85% of Chinese Citizens Like Internet Censorship 609
cynagh0st writes "A Pew Internet & American Life Project report indicates that of an overwhelming majority of Chinese people that believed the Internet should be 'managed or controlled,' 85% want the government to do this managing. This is resulting from surveys on Internet use over the last seven years in China. 'The survey findings discussed here, drawn from a broad-based sample of urban Chinese Internet users and non-users alike, indicate a degree of comfort and even approval of the notion that the government authorities should control and manage the content available on the Internet.' The report goes further into describing the divide in perspective between China and Western Nations on the matter and discusses the PRC's justifications for Internet control."
the other 15% (Score:5, Insightful)
Look! (Score:4, Insightful)
Real News (Score:4, Insightful)
Accurate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shocking~ (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm shocked I tells ya, shocked~
Skewed results (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Afraid to answer anything "anonymously" as they know better.
2. Afraid to answer anything other than what they think the State wants them to say (see #1).
3. Are so ingrained in the sheep mentality that they just don't know any better.
4. Are just like Americans and don't really care but don't lie about it.
Riiiiiiiiiight.... (Score:2, Insightful)
For the common good.
If you gave the same survey in the US or UK... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it might me much higher than most Slashdotters would believe.
What would you say? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get the answer wrong now will you.
Censor child porn, please (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't skewed voting... its skewed teaching. (Score:5, Insightful)
so... what about children raised in a red china communism 'I love the government' household?
To add to that problem, how can 85% of chinese vote for an option they've never experienced - if they are living 'well' enough, by their standards, and don't know differently, then why would they change?
Hmm, (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone wants the government to be their censorship tool. The government will happily censor stuff. It's just various groups want different things censored and want to be allowed to view their chosen content.
Unless it's a unanimous 100%, (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no majority large enough that stripping even one person of their rights against their will is justified.
Re:the other 15% (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not what they were asked because the Chinese government did not approve of the question. They were asked if they approved of government control. The two are very different, especially in a socialist state where the government controls everything.
Issues. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even on Liberal anti-censorship slashdot. Oposing view points are often quickly modded down just because people don't want agree with it or beleave it to be true. While it is not censorship in true sience of the word, it is a way for the moderators to say Hey I don't want people reading this, and if they do I don't want them to think it is a valad argument.
People are humans and humans feel threntoned by different ideas then their own, it doesn't matter if you have just a GED or a PHD you will feel threantoned by different ideas. When people feel threntoned they will try to move to higher powers to prevent the threat.
Is it really that big of a divide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Skewed results (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder if we're not looking at this with cultural filters, though. It could well be that the Chinese have a mindset that makes government control work where it has failed in the West.
Its not always where you live (Score:5, Insightful)
Take voting in the DNC primary, by all accounts and polls one candidate should be getting even more votes than they are getting yet once behind the privacy of the voting booth they don't get them.
Some questions make people uncomfortable whether their freedom is in jeopardy or not. It is also instinctive in some people to give the answer that they believe the questioner wants regardless if its a true one.
While I do agree China is a special case I have seen friends answer complete strangers in what I knew wasn't what they believed but instead what they wanted the questioner to believe.
How different are we? (Score:5, Insightful)
Including child pornography, illegal material, the anarchist cookbook, DeCSS, Nazi propaganda sites, etc?
The level of censorship in China is obviously leaps and bounds beyond anything else in the world, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. but I think that people overestimate the meaning of free speech to the average citizen. As long as it doesn't bother them, most people don't have any problems whatsoever when extremists, deviants, weirdos, and the like are censored, as long as it doesn't directly concern them and the stuff they're interested.
The majority of people in China are not interested in politics, both traditionally, and because it's been a bad idea to be involved in politics for the last 50 years. So if they don't read Dalai Lama's speeches, Japanese version of history, or Germany's take on political freedom in China, they don't particularly care, as they're not interested in it in the first place.
