8 ms·

China Bans Livestreaming

177 points by owens99 9y ago

yladiz 9y ago
What's the policy on wholly paywalled content if it's the primary source? The article is light on some the facts presented in the FT article (like revenue stats, and the fact that Weibo's market cap dropped by $1B after the ban), and other than mentioning Papi Jiang, it's really just the FT article reworded. However, the FT article is completely behind a paywall, although it's accessible from a Google search. The main reason I'm asking is that while I think the FT article is substantially better, it is behind a paywall, while the Mashable article isn't, so neither are ideal. Article: https://www.ft.com/content/8a06dd5e-5752-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e1 https://www.ft.com/content/8a06dd5e-5752-11e7-9fed-c19e27000...
agumonkey 9y ago
Still thinking about whether or not they should ban inhabitants too. So difficult.
hd4 9y ago
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" - Pravin Lal, Alpha Centauri. The difference here being that the CCP don't only dream themselves the masters of the Chinese people.
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Historically, China wants what is good for China, and the rest of the world may as well be a sideshow. If being a global leader and running global industries is what it takes for China to remain stable and controllable by the Comminist Party, then that's how they'll go. China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide. Compared to British/American conquests and subversion in East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and so on, the far out (from the rich coast/interior) Chinese provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang are practically in China's back yard.
  - kazagistar 9y ago
    This comment is unrelated to both the parent comment and the article. Wtf are you even on about?
    - adventured 9y ago
      It was an out-of-left-field effort to redirect the China criticism back on the US (and Britain).
  - plehoux 9y ago
    Imperialism is not rooted in history. Before having imperialist ambitions, Japan was an isolated island, same for Britain. One could also say Britain started from its own backyard. China could as well go from isolated to imperialist.
  - fweespeech 9y ago
    > China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide. China invaded its neighbors on multiple occasions. It was the failure of its imperial ambitions that resulted in it turning inward. Or does the likes of Korea and such simply not count in your mind? China also became "China" after invading neighboring kingdoms. China simply was never in a position to expand substantially beyond its current borders due to technological limitations and the superiority of its neighbors' military. Pretending it is some virtuous position is categorically false and you can see that in the way they look the other way when working with African dictators, etc. and making all the "moral compromises" the American Empire has.
    - smilekzs 9y ago
      > China also became "China" after invading neighboring kingdoms. More like what has always been considered "China" got taken over by the Kidan, then the Monguls, then the Manchus, each time forcefully, but then slowly emerging as a "More Unified China", rinse and repeat.
- justicezyx 9y ago
  > free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny More important is the enlightened citizens. You can name all sorts of intelligent ways to be the only safeguard against tyranny. In the end of day, if you are less intelligent and knowledgeable than the privileged few, no matter what you do, you'll be managed.
  - hd4 9y ago
    >intelligent and knowledgeable than the privileged few the only way to become intelligent and knowledgeable is to have free and easy access to information.
    - mperham 9y ago
      > is to have free and easy access to __accurate__ information. As we've learned recently, politicized or partisan info ("fake news") can flood and disrupt our decision-making.
      - LiweiZ 9y ago
        But the GP's comment is still valid since that's the foundation of everything to build upon. Or things will go way worse.
        cinquemb 9y ago
        If history is any example, it often takes things getting way worse in order to even build a foundation for better things to come.
        LiweiZ 9y ago
        Right, but you only mentioned half of the story. Eventually, the foundation is something you simply have to have for all wanted things above it. The way worse is a potential part of the process, not the final outcome. So it seems we all agree on what is the foundation that can not be ignored here;)
- rjzzleep 9y ago
  Well, Germany just now massively expanded their surveillance laws. The ones that did do that were the "socialist party" and "democratic union" http://www.zdnet.com/article/police-get-broad-phone-and-computer-hacking-powers-in-germany/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/police-get-broad-phone-and-comp...
droopyEyelids 9y ago
How much does the industrial scale subornment of children into quasi prostitution affect this decision? The whole "live streaming plus tips" model turns my stomach and I was disgusted to see Apple give its imprimatur the other week. For anyone that isn't familiar with what happens on these platforms (Snapchat Facebook and FaceTime iMessage once apple institutes payments): a streamer broadcasts herself, and People from the Internet "tip" her when she does something they like. It's beyond terrifying to find out someone you love stumbled onto this system.
- spery 9y ago
  We do the same with our attention. I don't think tip for me to do x or y is any different from 'celebrities' doing publicity stunts and us clicking on articles to see their body parts or whatever. This is just more direct way without any social norms attached.
- stale2002 9y ago
  It is really not as bad as you make it seem. Livestreamers aren't the same thing as cam girls. The vast majority of them are just people playing video games, and viewers tipping to play a funny text to speech message to the streamer.
