4 ms·

> when control over the information inevitably breaks down That's quite an assumption. The CCP appears to be getting better, not worse, at controlling informat

> when control over the information inevitably breaks down That's quite an assumption. The CCP appears to be getting better, not worse, at controlling information. They are accumulating institutional experience and technical competence. I see no obvious reason beyond reflexive 20thC shibboleths why this direction should inevitably reverse.

hd4 9y ago
2nd law of thermodynamics
- yequalsx 9y ago
  The second law of thermodynamics does not seem to apply here. Without a source of energy entropy must increase. Using the second law as an analogy of the information situation in China one would say you are correct if there was no external entity actively trying to suppress information. But there is in the case of China. Thus the second law analogy does not apply.
  - hd4 9y ago
    It most definitely does apply here. "Entropy may be understood as a measure of disorder within a macroscopic system. The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system's entropy never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy." They aren't able to suppress information completely which is why they resort to the sort of shambolic behaviour described in the article. They lost control of it when the internet became widespread and since then they've been trying their best to firewall and block and censor, for what? Why censor anything if there is no appetite for it anyway? We can assume therefore that there is some percentage of the Chinese population that wants to know and will know despite their governments efforts.
    - crispinb 9y ago
      From what I read (no first hand experience, and based only on relatively shallow news & nonfiction reading), the CCP's aims don't rely on complete control of information. They want political control of the public sphere, for which purpose all they need to do is keep infractions below the surface. There's a nod-nod-wink-wink with the emerging middle class: "pretend in public that everything is as the Party says, whether you privately believe this to be true or not, and we'll deliver the goods". They don't require loyal hearts, just broad obedience. What they're vulnerable to isn't information leakage, but a future failure to deliver the goods (in which respect they're not that much different from liberal democracies). So far 3 decades of predictions that they would fail to continue holding a lid on the public sphere, and 10 years of predictions that they would fail to deliver the goods, have all been wrong. Which is unsurprising given that those predictions were rarely based on anything more substantial than a priori and ahistorical liberal dogma.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      In terms of the analogy it’s not an isolated system. There is an energy input; the active suppression of information. Therefore the second law does not apply.
candiodari 9y ago
Control of information fails, not because the organisation controlling gets worse at it, but because it gets better at it. This may sound counterintuitive, but it's not. The issue is that organisations that can control information want that power for a reason. That reason is always the same: it's economic. Even in the west, where control is much less pervasive. They want it, frankly, so they can steal from "the people" without them noticing. Currently China is lying about economic things. And people don't care. The government says things are going well, and it appears things are going well. Until that changes there won't be large scale changes. But there's kinks: How many people got fired in the massive mine cuts last year (everything growing at 7% per year, then "boom!", massive protests followed by executions in a dozen cities. Protests that were big enough that suppression didn't work. Everybody knew someone who was aware of the protests). How badly the metals industry is doing. And the macro Chinese economy. How many loans, and where. People are currently largely trusting the official stats despite them being somewhat obviously falsified. There's a few high profile somewhat-loony exceptions (e.g. Kyle Bass). This can't end well ... And once it hasn't ended well, needless to say, people notice once the cheese is actually gone. No amount of information control is going to change that. That's when information control fails. That's when people start trusting the word of a drunk sailor more than the official newspaper. That's when every organisation that matters switches to it's own internal information gathering. That will happen. It's a matter of time. There's lots of variables in it, but how good the CCP is at controlling information is not actually one of the variables.

hd4 9y ago

2nd law of thermodynamics

yequalsx 9y ago
The second law of thermodynamics does not seem to apply here. Without a source of energy entropy must increase. Using the second law as an analogy of the information situation in China one would say you are correct if there was no external entity actively trying to suppress information. But there is in the case of China. Thus the second law analogy does not apply.
- hd4 9y ago
  It most definitely does apply here. "Entropy may be understood as a measure of disorder within a macroscopic system. The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system's entropy never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy." They aren't able to suppress information completely which is why they resort to the sort of shambolic behaviour described in the article. They lost control of it when the internet became widespread and since then they've been trying their best to firewall and block and censor, for what? Why censor anything if there is no appetite for it anyway? We can assume therefore that there is some percentage of the Chinese population that wants to know and will know despite their governments efforts.
  - crispinb 9y ago
    From what I read (no first hand experience, and based only on relatively shallow news & nonfiction reading), the CCP's aims don't rely on complete control of information. They want political control of the public sphere, for which purpose all they need to do is keep infractions below the surface. There's a nod-nod-wink-wink with the emerging middle class: "pretend in public that everything is as the Party says, whether you privately believe this to be true or not, and we'll deliver the goods". They don't require loyal hearts, just broad obedience. What they're vulnerable to isn't information leakage, but a future failure to deliver the goods (in which respect they're not that much different from liberal democracies). So far 3 decades of predictions that they would fail to continue holding a lid on the public sphere, and 10 years of predictions that they would fail to deliver the goods, have all been wrong. Which is unsurprising given that those predictions were rarely based on anything more substantial than a priori and ahistorical liberal dogma.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    In terms of the analogy it’s not an isolated system. There is an energy input; the active suppression of information. Therefore the second law does not apply.

candiodari 9y ago

Control of information fails, not because the organisation controlling gets worse at it, but because it gets better at it. This may sound counterintuitive, but it's not. The issue is that organisations that can control information want that power for a reason. That reason is always the same: it's economic. Even in the west, where control is much less pervasive. They want it, frankly, so they can steal from "the people" without them noticing. Currently China is lying about economic things. And people don't care. The government says things are going well, and it appears things are going well. Until that changes there won't be large scale changes. But there's kinks: How many people got fired in the massive mine cuts last year (everything growing at 7% per year, then "boom!", massive protests followed by executions in a dozen cities. Protests that were big enough that suppression didn't work. Everybody knew someone who was aware of the protests). How badly the metals industry is doing. And the macro Chinese economy. How many loans, and where. People are currently largely trusting the official stats despite them being somewhat obviously falsified. There's a few high profile somewhat-loony exceptions (e.g. Kyle Bass). This can't end well ... And once it hasn't ended well, needless to say, people notice once the cheese is actually gone. No amount of information control is going to change that. That's when information control fails. That's when people start trusting the word of a drunk sailor more than the official newspaper. That's when every organisation that matters switches to it's own internal information gathering. That will happen. It's a matter of time. There's lots of variables in it, but how good the CCP is at controlling information is not actually one of the variables.