Internet attitudes in China
At Danwei, Ann Condi has a nice roundup of the general “apathy” of Internet users in China about getting around the Great Firewall. It’s worth a read.
Those outside of China often imagine hordes of Internet savvy Chinese Web surfers scouring the Internet for cracks in the Great Firewall, avidly downloading precious snippets of information blocked by the government to disseminate among the circle of politically-aware Chinese cybernauts. The hope is that the Internet is having a transformative effect on China by allowing The Truth – or at least some essential truths – to seep into this tightly controlled information environment. And surely (the assumption goes) the vanguard in this process of “peaceful evolution” would be young, English-speaking urban professionals.
This image is largely a myth.
It’s not hard to see why. Most Chinese language content they seek is all inside the PRC and filtered by domestic companies because they are within the sovereign borders of the PRC.
As long as content does not hit on the sensitive topics, Chinese surfers can get through to international sites. But cleverly, the PRC government always returns a technical error (ie. “TCP connection reset”) which makes it hard to determine if it’s an intentional block. The other day, a media executive and Chinese national referred to the no-no words as 3T1F, which I thought was a nice succinct way of putting it:
But would life without censorship necessarily “free” Chinese minds? Would they start clamoring for the truth?
Consider this: American web surfers have a completely unfiltered Internet, but they’re mainly using email, Youtube, Myspace, sports, entertainment and news sites. Being free of technical censorship, however, does not necessarily make for an informed populace.
- Americans are oblivious to similar historical ulcers, like the illegal annexation of Hawaii and overthrow of the monarchy by rich American businessmen backed by the US military.
- Most citizens know nothing about the CIA staging a 1953 coup to remove democratically elected Mossadegh in Iran. You want democracy in the Middle East? Well they had it. The U.S. usurped it.
- How about the disgraceful working conditions in the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands where U.S. minimum wage does not apply, and with sweat shops and child prostitution a common sight? Congressmen in the U.S. actively sought to keep Saipan in third world status to exploit the cheap labor and dreadful working conditions.
What’s the point? It’s easy to see the splinter with the Great Firewall when there is a log in your own eye.
Of course we’d like to see a day when China’s Internet can become more open for the benefit of Chinese and for the benefit of the world. I’m confident that will happen sooner than later. I’ve already made the case that participation from PRC users would be great for the global community.
But being jingoistic and simplistic about it is problematic, and even harmful. The moral righteousness exhibited by many Western countries and NGOs trying to push for change is enough to make even the most staunch critics of censorship within China wince in disgust.
December 1st, 2006 23:19
Consider this: American web surfers have a completely unfiltered Internet, but they’re mainly using email, Youtube, Myspace, sports, entertainment and news sites. Being free of technical censorship, however, does not necessarily make for an informed populace.
Americans are oblivious to similar historical ulcers, like the illegal annexation of Hawaii and overthrow of the monarchy by rich American businessmen backed by the US military.
This is just obtuse. The US annexed Hawaii in 1898, before there was any international law prohibiting such. So it is beyond me how anyone could claim that is was illegal. International law is NOT ex post facto, and when there is no law prohibiting an action, it is not illegal. Sorry that China had to wait for plug-and-play technology to modernize, but that’s really it’s own problem. China exists in a system that is the West’s creation. Deal with it.
As for the Chinese cleptocracy, I think your forgetting Xinjiang and dozens of other dubious and racist territorial claims throughout Asia. Take Korguryo or Arunachal Pradesh for example. And if you want to attack America’s flaws and territorial conflicts then go head. In China if you want to do so (on the wrong side of the issue, of course), they will have your head.
The truth is, that as a Chinese you have very limited rights and poor legal system. You can be imprisoned for simply saying the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time.
December 2nd, 2006 16:02
To Px
Your points are valid, but you seem to misinterpret the writer’s intention. Although he criticizes the West for their criticism of China, his intentions do not seem to be outright rebellion of Western Civilization. I am sure he is very pro-freedom, etc, etc, he is a writer after all. He is just saying that, “before you go pointing the blame at someone else for their problems, try looking at yourself first”, and this is his concensus of the general attitude of the Chinese net users - that’s all, and I am personally glad the US annexed Hawaii.
December 4th, 2006 12:11
[…] Andrew Lih’s response to Condi’s article is at least as useful. While Lih is a staunch supporter of online speech - he’s a prominent Wikipedian, and one of the key sources of information around blockage of Wikipedia in China - he takes to task individuals and NGOs in the west who approach Chinese net filtering with “jingoistic and simplistic” moral righteousness, pointing out that American internet users are hardly flocking to websites that detail the darker corners of our own national history. (Lih recommends a refresher course in American history re: Hawaii, the Northern Mariana Islands and Iran…) […]
December 4th, 2006 21:47
According to the joint resolution enacted by Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1993:
“Whereas, from 1826 until 1893, the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom of Hawaii, extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to the Hawaiian Government, and entered into treaties and conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;
Whereas the Congregational Church (now known as the United Church of Christ), through its American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, sponsored and sent more than 100 missionaries to the Kingdom of Hawaii between 1820 and 1850;
Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the `United States Minister’), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii;
Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government;
Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17, 1893, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendents of missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government;
Whereas the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law”
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c103:4:./temp/~c103RMnHi8::
Even if there was no international law, it was a violation of United States law and existing treaties between two mutually recognized nations.
To get back to Andrew’s point, how many Americans google to find this out? Sure, the Chinese government actively tries to stop people from learning such things. Obviously they don’t get it: the American experience shows you can give people all the freedom to learn such things that they want - most won’t do it because it hurts their sense of exceptionalism and national pride.
After all, how many do the extra googling to find out that the conspirators behind the coup were the guys who sell you pineapples?
I was just reading about how the U.S. exported Jim Crow racism to Saudi Arabia too. But let’s face it, that mote in your own eye is just too damn big sometimes, ain’t it?
December 5th, 2006 17:03
Sure, the US has quite a few things to be ashamed of too. However, unlike in China, if we want to discuss such things, as people are doing on this page, we can do so without fear of being suppressed by the government.
December 8th, 2006 05:42
Assigning 3T1F as a “mote” compared to the three examples you chose is a bit obtuse.
(There are more shameful moments compared to the ones chosen in this blog post, but presumably they weren’t chosen because they’ve been more widely discussed)
December 10th, 2006 08:20
Dan. I Think one of the main points being made is that sure in the U.S. you *can* discuss all these things, but most of us still *dont* discuss these things.