Harvard Research Paper On How Chinese Censorship Works

[Zaune]

PDF

How Censorship in China Allows Government
Criticism but Silences Collective Expression∗

Gary King
Jennifer Pan
Margaret Roberts
.
June 18, 2012

Abstract
We offer the first large scale, multiple source analysis of the outcome of what may be
the most extensive effort to selectively censor human expression ever implemented.
To do this, we have devised a system to locate, download, and analyze the content
of millions of social media posts originating from nearly 1,400 different social me-
dia services all over China before the Chinese government is able to find, evaluate,
and censor (i.e., remove from the Internet) the large subset they deem objectionable.
Using modern computer-assisted text analytic methods that we adapt to and validate
in the Chinese language, we compare the substantive content of posts censored to
those not censored over time in each of 85 topic areas. Contrary to previous under-
standings, posts with negative, even vitriolic, criticism of the state, its leaders, and its
policies are not more likely to be censored. Instead, we show that the censorship pro-
gram is aimed at curtailing collective action by silencing comments that represent,
reinforce, or spur social mobilization, regardless of content. Censorship is oriented
toward attempting to forestall collective activities that are occurring now or may oc-
cur in the future — and, as such, seem to clearly expose government intent, such as
examples we offer where sharp increases in censorship presage government action
outside the Internet.

Found via this thread over on the arch rival. The first post makes a rather good point actually; it seems like the Chinese people have the freedom to say whatever they like that's critical of the actions of their government, but the moment they actually try and do anything about it they're shut down... And that's pretty much the same thing that happens here in the supposedly liberal English-speaking world.

[Simon_Jester]

...Which is why protests in the tens of thousands are prevented from gathering in Washington, DC?

[mr friendly guy]

Weren't occupy wall street protesters arrested in a bid to break up their movements nation wide.

Lets not forget how well the free media were treated by police, preventing them from doing their job of reporting.

These are just a couple of links I found with a quick google search.

For some reason the PDF linked isn't opening for me, however from the abstract it strikes me as that the Chinese simply do a better job at it, by targeting it as it organises, rather than trying to break it up after the fact. This doesn't mean that the Chinese aren't capable of breaking up protests after they have gathered (they also cave as well, see the Wukan example in a previous thread here), however presumably they feel its more efficient this way.

Of course, who could forget David Cameron's threaten crackdown on social media.

PARIS — Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said Thursday that the government, seeking to prevent a repeat of riots and looting in London and other British cities this week, might bar suspected troublemakers from using social media and other digital communications tools.

Mr. Cameron said that Theresa May, the Home secretary, would meet with executives of the Web companies Facebook and Twitter, as well as Research In Motion, maker of the BlackBerry smartphone, to discuss possible measures that could be put in place.

“Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organized via social media,” Mr. Cameron told Parliament during a special debate on the riots. “Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.

When that came out, I think I commented that the UK wants to copy China. It seems they also want to target people and prevent them from organising, only they aren't willing to go the extent China is. If I was cynical I would say its because China has more money to spend on such measures rather than a more benign interpretation.

[Zaune]

Maybe I should have phrased it better; I'm not saying that it's as proactive or systematic in Britain or the United States, but the underlying principle is exactly the same: Freedom of speech is okay, but direct action to force people to listen is largely verboten.

[someone_else]

That's just because it's easier. A lot of people content themselves of harmless ranting.
The ones that have the knowledge and guts to put down something more than that are much less.

If you stop the ones ranting as well, you risk to turn them into active (if dumb) protesters and then the numbers get too fucking high to stop it without the army.

[Simon_Jester]

Weren't occupy wall street protesters arrested in a bid to break up their movements nation wide.

You're missing an important detail.

Most of the Occupy protests that police tried to break up came after weeks or months of Occupy camping out in places, refusing to leave or even relocate. And there was no group that you could rely on to speak for Occupy, because of the way the movement was organized. That raises some problems. Like "OK, so how do I shut the park down for maintenance? It's full of demonstrators, they won't leave, and I can't find anyone in control who can convince them to leave."

And no, this does not justify everything that happened to Occupy. It really, truly, does not.

It is, however, real- an unpleasant reality that comes from Occupy's leaderless, self-organizing model of protest. If a protest is going to get very large or last very long, it needs at least enough organization to give the authorities someone to talk to in case of a cholera outbreak or legitimate street closing.

For some reason the PDF linked isn't opening for me, however from the abstract it strikes me as that the Chinese simply do a better job at it, by targeting it as it organises, rather than trying to break it up after the fact. This doesn't mean that the Chinese aren't capable of breaking up protests after they have gathered (they also cave as well, see the Wukan example in a previous thread here), however presumably they feel its more efficient this way.

There is a significant difference between squashing all attempts to organize to do anything, and squashing some attempts do to something, after a lot of it has already been done.

I also have to point out that Occupy movements were treated differently in different places; the Federal government did not make a nationwide effort to break up Occupy. This is again different from the Chinese system, where it matters less whether the local government tolerates your protest because the federals will crush it anyway on general principles.

Of course, who could forget David Cameron's threaten crackdown on social media.

PARIS — Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain said Thursday that the government, seeking to prevent a repeat of riots and looting in London and other British cities this week, might bar suspected troublemakers from using social media and other digital communications tools.

Mr. Cameron said that Theresa May, the Home secretary, would meet with executives of the Web companies Facebook and Twitter, as well as Research In Motion, maker of the BlackBerry smartphone, to discuss possible measures that could be put in place.

“Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organized via social media,” Mr. Cameron told Parliament during a special debate on the riots. “Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.

When that came out, I think I commented that the UK wants to copy China. It seems they also want to target people and prevent them from organising, only they aren't willing to go the extent China is. If I was cynical I would say its because China has more money to spend on such measures rather than a more benign interpretation.

Yeah. Britain has a different set of problems from the US or most of Europe.

The biggest thing: the British don't have nearly as many written constitutional provisions protecting civil liberties. In the past, British civil liberty was a matter of general consent and there were lines Parliament didn't cross. But there is no British equivalent of the Supreme Court; the only thing that can pass judgment on an act of Parliament is another act of Parliament.

So if Parliament wants to shoot everyone who believes in X, it's very hard to stop them except by mass revolt.

[fgalkin]

...Which is why protests in the tens of thousands are prevented from gathering in Washington, DC?

Yes, whereas China never allows any protests whatsoever. Oh wait....

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Simon_Jester]

If the US starts using an Echelon-like system to target and suppress Internet discussions that might lead to mass protests, THEN we have equivalency.

Is that happening?

[Darth Wong]

It is far too fashionable to say that the Occupy protests were shut down for protesting. They were shut down not for protesting, but for squatting. In fact, that was my biggest point of contention with the Occupy protests: the fact that they spent more of their effort on building squatter communities in parks than on actually protesting the stuff they were supposed to be protesting.

[Simon_Jester]

There is a flip side to that: police were suppressing Occupy in some cities well before the squatter problem got that bad. And attacking Occupy in some cities, well away from squatter camps. Also, using tactics that seemed... to me, they seemed designed to force confrontations with the squatters instead of trying to settle matters peaceably (New York and Zuccotti Park).

So there's some truth, I think, to the idea that Occupy got shut down harder than it had to be because of politics. They presented law enforcement with a serious problem, which had to be solved somehow and probably couldn't be solved to Occupy's liking; reminds me somewhat of the Bonus Army.

[Starglider]

Maybe I should have phrased it better; I'm not saying that it's as proactive or systematic in Britain or the United States, but the underlying principle is exactly the same: Freedom of speech is okay, but direct action to force people to listen is largely verboten.

I love this. You constantly glorify government monopoly of force, fantasise about using it to take total control of the economy, desperately wish for thugs with guns to confiscate all wealth and obey orders from you and your cronies about how to redistribute it. You feel terribly threatened by right-wingers who even marginally threaten this monoply; guns owners, militia movements, all must be stamped out. The biggest issue the far-left has with China is that it gave up the pure righteousness of communism and sullied itself with markets (of any sort, however controlled).

Yet when that same monopoly of force is used against you, to deny you the ability to 'force people to listen', suddenly it's not ok.

The premise is completely wrong anyway. Your thinking follows the standard extremist pattern of believing that people 'didn't listen', when in reality there was so much media coverage it was almost unavoidable. You fail to consider:
(a) The occupy movement had no coherent message to listen to.
(b) People listened and didn't agree with the message.

[K. A. Pital]

Maybe I should have phrased it better; I'm not saying that it's as proactive or systematic in Britain or the United States, but the underlying principle is exactly the same: Freedom of speech is okay, but direct action to force people to listen is largely verboten.

I love this. You constantly glorify government monopoly of force, fantasise about using it to take total control of the economy, desperately wish for thugs with guns to confiscate all wealth and obey orders from you and your cronies about how to redistribute it. You feel terribly threatened by right-wingers who even marginally threaten this monoply; guns owners, militia movements, all must be stamped out. The biggest issue the far-left has with China is that it gave up the pure righteousness of communism and sullied itself with markets (of any sort, however controlled).

Yet when that same monopoly of force is used against you, to deny you the ability to 'force people to listen', suddenly it's not ok.

The premise is completely wrong anyway. Your thinking follows the standard extremist pattern of believing that people 'didn't listen', when in reality there was so much media coverage it was almost unavoidable. You fail to consider:
(a) The occupy movement had no coherent message to listen to.
(b) People listened and didn't agree with the message.

You can of course back up this slew of accusations which looks like you harboring some grudge against Zaune, eh?

[Skgoa]

It looks more like his typical "socialists! socialists! SOCIALISTS!" strawman-ing to me. <-- Though that sentence is both an ad hominem and a strawman in itself, so yeah.

[Simon_Jester]

If he bothers to go looking, he will probably point to the times when Zaune was on record muttering darkly about various political things he doesn't like being 'first up against the wall when the revolution comes,' something along those lines.

For whatever reasons, Starglider usually reads something like that, looks at a molehill, and decides it's an enormous mountain. Or pretends to.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Really, Starglider? Oh, another gobshite who thinks 'leftist' is synonymous to 'mugger'. Pull your head out of your Mail and stay on topic.

On topic, China has actual censorship in that they outright prohibit actions. At least in the West you are allowed to gather in a spot. Even Greece, with the police using tear gas by the ton and massive free-for-all beatings, is better in that regard.

[Tanasinn]

You fail to consider:
(a) The occupy movement had no coherent message to listen to.
(b) People listened and didn't agree with the message.

You forgot
(c) The message was deliberately obscured and muddled by easy-access media controlled by the monied interests being protested against in order to show the movement as having no coherent objections.

Kinda like how anti-war protestors were attacked during the Vietnam debacle.