Better Understanding China's Online Censorship
from the shades-of-gray? dept
Lots of folks have been talking about the latest NY Times Magazine article on the struggle of Google in China (plenty of folks submitted it here as well, so thanks). It's a long article, and well worth reading for a variety of reasons. Much of it has been covered to death elsewhere, from the way many in China view the censorship issue to the fact that Baidu is used for downloading copyrighted material. Two things, though, stood out that were different about it than other stories we've seen about Google and China and the whole censorship issue. The first is that Google finally gets to tell their whole story on how they view China -- and it doesn't sound nearly as bad as the original coverage. Or, the more cynical among you may say that Google has finally figured out how to spin their side of the story to make it sound positive. When the story first came out, Google looked awful -- and everything they said in response (remember the famous "sliding scale of evil"?) made them look worse. However, as described in this piece, their position comes out looking much better (whether or not you believe their side is up to you, of course). The other, perhaps more interesting, bit is that contrary to popular opinion, the Great Firewall of China doesn't necessarily work by having a big ban list, but by simply having government officials threaten companies that let in the "bad stuff." Then, those companies feel the need to self-censor whatever the government might not like -- probably going overboard in the process. In other words, they're trying to outsource the job of censoring by creating a fearful atmosphere that is more likely to censor any potentially problematic site without waiting for word from the government. It's that element that might make you wonder, no matter how good Google's intentions are, if they'll really be able to be able to live up to their motto, and stay on the right side of Chinese officials at the same time.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Are corporations democracies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Downplaying...
The hidden benefit is that the Hardliner "Red Book" thumping Maoists have as little control over the content in the Internet as western democratic governments. The Bush administration is trying to change that, but that's another issue all together. In order to stem the flow of information, China would have to revert back to isolationism and that would economically ruin the country.
In the coming years we'll all have better reasons to be upset with our corporations and China (wholesale sellouts, labor undercutting and price busting)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another stage of freedom or one-world?
There have been many futurists who have foretold of a world run by corporate interests - the sort of science fiction stuff that is really scary - but, while this may never happen, the ability of the nation state to compel one behavior, or another, from corporate powers has always existed. Go back only 70 years in Germany and see how the Nazis compelled Germany's corporations into not only financing the Nazi party but, as well, its pogroms.
So, too, with Google and others of its ilk. While we can compare the lowly fax with revolutionizing the freedoms of the world favorably with the advent of the Gutenberg press can we ever compare the benefical effects of Google with anything other than the tendency of government to spread tyranny?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new or exonerating here
And the details about how they implemented the censorship is even more damning. Rather than just passively obeying some sort of blacklist, they (as with all Chinese companies) must actively and individually determine which sites and pages to censor, based on an adherence to general ideas put forth as unacceptable by the Chinese government.
By working within the system, actively and eagerly, they lend moral support to it, and implicitly tell every Chinese internet user that their government's policy of thought control is fine by Google.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new or exonerating here
From the article:
"So Google's engineers hit on a high-tech solution. They set up a computer inside China and programmed it to try to access Web sites outside the country, one after another. If a site was blocked by the firewall, it meant the government regarded it as illicit — so it became part of Google's blacklist."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
googlebot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is free speach?
If they do it's suppressing free speech. If we do it then it's supporting the community?
They make companies self censor themselves. We have the DMCA, EULA and NDA, which makes it illegal to share censored information.
Maybe I’m just becoming jaded but to me it looks like in the end the results will be the same in both countries with one country controlling information through overly complex laws (to cover all the fringe cases) and the other controlling information through proverbs.
In other words the west is yet again doing something the western way (more laws) and the east is yet again doing something the eastern way (philosophy). The west doesn’t understand how to operate without laws that govern what can and can’t be done (and manipulated) so they yell and scream. The east points at the west and says what’s the big deal you do the same thing but call it something else. Then the lectures and journalists that want grant money, fame, a story or publicity try and make it into a big deal for their own ends. The world goes on and no one cares.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is free speach?
I disagree with many things our government does, and the things that Bush does. but it is the best system we have, yes 8 years can really ruin a nation, but at least we get to replace him and hope we pick a little better next time. although I dislike the president he is finally trying to turn a few things around. while he has screwed up more than is possible to fix, he is slowing down the hole digging we are doing. he will only be in office for two more years, and martial law, although possible is highly unlikely. and with martial law, yes censorship is allowed, but again there are still come checks and blances like how long it can last and whatnot. I am starting to get into a gray area of our laws, as I have not read everything that is allowed and disallowed with the combination of the patriot act and martial law together. but it is better than China's martian law (sealab reference which may incriminate some of my rant, but I felt it necessary ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is free speach?
Many, many people are afraid of free speech -- yes, even here in the USA. Watch all the hand-wringing over porn, anonymous posting, "pirate" content. These people are dangerous and threaten your most fundamental right, the one without which all other rights are vulnerable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Try Freedur, you never seen anything like it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]