Internet Censorship in China - Essay Example

Insert Internet Censorship in China China restricts Internet use through a broad range of laws and policy regulations. For the highest level of compliance, China enforces the laws through local administrative units, state-owned Internet Service Providers, corporations, and other policing agencies. The censoring tool used by China is considered quite overarching and more superior to any other systems used by other countries in the world such as Iran and Russia. Under the rule, public authorities are mandated to block any web content which they perceive as inappropriate and track the use of the Internet tool by the general public. Clay Shirky’s argues that social media and similar technologies have the power in public spheres to effect political change. This paper critically analyses Internet censorship in China as a stopgap measure to control the power of political movement aided by social media technologies. According to Guo and Feng (32), China tops the list of countries that jail news reporters and perceived cyber-dissidents globally. The state charges the people with crimes such as making unauthorized online interactions with foreign movements, signing Internet-based petitions, and advocating for political change in government circles to end ‘perceived’ cases of corruption. The tightening of the Internet censoring policy by government is a significant step which is aimed at decimating critical opinion of bloggers, especially in the wake of poor governance, lack of proper environmental policy, corruption and nepotism. The government is aware that in the recent past, many of public the protests against the establishment were arranged or popularized on online communication tools such as instant messaging, short text messages, and chat rooms among others. In order to realize “order on the Internet,” China’s government is reportedly relying on massive two million-strong police officers (Shirky 1). Guo and Feng (33) said China’s government-controlled media have insisted in the past that the restrictions target only gullible, violence-related, betting, and dirty sites or those carrying inappropriate content. Nonetheless, contrary opinions indicate that popular domestic Chinese companies such as Baidu and Alibaba are the only beneficiaries of Internet censorship by China. As such, the Internet regulation policy serves to encourage competition among local businesses. The China’s insistence on its interest to guarantee the locals a safe platform for Internet communication appears questionable because Google Inc., one of the world’s largest e-mail service hosts is blocked despite its provision of favorable content and secure services for users. Guo and Feng (33) calls the move by China’s authorities a ploy, adding that political intolerance has led to either occasional or complete blockage of sites containing politically-charged information or similar topics from discussion. Topics on brutality of law enforcers, Tiananmen Square protests, free expression of opinion and democracy or independence of territories which are under the political control of China’s mainland such as Tibet and Hong Kong have equally been cut-off discussion. International websites providing news and or e-mail services such as “Yahoo!” and “Voice of America” have been experiencing occasional censors. Similarly, in 2014 “The New York Times” and the “BBC” led a host of other Western media outlets that were slapped with indefinite bans over their perceived unfavorable content. According to Guo and Feng (41), recent findings indicate that since 2011, China’s government reserves the right to remove and charge individuals who are associated with any material authored by or mentioning political activist bloggers. This tough crackdown is referred to as “cyber-disappearance” by Western liberalists. As such, China’s censoring of the Internet is dictated by the quest for the political elite to keep political movements at bay. Shirky defines political movement as “gaining greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action” (1). Political movements generally involve millions of like-minded members of the public, who have been organized by modern technology-aided platforms of communication such as text messages, chat rooms, instant messages, e-mails among others to respond to mismanagement of government. Shirky notes that the remarkable growth of the Internet technology for slightly over two decades as the cradle of the world’s networked public that has a more powerful voice. With billions now connected to the Internet and ready to mobilize and be mobilized, Shirky paints a clear picture of China’s constant censoring of the Internet platform –Beijing fears the power in its over one billion citizens, hundreds of millions of which are sick and tired of the way the administration handles political affairs in the country. China’s fears of political movement are real considering that since the recent past; the use of social media has grown substantially and thus become an inexorable part of normal civil society activities in the country and around the world (Juang 53). The new platform brings together many participants including; ordinary citizens, political activists, and non-governmental bodies all of whose main agenda is efficient political leadership. However, Chinese authorities believe that unless they crack down on perceived abusers of the Internet, the potent political movement it has suppressed for many decades since modern communication technologies were established could upset the political establishment as it happened in Philippines. Shirky recalls the power of political movement in Philippines when in mid-January 2001, during