- pavlov 9y ago
  Mores change. A few hundred years ago, most shops did not display their goods. It would have been considered crass to keep wares in sight when customers didn't ask for it, and outright crazy to let customers look and touch at items without supervision. The department store was a 19th century innovation that let people (women, mostly) browse and shop without pressure. It was widely considered immoral at the time. Emile Zola wrote a great novel about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Bonheur_des_Dames https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Bonheur_des_Dames Getting tips from Internet viewers is shocking in the same way as a woman visiting a department store on her own.
Maven911 9y ago
I am wondering how they plan to perform this ban, what protocols/how do they detect all forms of livestreaming ? Or will this be a ban on specific services (Fb, snapchat etc.)
- anonnyj 9y ago
  At least if behavior continues as previously, they'll only bother to ban sufficiently popular sites/services.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  You're thinking about this the wrong way. It's not primarily a technical ban, it's a "we'll track you down and throw you in jail if you do this" ban. Those are way more effective.
btw0 9y ago
I have been running a live streaming app here in China for two years. The title of this gets so wrong - China did not ban livestreaming. Yes, the regulation of livestreaming services gets very very tight recently, we have been fined due to inappropriate content. The website mentioned in the article like Weibo, AcFun are not about livestreaming, they're YouTube-like video sites. You need special license to run YouTube-like video sites, just the license is almost impossible to apply for non state-run company. There are only 500 something licenses ever issued, you need to acquire a company that have the license, surely the price is extremely high due to scarcity.
- Ajedi32 9y ago
  I'm confused. So are you saying China is banning Weibo, iFeng, and ACFUN from displaying videos (But not from livestreaming, since those sites don't do livestreams?) since they don't have a license? The article says: > On Thursday, the government ordered Weibo, iFeng and ACFUN to stop all its video and audio streaming services, according to an FT report.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
    “streaming” is not necessarily live streaming
  - btw0 9y ago
    Government ordered Weibo, iFent and AcFun to 关停上述网站上的视听节目服务 stop the video and audio programme service because of not having license [1]. So what's video and audio programme? It has a definition, but in practice it has to be interpreted some way. That's why regulation can GET tight sometimes. China is complicated. [1] http://www.sapprft.gov.cn/sapprft/contents/6588/338032.shtml http://www.sapprft.gov.cn/sapprft/contents/6588/338032.shtml
    - Ajedi32 9y ago
      I'm still not sure I understand. Maybe something is being lost in translation here, but I don't see how you'd interpret, "audio and visual programing" in a way that doesn't include livestreaming. Are Weibo, iFeng, and ACFUN popular sites in China for livestreaming or sharing videos? I know if a western government ordered YouTube, Twitch, and Facebook to "stop their video and audio program service" in their country that could most definitely be interpreted as a ban on livestreaming (or even on all forms of streaming in general), even if the ban didn't include smaller sites like Vimeo or Periscope.
justicezyx 9y ago
This is ridiculous. The incapability and bluntness of Chinese government shows its true color...
Animats 9y ago
Better coverage from the South China Morning Post.[1] (SCMP, which is based in Hong Kong, isn't as independent as it used to be be, but they do have actual reporters gathering news.) Censorship requirements for live streaming in China have been in effect since 2008, and were tightened up in November 2016, with new regulations issued.[2] Now, apparently, three sites not in compliance have been told to shut down streaming. Sites are supposed to have licenses and in-house censorship staffs. Over at People's Daily, we can read the party line.[3] "A documentary program promoted by the Finance Channel of CCTV has recently attracted public attention for encouraging ordinary people to plan and produce their own films. Amateur filmmakers can choose from a wide range of topics related to China’s achievements in recent years - for instance, the 4G telecommunications tower installed on a cliff, the Shanghai-Kunming high speed rail that has shortened travel time between the two cities to 10 hours, and artificial intelligence. Once the videos are shot and selected, they will be played on a number of TV programs, and will also be promoted by a dozen online video platforms." So that's what good Chinese citizens are supposed to be doing. China's approach to censorship is not leakproof, but is effective. There's a combination of subtle pressure and explicit control. Once something becomes big enough to get attention, something is done about it. [1] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2099761/chinese-online-video-programmes-told-get-licence-or http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/209... [2] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2043012/chinas-internet-regulator-tightens-restrictions-live http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/204... [3] http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0623/c90000-9232613.html http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0623/c90000-9232613.html
louithethrid 9y ago
Actually, this is quite a nice way to tech-bomb a totalitarian economy- have some near suicidal or well hidden dissenters using soon to be important tech and watch the censor-ship department sabotage the countrys economy. Highly cynical view-point, but hey, if it hurts, why not use it?

