3 ms·

> FWIW I appreciate your civil tone and continued conversation on the topic. That's what I'm here for, interesting conversations with different viewpoints. :)

> FWIW I appreciate your civil tone and continued conversation on the topic. That's what I'm here for, interesting conversations with different viewpoints. :) > but it wasn't long until 1998 when the CCP began the Great Firewall project fearing a new network they could not control Yes, but I covered this before (a few replies up-thread). I think (think, because the numbers aren't exact, but I don't think my extrapolation from the source I listed there is out of bounds) under a million people had access to it at that time. That's less than 0.1% of the populace. I don't think we can treat that as something they considered allowing all the populace to have. I think the only reason it wasn't firewalled immediately is because they didn't have the technology, they didn't know yet the threat they were facing, they didn't care too much while it was so limited and only available to what were likely elites, or some combination thereof. I don't think we can assume the lack of control before that point was because they didn't care about the flow of information and decided to become more hard-line later, just that they didn't have a solution in place yet but were thinking and planning on something well before it was allowed for more than the tiniest fraction of the populace.

themacguffinman 5y ago
Fair enough. I don't know how you think that makes this an ambiguous point though. Like you suggested, this is a continuation of the CCP's repressive dystopia which signals its continuing appetite for oppression. But allowing the internet as envisioned by the CCP doesn't lessen oppression because it's not the internet, it's a small, curated subset of the internet augmented with surveillance & propaganda that becomes yet another tool of control. Does the Jack Ma online hate mob that spontaneously appeared when he was arrested seem like free expression to you? Chinese citizens are allowed to communicate on the "internet" in the same way the citizens in Orwell's 1984 were allowed to watch TV on telescreens that surveilled them. Probably more useful than not having a telescreen, yet still more repressive and dystopian.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > I don't know how you think that makes this an ambiguous point though. It's not ambiguous as evidence of current behavior, I just don't think it points towards increased control of media as much as it actually points towards less control (even if because it's harder to control without blocking entirely) than in the past. Put another way, I think the total outside information the average Chines citizen is able to get now, even with the great firewall, is vastly greater than it was 25 years ago for vastly more people. Even those citizens that weren't firewalled back in 1996 have vastly more information now, just because there's so much more on the internet now. I think if China was doing more of a continuation of past hardline policies, it wouldn't be a blacklist and some sources that were blocked, it would be a whitelist of a few things they explicitly allowed. > it's a small, curated subset of the internet augmented with surveillance & propaganda that becomes yet another tool of control. That's not my understanding of how it works. They actively block some sites, IP addresses and ranges, and they block based on content that triggers keywords. > Does the Jack Ma online hate mob that spontaneously appeared when he was arrested seem like free expression to you? While I don't doubt astroturfing goes on, I don't think it's needed nearly as much as you might think. China is extremely nationalistic now, and you get people defending the government's actions for the exact same reasons you have Democrats and Republicans here defending some of the things put forth, regardless of discussion, understanding, or merit (it seemed especially egregious with Trump, but it always happens to a degree). > Chinese citizens are allowed to communicate on the "internet" in the same way the citizens in Orwell's 1984 were allowed to watch TV on telescreens that surveilled them. Probably more useful than not having a telescreen, yet still more repressive and dystopian. I don't think that's an accurate representation of the status quo at all. I might be wrong, but that's not how I understand the situation from what I've read and intuited from explanations I've seen. As I understand it the vast majority of sites are available, and many sites (but many major ones) are blocked and sophisticated filtering and AI is also in place to block specific content, but it's not a small curated internet by any means. I'm happy to be shown otherwise though.
  - themacguffinman 5y ago
    Access to a greater quantity of information is totally meaningless if it's curated to exclude dissent and support the CCP's agenda. And mass censorship is curation; Someone who has been selectively denied knowledge against the CCP is more repressed/controlled regardless of what other neutral information they have. Greater quantities of "information access" is simply not a sign of less control. An educated physicist brainwashed into supporting the CCP is not any less repressed than an ignorant idiot brainwashed into supporting the CCP. This is like saying the added pillows and larger airholes in your prison cell points towards less detainment. Frankly, a hypothetical hardline policy like you speculated would be less dystopian as it would at least be clearer what's going on and harder to dismiss with totalitarian apologia. And however much we might quibble over whether "small" is the appropriate word, it doesn't change the fact that the size of the internet allowed in China is far, far smaller than could be honestly called a real internet. I call it small because it's an unacceptably small fraction of important available information/communication that is just as effective, if not more, at repressing citizens. You can call it large and be no closer to arguing that this represents less of a repressive dystopia. Beyond filtering and site blocks, China also does: Targeted human monitoring: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveill... International surveillance and censorship: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/18/zoom-helped-china-surveillance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/18/zoom-he... Propaganda in search engines and social media: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/28/chinese-tech-firms-fueling-beijings-repression https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/28/chinese-tech-firms-fueli...

themacguffinman 5y ago

Fair enough. I don't know how you think that makes this an ambiguous point though. Like you suggested, this is a continuation of the CCP's repressive dystopia which signals its continuing appetite for oppression. But allowing the internet as envisioned by the CCP doesn't lessen oppression because it's not the internet, it's a small, curated subset of the internet augmented with surveillance & propaganda that becomes yet another tool of control. Does the Jack Ma online hate mob that spontaneously appeared when he was arrested seem like free expression to you? Chinese citizens are allowed to communicate on the "internet" in the same way the citizens in Orwell's 1984 were allowed to watch TV on telescreens that surveilled them. Probably more useful than not having a telescreen, yet still more repressive and dystopian.

kbenson 5y ago
> I don't know how you think that makes this an ambiguous point though. It's not ambiguous as evidence of current behavior, I just don't think it points towards increased control of media as much as it actually points towards less control (even if because it's harder to control without blocking entirely) than in the past. Put another way, I think the total outside information the average Chines citizen is able to get now, even with the great firewall, is vastly greater than it was 25 years ago for vastly more people. Even those citizens that weren't firewalled back in 1996 have vastly more information now, just because there's so much more on the internet now. I think if China was doing more of a continuation of past hardline policies, it wouldn't be a blacklist and some sources that were blocked, it would be a whitelist of a few things they explicitly allowed. > it's a small, curated subset of the internet augmented with surveillance & propaganda that becomes yet another tool of control. That's not my understanding of how it works. They actively block some sites, IP addresses and ranges, and they block based on content that triggers keywords. > Does the Jack Ma online hate mob that spontaneously appeared when he was arrested seem like free expression to you? While I don't doubt astroturfing goes on, I don't think it's needed nearly as much as you might think. China is extremely nationalistic now, and you get people defending the government's actions for the exact same reasons you have Democrats and Republicans here defending some of the things put forth, regardless of discussion, understanding, or merit (it seemed especially egregious with Trump, but it always happens to a degree). > Chinese citizens are allowed to communicate on the "internet" in the same way the citizens in Orwell's 1984 were allowed to watch TV on telescreens that surveilled them. Probably more useful than not having a telescreen, yet still more repressive and dystopian. I don't think that's an accurate representation of the status quo at all. I might be wrong, but that's not how I understand the situation from what I've read and intuited from explanations I've seen. As I understand it the vast majority of sites are available, and many sites (but many major ones) are blocked and sophisticated filtering and AI is also in place to block specific content, but it's not a small curated internet by any means. I'm happy to be shown otherwise though.
- themacguffinman 5y ago
  Access to a greater quantity of information is totally meaningless if it's curated to exclude dissent and support the CCP's agenda. And mass censorship is curation; Someone who has been selectively denied knowledge against the CCP is more repressed/controlled regardless of what other neutral information they have. Greater quantities of "information access" is simply not a sign of less control. An educated physicist brainwashed into supporting the CCP is not any less repressed than an ignorant idiot brainwashed into supporting the CCP. This is like saying the added pillows and larger airholes in your prison cell points towards less detainment. Frankly, a hypothetical hardline policy like you speculated would be less dystopian as it would at least be clearer what's going on and harder to dismiss with totalitarian apologia. And however much we might quibble over whether "small" is the appropriate word, it doesn't change the fact that the size of the internet allowed in China is far, far smaller than could be honestly called a real internet. I call it small because it's an unacceptably small fraction of important available information/communication that is just as effective, if not more, at repressing citizens. You can call it large and be no closer to arguing that this represents less of a repressive dystopia. Beyond filtering and site blocks, China also does: Targeted human monitoring: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveillance-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/world/asia/china-surveill... International surveillance and censorship: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/18/zoom-helped-china-surveillance/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/18/zoom-he... Propaganda in search engines and social media: https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/28/chinese-tech-firms-fueling-beijings-repression https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/28/chinese-tech-firms-fueli...