|
|
|
|
|
|
by FooBarWidget
1709 days ago
|
|
|
Censorship exists, but that is not at all the same thing as forcing people to have a certain opinion. This Harvard paper explains that, instead, censorship's role is to silence movements. Pro-government posts are censored when they have the potential to go viral. Anti-government posts that don't go viral, aren't censored. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression" https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-... Furthermore, censorship exists simultaneously with government responsiveness. That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances (as in actually addressing, not arresting people for arresting). Nowadays social media is one of the major channels for government feedback. New law proposals are regularly formed based on mass complaints on social media (which may or may not also end up getting censored). This is a relatively new thing, developed in the past 15 years or so. Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm. |
|
|
I agree, but it's a moot point. When you censor all opinions that you don't like, it's only natural that if you limit available data, people will form very specific, limited opinions based on that data.
> That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances
I kind of agree with you. In some cases, Beijing fixes problems that local provincial governments either cannot or will not, but that is not always the case, and due to lack of overall transparency; we don't know the ratio of fixing problems vs punishing people for reporting grievances.
> Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.
Honestly, I do not feel that people broadcasting the events in Wuhan were Julian Assange level. Neither are the people who were speaking about Xinjiang. Yet they were still punished. Tax evasion imo is also not Assange level enough for a rendition and a resource intense redaction of media credits. Of course, you can argue that it's better than not punishing tax evaders at all like how virtually no one in Wall Street went to jail for the 2008 financial crisis.
I know the social credit system is still currently a mess implementation wise, but if it ever gets standardized and fixed nationally, we can revisit this subject.