177 points by owens99 9y ago

What's the policy on wholly paywalled content if it's the primary source? The article is light on some the facts presented in the FT article (like revenue stats, and the fact that Weibo's market cap dropped by $1B after the ban), and other than mentioning Papi Jiang, it's really just the FT article reworded. However, the FT article is completely behind a paywall, although it's accessible from a Google search. The main reason I'm asking is that while I think the FT article is substantially better, it is behind a paywall, while the Mashable article isn't, so neither are ideal. Article: https://www.ft.com/content/8a06dd5e-5752-11e7-9fed-c19e2700005f?mhq5j=e1 https://www.ft.com/content/8a06dd5e-5752-11e7-9fed-c19e27000...

agumonkey 9y ago

Still thinking about whether or not they should ban inhabitants too. So difficult.

hd4 9y ago

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" - Pravin Lal, Alpha Centauri. The difference here being that the CCP don't only dream themselves the masters of the Chinese people.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
Historically, China wants what is good for China, and the rest of the world may as well be a sideshow. If being a global leader and running global industries is what it takes for China to remain stable and controllable by the Comminist Party, then that's how they'll go. China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide. Compared to British/American conquests and subversion in East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and so on, the far out (from the rich coast/interior) Chinese provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang are practically in China's back yard.
- kazagistar 9y ago
  This comment is unrelated to both the parent comment and the article. Wtf are you even on about?
  - adventured 9y ago
    It was an out-of-left-field effort to redirect the China criticism back on the US (and Britain).
- plehoux 9y ago
  Imperialism is not rooted in history. Before having imperialist ambitions, Japan was an isolated island, same for Britain. One could also say Britain started from its own backyard. China could as well go from isolated to imperialist.
- fweespeech 9y ago
  > China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide. China invaded its neighbors on multiple occasions. It was the failure of its imperial ambitions that resulted in it turning inward. Or does the likes of Korea and such simply not count in your mind? China also became "China" after invading neighboring kingdoms. China simply was never in a position to expand substantially beyond its current borders due to technological limitations and the superiority of its neighbors' military. Pretending it is some virtuous position is categorically false and you can see that in the way they look the other way when working with African dictators, etc. and making all the "moral compromises" the American Empire has.
  - smilekzs 9y ago
    > China also became "China" after invading neighboring kingdoms. More like what has always been considered "China" got taken over by the Kidan, then the Monguls, then the Manchus, each time forcefully, but then slowly emerging as a "More Unified China", rinse and repeat.
justicezyx 9y ago
> free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny More important is the enlightened citizens. You can name all sorts of intelligent ways to be the only safeguard against tyranny. In the end of day, if you are less intelligent and knowledgeable than the privileged few, no matter what you do, you'll be managed.
- hd4 9y ago
  >intelligent and knowledgeable than the privileged few the only way to become intelligent and knowledgeable is to have free and easy access to information.
  - mperham 9y ago
    > is to have free and easy access to __accurate__ information. As we've learned recently, politicized or partisan info ("fake news") can flood and disrupt our decision-making.
    - LiweiZ 9y ago
      But the GP's comment is still valid since that's the foundation of everything to build upon. Or things will go way worse.
      - cinquemb 9y ago
        If history is any example, it often takes things getting way worse in order to even build a foundation for better things to come.
        LiweiZ 9y ago
        Right, but you only mentioned half of the story. Eventually, the foundation is something you simply have to have for all wanted things above it. The way worse is a potential part of the process, not the final outcome. So it seems we all agree on what is the foundation that can not be ignored here;)
rjzzleep 9y ago
Well, Germany just now massively expanded their surveillance laws. The ones that did do that were the "socialist party" and "democratic union" http://www.zdnet.com/article/police-get-broad-phone-and-computer-hacking-powers-in-germany/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/police-get-broad-phone-and-comp...

droopyEyelids 9y ago

How much does the industrial scale subornment of children into quasi prostitution affect this decision? The whole "live streaming plus tips" model turns my stomach and I was disgusted to see Apple give its imprimatur the other week. For anyone that isn't familiar with what happens on these platforms (Snapchat Facebook and FaceTime iMessage once apple institutes payments): a streamer broadcasts herself, and People from the Internet "tip" her when she does something they like. It's beyond terrifying to find out someone you love stumbled onto this system.

spery 9y ago
We do the same with our attention. I don't think tip for me to do x or y is any different from 'celebrities' doing publicity stunts and us clicking on articles to see their body parts or whatever. This is just more direct way without any social norms attached.
stale2002 9y ago
It is really not as bad as you make it seem. Livestreamers aren't the same thing as cam girls. The vast majority of them are just people playing video games, and viewers tipping to play a funny text to speech message to the streamer.
pavlov 9y ago
Mores change. A few hundred years ago, most shops did not display their goods. It would have been considered crass to keep wares in sight when customers didn't ask for it, and outright crazy to let customers look and touch at items without supervision. The department store was a 19th century innovation that let people (women, mostly) browse and shop without pressure. It was widely considered immoral at the time. Emile Zola wrote a great novel about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Bonheur_des_Dames https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Bonheur_des_Dames Getting tips from Internet viewers is shocking in the same way as a woman visiting a department store on her own.

