Writing in Shanghai in the 1930s, China's great essayist Lu Xun(魯迅) once observed: "Today there are all kinds of weeklies. Although their distribution is not very wide, they are shining in the darkness like daggers, letting their comrades know who is attacking the old, strong castles."
Muckraking broadsheets in the first half of the last century played cat-and-mouse games with Chinese government censors, ultimately helping to expose the corruption and moral bankruptcy of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government and contributing to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) victory in 1949.
If this sounds familiar, it is because the CCP never forgets its history -- and is determined to prevent history from repeating itself. Thus, China's rulers acted in character last December, when they cracked down on news organizations that were getting a bit too assertive.
The editor and deputy editors of Beijing News, a relatively new tabloid with a national reputation for exposing corruption and official abuse, were fired. In protest, more than 100 members of the newspaper's staff walked out.
Most Chinese might not have known about the walkout if it hadn't been for Chinese bloggers. An editorial assistant at the New York Times, Zhao Jing (趙京), writing under the pen name Michael Anti, broke the news on his widely read Chinese-language blog. He exposed details of behind-the-scenes politics and called for a public boycott of the newspaper, evoking strong public sympathy for the journalists, which was expressed online in chatrooms and blogs.
Zhao's blog wasn't under the direct control of the CCP's propaganda department. It was published through a Chinese-language blog-hosting service run by Microsoft's MSN Spaces. On Dec. 30, Zhao's blog disappeared. Since then, Microsoft has confirmed that its staff removed the blog from an MSN Internet server, citing the need to respect Chinese law when doing business in China.
Microsoft's contribution to Chinese political repression follows Yahoo's role in the sentencing of a dissident reporter and Google's decision not to display search results that are blocked by what has become known as the Great Chinese Firewall. Indeed, China has developed the world's most sophisticated system of Internet censorship, thereby hiding information unfavorable to China's rulers from all but the most technologically savvy. The system is bolstered by human surveillance carried out not only by government employees but also by private service providers.
Some liken Microsoft's behavior to IBM's infamous collaboration with the Nazis. Human-rights activists in the US are calling for legislation that would prevent US companies from engaging in business that helps regimes stifle democratic movements.
But the companies argue that there is absolutely no other way to compete -- they must either comply with censorship or stop business. If MSN Spaces did not censor its Chinese blogs, Microsoft argues, the Chinese firewall would simply be programmed to block Chinese Internet users from accessing its service.
In fact, most international blog-hosting services are blocked in China, which provides a competitive boon to several hundred domestic blog-hosting services. These services, with names like Bokee.com, Blogbus.com and Blogcn.com, all comply with Chinese government censorship requirements. Software prevents users from posting politically sensitive words, and provocative content that gets past the automated controls is frequently removed. These businesses would not be allowed to exist otherwise.
Despite the censorship, the Chinese blogosphere is blossoming, with probably somewhere between five and 10 million active blogs. The Chinese public has grown expert over the years at finding plenty of things to do and talk about while avoiding politically dangerous issues. Chinese bloggers are no different. New pop culture celebrities are emerging online, and people are creating their own radio and even TV shows.
Naturally, the Chinese companies that provide most of the tools used to create and host this content have censorship built into their software, management structure and business models. But most Chinese bloggers accept this as part of the reality of life in China. They are not willing to fight for greater freedom of speech and are even willing to censor each other in order to preserve what they have.
Which brings us back to China's greatest modern writer, Lu Xun. In 1921, he wrote a biting piece of social criticism, The True Story of Ah Q, about a hapless character who adjusts his values to whatever the circumstances and the people around him seem to demand.
Unfortunately, faced with a choice between protecting the long-term interests and human rights of their customers and complying with laws implemented by unelected powerholders, technology firms like Microsoft, Yahoo and Google seem to have embraced the Ah Q spirit. They have made it clear that when it comes to free expression, their priorities lie on the side of surrender.
In the long run, this does not bode well for their global reputations, which depend on users' trust in the openness and independence of their products and services. One day, perhaps, censorship will no longer make good business sense anywhere.
Rebecca MacKinnon, a former Beijing bureau chief for CNN, is a research fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS