6 ms·

This news story is off. Foreign entities have always been forbidden from engaging in media production and publishing in China. While the negative list is update

This news story is off. Foreign entities have always been forbidden from engaging in media production and publishing in China. While the negative list is updated yearly, this isn't new.

jollybean 5y ago
This is not a story of foreign capital, but private capital. Information is power, Xi wants 100% control over it. It's probably more important than controlling the Armed Forces in the long run. If you put people in a bubble only let them see what you want to see, it's pretty easy to control them, it doesn't matter who they are.
- eternalban 5y ago
  Xi does not want power for himself. Xi wants power to remain in the hands of the party and CPC is laying the foundation of governance model for a robust state in the 21st century that also (TBD) does not inhibit economic and technological development. It is reasonable to argue against that goal (statist socialism) but imho superficial to frame this as yet another power grab by an individual. He is simply the tip of a consensus block in CPC. Historically, Xi represents the ‘adjustment of CPC to global conditions while maintaining continuity of the party’ post Nixon era re-engagement and re-evaluations.
  - philliphaydon 5y ago
    If Xi did not want power for himself he would not have removed the two-term limit to keep himself in power for life.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Because Communist countries tend to have very messy transfers of power, if not through continuity or annointment of a new leader by the old? And by messy I mean armed forces involvement and/or bodies in the streets.
      - jollybean 5y ago
        China has had a decent track record, they are well organized. If Xi truly believed in China, then he would make it a priority to facilitate a smooth transition of power, and to enable the leader after their ascension. I really don't think this is much of an excuse for him. The story is really simple - CCP wants to forbid any private control of information, that's it. It's not a new concept.
        ethbr0 5y ago
        The Deng -> Zhao -> Jiang -> Hu years weren't very clean, and did have military involvement and civilian deaths.
    - plantain_00 5y ago
      General Secretary of the CCP(no term limit) is the top leader, The president of the PRC is the ceremonial head of state of the PRC, So the president's two-term limit removed in 2018 is not important, just like the Queen of England(ceremonial head of state) has not term limit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Re...
  - jollybean 5y ago
    You're right, I should have merely indicated the leader, not the individual, that's fair. It's unlikely that anyone really knows what Xi wants. The narrative that 'he just wants what's best for China' plays directly into his potential megalomania, at the same time, I don't doubt that there is some truth to this as well. Nations can benefit from long-lived leaders. That said, the whole thing does not look good. Actions further suppressing the spread of basic information are not going to be good for China in the long run. And Xi probably is just another kind of dictator, we have a very long run of world history that gives us innumerable examples. One thing he could have done when extending his term limits, was signal when he would leave, and making sure that the 'new rules' are just and equitable with respect to future leaders.
    - cutemonster 5y ago
      > what Xi wants Highest priority: to stay in power. That China is his (he get to be the dictator) for all of his life. Possibly thereafter: Make China stronger, economically, military, land area. Destroying independent press damages and weakens China, but that's ok because a strong China is only 2nd priority for Xi (and his closest men I suppose).
- xtian 5y ago
  Do you think people in China don't know how to use VPNs and find information on the broader Internet? They do. It seems like you may be the one living in a bubble.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    A VPN will get you a few research papers, and some insight into the world outside, but it won't change common attitudes within the country, which will be shaped by a controlled information system. Having a 'hole' in the information firewall can be useful for some things, but it's still a marginal effect. Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream. When Xi bans any negative mention of him, or any mention at all of taboos subjects i.e. Tiananmen, or any material discussion at all of sensitive issues like Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong, anywhere, at any time - then he'll effectively convince the general population of his will on the subject. The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point. There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them. Xi could do anything he wants to the Uyghurs, he could subsequently justify it in the press irrespective of how truthful that information was, and the general public would be fine with it. The small number of dissenters would have no means to disagree. When you combine information control with the fact that there's a lack of any right to organize or assemble, then you have total control. FYI - this is why 'freedom of assembly' is a primary right in all modern constitutions, it's mostly a means of organizing around information. Finally, it would be incredibly naive to not grasp the implications of this regulatory movement which further entrenches total government control of information, without any oversight whatsoever.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      > Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream. Exactly. The point of information control in closed society is not to avoid the exposure of particular events, but to suppress entire lines of thought. F.ex. How would you begin a conversation with a North Korean about democracy? Their very concept of the idea, inasmuch as they are likely aware of it at all, is alien to your concept. Which means that conversation has to start all the way underneath, at the underpinnings and philosophical bases of democracy. Which is a much more difficult and lengthy conversation. Which is the entire point, because most people won't make the effort. Anymore so than the average American is capable of and interested in learning enough to have a nuanced conversation on the differences between Soviet and Chinese communism.
azernik 5y ago
This also removes domestic (Chinese) private capital from the possible investors/owners.
dirtyid 5y ago
Bloomberg links to General Market Access (MA) Negative List for all players (domestic + foreign) versus Foreign Investment (FI) access list for just foreigners. Though it was pretty much forgone PRC openning domestic service industries won't include media considering how hard NGOs were cracked down. https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/yjzxDownload/sczrfmqd2021.pdf https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/yjzxDownload/sczrfmqd2021.pdf
- user_named 5y ago
  Okay. I was confused since the negative list that I've heard of has always been for foreign investment in China, and this list was just updated, so I assumed it was referring to this list. I was not aware of a negative list for domestic investors.

