Kudos to Kai Pan for all the work he did in laying out his argument. The winner, however, is Chinayouren.

Bastard! *shakes fist*

Richard also summarizes:

“Freedom of choice” sounds wonderful. It sounds a little less wonderful when it’s “freedom of manipulated choice.”

…except the thrust of my argument is that “no choice and no freedom” sounds a whole lot less wonderful than “freedom of manipulated choice”.

Fortunately, Richard also left a comment going into detail with his disagreement, which I’ll quote below and respond to. Before doing so, I do want to state very plainly that I’ve been a fan of The Peking Duck for a long time. I usually agree with Richard’s point of view and I generally respect him, even if we have and have had some very strong disagreements (mostly over rhetoric).

Here we go with Richard’s comment:

I have to disagree. First, since the results are manipulated and the deck well stacked, it won’t leave such a terrible void in most Chinese people’s lives.

Agree it won’t leave such a “terrible void” in “most” Chinese lives, just the market share of Chinese internet users Google commanded, which I personally feel is a significant amount of people. I’m worried for those people and any Chinese netizen that could’ve been a future Google convert. Unfortunately, I really don’t think many people are thinking much about them or what they want.

The market will fill that void soon enough if it’s so gaping.

I agree the market will fill it if it’s so gaping. Yet given how “well stacked” the deck is, I personally feel Google is better equipped and positioned to deliver more to the Chinese internet user even in such a hostile, unfair, stacked-deck environment. It’s not that I don’t expect someone to fill the void, it’s that I have more confidence in Google doing it better and thus offering significantly more value to the Chinese netizen.

Second, if google does indeed end up leaving China (a big if) it will do far more than merely cause Westerners some brief self-satisfaction. It will create a serious dilemma for other companies doing business with China and will force the world to rethink what it means to cooperate with China.

I agree that Google leaving China will do more than just give some Westerners some brief self-satisfaction. I just don’t think it’ll result in as much dilemma and rethinking Richard thinks it will. Foreign companies have been working in and with China long before Google agreed to self-censorship. I respectfully think Richard is overestimating the relevance of Google’s departure to the vast majority of industries and businesses. I’m not saying it won’t cause ripple effects. It will. I just don’t think it’s going to be as revolutionary in the business world as Richard (and many other journalists, commentators, and pundits) think it will be.

Richard also says Google leaving China is “a big if”. I actually suspect likewise, but right now we still have Google saying it is going to uncensor Google.cn, possibly to probably playing a game of chicken with the Chinese government censors, seeing who will flinch first. If and when Google uncensors Google.cn, I’m curious as to what people, especially Richard, think will happen next. Will it get blocked but Google.com won’t? Or will it get blocked and then so will Google.com? We’re all making educated and reasoned predictions here, but I’m trying to figure out what will happen in the context of how it hurts the Chinese internet users.

I’m not saying that these are necessarily good things, but they would almost certainly happen. It would create all sorts of issues among China’s educated classes, whose support China counts on.

I agree that Google’s departure will create issues among China’s educated classes. Unfortunately, I think they can be mollified so long as the most practical tools Google offers, that may be so integrated into their professional lives so much that it would be a monumentally painful loss if they could not longer access and use them, remains accessible. And this wouldn’t be web search. This would be Google Apps like GMail, Google Docs, etc.

There would have to be considerable loss of face for China as well, though it’s hard to say how much they care about that.

I agree that there will be a considerable loss of face for China. But is that what we’re after? To embarrass China? To make it lose face? Without a question, I believe China has done many–too many–shameful and embarrassing things. It deserves what it gets. But this isn’t China forcing Google to leave. It’s Google forcing China to force it to leave by reneging on an agreement. The only argument against that is to say China is now breaking its part of the agreement and making it so uncomfortable for Google that Google has to leave, which I can accept if Google tells us just what it is. Until then, it’s more like a girlfriend threatening to leave until she gets something her boyfriend isn’t willing to give but she previously was fine with. Again, she’s free to change her mind, but what about their pooch (the Chinese internet users)? What happens to the dog?

So while it would be a shame for the Chinese who use google to be deprived of a choice, no matter how manipulated and bastardized it may be, the greater effect would be on China’s reputation both among its own citizens and among the global community China has been eagerly courting. It would be a painful step backwards. Compared to this full-frontal assault on China’s reputation, the “self-satisfaction” that may be felt by some Westerners can only be described as trivial.

I’m not comfortable with the attitude of using this as a “full-frontal assault” on China’s reputation. I think there’s a huge amount of “self-satisfaction” underpinning even the desire to do so. It’s retribution for all perceived slights, disagreements, and frustrations. I understand the inevitability, even necessity, of geo-political hardball, but cheering this on over how much face China is going to lose and how much trouble it will cause the Chinese government amongst not just the international community but also its own people is a little disturbing. This is the attitude that fuels China’s argument that foreigners are trying to destabilize it, trying to keep it down.

That might be playing into China’s hand.

Post from: CN Reviews

Google Leaving China Will Not Be A Revolution, Televised Or Not

The most amusing thing in the Google crisis is all the commentators crying about the loss of Google.cn and its negative consequences for the freedom of the Chinese.

No.

Wrong.

At least for this English-language China blogger.

I don’t believe that a censored Google.cn is far better than no Google.cn, much less cry about it.

I believe that Google in China is better than no Google in China. I cry about the loss of Google in China and its negative consequences for the freedom of the Chinese. It isn’t about the loss of Google.cn itself. There are several reasons, which I’ll get to in a second.

Evil is Search Engine Manipulation with Google’s name on it

But first, Uln’s argument is that the loss of Google.cn is a good thing for Chinese users because Google.cn engages in search engine manipulation (SEM). In other words, while the “engine” underneath Google.cn is the same as Google.com, the results shown are different, manipulated under agreement with the Chinese government censors to hide results the Chinese government finds objectionable and doesn’t want its populace to see. An internet user in China using Google.com would be able to see all the results but might get blocked when he or she tries to click on a result that leads to a blocked website. The user would be reminded of the government’s censorship. However, an internet user in China using Google.cn would see only manipulated results, effectively hiding both the information and the censorship. That Google.cn explicitly notifies users when results are manipulated is dismissed by Uln as being largely inconsequential because users begin to ignore it or it is often placed below the list of results.

These are all valid criticisms of Google.cn and, by extension, Google itself. Uln argues that this compromises the integrity of the Google brand name and value proposition (do no evil, we provide information, etc.) thereby betraying the trust of its Chinese users who see the Google name slapped on Google.cn as meaning something about the information Google.cn will provide. Uln writes:

When you type a “sensitive” term and G.cn removes all the results except the People’s Daily and Xinhua, Google’s responsibility is double: not only it supports those often objectible views on the first page, but it also implicitly states that it is the ONLY opinion existing in the World.

And the worse is, the Chinese who believed that would be right to do so, because Google’s well known principles clearly specify their commitment to give all the information available  in a democratic way.

G.cn is a shame for Google and it is probably the single most evil page on the Chinese internet (because it manipulates just like Baidu, but lends the brand name of Google to the manipulation).

But is a loss of Google.cn a good thing?

No.

Google.cn is Choice

Google.cn represents choice. It gives Chinese internet users another option for searching the web other than Baidu. Yes, there is Yahoo and there is Bing but neither of them are remotely as big as Google.cn, even if Google.cn is second place to Baidu. It gives Chinese internet users access to Google’s internet indexing and search methodology and algorithms. Even as Google.cn suffers the same manipulation of potentially displayed search results as Baidu, it provides different ordering and ranking of displayed search results.

This different ordering and ranking is precisely one of the main reasons why Google beat Yahoo and other search engines (MSN Search, Ask.com, etc.) elsewhere in the world. Google’s search engine returned better sorted and more relevant search results to users. Why continue finding your answers in the 3rd or 5th Yahoo search result when Google gave it to you in its first result? People started using Google because it delivered what they were looking for more efficiently.

That’s what a good search engine is about, providing the best search results for any given user inputted query, and Google is a good search engine.

Yes, having incomplete search results due to government-mandated self-censorship is bad, but Chinese users are not searching for potentially censored or blocked material all day long on Google.cn. They, you know, use it to do other fairly mundane things that don’t get the Chinese government censors’ panties in a twist. They look up news on celebrities, research product information, find the latest scores to last night’s NBA game, etc. etc. etc. Google.cn provides a valuable service to its users in China because it still helps them find the information they are looking for using qualitatively different and valuable methodology and algorithms than Baidu.

Google.cn gives Chinese internet users a choice.

Choice is freedom.

Losing Google.cn is a loss of choice.

Less choice is less freedom.

Therefore, loss of Google.cn is arguably a negative consequence for the freedom of the Chinese. It may even be something worth crying about.

The reason why “a censored google.cn is better than no google.cn” is exactly this. Google.cn still provides different results of value in the vast majority of Chinese web searches. This was very much part of the whole utilitarian argument that Google gave for agreeing to market and censor Google.cn in the first place. Even with the same scrubbed search results as Baidu, Google still has some competitive advantage worth offering to Chinese netizens through Google.cn.

No, the competitive advantage isn't only Chinese-specific Google logos.

Without Google.cn, its users will switch to Google.com, which is better anyway

Uln argues that…

Google.com is a Search Engine that is:

1- Exactly as good quality as Google.cn (identical index)
2- Without the manipulation of Google.cn
3- AND much less censored than Google.cn

…which is definitely true.

So, like Uln, some people may be asking why Chinese users use the self-censored Google.cn instead of the freely accessible Google.com? Uln answers:

And the only reason why Chinese don’t use it is that Google.cn sounds more Chinese to them, and they just don’t care enough.

No, it isn’t because Google.cn sounds more Chinese to them, it is because Google.cn is more Chinese to them.

I don’t think there’s enough emphasis given to display language being a major reason why people prefer Google.cn over Google.com. The vast majority of Chinese internet users instantly feel intimidated and overwhelmed by any website that is not written in Chinese. This is a big reason why Chinese people say “Google.cn is for the Chinese”. We can’t underestimate the importance of first impressions.

“But you can change the interface language of Google.com to Simplified Chinese…”

Never underestimate the importance of first impressions.

Hell, people even cite “google” being hard to spell for Chinese people as being a reason why Google is behind Baidu. Ever wonder why Google owns g.cn?

I feel there’s a tenuous compromise between the CCP censors and Google right now that allows Google.com to remain freely accessible despite it not providing the same manipulated search results as Google.cn. This is as long as the majority of Chinese internet users willingly head for Google.cn, as long as they see Google.cn as being tailored specifically for them, the Chinese. It’s like the GFW still allowing proxies to work so long as it achieves its mission with blocking the vast majority. The CCP information control scheme is not about preventing everyone from knowing certain things, it’s about preventing too many people from knowing certain things.

If Google.cn is no more and this leads former Google.cn users to simply migrate to Baidu, then maybe — just maybe — Google.com will remain freely accessible in China. However, if it results in too many former Google.cn users subsequently adopting and using Google.com, the CCP will indeed worry.

So a question then is how much will Google push the envelope with an unblocked Google.com. After all, Google will still have a business necessity and plan for capturing Chinese internet users, right? Even if Google does nothing to appeal to mainland Chinese users, leaving it the way it is, it could still get blocked if too many mainland users flock to it. If Google, however, intentionally seeks to make Google.com user-friendly enough to bring in substantial Chinese people to search and get its non-manipulated results, then it will be seen as a threat to the Chinese government’s efforts to control information and thus it will definitely face the possibility of being blocked outright.

And when that happens, Uln’s conclusion here…

Most probably the disappearance of G.cn will push the present G.cn users to switch to G.com, and the outcome will be increased freedom in the Chinese internet.

…will definitely look short-sighted and naive.

His argument isn’t hard to understand, though. Uln argues that this forced migration from a shut-down Google.cn to Google.com is a good thing because Google.com at least offers non-manipulated search results. Even if the Chinese users still can’t click through to the blocked websites due to the GFW, at least they can see and read the search result excerpts and, more importantly, know that such information exists out there. They would at least be aware of the existence of those dissenters and dissenting opinions that the Chinese government ideally doesn’t even want them to be aware of. That’s more freedom, right? That’s good, right?

That’s more freedom, right? That’s good, right?

Yeah, that’s good. It’s better than nothing.

Yeah, except until the Chinese government realizes that, blocks Google.com, and it indeed becomes nothing.

Nothing for the Chinese internet user. No Google.cn, no Google.com, no Google search methodology and algorithms. Only Baidu.

No choice.

No freedom.

Of course, Uln acknowledges such near the end of his post:

On the other hand, some commenters are already saying that I am too optimistic, and that the CCP will quickly come to the same conclusion I have come and block Google.com.

Without Google.com, the Chinese will learn of the Great Firewall and how to get around it, which is better anyway

But Uln continues:

The good news is that EVEN if they do block Google.com, the situation will still be better than today. The Chinese Google users will start to miss the G, and they will start to use web proxies to access Google.com, expanding their use and making the Chinese net population more conscious of the GFW and of the ways to cross it.

I’m not so sold on that situation still being better than the situation today. It is extremely optimistic, almost unreasonably so, to think a blocking of Google.com will by itself, or through the former Google users, make the general Chinese internet populace more conscious of the GFW and of the tools that could be used to cross it. Remember, most of the Chinese internet doesn’t use Google. It wouldn’t be a loss for most Chinese netizens because it wouldn’t directly affect their internet lives. If they aren’t inconvenienced in a practical manner, how can we expect a meaningful expansion of GFW-consciousness or use of GFW-circumventing tools?

Are we really hoping former Google.cn and then Google.com Chinese users are going to be freedom fighters? That they’ll become internet freedom and anti-censorship activists, handing out information on proxies and VPNs to the masses, enlightening them all?

For web searches, Baidu is the easy alternative. The one stickiness point will be Google productivity tools like Google Apps and, most notably, GMail. It will probably be easier to use a proxy or VPN than to accept losing one’s e-mail account, and this is definitely more so for companies and organizations. Yes, we’ll get a lot of these people but they’re likely and already plenty aware of the GFW, of proxies and VPNs. The real coup is not in these people expanding their use of proxies and VPNs or hoping they’ll help the general Chinese net population become “more conscious of the GFW and of the ways to cross it”, it is in them being inconvenienced so much that they demand the government unblock Google.com.

Yet, even then, it may only go as far as so they can use their productivity tools, not necessarily Google’s web search.

So where’s the “increased freedom in the Chinese internet” in that?

How is that situation really better than now?

Because a few more people will learn about the GFW and fewer still will bother to find out how to use proxies and VPNs? All this at the expense of broader daily practical choice and productivity for all the existing Chinese Google users and future would-be Google converts?

Some people surely see this trade-off as being worth-it, as being acceptable, as being desirable.

Me? I’m not so sure.

Why Google.cn is Evil and should leave China

That’s the title of Uln’s post.

It’s also a straw man.

This was never about whether or not Google.cn would or should leave China. It was about whether or not Google would or should leave China. I hope everyone caught onto the difference from the beginning. Everything is hinging on whether or not Google.cn is what allows Google, and also Google.com, to remain in China. We cannot approach answering this question without considering Google being blocked from China entirely if it doesn’t play ball with the Chinese government on Google.cn. If Google refuses to play ball on Google.cn, by uncensoring it or just shutting it down, we have to consider what may happen to Google.com. We should even expect the worst. In fact, that’s what we do best when it comes to Chinese government censorship, right? Why are we even entertaining that Google.com will remain unscathed and freely accessible in mainland China at all?

I’m not going to say there are only two possibilities. Life can surprise us at times. But requiring Google to censor its Google.cn search results was always, at heart, about the Chinese government’s insecurities with letting its citizens know too much information it fears will bring chaos to their order. It was not about dicking with Google just because it could. How reasonable is it to even suggest that access to an unrestricted Google.com can persist in mainland China, behind the Great Firewall, without a restricted Google.cn running cover?

Uln declares:

In fact, I maintain that Google.cn is the most evil product to ever have existed in the Chinese internet, and the World will be a better place without it.

No, I strongly disagree. I think it offered Chinese internet users valuable choice in most practical matters. Yes, I wish it could do so without manipulated search results but life is not black and white and sometimes we have to make the best of what we can control. You have to be in a game to win it.

No, I don’t think “the World” will be a better place without Google.cn. I think certain people in “the World” will rejoice for about a week and then continue on living their merry lives, using Google as they always have, and not really care one way or another that nearly 400 million internet users in China no longer have a user-friendly version of Google at their disposal. So no, “the World” will not be a better place, just temporarily more smug.

China, on the other hand, will definitely be a worse place without it and Chinese internet users will definitely be worse off for it.

Recommended Reading:

• “Google China cyber espionage saga” from ZDNet’s Zero Day (h/t ESWN)

Post from: CN Reviews

Google In China Is Better Than No Google In China

I’ll first summarize Kaiser’s comments, and then share my own reactions and feelings below.  I do want to quickly say that this centripetal force of the Internet is the opposite of what I had in mind when I started CNReviews in 2007.  I expected that smart use of  internet media, even on a small niche blog like CNReviews, could create awareness and attention far greater than any person-to-person effort.  But the seeds planted by online outlets like Danwei, ESWN, Global Voices Online, Shanghaiist, even chinaSMACK, have not resulted in a great harvest of ongoing interest and understanding in China among Western readers, and instead remain a relatively small niche community serving Chinese expats and those with pre-existing interest in China.  And yes, the comment threads are indeed full of unthinking China-bashers, unthinking China defenders, self-important egomaniacs, and even sock puppets (and the China “experts” that hold them).

Meanwhile, in the real world, we continue to live apart (in geography and in mindset) as the dynamics of global capitalism increasingly tie us together.

Introduction: Kaiser Kuo

Kaiser Kuo (Twitter) moved to China in 1996 and is a rock musician in a band Chunqiu, writer, journalist, and speaker.   He most recently served as director of digital strategy for Ogilvy Digital China, where he wrote at the (now defunct) blog Ogilvy China Digital Watch.  In my opinion, he is one of the most articulate thinkers and writers about how internet and technology is shaping the most important bilateral relationship in the world today: US-China.

Will online relationships boil down to Red Guards vs. Rednecks?

Kaiser spoke on the growing awareness of the chasm between Chinese and Westerners thanks to increasing interconnectedness on the internet.  He gave a longer speech (video, 78 min)  at the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, entitled “Shouting across the Chasm.”  His TedX speech was a shorter version but sounded the same themes (I will link to it when it is available).  Bob Page, at The Mercury Brief, did an exceptional job summarizing the speech.  The post, and the speech was picked up by numerous esteemed China blogs including China Herald, Useless Tree, China Digital Times, ChinaGeeks, Danwei, and Peking Duck.  Plenty of discussions have happened already around this speech.

Earthquakes happen when pressure builds up under the surface

By and large, US-China relations at a government to government level have been as healthy as it ever has been.  Last summer, during the Beijing Olympics, I recall watching George W. Bush enjoying the autumn days of his Presidency watching the US Women’s Volleyball team and thinking that China was one of the one bright spots of the presidency of George the Younger.  I (who never had a good thing to say about George W) even stuck my neck out and wrote about George Bush’s Uncharacteristically Nuanced Approach toward US-China Relations.  With Obama’s arrival 11/16 in Shanghai on his first trip to China as President (see itinerary on ForeignPolicy.com), a fairly functional relationship exists between governments.

But under the surface, according to Kaiser, at a people-to-people level, “a real crisis exists, and relations between Chinese and Anglophone Westerners are at a real low.”  To use the analogy of an earthquake, the surface looks calm, but the invisible shifting of the techtonic plates.

In the past, contact between Chinese and Americans “took place at small scale and with intermediation” often in “painfully polite settings.”  Bob Page summarized Kaiser’s contrast of the past with the present in his blog post:

“For most of the 30 years since China’s reforms began, Chinese and American civilians rarely met face-to-face in significant numbers,” Kuo says. “When encounters did take place, they were typically stage-managed events among civil, often painfully polite participants in sister city arrangements, trade delegations and cultural exchanges.

“In March 2008, in the run-up to the Olympic Games, Chinese people were curious about what the world would say about them…. But they were blindsided by negative English-language reporting. While hundreds of millions of Chinese had risen out of poverty, while the Chinese economy had grown by 10 percent annually for nearly three continuous decades, while China’s biggest cities had become forests of skyscrapers with vibrant cultural scenes, none of this was deemed newsworthy by Western news media….

“Instead, Chinese and Americans went after each other in the comment sections of news stories, blog posts, YouTube, forums and boards in an escalating people-to-people brawl that continues to this day. They fight over a litany of issues: Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen, trade, Internet censorship, religious freedom, Myanmar, Darfur, sanctions on Iran, carbon emissions, and so on. The first real people-to-people encounter between the world’s reigning and rising superpowers did not bode well.

What changed?  In short, English literacy in China, and the internet.  “What has happened since is two things.  One, has been the ubiquity of English language education in secondary schools in China, and the other thing that has happened is the stupendous rise of the Internet.” said Kaiser.  “In 1999, there were only 8 mm people on the Internet. Fast forward to today, we have 338 mm Internet users (in China) and in the course of 10 years, have achieved 94% penetration of broadband….this has made it possible for unmediated, large scale interaction with Westerners and Chinese.”

In this new media landscape, government-to-government relations are on the surface, while a hot, turbulent sub-surface of popular opinion continues a hidden techtonic shift.  What if a crisis were to happen?  How could popular opinion shape and limit government’s response?

Welcome to the Internet:  where your one-sided beliefs are reinforced by others just like you

Even within the West, with its tradition of free press and free speech, we see how the Internet has caused us to self-segregate into communities of similar interest and political leaning.  From Bob Page’s post:

But this is the Internet we’re talking about, which many of us believed would bring down barriers and usher in the death of distance, the good times of a global village. Instead, it has made us more fractured and tribal…. It’s also true within America, where nowadays you only read the political blogs and viewpoints of those who happen to be on your side of the political aisle.

We read what we want to read, according to Kaiser.  Those on the left read Huffington Post and Talking Points Memo, and those on the right read “whatever wacko right wing website they read.”  (Its clear where Kaiser falls on the ideological divide).  The “kumbaya” factor of the Internet is, in fact, more dead than alive.

In China, the internet “has historically been dismissed as greasy kids stuff” (e.g. internet games, internet cafes, entertainment) but is “also the emerging public sphere in Chinese life.  China has never had a public sphere for intellectuals to gather and discuss the issues of the day,” according to Kaiser.  As a result, the internet in China is extremely important for shaping popular opinion.  But the internet in China is no more enlightened than in the US.  In fact, at Chinese Blogger Conference 2008, Chinese blogger Ping Ke (平客 aka buchimifan) spoke on the need for greater rational online debate within the Chinese blogosphere.  And Roland Soong, in a speech prepared for Chinese Blogger Conference 2009 (see 1kg CNBloggerCon minisite and summary of event on GlobalTimes) and Blogfest Asia, shared the reasons why he doesn’t allow comments on the EastSouthWestNorth translation portal that he runs.  An excerpt:

I do not think it helps for me to facilitate this kind of exchange between “Red Guards versus Rednecks” (or “Chinese Fenqing (angry youth) PK Foreign Fenqing (angry youth)”).  I may want to communicate some information to people, but I am likely to encounter the kind of situation as described by Leung Man-tao (梁文道) in Southern Weekend:

在一篇一萬字的文章裏看見一句令我不滿的話，忘記剩下那部分吧，我要寫一篇兩萬字的回應來批判它。我為什麼要耐著性子看完 那篇東西呢？我為什麼要深入甚至同情地理會它的真正含義呢？它只不過是我用來表達自己的機會和藉口罷了。

In a 10,000 word essay, I came across one sentence that displeased me.  I forgot about the rest of that essay and I wrote a 20,000 word essay to criticize it.  Why should I bother to read the whole essay?  Why should I bother to delve into it or try to comprehend its true meaning?  It is merely an excuse and opportunity for me to express myself.

Indeed, I have come across someone who wrote: “I am not interested in the facts about what happened in Tibet, because I already know how to define the event.”  What is the point for providing information to people like that?  They are not interested in any information.  My own utility to them would be to provide the excuse and/or platform to rave and rant about their pre-established and immovable positions.

Spiraling toward bipolar disorder?  Toward a more resilient system of US-China relations

Unfortunately, the diagnosis of our condition is more painfully clear than the remedy.  Kaiser, blogger Roland Soong, journalist/professor Rebecca McKinnon and blogger Aimee Barnes have each shared some thoughts on how we can prevent the downward spiral that we won’t even recognize until something goes wrong.  I’ll caveat this by saying that these suggestions are in English for the English speaking audience.  Of course, there is just as much work to be done on the Chinese side, and supporting those who can influence Chinese opinion in a positive way is just as much part of the prescription of success.  It is very much a two-way relationship.  Here are Kaiser’s recommendations:

1. Cultivate personal knowledge – From Roland Soong’s post: “Knowledge is the first step. You can[not] talk about something unless you are knowledgeable about it. Why do you want to talk about that something? Because you think that the knowledge has changed your position. And that knowledge may also change your readers, especially those who form the subject of the discussion.”  Blogs are a great place to start.  For English-language readers, Kaiser mentioned several sources including Alltop China, CN Reviews, ChinaGeeks, Danwei (Danwei China mirror site) and ESWN. CNReviews had highlighted blogs that translate Chinese netizen comments and other blogs to watch in 2009.
2. Understand Chinese History – Accept the need to understand Chinese history.  Chinese current events are framed by a view of history held by elites.  Understand that view as best you can.  According to Kaiser, a place to start would be The Search for Modern China by Jonathan Spence.
3. Learn what Chinese people actually think when their defenses are down. The conversations taking place when it’s not believed ‘whitey’ is around are decidedly more nuanced.  Blogs that translate Chinese content (listed above) can be a starting point.

Rebecca MacKinnon wrote an open letter to Barack Obama advocating a people-to-people approach toward building relationships between Americans and Chinese.  I posted on an Aug 2009 conversation I had with Rebecca and excerpted from the original letter:

Just as you have used new technology to engage with the American electorate, your China policy can be greatly strengthened if you conduct a real conversation with the Chinese people. Listen as much as you talk; provide a much-needed platform for open discussion. The U.S. embassy in Beijing should build a Chinese-language website modeled after change.gov, focused not just on U.S.-China relations, but on the range of concerns and interests – from environment, to food safety, to factory safety standards, to education and real estate law — shared by ordinary Chinese and Americans. Some linguistically talented State Department employees should start blogging in Chinese. Open up the comments sections, see how the Chinese blogosphere responds, then respond to them in turn. Translate some of the Chinese conversation into English for Americans to read and react, then translate it back.

Perhaps the idea of open comments will just draw out “those shouting loudest on both sides…Red Guards and rednecks,” as Kaiser Kuo characterizes the internet.  I believe that more person-to-person efforts are complementary to and more important than an online approach.  This could potentially involve study abroad, educational tourism, volunteer tourism, sponsored events, cross-border events, and informal delegations.  The goal of online efforts should be to convert online connections into in-person connections, and take it out of the blogosphere and into the realm of real-world discussions.

Aimee Barnes comes up with a 5 point approach:

1. Including youth leaders and business influencers into the dialogue now hosted by academic and governmental elites
2. More support for business leaders in both countries to build bilateral relationships
3. More study of Mandarin among US kids and adults
4. Deeper understanding of China’s history and government among Western media
5. New “equal access” research institutions/think tanks that include more Chinese-born specialists

In my opinion, based on 2 years of following English-language Chinese blogs, mainstream media, and actively blogging on CN Reviews, I am more and more convinced that actual person-to-person contact, as opposed to online blogging and conversation, is the most important ingredient to building trust, relationships and increased understanding and mutual respect.  I suppose many of you would say “Duh, of course.”  But if we believe that the internet can be a force for evil (or divisiveness) we must also conclude that it can be a force for good (or improved mutual understanding).  In any case, the “genie can’t be put back in the box” and online discourse will continue on both sides of the Pacific.  But energy should be placed toward efforts that bring together business leaders and non-governmental leaders on issues that we both care about, and rely on material self interest as a mechanism for building bridges.  And a much heavier investment in person-to-person connections between leaders in all fields in China and US is necessary and cannot be replaced by the online discourse dominated by trolls, fenqing, panda-huggers, panda-bashers, Red Guards, and rednecks. In the meantime, your free speech is not guaranteed on the Internet, at least not on our blog.  You can go create your own blog if I don’t like what you have to say!

From written content, to community organizing

For people like Kaiser and Rebecca MacKinnon who are working on writing books, I feel a key metric of success is not just the number of books sold and the number of online references, but the number of influential people on both sides that engage in a deeper and more informed dialogue with the other side as a result of the book.  It is an exercise in community building and community organizing, rather than just the act of authorship.  The pen is mightier than the sword, but only in combination with eye-to-eye contact (or at least numerous meals and drinking together), and trust built over time.

Business partners, motivated by self-interest properly understood

In an article entitled “New Friction and Vast Agenda Awaits Obama on China Trip” in the Wall Street Journal, Ian Johnson highlights that the issues that require US-China coordination have exploded:

A decade ago, most issues discussed at China-U.S. summits were limited to three issues: human rights, nuclear nonproliferation and trade. Now, the list of topics has grown to include almost every problem facing the world, from clean energy and the war in Afghanistan to African development and fixing the world economy — all of which are expected to have a place in talks between Mr. Obama and his Chinese counterpart, President Hu Jintao.

“For the first time in the history of our relationship, global issues are at the top of the agenda,” says Kenneth Lieberthal, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington who was a special assistant on Asian affairs to former President Bill Clinton. “This is new territory for us.”

It is a change that analysts on both sides see as potentially problematic. Chinese officials and analysts note that the U.S. still has an arms and high-tech embargo on China — hardly something one does with a true partner, they say. “Obama wants us to become strategic partners or friends but we aren’t either of those,” says Yan Xuetong, a professor of international relations at Tsinghua University. “We are business partners who share material interests rather than common values.”

It is this last comment from Yan Xuetong that gives me hope and concern.  We indeed have significant material interests, from energy, environment, the monetary system…so lets start there.  With self-interest properly understood, we can build a more resilient global system between the US and China.

Lest you think that Kaiser is too distraught about our future, he claims to be optimistic about our future, and we recently had a great time on Oahu.  Here’s a picture:

I’m interested in your comments.  Even if you are a Red Guard or a Redneck!

Post from: CN Reviews

Rednecks, Red Guards & Trolls: Kaiser Kuo on US-China Online

What’s Richard angry about?

He’s angry at the people angry about the the Empire State Building, a New York City icon, commemorating the PRC’s anniversary by lighting itself up in red and yellow colors. For those of you trapped behind the Great Firewall in China, I’ve reprinted most of Richard’s comments below. If you use RSS, you can copy and paste The Peking Duck’s RSS feed address directly into your RSS reader to bypass the GFW.

China has done bad things, and it’s done good things, like all countries. China has its fair share of atrocities, injustices and a considerable legacy of repression and injustice. But China is not Nazi Germany, they are not a nation of deranged Maoists, and they happen to be one of the linchpins in the global economy that keeps America afloat. They happen to be moving in the right direction, despite some infuriating steps backwards. We all know the story, we all know the bad stuff and the good stuff.

So when I see Americans go insane over the Empire State Building turning red and yellow to mark the 60th anniversary of the PRC, I have to say it’s simply nuts. We recognize China, we trade with China, we work with China – our fates are tied together, perhaps inextricably. Seeing the outpouring of hate and paranoia from the right-wing blogs, while predictable. is a good reminder of the prejudices many in America bear toward our No. 1 trading partner, and of our ongoing inbred stupidity when it comes to scare words like “Red China.”

Here, Richard links to a Village Voice article reporting on some of the American bloggers going completely ape-shit over the news. He also quotes some of them more completely. The anti-Chinese comments on Village Voice responding to that article also rank right up there with the most retarded Chinese netizen comments chinaSMACK regularly finds and translates, a similarity I openly hope some foreigners remind themselves of before fashioning themselves superior by default.

Richard continues:

I know, the Chinese blogs and message boards aren’t always overflowing with nuanced, compassionate, thoughtful dialogue about the US, but really, this is absurd. The hypocrisy is beyond belief as these bloggers pound on their made-in-China keyboards.

I’m all for constructive criticism of any autocratic regime. I’m for calling China (and the US, etc.) out for their crimes and misdemeanors. But this is not only ridiculous when you consider how innocuous the actual event it – this hyperbolic, coordinated reacton is much more sinister than that. It is being used as a tacit attack on “Obama’s America,” as Rush Limbaugh has proudly called it. What these ignoramuses are saying has almost nothing to do with China, a country they know virtually nothing about. It is all about smearing Obama, because this is happening here, in “Obama’s America,” an America that encourages palling around with terrorists and coddling dictators and appeasing madmen, the new socialist communist fascist Muslim America.

…It’s embarrassing and it’s stupid. The PRC plays a vital role in America’s interests, it’s here to stay (at least throughout our lifetimes), it sucks in many ways but the extension of this courtesy, lighting up the Empire State Building, is not an act of appeasement or treason. This is diplomacy, whether it’s done by Bush or Obama. Grow up and get used to it.

Richard makes another good point here. Above and beyond the criticism of many Americans suffering from the same ignorance and hypocrisy that afflicts China’s worst hypernationalist fenqing, this is a veiled cheap shot against Obama’s administration. No, his administration isn’t beyond criticism, but the rhetorical tactic employed here is contemptible, a tactic based not on facts but on fears and misleading associations.

Speaking of fears and misleading associations…let’s go back and take a look at that AFP news report again:

NEW YORK — New York’s iconic Empire State Building will light up red and yellow Wednesday in honor of the 60th anniversary of communist China.

The Chinese consul, Peng Keyu, and other officials will take part in the lighting ceremony which will bathe the skyscraper in the colors of the People’s Republic until Thursday, Empire State Building representatives said in a statement.

The upper sections of the building are regularly illuminated to mark special occasions, ranging from all blue to mark “Old Blue Eyes” Frank Sinatra’s death in 1998 to green for the annual Saint Patrick’s Day.

Just last week the tower turned bright red.

However, that was not to mark some other communist achievement, but the 70th anniversary of the film “The Wizard of Oz” in which Dorothy wears ruby slippers rather than the silver of the original L. Frank Baum novel.

Emphases mine. Now, feel free to accuse me of reading too much into this…but was it really necessary or relevant to mention “communist” in this piece of news? Other than to tap into their target audience’s negative preconceptions about “communism”, for a country that is “communist” only in name?

Does the Chinese media emphasize “democratic” or “capitalistic” descriptors when they mention the United States of America or other Western nations? Any other fear-mongering descriptors? If they do, what’s the next appropriate question?

From the official AFP (Agence France-Presse) website:

The 1957 statute

It defines the fundamental principles that guarantee the independence of AFP and the freedom of its journalists.

Article 2

“Agence France-Presse may not under any circumstances take account of influences or considerations that would compromise the accuracy or objectivity of the news; it must not under any circumstances pass under legal or de facto control of an ideological, political or economic group.”

Is the 60th anniversary of the PRC a “communist” achievement? Or a Chinese one? Is “communist” ideology the main reason behind the PRC making it to 60 years? Would “PRC” or “Chinese” not have been a better, more objective descriptor to use before “achievement”?

Yes, there are far more obvious examples of media bias but I like this one for its simplicity. In fact, it stands out to me precisely for how subtle it is in reinforcing — and propagating — dangerously out-dated but still closely-held Cold-War rhetoric and attitudes amongst the Western world.

Seriously, what use is the word “communist” in today’s world, as applied to the PRC? What, if anything, does it tell us about how to deal with modern China and all its problems, including the problems the West loves assailing it for? Does it say anything about Tibet? About Xinjiang? About human rights? About censorship? About corruption? No, it says nothing. All it is today is a catch-all bogey word, used to represent, convolute, and confuse a multitude of ills without providing any meaningful information or guidance.

Post from: CN Reviews

Empire State Building Honoring PRC 60th Anniversary Outrage

Last week, New York Times op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an interesting piece titled “Our One-Party Democracy” with an introductory paragraph in which he utters the line:

There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

This ruffled many feathers, including those of The Peking Duck’s Richard Burger, prompting him to write “China’s reasonably enlightened autocracy“. While conceding that while Friedman has a point, he objected and argued that Friedman should have said more about the flaws and problems with China’s one-party autocracy:

But you, Tom, have a debt to your readers, too: you have to tell them that the price of an enlightened autocracy is always less representation, the law being carried out by whim, and a curtailment of freedoms that many of us would never sacrifice, no matter how wise and magnanimous our leaders may appear. And when you’re praising China’s great strides, don’t forget that at the same time, it’s still trapped in a straitjacket that’s at least partially of its own making): extreme environmental fragility, overwhelming poverty and an economy that’s far more tenuous than immediately meets the eye.

Barring some technical quibbles over what defines an “enlightened” autocracy, Richard’s point is clear. But…doesn’t it remind you of Chinese people complaining about negative Western media reports of China, whining about them being unbalanced because they don’t include a mention of China’s accomplishments, successes, and progress?

The West would dismiss these Chinese, arguing that it is patently silly that they “must” or “ought to” include admissions of what China has done right or well, especially when they are irrelevant to the point of the negative criticism being advanced. Yet, when someone says something positive about China, the West is quick to condemn that person for not including enough reminders of what’s negative about China even when they are likewise irrelevant to the point being advanced?

This is bias. Juxtaposed and in action.

Is there malicious, even shamelessly malicious, intent behind this bias? Certainly with some. Certainly not with everyone. I’d venture to say certainly not with Richard. He’s made significant strides towards being fair to both sides of controversial and contentious China issues over the years and, while I use him to illustrate this one half of this hypocritical behavior, I’m not singling him out. The point is: this attitude is certainly bias.

This attitude of “but you need to tell them the bad things about China too” also shows a certain insecurity, as if people reading the article are so stupid and gullible that they need to be reminded that “wait, America is still better!” You know what? They very well may be. They may be sitting there with stars in their eyes ready to leap out of their chairs towards their suitcases and pack up to move to the golden mountain that is China. But, this still reveals our insecurities.

We have to remind ourselves, our own, and others of what’s bad about “them” in order to feel good about ourselves, what is ours, and “us”.

And doesn’t this also remind you of China and the Chinese too? Doesn’t it remind us of all our criticisms of the Chinese government for all the propaganda, both subtle and overt, it disseminates reminding their own populace of the flaws and problems of the West? We laugh at their insecurity, their desperate attempts to nitpick and malign us, arguing that it is all a Communist government ploy to keep their citizens from envying the green grass on the other side of the fence, revolting, or even demanding faster progress. We denigrate them.

Why does Friedman owe a debt to his readers? When did Americans become so insecure about their political system next to China’s? When did Americans need to be reminded of how different or how much worse China is compared to the United States? When did Americans need to balance out praise with criticism, admission with caution…when we justified criticism without praise, caution without admission?

This is insecurity. Equal and embarrassing.

With less pun and more knee-jerk outrage were the ruffled feathers over at Gawker in a post titled “Thomas Friedman Demands Communist Revolution” for optimum search-engine traffic and click-throughs.

Flat-earther Times columnist Thomas Friedman thinks we should probably “outsource” our form of government to China, where they have streamlined the whole process by eliminating the bit where idiots “vote.”

No, seriously, he is outright saying that the autocratic one-party Chinese government is superior to our own. There is no equivocation in this line:

There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

It continues:

And why are things better in China? Because the current “reasonably enlightened group of people” in charge of China, at the moment, can just impose “politically difficult but critically important policies” like raising gas prices to encourage clean power investment and so on.

So, yes, the party may be increasingly corrupt and full of the Princeling children of former Communist party officials, the party may stoke violence against ethnic minorities, it may censor the media and lock up journalists and cheerfully ignore human rights, but at least they can get cap-and-trade passed.

Like The Peking Duck, Gawker felt compelled to respond to Friedman’s editorial by rattling off the laundry list of bad things about China: lack of suffrage, corruption, nepotism, ethnic tensions, censorship, and human rights violations (amongst others).

Charles Custer of ChinaGeeks noted it too in his post, “Western Media Bias: The Little Things“, writing (with my emphases):

In point of fact, Friedman’s column isn’t even really about China, it just uses China as an example. And in terms of the things he’s talking about, it’s pretty hard to argue that China isn’t in a better position than the US. But, God forbid, he said something good about China, so someone was sure to take the bait [referring to Gawker].

In “Thomas Friedman Demands Communist Revolution” (clearly, they’re going for subtlety here), Gawker takes aim at the straw-man argument that China’s political system is unequivocally better than the US:

And straw-man argument it is. Friedman does not demand Communist revolution. He does not think Americans should outsource America’s form of government to China (see Iraq). He does not unequivocally say “the autocratic one-party Chinese government is superior” to America’s own government. Friedman did not write “Everything in China is better than America” or “China’s one-party autocracy is better than democracy.”

