3 ms·

Censorship in China doesn't work like what Orwell would have told. The claim in the article about a "government directive" might as well be true because similar

by xfs 8y ago

Censorship in China doesn't work like what Orwell would have told. The claim in the article about a "government directive" might as well be true because similar directives have been consistently leaked to Western media over the years and obviously they have credible inside sources for this kind of leaks. If you look at the detail of the directive it says "manage" which means content getting demoted, removed from front-page, retweets disappeared, anything but outright removal, so existence of content doesn't prove its popular visibility is not being manipulated. This is likely them learning to take a page from the book of Western media operation but you can still tell what amateurs they are when supposedly state secrets are leaked left and right like this.

paradite 8y ago
I would agree with you that such techniques could be used, and in fact I suspect they are used. However, I wouldn't say they strictly qualifies as censorship, because you can still get the information if you know where to look at (go to specific websites legally and search for them).
- bicubic 8y ago
  If information that would typically be widespread was prevented from becoming widespread, then censorship has taken place and succeeded. If a newsworthy event has taken place but is not reported on mainstream media because of government intervention, that is censorship. The main purpose of censorship is not to completely stop all access to some information, it is to prevent that information from reaching a majority of its target audience. This is what happened here. You're shrugging it off with 'ehhh but you can still find the information if you know to look for it in the first place, where most people would not look'. This apologist attitude is why you're being downvoted. You are using the Chinese government 'approved' definition of censorship with is contradictory to the definition outside of china.
  - paradite 8y ago
    If it's just because of different definitions of censorship, I would gladly take the downvotes. After all, people disagree on definitions and HN allows downvotes for disagreeing. In fact I am happy that we found the root cause of our disagreement. Edit: To be more clear, I would define censorship as denying legal means to access a piece of information.
    - bicubic 8y ago
      "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution" The definition is pretty clear, and TFA pretty clearly meets that definition. You're not being downvoted simply because people disagree with your point of view, you're being downvoted because you're using alternative party-approved language which subverts the discussion. To put it really bluntly, your comments match the heuristic of what people would consider propaganda trolling.
      - dis-sys 8y ago
        > To put it really bluntly, your comments match the heuristic of what people would consider propaganda trolling. I got downvoted to hell for pointing out that the article doesn't provide the total size of the bond market when talking about those $8 bln defaults. I provided a link to a recent bloomberg article showing the total size is $11 trillion. Surely those downvotes are a good show of freedom of speech! Shame on you.
  - dis-sys 8y ago
    > where most people would not look He/She linked articles from sina.com and hexun, they are arguably the most popular online news outlets in China. Xinhua also have numerous news articles on the increasing defaults [1][2][3] - May 2018 [1] http://www.xinhuanet.com/finance/2018-05/29/c_1122902212.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/finance/2018-05/29/c_1122902212.htm August 2018 [2] http://www.xinhuanet.com/tech/2018-08/04/c_1123221839.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/tech/2018-08/04/c_1123221839.htm July 2018 [3] http://www.xinhuanet.com/finance/2018-07/13/c_1123119356.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/finance/2018-07/13/c_1123119356.htm How about stop commenting on something you don't even understand?

by xfs 8y ago

paradite 8y ago

I would agree with you that such techniques could be used, and in fact I suspect they are used. However, I wouldn't say they strictly qualifies as censorship, because you can still get the information if you know where to look at (go to specific websites legally and search for them).

bicubic 8y ago
If information that would typically be widespread was prevented from becoming widespread, then censorship has taken place and succeeded. If a newsworthy event has taken place but is not reported on mainstream media because of government intervention, that is censorship. The main purpose of censorship is not to completely stop all access to some information, it is to prevent that information from reaching a majority of its target audience. This is what happened here. You're shrugging it off with 'ehhh but you can still find the information if you know to look for it in the first place, where most people would not look'. This apologist attitude is why you're being downvoted. You are using the Chinese government 'approved' definition of censorship with is contradictory to the definition outside of china.
- paradite 8y ago
  If it's just because of different definitions of censorship, I would gladly take the downvotes. After all, people disagree on definitions and HN allows downvotes for disagreeing. In fact I am happy that we found the root cause of our disagreement. Edit: To be more clear, I would define censorship as denying legal means to access a piece of information.
  - bicubic 8y ago
    "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution" The definition is pretty clear, and TFA pretty clearly meets that definition. You're not being downvoted simply because people disagree with your point of view, you're being downvoted because you're using alternative party-approved language which subverts the discussion. To put it really bluntly, your comments match the heuristic of what people would consider propaganda trolling.
    - dis-sys 8y ago
      > To put it really bluntly, your comments match the heuristic of what people would consider propaganda trolling. I got downvoted to hell for pointing out that the article doesn't provide the total size of the bond market when talking about those $8 bln defaults. I provided a link to a recent bloomberg article showing the total size is $11 trillion. Surely those downvotes are a good show of freedom of speech! Shame on you.
- dis-sys 8y ago
  > where most people would not look He/She linked articles from sina.com and hexun, they are arguably the most popular online news outlets in China. Xinhua also have numerous news articles on the increasing defaults [1][2][3] - May 2018 [1] http://www.xinhuanet.com/finance/2018-05/29/c_1122902212.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/finance/2018-05/29/c_1122902212.htm August 2018 [2] http://www.xinhuanet.com/tech/2018-08/04/c_1123221839.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/tech/2018-08/04/c_1123221839.htm July 2018 [3] http://www.xinhuanet.com/finance/2018-07/13/c_1123119356.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/finance/2018-07/13/c_1123119356.htm How about stop commenting on something you don't even understand?