the Department of Culture and Tourism, requires influencers to have relevant qualifications to cover some subjects, including law, finance, medicine and education discuss, although the authorities have not specified the necessary qualifications.
The 31 prohibited conducts during live-streaming sessions include posting content that weakens or distorts the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the socialist system, or the country's reform and opening-up. Other prohibited behaviors include using deepfake technologies to manipulate the images of party or state leaders and intentionally 'building up' sensitive issues and attracting public attention. Live streamers are also prohibited from showing an extravagant lifestyle, such as showing luxury products and cash, the policy said. This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post.
The 31 prohibited conducts during live-streaming sessions include posting content that weakens or distorts the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, the socialist system, or the country's reform and opening-up. Other prohibited behaviors include using deepfake technologies to manipulate the images of party or state leaders and intentionally 'building up' sensitive issues and attracting public attention. Live streamers are also prohibited from showing an extravagant lifestyle, such as showing luxury products and cash, the policy said. This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post.
I'm gonna say it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't think people should be allowed to criticize political figures? To express any opinion about COVID? You think it's cool that the government have a blanket clause about 'hot topics' that apply to whatever they feel like?
Considering one of the streamers that got in trouble was eating ice cream in the shape of a tank, without comment, which was taken to possibly be about Tiananmen square and therefore forbidden. Not even saying anything or even doing anything that concretely links back to an incident
Re: (Score:3)
And the far left wants this communism in America, do you believe it? They don't think that they'd be affected for some reason. It's ridiculous to see people complain about how the government has too much power, but then they turn around and protest to give the government more power. It's like they don't understand who will be enforcing the laws that they lobby for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The far right would love to have a system where they could hypothetically throw out the election results claiming fraud and declare whatever they want to have won and make any dissent a jail sentence. Do not presume the guys who agree with you more would be better about allowing a free society than your opposition. Embrace 'far' anything and they will think that ramping up the authoritarian of the government is for the 'greater good'.
The correct level of government authority is a tricky subject, but any e
Re: (Score:1)
This is why the rules exist. So lies like yours can be expunged before they gain traction and too many easily influenced idiots don't gain critical mass.
sounds good to me, bootlicker
Many soldiers were killed by the so called "peaceful protesters" they weren't all students singing kumbaya like you seem to believe.
so thats why ccp spent the last 20 years absolutely shitting themselves any time its mentioned.
china seem to have taken a leaf out of the soviet unions playbook: lie until even you believe the lies yourself
Re: (Score:1)
ccp got you believing in smoke without fire. just like china can copy the economics of the west, one day the people will demand the freedoms too, and youll be ashamed of what youve defended
Re: (Score:2)
Most credible material points to the government forces taking it to violently lethal means first, with it being considered 'plausible' that the civilian response may have inflicted casualties in response to that escalation.
However, it is admittedly a bit muddy because the government intentionally interferes with information about the event. Against that backdrop it makes a whole lot of sense to be skeptical of what little unilateral claims there are from the government.
Not much left (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Oh bother. I thought it was just because he doesn't wear pants.
Re: (Score:2)
That is already the truth.
History in Hong Kong basically is being rewritten to only exist from 1997 and onwards The whole bit about British colonialism or being a British colony is being wiped away.
That's all the guidelines really are saying.
Oh yeah, you can also say the US sucks, democracy sucks, free speech sucks, and such.
Re: Not much left (Score:2)
How long till that happens here? Progressives already oppose free speech because they think it promotes extremism.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more complex than that - the people there before the British colonial period weren't Chinese as such. Hong Kong was controlled by pirates before the British colonial period. They operated out of the island and raided shipping. No-one liked the pirates, but no-one took them on directly until the British Navy decided they needed to protect the Empire's interests in the region. The Chinese were happy that the British had dealt with the pirates so they didn't need to do it themselves. The mountain on
Do it (Score:1)
Amateurs (Score:3, Insightful)
Only 31? They're slacking. Twitch, YouTube, and our other popular streaming sites probably ban double that, though they're things like naughty words, misinformation, no-no topics, previously acceptable words that are now banned, copyrighted music, criticizing the platform, criticizing certain cultural zeitgeists, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Only 31? They're slacking. Twitch, YouTube, and our other popular streaming sites probably ban double that, though they're things like naughty words, misinformation, no-no topics, previously acceptable words that are now banned, copyrighted music, criticizing the platform, criticizing certain cultural zeitgeists, etc.
Yes, corporate censorship is the absolute worst. Getting your anonymous online account banned because your violated Twitch et al. whimsical Terms of Service is totally comparable to being kidnapped from your home by irregular police, being sent to a concentration camp without a fair trial, and disgracing the social credit score of all your relatives to boot. Woe is us and the corporate overlords that we freely subscribe to.