Let’s go back to what he did write:

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

Emphases mine. Friedman’s introductory paragraph is laced with conditional statements. He is specifically referring to what he believes to be a “one-party democracy” that exists in today’s America with regards to the issues of health care and climate/energy. The question going through our heads should not be “what?! he said China is better than America?!” but rather “what does he mean by ‘one-party democracy’?”

People who jumped on Friedman here jumped the gun. Carelessly misunderstanding Friedman’s point is only slightly less shameful than the intellectual dishonesty of intentionally misrepresenting his point. Gawker cherry-picked the quote, divorcing it from its context, and presented it the most damning evidence in support of their straw-man argument.

In reality, all Friedman is echoing is the old political fact that autocratic political systems have more efficient (not necessarily better) decision-making processes. What’s wrong with this? It’s true. And so what? Americans and the democratic West consciously gave this up. They thought long and hard and decided they’d rather have less efficient decision-making processes for what they felt was safer for protecting their self-accorded rights. Friedman is stating the obvious.

So why does stating something that is obvious attract so much American resentment and accusations of communist betrayal? Aside from the fact that it brings in pageviews, it’s — at least partially — due to the fact that some Americans and Westerners can be every bit as biased and insecure as the Chinese they ridicule. The mere suggestion by Friedman that there is something enviable about China, regardless of what it is explicitly limited to, brings out genuine disbelief and shock as people demand: “Yeah, but how dare you! What about…”

This is bias and insecurity. Unintelligent but for the shrill clicks it earns.

Photo of Thomas Friedman by Charles Haynes (CC-BY-SA).

Post from: CN Reviews

American Bias & Insecurity From China’s One-Party Autocracy?

Weekly Review:

CHINAYOUREN Blocked

So guess what now:  I am blocked.

I am banned, prohibited, harmonized, river-crabbed. Censored, in short, by the Great FireWall of China. If you are reading my blog now and have not noticed anything strange, it is because either:

1- You are reading the blog from outside China and therefore you are not going through the GFW (Chinayouren is hosted outside China, you are on the same side of the Wall). Or else,  2- You are reading this from mainland China and you are using some means to connect anonymously and pass through the wall. Most probably a web proxy or  VPN, which is what I am using now.

So, just to get this clear: my website works normally, there is no change at all in the blog itself, since the server is out of the reach of Chinese authorities. The only thing that is happening here is that the GFW is preventing users in China to access my domain. You can read more on how this works here.

I know this was bound to happen some day, and I though it would be funny, and it would make me proud in a way, because not every blog is important enough to be censored. But no, it is not funny at all. Although I can easily connect and write using my VPN, the 50% of my readers that are based in China can not do it so easily (actually they can, but they will not bother, I know this very well because I have been in that situation before and I also got lazy with blocked blogs).

There is of course an added point that makes the GFW censorship extremely annoying: it does not officially exist.This means that there is nowhere I can go to complain, and if I do find my way to the relevant government office, nobody will admit to having blocked my content. And what is worse, I have no idea of how serious their block is, or how long it will last, which makes it very difficult to find a solution. Why? Because if I pay the money and waste the time to move to a different host, I have no guarantee that I will not be blocked there the very same week.  Or  worse still, that the censors decide to unblock my original site just when I had paid the fee for the new host…

As you’ll notice, I’ve gone ahead and reprinted the entire text of these posts for the convenience of our readers who aren’t inclined to twiddle with VPNs and proxies to get to ULN’s GFW’ed blog.

Censorship is a popular China topic, and for good reason: it affects just about everyone, and perhaps most poignantly for foreigners who have a larger frame of reference than local Chinese who have never or experienced, er, better.

GFW 1st July: Waiting for my Anonymous saviours…

So OK, I am censored, but why NOW?

I mean, I haven’t been writing anything for ages, is the Propaganda Department punishing me for being lazy? Has some big Chinese BBS  linked to me recently, is Uln hot now? As I was looking around for an answer, I found out that the Peking Duck blog was blocked more or less at the same time as mine, and it was asking the same kind of questions.

That is when I got this idea of the LIST, which I wrote on their comments. Everyone knows that GFW is unpredictable, it starts and stops and nobody ever knows why, if you don’t believe me look at this funny chronology. But this random behaviour usually affects only some websites, and never touches others. So necessarily, the guys at the GFW Control Deck are working with a number of websites that have been shortlisted beforehand.

I am quite sure of the existence of this LIST, because I noticed very precisely the moment my blog was shortlisted. It happened earlier this year with that political post that was picked by the New York Times. Since then I had strange things happening, with miniblocks now and then, a perceived slower speed loading in China, and, of course that particular Charter08 post has been blocked ever since (even as the rest of the blog remained open). Also, look at that weird comment in Chinese in that post, where the guy says I am interfering in China’s internal affairs… could be a troll. Or could be not.

Anyway, my guess is that this blog and the PKD’s block have probably nothing to do with our recent activity, but rather with the tense atmosphere in the censors office these last weeks, after the Green Dam fiasco and the Google affair. At some point someone must have said: “hey, let’s block some more sites”, and we were unfortunately the next names on the LIST. And, unlike Google, I am afraid sites speaking specifically of politics are blocked permanently, such as this one, or this one. I hardly imagine the censors taking the trouble to monitor our blogs every day to see if we are behaving better. So my guess is, both for me and for PKD, that the block is here to stay and there is no solution.

… or perhaps there is?

You might have seen this manifesto of the Anonymous Netizens,  found on the RConversation blog. They promise some action on the 1st of July.  I like the document, it is well written and, unlike other efforts, it is very clever in that it sticks to its objective and doesn’t try to change the World from zero. It doesn’t ring very Chinese to me thoughLook at these 2 extracts (but if you got time read it all):

For the freedom of the Internet, for the advancement of Internetization, and for our rights, we are going to acquaint your censorship machine with systematic sabotage and show you just how weak the claws of your censorship really are …  You are trying in vain to halt the wheels of history. Even with your technocratic reinforcements, you will not understand the Internet in the foreseeable future

….

NOBODY wants to topple your regime. We take no interest whatsoever in your archaic view of state power and your stale ideological teachings. You do not understand how your grand narrative dissipated in the face of Internetization. You do not understand why appealing to statism and nationalism no longer works. You cannot break free from your own ignorance of the Internet. Your regime is not our enemy. We are not affiliated in any way with any country or organization, and we are not waging this war on any country or organization, not even on you. YOU are waging this war on yourself. YOU are digging your own grave through corruption and antagonization.

Perhaps it is just this anarchist instinct of mine, but I find the discourse inspiring, and I hope it makes some noise in China and local netizens here get the message. Because it works well to defeat the old nationalistic shield of the Chinese government against outside critics.

Not that I think the Attack announced on the 1st July is going to change much. These guys are not really Chinese, they are the people at the 4chan bbs, you can read a bit more about them here. They have done some interesting actions before, in particular against the Scientologists, and I am curious to see what is coming on the 1st July.

But however smart the guys are in the West, I am afraid they don’t have a chance in China. It is a completely different playing ground, they have no popular support here and as far as I know their BBS in the West have no links to the Chinese ones here.  I might be wrong, but I have the feeling that this is exclusively a Western initiative, perhaps with the participation of some overseas Chinese.

The thing with Western internet activists is that they seldom realize the massive size of the Chinese internet, and its limited connections with the outside World. We will speak about this some other day, but let me just say that the Chinese internet is an enormous island within the internet, an island that we all know is there and we all now it’s big, but we have no idea of what’s inside or how to get there. Something like Greenland, perhaps.

But I am digressing. I just meant to write: keep an eye on the Anonymous Netizens on the 1st July. They will not overturn the regime, they will not break the GFW or send the Nanny to the retirement home where she belongs. But they might -they just *might* – manage to ridicule the Chinese censors and expose them enough for all the Chinese to see what a bunch of incompetents they have in that Department. And how efficiently they are destroying the image of China in the World, and causing the country to loose face by the hectare.

And then perhaps someone in that office will decide that, after all, Chinayouren is not noxious for a harmonious society. Until then, I remain, blocked.