This news story is off. Foreign entities have always been forbidden from engaging in media production and publishing in China. While the negative list is updated yearly, this isn't new.

jollybean 5y ago

This is not a story of foreign capital, but private capital. Information is power, Xi wants 100% control over it. It's probably more important than controlling the Armed Forces in the long run. If you put people in a bubble only let them see what you want to see, it's pretty easy to control them, it doesn't matter who they are.

eternalban 5y ago
Xi does not want power for himself. Xi wants power to remain in the hands of the party and CPC is laying the foundation of governance model for a robust state in the 21st century that also (TBD) does not inhibit economic and technological development. It is reasonable to argue against that goal (statist socialism) but imho superficial to frame this as yet another power grab by an individual. He is simply the tip of a consensus block in CPC. Historically, Xi represents the ‘adjustment of CPC to global conditions while maintaining continuity of the party’ post Nixon era re-engagement and re-evaluations.
- philliphaydon 5y ago
  If Xi did not want power for himself he would not have removed the two-term limit to keep himself in power for life.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Because Communist countries tend to have very messy transfers of power, if not through continuity or annointment of a new leader by the old? And by messy I mean armed forces involvement and/or bodies in the streets.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      China has had a decent track record, they are well organized. If Xi truly believed in China, then he would make it a priority to facilitate a smooth transition of power, and to enable the leader after their ascension. I really don't think this is much of an excuse for him. The story is really simple - CCP wants to forbid any private control of information, that's it. It's not a new concept.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        The Deng -> Zhao -> Jiang -> Hu years weren't very clean, and did have military involvement and civilian deaths.
  - plantain_00 5y ago
    General Secretary of the CCP(no term limit) is the top leader, The president of the PRC is the ceremonial head of state of the PRC, So the president's two-term limit removed in 2018 is not important, just like the Queen of England(ceremonial head of state) has not term limit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Re...
- jollybean 5y ago
  You're right, I should have merely indicated the leader, not the individual, that's fair. It's unlikely that anyone really knows what Xi wants. The narrative that 'he just wants what's best for China' plays directly into his potential megalomania, at the same time, I don't doubt that there is some truth to this as well. Nations can benefit from long-lived leaders. That said, the whole thing does not look good. Actions further suppressing the spread of basic information are not going to be good for China in the long run. And Xi probably is just another kind of dictator, we have a very long run of world history that gives us innumerable examples. One thing he could have done when extending his term limits, was signal when he would leave, and making sure that the 'new rules' are just and equitable with respect to future leaders.
  - cutemonster 5y ago
    > what Xi wants Highest priority: to stay in power. That China is his (he get to be the dictator) for all of his life. Possibly thereafter: Make China stronger, economically, military, land area. Destroying independent press damages and weakens China, but that's ok because a strong China is only 2nd priority for Xi (and his closest men I suppose).
xtian 5y ago
Do you think people in China don't know how to use VPNs and find information on the broader Internet? They do. It seems like you may be the one living in a bubble.
- jollybean 5y ago
  A VPN will get you a few research papers, and some insight into the world outside, but it won't change common attitudes within the country, which will be shaped by a controlled information system. Having a 'hole' in the information firewall can be useful for some things, but it's still a marginal effect. Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream. When Xi bans any negative mention of him, or any mention at all of taboos subjects i.e. Tiananmen, or any material discussion at all of sensitive issues like Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong, anywhere, at any time - then he'll effectively convince the general population of his will on the subject. The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point. There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them. Xi could do anything he wants to the Uyghurs, he could subsequently justify it in the press irrespective of how truthful that information was, and the general public would be fine with it. The small number of dissenters would have no means to disagree. When you combine information control with the fact that there's a lack of any right to organize or assemble, then you have total control. FYI - this is why 'freedom of assembly' is a primary right in all modern constitutions, it's mostly a means of organizing around information. Finally, it would be incredibly naive to not grasp the implications of this regulatory movement which further entrenches total government control of information, without any oversight whatsoever.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    > Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream. Exactly. The point of information control in closed society is not to avoid the exposure of particular events, but to suppress entire lines of thought. F.ex. How would you begin a conversation with a North Korean about democracy? Their very concept of the idea, inasmuch as they are likely aware of it at all, is alien to your concept. Which means that conversation has to start all the way underneath, at the underpinnings and philosophical bases of democracy. Which is a much more difficult and lengthy conversation. Which is the entire point, because most people won't make the effort. Anymore so than the average American is capable of and interested in learning enough to have a nuanced conversation on the differences between Soviet and Chinese communism.

azernik 5y ago

This also removes domestic (Chinese) private capital from the possible investors/owners.

dirtyid 5y ago

Bloomberg links to General Market Access (MA) Negative List for all players (domestic + foreign) versus Foreign Investment (FI) access list for just foreigners. Though it was pretty much forgone PRC openning domestic service industries won't include media considering how hard NGOs were cracked down. https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/yjzxDownload/sczrfmqd2021.pdf https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/yjzxDownload/sczrfmqd2021.pdf

user_named 5y ago
Okay. I was confused since the negative list that I've heard of has always been for foreign investment in China, and this list was just updated, so I assumed it was referring to this list. I was not aware of a negative list for domestic investors.