#firstworldproblems
Wow (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Wow, just wow. Tell me again why the rest of the world does business with ass-hat countries like this? I truly feel sorry for the Chinese people. They are on their way to becoming another dear leader state. Sad, very sad.
Posted from the country that isn't allowed to show boobies on the TV.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference:
In China, the rules are there to protect the power of the CCP.
In USA, the rules are there to protect people who are rich or have petty, frail minds (inclusive or).
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
False equivalence, asshole.
There's a lot wrong with the US. But that doesn't make it remotely as bad as China.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in America and I would love to see boobies on the TV, along with people screaming obscenities. If parents don't want their children to see those things, then they'd stop letting them waste their lives watching so much TV, and they'd pay more attention to what their children are doing. It's a win-win.
Still America is crazy. Right now some parents are allowing their children to decide if they can have chemicals and drugs to repress their sexual development. But then those same parents won't even trust
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't recognize the stark difference between these things you want to force into equality, there's something wrong with how you interact with the world.
Re: (Score:3)
While I feel sad for the people in authoritarian countries, my main concern is that we (who live in - in our eyes - less authoritative countries) have been, and continue to make, ourselves dependent on these countries. Not only do we boost them and their authoritarian governments by making business and politics with them, but we also make ourselves dependent on their resources, production capability, and ownership of assets in our countries.
Just see where Europe and parts of Asia are now due to Russia's gov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They've been there for almost a decade. It's a fascist state pretending to be communist, a dictatorship pretending to be socialist. The saddest part is watching the slow roll of Hong Kong from normalcy to this ass-backward nazi-esque policy structure the rest of China has been on for ages.
If the rest of the world had a spine, conscience, or any brains it would enact the exact same sanctions on China that it's now enforcing on Russia. But you know Americans can't live without their dirt-ch
The more you tighten your grip (Score:2)
Displaying extravagant lifestyle (Score:2)
Isn't the best way to prevent people from displaying an extravagant lifestyle preventing people fron having an extravagant lifestyle? Either by not letting them accummulate too much wealth, or by stealing their wealth. That's what true communist countries do normally, isn't it?
Somehow I have the feeling that the PRC isn't a genuine socialist paradise after all. How disappointing... I'll move to North Korea instead I guess.
Requiring qualifications... Hmm (Score:1)
In the fight against mis-information, highlighting the qualifications of the person speaking may not be such a bad idea.
There is simply too much completely uninformed opinion that negatively impacts society as a whole.
Of course, freedom of speech says you can say anything you want. And this is why maybe it would be a good idea to have some sort of "qualifications" tab or region linked to your social media accounts. Then people can judge for yourself whether it's worth their time listening to you.
Personally,
Re: (Score:2)
Qualifications are a double-edged sword. Sure it usually means that you know better what you are talking about, but at the same time, unless you reach PhD level and do some research on your own, what you know is more or less what is taught to you, and you are not provided during training with the intellectual resources to really question it.
That's one of the reasons why all the people who talk on the media seem to say the same thing. They've learnt the same thing. Requiring qualifications may actually help
Re: (Score:2)
Who decides on the qualifications? In this case, it is the CCP. Their rules can be broken down into one:
Don't do anything we wouldn't do.
Re: (Score:2)
"Don't do anything we wouldn't want YOU to do."
Re: (Score:2)
Comics? (Score:2)
"requires influencers to have relevant qualifications to cover some subjects, including law, finance, medicine and education discuss,"
How about comics, let's say Winnie-the Pooh?
Censoring the rich? (Score:2)
There definitely are a lot of rich but this means they cannot show their own lifestyle, their homes, cars, what they wear, where they eat, what they drink. Right? Extravagant lifestyle is to be hidden it seems. I would like to see how that will go down.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There definitely are a lot of rich but this means they cannot show their own lifestyle, their homes, cars, what they wear, where they eat, what they drink. Right? Extravagant lifestyle is to be hidden it seems. I would like to see how that will go down.
They aren't punishing the rich because the rich are the party members or their friends.
China's government is designed to rule a country of peasants. What they are trying to discourage is a rising middle class that wants more luxuries (you know, like a nice house or nice car, maybe more than 1 international holiday a decade) and even worse, an actual say in their governance. So they want to limit what the middle class can do, what it can say, what it can buy, where it can spend it's money, so on and so fo
Re: (Score:1)
And yet not one person who participated in that abuse was prosecuted. Turns out they weren't above the law, but their customers are.
China has banned the armchair pundit! (Score:2)
Does this mean Slashdot now banned in China? Can't think of a bigger concentration of armchair pundits anywhere else on the web ;)
C.H.I.N.A. (Score:2)
I assume this is the latest incarnation of the disinformation board: The Comprehensive Holistic Information National Agency.
Socialist? (Score:2)