We mentioned the Declaration of the Anonymous Netizens thing earlier this week as well and it really was quite inspiring. The English translation (or version) was also far too inspiring to have been written by the average disgruntled Chinese netizen either, so ULN’s suspicions and muted enthusiasm that it was the work of outsiders rather than insiders is fairly appropriate. I’m not so sure about there being a “LIST” of sites waiting to be blocked, but who really knows why this or that site gets blocked?

ULN elaborates on his “China internet is an island within the internet” idea with his next post:

The War of the Internets

So there you are. July 1st passed without any major incident and the famous Anonymous Netizens didn’t show up. I am as blocked as ever and the Nutty Nannies of China are still running loose on the web, unimpressed by the headless suit .

I cannot say it is a surprise, frankly the chances of anything significant happening were one in a wan*. As I said in a previous post, these anonymous Netizens are not Chinese, but Western, from the mostly American chan boards, in particular chan888 (no link here, I have enough trouble as it is with the GFW to get me the hackers as well). These guys surely had some Chinese to advise them, but the initialive looks entirely Western, and the style was very similar to their -quite succesful- attacks on Scientology.

There are at least 2 reasons why their attack on the Chinese censors was destined to be a failure: In the first place, China is not a website that you can hack, it is country, and pretty massive at that. You could manage to confuse the GFW for a while with some coordinated attacks, but that would not change the – mostly offline – internal censorship of Chinese websites, which is what really matters here.

Secondly, the kind of attacks that the Anonymous do are not applicable in China, because they are based on giving negative publicity to the victim. But this country is already such an accomplished expert in creating PR trouble for itself, and in the most prominent media in the World, that one occasional attack by hackers, no matter how succesful, would hardly make any difference.

The China Internet Isle

But there is one fundamental reason why these Western initiated internet attacks have no hope to succeed here. The internet is a very powerful tool of social mobilisation, but only through the voluntary participation of the netizens in one community. The power lies not on the web itself, nor on its pirates, but on the millions of users that get connected for a common cause.

Let me remind you here of that misunderstanding that got my blog blocked in the first place: A famous New York newspaper took me for a Chinese hero fighting for Liberty, and then the censors of China agreed with it. Following that glorious moment of Chinayouren, I got some fellow fighters offering all sorts of contributions to the cause, such as banners to hang on websites. You can see some in the comments here .

It became clear to me then the little awareness in the West of the meaning of the Chinese internet. The Chinese internet is not only the single largest national community of netizens, it is also a largely isolated island, with very few connections with the outside World compared to its size.

Partly for language reasons, partly because of the GFW, but I guess mostly because of cultural differences, the Chinese live on a parallel dimension of the web. They don’t use the facebooks, or Youtubes, or Yahoo news, or IRC chats. They have their own means to communicate on the internet, and this largely excludes interaction with people outside China.

And that is where the problem comes. It is the same situation for a company seeking to advertise itself on the Chinese internet as for a social movement who tries to push its way here: you need to be inside the island to have any impact. You need to understand the Chinese and they need to be part of your idea, and only when the wans of Chinese feel that this movement belongs to them, only then the internet can become the most terrible of weapons.

So yes, I do think the internet has still its last word to say in China. But I am pretty sure that when this happens, it will be a Chinese initiative.

*I coined this the other day. Wan is 10,000 in Chinese. And yes, I find it hilarious.

Yes, July 1st came and went and nothing happened. The gold of this post, however, is ULN’s incisive observations about China’s internet, its internet microcosm, and attempts to effect change on it from the outside. There are a lot of people who understand this, largely through their own observations and experiences in China. Rebecca MacKinnon is perhaps the most popular and credentialed of this group, in trying to dispel some of the popular misconceptions of how internet censorship is actually done in China. Unfortunately but understandably, far more people do not actually understand and ULN’s post does a good job of raising some of these nuanced points that are usually oversimplified or overlooked.

However, I’m personally not so sure the main reason the Chinese “live on a parallel dimension of the web” is cultural differences, and I don’t see ULN trying to explain what those “cultural differences” are or how they contribute to this “parallel dimension” any more than cultural differences separate the netizens of other countries from each other. Instead, I still think language is the largest factor influence the interaction (or lack of interaction) between one nation’s netizens and another’s.

Crossing the GFW (excerpted)

This week I had some interesting conversations on other blogs, mostly regarding my state of internet blockdom and the possible actions that a webmaster can take to solve this problem. I will share here some conclusions that might be of interest.

Just to make sure we don’t forget anything, I will go first over the most obvious points:

1- If you are any kind of commercial undertaking, or if you depend on your site for a living, please pay attention to what you publish. Sites in English have quite some leeway to publish political content, but the bigger you get the tighter the line will be, and any kind of political activism can get you down.

2- The worst position is when you are big enough to attract the censors attention, but small enough to be insignificant in the general scheme of the internet. Say the BBC gets blocked: this makes a lot of noise, and eventually the Chinese government feels the pressure to reopen it. Inversely, if you stay small enough, you will never be blocked regardless of what you write. When you are in the middle, like these sites, the risk is biggest.

3- Finally, if you are already blocked, you can try your luck at 9 Dongdajie, Qianmen, Beijing, as a commentator suggested (this is the address of the Beijing Public Security Bureau) or any official body of your choice. I have no experience with this, and I am very skeptical about the results, but it is not impossible that the legal system works once in a while. We have seen stranger things in China.

Getting through the block

Once you have gone through the points above and decided that none applies to you, here are the typical solutions for users to get through the Wall. There are many of them, so I will just list the most well known, such as: lists of free web proxies, ad-supported or fee-based VPNs, networks like Tor or activist software like Freegate.

I will not go over each of these because you can find lots of information on the internet already, but I have tried a few of them and they all more or less do the trick: you can open in China sites that have been blocked by the GFW. These solutions are well known to the Chinese netizens users, as you can see in this Chinese blog which has even more options, such as giving a SSH number and code to your users.

So, you might think, what’s the big deal with the Great FWall? It is full of wholes big enough for a whole horde of Mongols, like it’s always been.

You are right, and yet, the GFW is a powerful system. For anyone who had a website blocked, it is very easy to see the impact on the stats of incoming hits from China. Depending on your size and content, it can be down to a 25%, and if you remain blocked for some time, chances are most readers will not find their way back to you. My guess: a mixture of laziness, hi-tech aversion, and the excess of info flowing on the net means that a missing site is quickly forgotten, and nobody goes through the trouble of opening a proxy for you.

Another possible solution for the block is the use of RSS feeds, which are not stopped by the GFW. The problem of course, is that for people to subscribe to your feed, normally they need to find your site first, and direct searches or even linking sites that hit a reset connection will not bring them over to you, in most cases.

ULN’s fourth post touches upon some more practical aspects of how GFW blocks affect the website operators/bloggers, their audience, and shapes the mentality of internet users living under it. The GFW indeed isn’t meant to perfectly censor information as much as it is meant to discourage people from seeking that information by simply making access to that information more costly in technical knowledge, effort, or time. The GFW isn’t meant to stamp out dissent or activists or “minorities with ulterior motives”, the GFW is meant to interfere with their ability to disseminate information and assemble mass support. It plays on the fact that while the masses can be easily excited with the right leader, ideology, or cause, their attention spans are also quite short and mere curiosity is easily derailed.

ULN’s point that small websites usually go unnoticed and large websites are too big to fail be blocked for long is also pretty spot on. Unfortunately, there really isn’t an English-language China blog that is big enough or, more importantly, critical enough to Chinese internet users to qualify as being too disruptive to block for long. The Huffington Post, arguably one of the largest blogs in the world remains blocked to this day. It even seems that Danwei, the old stalwart and one of the largest English-language China blogs, was recently blocked, having been inaccessible since Friday afternoon.

So what can you do? What can you do when you don’t even know why you or anything was blocked?

Welcome to China’s internet, buy a hoody:

Hear more from ULN by subscribing to his RSS feeds: “http://www.chinayouren.com/feed” (Spanish) or “http://www.chinayouren.com/eng/feed” (English). You’ll need to copy these URLs and manually enter then into your RSS reader (i.e. Google Reader).