Maven911 9y ago

I am wondering how they plan to perform this ban, what protocols/how do they detect all forms of livestreaming ? Or will this be a ban on specific services (Fb, snapchat etc.)

anonnyj 9y ago
At least if behavior continues as previously, they'll only bother to ban sufficiently popular sites/services.
CydeWeys 9y ago
You're thinking about this the wrong way. It's not primarily a technical ban, it's a "we'll track you down and throw you in jail if you do this" ban. Those are way more effective.

btw0 9y ago

I have been running a live streaming app here in China for two years. The title of this gets so wrong - China did not ban livestreaming. Yes, the regulation of livestreaming services gets very very tight recently, we have been fined due to inappropriate content. The website mentioned in the article like Weibo, AcFun are not about livestreaming, they're YouTube-like video sites. You need special license to run YouTube-like video sites, just the license is almost impossible to apply for non state-run company. There are only 500 something licenses ever issued, you need to acquire a company that have the license, surely the price is extremely high due to scarcity.

Ajedi32 9y ago
I'm confused. So are you saying China is banning Weibo, iFeng, and ACFUN from displaying videos (But not from livestreaming, since those sites don't do livestreams?) since they don't have a license? The article says: > On Thursday, the government ordered Weibo, iFeng and ACFUN to stop all its video and audio streaming services, according to an FT report.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  “streaming” is not necessarily live streaming
- btw0 9y ago
  Government ordered Weibo, iFent and AcFun to 关停上述网站上的视听节目服务 stop the video and audio programme service because of not having license [1]. So what's video and audio programme? It has a definition, but in practice it has to be interpreted some way. That's why regulation can GET tight sometimes. China is complicated. [1] http://www.sapprft.gov.cn/sapprft/contents/6588/338032.shtml http://www.sapprft.gov.cn/sapprft/contents/6588/338032.shtml
  - Ajedi32 9y ago
    I'm still not sure I understand. Maybe something is being lost in translation here, but I don't see how you'd interpret, "audio and visual programing" in a way that doesn't include livestreaming. Are Weibo, iFeng, and ACFUN popular sites in China for livestreaming or sharing videos? I know if a western government ordered YouTube, Twitch, and Facebook to "stop their video and audio program service" in their country that could most definitely be interpreted as a ban on livestreaming (or even on all forms of streaming in general), even if the ban didn't include smaller sites like Vimeo or Periscope.

justicezyx 9y ago

This is ridiculous. The incapability and bluntness of Chinese government shows its true color...

Animats 9y ago

Better coverage from the South China Morning Post.[1] (SCMP, which is based in Hong Kong, isn't as independent as it used to be be, but they do have actual reporters gathering news.) Censorship requirements for live streaming in China have been in effect since 2008, and were tightened up in November 2016, with new regulations issued.[2] Now, apparently, three sites not in compliance have been told to shut down streaming. Sites are supposed to have licenses and in-house censorship staffs. Over at People's Daily, we can read the party line.[3] "A documentary program promoted by the Finance Channel of CCTV has recently attracted public attention for encouraging ordinary people to plan and produce their own films. Amateur filmmakers can choose from a wide range of topics related to China’s achievements in recent years - for instance, the 4G telecommunications tower installed on a cliff, the Shanghai-Kunming high speed rail that has shortened travel time between the two cities to 10 hours, and artificial intelligence. Once the videos are shot and selected, they will be played on a number of TV programs, and will also be promoted by a dozen online video platforms." So that's what good Chinese citizens are supposed to be doing. China's approach to censorship is not leakproof, but is effective. There's a combination of subtle pressure and explicit control. Once something becomes big enough to get attention, something is done about it. [1] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2099761/chinese-online-video-programmes-told-get-licence-or http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/209... [2] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2043012/chinas-internet-regulator-tightens-restrictions-live http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/204... [3] http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0623/c90000-9232613.html http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0623/c90000-9232613.html

louithethrid 9y ago

Actually, this is quite a nice way to tech-bomb a totalitarian economy- have some near suicidal or well hidden dissenters using soon to be important tech and watch the censor-ship department sabotage the countrys economy. Highly cynical view-point, but hey, if it hurts, why not use it?