3 ms·

CCP is keeping tight control over social media platforms first and foremost to prevent spreading information which could topple CCP. "Last month 60 popular cel

CCP is keeping tight control over social media platforms first and foremost to prevent spreading information which could topple CCP. "Last month 60 popular celebrity gossip sites were closed overnight for corrupting "core socialist values," and a new regulation released in May requires all online news portals to be managed by Communist Party-sanctioned editorial staff." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-40896235 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-40896235

nixon_why69 2mo ago
No, they actually do have a paternalistic drive to keep things healthy and pro-social above and beyond some Bond villain stuff. I mean, yes, you also can't get away with organizing an opposition, but they really do care about social cohesion and good family values above and beyond that. (Also, one should always note that the BBC is state owned when they write articles full of invective like this).
- leonidasrup 2mo ago
  The priorities of CCP are suppressing opposition first and social cohesion and good family values second. If you don't like state owned BBC, you can read for example non-state owned Guardian about the state of Chinese media landscape. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/dec/15/jimmy-lai-verdict-hong-kong-court-national-security-charges-live https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/dec/15/jimmy-lai... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/22/hong-kong-authorities-disrupt-independent-press-inland-revenue-tax-audits https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/22/hong-kong-auth...
  - nixon_why69 2mo ago
    I respect the BBC's independence actually, I don't think they're meaningfully worse than CNN. It's just a funny detail that they completely gloss over their own status while saying "communist party media" this and that. The Chinese media landscape doesn't support anti-Chinese narratives and the US/UK media landscape, while totally free, somehow never produces anti-Anglo narratives[1]. It's not a conspiracy, it's a culture. [1]: There are safe anti-anglo narratives where various defeated/killed people have a valid grievance and we should all cry about it, as long as they're all dead and a non-threat.
    - leonidasrup 2mo ago
      In US/UK media landscape you are quite free to criticize the government. For example, Noam Chomsky a consistent critic of the foreign policy of the United States, contemporary capitalism, and corporatocracy, published a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky The Myth of American Idealism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_American_Idealism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_American_Idealism The Withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Withdrawal
      - nixon_why69 2mo ago
        You missed "manufacturing consent". Check that one out and consider the BBC article in that vein. Again, it's not a conspiracy, it's a culture.
vintermann 2mo ago
Your first paragraph and second contradict each other somewhat. Celebrity gossip sites are not likely to threaten the party. On the contrary they may well work as "opium for the people", or circus with the bread, to keep dissent down. The party doesn't actually need "core socialist values" to stay in charge. They could easily have adopted a Putin (or Napoleon, or Caesar) attitude of "I don't give a damn about the framework legitimizing my rule, as long as you acknowledge me as the boss".
vrganj 2mo ago
Maybe keeping the CCP in power and society not degenerating are correlated? They did oversee an unprecedented rise in living standards and global influence after all... Maybe those core socialist values were what enabled it?
inigyou 2mo ago
It also has a lot of other side effects. One of them seems to be a more stable, prosperous society. I don't like that a totalitarian dictatorship is more stable and prosperous than us, maybe we should fix that?

nixon_why69 2mo ago

No, they actually do have a paternalistic drive to keep things healthy and pro-social above and beyond some Bond villain stuff. I mean, yes, you also can't get away with organizing an opposition, but they really do care about social cohesion and good family values above and beyond that. (Also, one should always note that the BBC is state owned when they write articles full of invective like this).

leonidasrup 2mo ago
The priorities of CCP are suppressing opposition first and social cohesion and good family values second. If you don't like state owned BBC, you can read for example non-state owned Guardian about the state of Chinese media landscape. https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/dec/15/jimmy-lai-verdict-hong-kong-court-national-security-charges-live https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/dec/15/jimmy-lai... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/22/hong-kong-authorities-disrupt-independent-press-inland-revenue-tax-audits https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/22/hong-kong-auth...
- nixon_why69 2mo ago
  I respect the BBC's independence actually, I don't think they're meaningfully worse than CNN. It's just a funny detail that they completely gloss over their own status while saying "communist party media" this and that. The Chinese media landscape doesn't support anti-Chinese narratives and the US/UK media landscape, while totally free, somehow never produces anti-Anglo narratives[1]. It's not a conspiracy, it's a culture. [1]: There are safe anti-anglo narratives where various defeated/killed people have a valid grievance and we should all cry about it, as long as they're all dead and a non-threat.
  - leonidasrup 2mo ago
    In US/UK media landscape you are quite free to criticize the government. For example, Noam Chomsky a consistent critic of the foreign policy of the United States, contemporary capitalism, and corporatocracy, published a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky The Myth of American Idealism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_American_Idealism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_American_Idealism The Withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Withdrawal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Withdrawal
    - nixon_why69 2mo ago
      You missed "manufacturing consent". Check that one out and consider the BBC article in that vein. Again, it's not a conspiracy, it's a culture.

vintermann 2mo ago

Your first paragraph and second contradict each other somewhat. Celebrity gossip sites are not likely to threaten the party. On the contrary they may well work as "opium for the people", or circus with the bread, to keep dissent down. The party doesn't actually need "core socialist values" to stay in charge. They could easily have adopted a Putin (or Napoleon, or Caesar) attitude of "I don't give a damn about the framework legitimizing my rule, as long as you acknowledge me as the boss".

vrganj 2mo ago

Maybe keeping the CCP in power and society not degenerating are correlated? They did oversee an unprecedented rise in living standards and global influence after all... Maybe those core socialist values were what enabled it?

inigyou 2mo ago

It also has a lot of other side effects. One of them seems to be a more stable, prosperous society. I don't like that a totalitarian dictatorship is more stable and prosperous than us, maybe we should fix that?