Post from: CN Reviews

Observations & Insights Of A Blog Blocked By China’s Great Firewall

Credit: MARK RALSTON (AFP/Getty Images)

How Dare We Feel Sorry For Ourselves…

Richard Burger’s personal blog, The Peking Duck (recently blocked by the GFW), may not be a large blog but it’s definitely one of the oldest English-language blogs about China with a small but loyal readership. Anyone who is remotely someone in the ever-incestuous English China blogosphere either know him or know of his writing, and generally think he’s a swell guy even over strong and passionate differences. While I myself have had very strong disagreements wth him recently, I’ve historically tended to nod my head whenever he shares his thoughts. Richard is returning to the States soon, and his recent posts have reflected a certain reflective mood I’m sure he’s going through. Here’s an excerpt to a particularly good post he wrote in the last week titled “The Begger“:

All of these thoughts of disgust and distaste took place in a fraction of a second. I heard the voice screaming the single word, Xie xie! Xie xie! As the barker inched toward me. I vowed not to turn around. That’s what they want, especially if you’re a laowai – looking at them gives them that window to grab your heart and your wallet. I just listened in annoyance and kept focused on my dictionary.

But then the beggar was too close for me to ignore her. Soon she was right alongside of me, still crying out, “Xie xie! Xie xie!” And she then crossed the line, invading my personal space – she shook my arm, forcing me to turn around to tell her to her face to please back off.

It was in that instant that my heart stopped, my mind dissolved and I felt one of those deep shivers that went straight to my soul. For the beggar was not a beggar at all. The beggar was a woman, somewhere between 40 and 50 years old, and she was leading by the hand a severely retarded young man, maybe 17 years old, a spastic whose arms were flailing as he walked. The woman was shouting “Xie xie, xie xie!” to thank people for getting out of the way so that the boy could pass without his arms hitting anyone. She was not begging me for anything, she was thanking me for allowing her to pass and exit the bus with her boy. (I don’t know if this was her son or grandson, but I do know her devotion to him was total and unstoppable.)

If the above story is too sentimental and happy, and you need something more aggravating and disappointing, here’s one of Richard’s more negative but equally poignant China memories, though it technically doesn’t belong in this week’s Weekly Review: Laowai!

Why This Should Matter To You:

1. You too have experienced panhandling and begging in China, whether on the streets or in the subways.
2. Reminders of our humanity are always good reminders, especially if we’ve lost a bit of our humanity living in what we feel to be a rather inhuman place where rather inhuman things happen all too inhumanly often.

The Seven Habits Of Highly Ineffective Expats

Steven Covey would be proud. The Lost Laowai has another fun and easy-to-digest post this past week sure to be applicable to make China expats or even short-term visitors (study abroad students, interns, etc.). The title above says it all, this post is about seven bad habits foreigners living in China tend to fall into. Here’s one:

Habit #1
Comparisons

“It’s not like this back home”
“In [insert home country back home] it’s like….”

If you’ve never heard this whine then you must not be talking to many foreigners, and if you’ve never said this then you must not talk to anyone period. For a number of people nothing here can ever be as good as it is back home, wherever that may be.

Obviously, the coffee here is not going to be as good as it is in the West. Clearly the Chinese are not experts at making hamburgers and french fries. The public transport is very clearly going to be much, much more crowded here than back home. Yes, the streets are probably dirtier here than a street in the suburbs.

These are the charms that keep China interesting, and very different from home. You will not be able to get a cup of tea back home like you can here, no Western chain will be able to satisfy your fried rice cravings, and just where are you going to spit when you have to back home?

I will never claim to be innocent of this ugly habit, but there has to be a time and place where you need to accept China for what it is, a wildly different place. While some things are better at home, there are definitely things that are better here. It is important to try to keep that in context, especially when you are experiencing the worst this nation has to offer.

Why This Should Matter To You:

1. You make unfair comparisons between China and wherever you’re from or wherever you’ve had it better.
2. You routinely think about when you’re “going home” or “taking a vacation from China”.
3. You frequent the same places over and over again and many of them are foreign.
4. You find yourself in a country other than China whenever you have days off.
5. You drink a lot. Or others think you drink a lot. Even if you deny it.
6. You have an Ayi, and you purposefully live like a sloth because you have an Ayi.
7. You think you know China, understand China, get China.

V Is For Vendetta

When I said that a lot of people were outraged by the whole Green Dam and CCTV attacking Google thing, I wasn’t joking. Some Chinese netizens have taken upon themselves to become Guy Fawkes, spreading something of an open-letter titled “Declaration of the Anonymous Netizens 2009” (Chinese version, the deftly-translated English version can be found here). Here’s a preview sure to titilate:

To the Internet censors of China,

We are the Anonymous Netizens. We have seen your moves on the Internet. You have deprived your netizens of the freedom of speech. You have come to see technology as your mortal enemy. You have clouded and distorted the truth in collaboration with Party mouthpieces. You have hired commentators to create the “public opinion” you wanted to see. All these are etched into our collective memory. More recently, you forced the installation of Green Dam on the entire population and smothered Google with vicious slander. It is now clear as day: what you want is the complete control and censorship of the Internet. We hereby declare that we, the Anonymous Netizens, are going to launch our attack worldwide on your censorship system starting on July 1st, 2009.

July 1st, eh? Mark your calendars. If anything does happen, I hope it’s a lot more interesting than the proposed boycott.

Why This Should Matter To You:

1. Who doesn’t dig the Guy Fawkes mask?
2. Just in case you forgot that there’s a plurality of opinion amongst Chinese netizens, and people.
3. Who doesn’t get excited by sweeping declarations? Stick it to The Man, man!

Michael Jackson Has Left The Building

The King of Pop passed away this past week. As many Americans learned of the news late evening Thursday, the Chinese learned of the news as they woke up and approached their Friday workday. chinaSMACK translated a bunch of Chinese netizen comments Friday to show us how Chinese people were reacting to news of Jackson’s death (some critical, most sentimental and respectful), Danwei showed us how many Chinese newspapers honored the singer with front-page coverage on Saturday, and shameless shanzhai-copycat Chinahush also translated some more Chinese netizen comments Sunday. Samples:

Pathetic countrymen, it is just a single foreign entertainment star. At most, it is regrettable, but is this worth all of you being so miserable? Truly making a fuss over nothing.

He was a music genius…but when he betrayed his own skin color and bleached his skin white, when he started hating his own race and changed his face so much that he no longer looked like himself, he became a monster/freak…Were it not for this, I believe he would have had a better life.

In university there was a girl who was passionately in love with Michael. Whenever she heard anyone say he was “abnormal/perverted/deviant” she would get angry and fight with them. It was from that girl that I slowly came to realize his charm! Now when I look at his stuff from 20 years ago I still get excited and thrilled! He is not just a king to me but also a a symbol of my youth!

MJ passed away~~ makes me feel very old. The superstar of a generation.

He doesn’t know that in China there is a group of fans who are infatuated with him, who will go crazy for him, who will always support him…once again: Goodbye, we love you.

Why This Should Matter To You:

1. Michael Jackson.
2. Wow, the Chinese also liked Michael Jackson?! Didn’t know we had that in common…
3. Wow, the Chinese can also be haters?! Didn’t know we had that in common…

Do Cool Stuff With Cool Chinese People

Because everyone who does parkour, biking, skateboarding, dancing, and rock climbing are automatically “cool.” Okay, the biking not so much, especially in China, unless its super aggro-mountain-jumping biking because then that’s kinda cool in a nation of bicyclists. As expected, we’ve got another Adam Schokora Fifty-5 entry for this week’s Weekly Review and this time he’s offering a list of websites for Chinese “alternative sports enthusiasts”. If you’re good with Chinese and looking to meet some like-minded locals for…I dunno…jumping between building ledges together, Adam’s links may be a good starting point for you:

:: online communities in China can link people together based on common interests. Sometimes, these interests are located online — gaming, net lit, online video, tech — but often times people are involved in offline pursuits that they wish to share with their netizen friends. Some communities / discussion forums are national in nature and connect people from across the country. Others are more locally-focused and serve as online outposts of a groups that meet frequently in the real world. Although each of the following activities takes place offline, practitioners meet online to plan events, share videos, seek help with techniques, or shoot the breeze with other people interested in the same thing.

Why This Should Matter To You:

1. You do cool stuff and you’re looking to make some cool local friends to do that cool stuff with.
2. Because you’re cool.

That’s it for this week. Have a link to a blog post that shouldn’t be missed? Be sure to share it with everyone in the comments, and don’t forget to tell us why you recommend it!

Post from: CN Reviews

Beggars, Expat Habits, Netizen Revolution, Jackson, & Parkour