the hotly contested debate about whether President Joseph Estrada was free of corruption, government-led lawmakers voted to disprove vital evidence on corruption against him (1). In a record two hours after the Congress acquitted him, thousands of ordinary citizens showed their displeasure at the decision, which they believed had the potential to free him altogether from serious corruption allegations leveled against him. The political movement thronged Epifanio de los Santos Avenue immediately after receiving a text message urging them to force accountability of the state official. The protesters increased rapidly in black attire as they had been told, and in the next couple of days, the number had reached more than one million people. According to Shirky, the citizens’ political movement that week was evidenced in the “ability to coordinate such a massive and rapid response (after circulation of) close to seven million text messages” (1). In response, the lawmakers quickly reversed their earlier decision and permitted the evidence to be used against the president. By the power of political movement, Estrada was sent packing in a matter of days. Owing to the success of the social media and circulation of texts in forcing a sitting head of state to leave office, China is afraid that a totally free Internet-connected citizenry would share exposes of the rot in national leadership and even force the national leaders out (Juang 59). Regardless, irresponsible use of social media may create insecurity, destabilize public service and roll back major political transformations in the country. In light of these concerns, Shirky argues that responsible use of the Internet is paramount, and thus it behooves the United States and her European partners to ‘export’ Internet freedom to China where it is argued that the highest level of censorship happens. The United States has been exploring ways to foster freedom to use the Internet abroad. Part of the trigger has been the widely-held perception that Chinese citizens are not being allowed to enjoy their fundamental freedoms online (Guo and Feng 34). The US has informally underlined a number of freedoms, which could enable the citizens to reclaim their lost political power to interact freely and build a better understanding to keep all public officers in check. These milestones include: the citizens’ liberty to access new information by allowing informative and participatory sites such as Wikipedia and Google services in China; the liberty of individual citizens to generate their own content for public use through blogs, and; the liberty of citizens to communicate freely within one’s social network. The latter freedom is of immense benefit to Chinese because state authorities censor instant messaging. According to Shirky, “the instrumental approach to Internet freedom” could prevent China from blocking foreign Web sites that it believes are critical of the administration or may furnish the citizenry with ‘inappropriate’ information (1). The strategy could be accepted by Chinese authorities, considering that it does not empower the people to engage more in public speech, an area that China considers as a threat to the political status quo. In addition, a removal of the bans would not affect private or interactive uses of the digital platform, which China fears might also stoke discontent within the population and create serious political movements that can upset the political power base. Advocates of this strategy believe that Washington owes Chinese an obligation to deliver swift, structured responses to Beijing’s censorship policy. The instrumental plan seems politically viable and proactive, but might not yield the best of outcomes. The strategy overlooks the role an impacts of mainly state-controlled broadcast electronic media. In addition, similar counter-measures are said to have minimal security features in place for private communications (Guo and Feng 47). Most of the tools are overly lenient to Western media companies while paying little attention to the quality of local systems for content access. Yet, some instruments only have the capacity to support access to censored sites via personal computers rather than through the increasingly useful hand-held gadgets. Conclusion Internet censorship in China is a serious social and political problem that hinders the smooth flow of information among the citizens as well as across the world. Chinese are technically gagged because their use of instant messaging services is censored. Generating individual content among the citizens is also massively controlled by the government that is scared of potential political movement which may upset the power base as it happened in Philippines. The international community should, therefore, pile more pressure on China to lift the bans of vital news websites, followed by freedom of Yahoo and Google e-mail services and eventually by the freedom of the social media. This way, the US-China relations would remain fine, rather than creating counter-measures whose impacts on user privacy and International relations between the two major economies would be difficult to manage. Works Cited Guo, Steve and Feng, Guangchao. Understanding Support for Internet Censorship in China: An Elaboration of the Theory of Reasoned Action. Journal of Chinese Political Science, 17.1 (2012): 33-52. Jiang, Ying. Cyber-nationalism in China: Challenging Western Media Portrayals of Internet Censorship in China. Adelaide: University of Adelaide Press, 2012. Shirky, Clay. “The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change.” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2011. Web. 5 Mar. 2015. < http://www.foreignaffairs.com/> Read More