Even here, people clap happily as the FBI and similar agencies in Europe freely read our emails, search our computers, confiscate hardware, all in the name of counter-terrorism. Make a Pew poll in Europe and let's see how many average people have a problem with this?
The situation in China is obviously far worse, but instead of patting ourselves on the back and going on about evil Chinese and how much better we are, it would be wise to draw some parallels.
I do not believe polls from communist countries (Score:5, Insightful)
A simple solution... Test question, maybe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Question 2. Do you want us to have the power to know what you buy online, what your daughter looks like in a bikini, and read the email you sent to your working-away-from-home husband (Paul) with that photo of you(?) in the black and scarlet red corset (and not much else)?
If you answered differently to both of those questions, your opinion is not valid for this survey.
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Stup, ungrammatical headline (Score:3, Insightful)
What semi-literate posted that?
Anyway, the summary is misleading as well as poorly drafted. If you read TFA, it's not a simple survey about "Censorship: good or bad?", it was about the perils of the Internet, and whether the government should protect users from porn, stalkers, malware, fraud. Put in those terms, you'd get similar answers anywhere. And of course, Chinese are not stupid. Those that DO have misgivings about government controls are exactly the people who suspect that every word they write is monitored.
Re:Real News (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the report. (Score:5, Insightful)
Guo said that the explanation for this increase probably lies in the spate of widely publicized incidents of fraud, blackmail, sensationalism, and other abuse of Chinese citizens via the internet. The Chinese word used for "politics" in this survey, zhengzhi, is not confined simply to political rights or competition for political control but may be understood to include larger questions of public morality and social values.
Pretty damn interesting, actually.
Re:Shocking~ (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean people that spend all their life being managed and controlled want the internet to be managed and controlled?
This is one manifestation of a larger question: how realistic is it to assume that a society that is quickly growing richer wants to rock the boat that has raised their living conditions? It always seemed naive to assume that a richer China would necessarily demand more freedoms. When you consider the effort and sacrifices required to overcome the odds in securing a middle class lifestyle in China today it seems preposterous to assume that these very same people are somehow going to form the vanguard demanding change. Most of these people aren't going to give up their comfortable high rises or prized automobiles for anything or anyone. This may change in time but that time is a long ways away.
Order does have an appeal (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless they are older than 65... (Score:5, Insightful)
Modding is not censorship (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh please. Stop this. Seriously. This gets regularly trotted out by people who have no concept of what censorship actually is. Do you know who actually does the "censoring" in Slashdot? You do. You, by setting your preferences to filter out comments under a certain threshold, you remove someone's ability to be read. As a result, you're the censor on slashdot. Not CowboyNeal, not the moderators, but you - and you alone. So stop blaming others for your actions.
Not to mention that telling others that an opinion is worthless is not the same as censoring. Sometimes, I wish people would spend some time in a country that actually does censor speech, so that they understand the difference. Censoring speech: someone breaks your fingers or throws you in the slammer for propagating illegal/unwanted opinions. Moderating: a mark that tells others "Warning - stupid person talking."
Normally, confusing the two is a sign that the person is 13 and hasn't gotten to political science in high school yet, but that'd make your UID too low. I can only assume you're just confused.
I also have no idea how you managed to misspell "threatened" like that.
Re:If you gave the same survey in the US or UK... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think the government should step in to censor internet traffic in order to prevent the dissemination of dangerous materials? (For example, political dissent, unsanctioned scientific theories, etc.)
Even the same question, if you put someone in the mood to say yes or no, could yield wildly different results.
Re:Shocking~ (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Real News (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the other 15% (Score:5, Insightful)
That is kinda like asking Americans if they think terrorism should be fought, and if so should it be done by the US DoD.
It's a loaded question designed to get a specific answer from a select group.
Re:the other 15% (Score:3, Insightful)
My government (I voted for the other guy, but that's my tough luck), against whom I protest when I think they're wrong, does bad things. Therefore I (who do not agree with the things my government does) have no moral right to protest against what your government does.
