Over at Global Voices Online, Frank Dai has a new post on how Chinese bloggers are reacting to the new internet information regulations. He cites expressions of protest and irony from a number of Chinese bloggers. While the regulations don't mention blogs specifically, Frank says Chinese bloggers believe the regulations will definitely affect them. In spite of this, the Chinese Blogger Conference in Shanghai is still planning to meet in early November.
Xiao Qiang of ChinaDigitalTimes has written an op-ed for the Asian Wall Street Journal titled China's Internet Censors Fight a Losing Battle (subscription required, unfortunately). He exceprts the article here. After outlining all the ways in which the Chinese authorities filter and police the internet, Xiao concludes:
The problem for the authorities is that these measures are running up against the networked, decentralized and ephemeral nature of this new medium. The leaders are trying to halt a power shift in which Internet surfers get to choose which site to visit, what information to believe and distribute, and whose opinion to listen to. What's important online is credibility. The real opinion leaders and influential voices are coming from Chinese BBS and the blogosphere, not the official media.
These grassroots media activities will continue to take place despite the new regulations. New-generation technologies such as peer-to-peer file sharing and voice over IP phones (Skype is a brilliant example), will provide new communication platforms that can make it easier for users to bypass the censors' control. The capacity of the government to implement these new regulations effectively, therefore, is very questionable. The many-to-many and emergent nature of the Internet empowers information users far more then censors.
In the short-term, the new rules may have a chilling effect on Chinese cyberspace. In the long term, however, the Chinese censors are fighting a losing battle. The deeper problem here is that the Chinese Communist Party itself is morally bankrupt and intellectually exhausted. More regulations will not make official propaganda any more attractive or credible to Chinese netizens. Undercover commentators, self-censorship by Web site hosts, and occasional harsh police action against political activists will not help China's leaders gain legitimacy and trust either. Those in the West that helped trying to suppress speech may come to regret their decisions.
Some people, including many corporate executives, point out that it's still better for them to be in China and helping to spread the tools of this communications revolution. They argue that their role in supplying these tools far outweights their assistance with censorship and collaboration in the imprisonment of dissident journalists. Now, nobody who truly cares about the interests of the Chinese people thinks its a good idea for Yahoo!, Microsoft, and Cisco to stop doing business in China. But should they be making greater efforts to act ethically? I believe they can and they should.
Here is another article in Chinese in which the author linked other bloggers' reaction:
http://blog.donews.com/sayon1y/archive/2005/09/28/570590.aspx
Also he said over comment that Wall Street Journal has interviewed him in email.
Posted by: Frank Dai | October 01, 2005 at 09:49 PM
I've heard similar comments that yes the Communist Party is destined to lose this war because they are bad and we are good.
I'm wondering what underlies this other than wishful thinking, and I'm wondering why there is a lack of analysis that just thinks about the consequences if this wishful thinking is wrong and the Communist Party manages to stay in power for quite a long time.
One reason that I'm wondering this is that the CCP has lasted a lot longer than most people believed it would.
Posted by: Joseph Wang | October 05, 2005 at 02:35 PM