www.lesswrong.com/posts/reitXJgJXFzKpdKyd/beware-trivial-inconveniences
1 correction found
purging the Chinese version of the Internet of all potentially subversive content.
China’s internet censorship has never removed *all* politically sensitive content. Credible reporting and later large-scale research both describe it as selective and incomplete, with some criticism and dissident material remaining accessible.
Full reasoning
The problem here is the word “all.” Available evidence shows Chinese internet censorship is extensive, but selective and incomplete, not a total purge of every potentially subversive item.
- A Committee to Protect Journalists report found that Chinese internet regulation was “sporadic and disorganized” and specifically noted: “Many dissident sites were blocked, but not all.” It gave concrete examples, including that the site for Human Rights in China was not blocked during CPJ’s visit, and that CPJ could still download Tiananmen Square massacre pictures even though many related sites were blocked.
- Later large-scale research summarized by Harvard Magazine likewise found that Chinese censorship was selective, not blanket removal of all subversive content. Gary King’s team reported that the government was “not interested in stifling opinion” in general and that “Words alone are permitted, no matter how critical and vitriolic,” while censorship focused especially on content with collective-action potential.
So while the Great Firewall is real and extensive, describing it as purging the Chinese internet of all potentially subversive content overstates what the system actually does.
2 sources
- The Great FireWall - Committee to Protect Journalists
Despite all this bureaucracy, or perhaps because of it, government regulation of the Internet has been sporadic and disorganized... Many dissident sites were blocked, but not all. The site for Human Rights in China, a U.S.-based dissident group, was not blocked.
- Harvard team probes Chinese censorship of social media | Harvard Magazine
King said that his research offers an unambiguous answer: the Chinese government is not interested in stifling opinion, but in suppressing collective action. Words alone are permitted, no matter how critical and vitriolic.