Yup, that works.
85% thought the government was conducting the poll (Score:3, Insightful)
If you live in a totalitarian dictatorship and your phone rings and someone says, "I'm conducting a poll for the blah blah blah organization that you've never hear of before, do you think our glorious leader is a really great guy or do you want needles under your fingernails?" How do you answer?
In a place where people legitimately fear speaking the truth, all polls are biased.
Re:the other 15% (Score:2, Insightful)
Socialism does not conflict with ideas of democracy and freedom and coexists well with them. Socialism can actually be a part of a vibrant, free democratic society, and one that recognises human rights such as free speech.
Socialism does not necessarily mean centralisation either, especially not to any greater degree than the US economy has been centralised, in fact it decentralises control via democratic control of the people of corporations. Socialism basically extends democracy into the economic realm.
Socialism can also be implemented in a competitive atmosphere where you can have completely independant democratic corporations competing with each other in the same markets, so it does not mean a centralisation of control of economy into a central organisation. The essential component of socialism is that all large economic structure should be controlled for and by the people, and that can include multiple democratic companies existing and competing in the same markets. The idea already exists in many areas of the US economy with employee owned corporations, which is a form of socialism.
Socialism also requires an extensive protections of human rights including free speech and human rights. Personal property rights are also important too and co-exist with socialism, the idea is that large scale economic structures and large aggregations of production assets should be democratically controlled, but that personal property rights should be respected, that people have a right to own a home and other personal effects, and small businesees as well. Many socialist proposals require democratisation of the corporation after it reaches a certain size, but small mom and pop businesses would be completely privately owned.
Socialism does not also mean a merging of government and economic corporations, the two can remain independant entities, although both are democratically controlled.
You might call Sweden or Norway socialist (to an extant) but the term is no way to accurate to describe China. China is democratic or socialist in name only, as the country routinely violates the right of its peoples for the benefit of an elite government, has terrible human record, and highly flawed or nonexistant democracy.
Re:makes perfect sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Skewed results (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems rather insulting to me to assume that because someone thinks differently from you they must either have been coerced or just be dumb. Sure, either of those is possible, but so is the option that they just like things a particular way.
Re:BAD MOD (insightful) (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFY. Everyone in Gitmo is an innocent man according to our laws.
Re:BAD MOD (insightful) (Score:3, Insightful)
Like I said, we can debate the wisdom and legality of Gitmo all day long. Personally I want to see it closed down ASAP and those within given every bit of due process that I'm entitled to as an American citizen.
None of that changes the fact that the GP was a blatant troll designed to stir up a flamefest though.
Re:Real News (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, hell, that's not just China - 90% of America thinks that way, and 50% of Slashdot thinks that way if you bring up the right "think of the children" sort of censorship.
Re:the other 15% (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think it's completely fair to compare the incarceration rates of China and the USA without adding in all the people they execute in China.
As a side point, our prison population would be much smaller if 1) drugs (especially marijuana) were legalized or decriminalized, so that prison was only reserved for violent offenders and serious white-collar offenders (fraud, embezzlement, etc.), and 2) we didn't have the enormous illegal immigration problem we have--much of Mexico's population is in our prison system rather than their own. China probably doesn't have a big illegal immigration problem, but as far as I know they're at least as tough on drugs as we are, so they probably have drug offenders in prison as well, making that point not a valid difference between the two.
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It isn't skewed voting... its skewed teaching. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Real News (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Modding is not censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
One is the government-forbids-publication kind. That's what we usually associate with the word. That's what the eastern european and russian communist countries tried.
But the other kind is the drown-in-the-noise kind. That kind is very active in the west. Unpopular political decisions are regularily scheduled to be just prior to some big media event (superbowl or whatever) so that they get drowned out. Some of the most successful politicians have extremely close ties to the media so they can request a specific amount of media coverage "between friends". An example: Germany's long-time chanellor Kohl had a huge problem years ago regarding illegal money he collected for his party. He probably should've gone to jail, though I don't know the legal details. Surprisingly little media coverage, even though it was the largest affair of its kind ever in western Germany's history. This week, he married again (his first wife died a couple years ago). It was a very small affair. Very small. He didn't even invite his sons. He did invite the two most influential figures of Germany's media industry.
Coincidence? Your call. But if you think that media in the west is entirely neutral, unbiased and reports everything they should, then I have a few bridges for sale.
Re:the other 15% (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since only Congress may pass laws which have any influence, and since Congress is forbidden to stifle free speech according to the First Amendment, the government has no authority in limiting what a person says. Just remember the old adage "actions speak louder than words" and you'll realize that stifling free speech is only a method of controlling how a person thinks. I think the idea of murder is quite undesirable, but I should be free to talk about the mass slaughter of lawyers all I want.
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:5, Insightful)
bad logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know how many civil rights violations that happen in China every day? Do you know how many people have been forced out of their homes because the government wanted a new office complex? Do you know how many people are shuttled away to prison (or to their deaths) for saying the wrong thing in public, or for a petty crime?
The Chinese can trust their government to do one thing: Fuck it's citizens.
Huge populations of Chinese live in poverty. No chance for reparation either - because they don't vote, they have no say in their government..
Don't even say "works for the vast majority" of the Chinese. It fucking doesn't. Just because a few protesters were out there doesn't mean the Chinese love their system.
The problem is, too many of them know no different, and the Government makes sure it stays that way.
Just because something is different doesn't mean I have to accept it. "Western" governments are BETTER, and I have no problem saying that.
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the other 15% (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:2, Insightful)
Also in the news (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:2, Insightful)
Speech that is 'likely to incite imminent unlawful action' is the current Supreme Court standard.
If your t-shirt is sufficiently offensive to provoke a physical response from a 'typical' person, you can't hide behind the Constitution.
The First Amendment lets you say what you want, but it does let you force people to listen. When you cross the line to forcing your audience's attention by shocking them, you lose your Constitutional protection.
Re:the other 15% (Score:4, Insightful)
No, the military should not be doing it.
It has worked awfully well.
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:1, Insightful)
Students decided a school board ruling to ban black colored t-shirts with evil rock and roll band themes was unacceptable and every student took part in a protest via sit-out in the cafe for much of the day and refusing to go to class.
You seem to believe schools are not "free speech zones." I myself, think that is exactly what a school should be. I value children being allowed to develop critical thinking skills as opposed to being molded into the "good american" mindless consumer machines so popular in today's society. Society likes those results because the politicians and the rulers of our country dont want citizens capable of critical thought. They just want docile systems who will continue to allow themselves to be fucked every day with a smile on their face.
Students have the same rights as any other individual to speak their mind and express themselves. Denying them that just feeds an already disgusting and corrupt educational system. These kids should be learning to think on their own and develop their own ideas on how the world should work.
You seem to desire a continuation of the control and domination over young mind. May I ask, do you work in the public school system?
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:3, Insightful)
So my speech is controlled by what you might do?
If your t-shirt is sufficiently offensive to provoke a physical response from a 'typical' person, you can't hide behind the Constitution.
So what is a 'typical' person? Please define. I can say I can't think of any adult I know (excluding childhood of course) who would physically attack another over a t-shirt, I would argue attacking someone over a t-shirt is by definition not 'typical'.
You arguments have more holes than swiss cheese.
Do you realize in some places in this world, if a woman were to show her face in public, she would be attacked? If that place were part of our country, would it be OK then? I mean the 'typical' people in her area are attacking her. It must be OK. She shouldn't have shown her face, she has no right! Cover up woman!
P.S. Amusingly, my CAPTCHA is "armament", makes me think of the next amendment
Re:Unless they are older than 65... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think your copy is broken.