China and Social Networking

Social Networking in China? You better believe it. We know that China has strict firewalls and severely limits the free flow of information online. Compared to the United States, the internet in China is like a caged animal; it has the potential to become a huge global competitor, but within it's constrained walls, it can only grow so much. However, that growth is not to be underestimated -- it's housed in quite a large cage after all and the billions of people who inhabit China are hungry for a little online mingling of their own.

There are four major social networks in China. Renren, an almost carbon copy of facebook but with some key differences, Qzone, the nickname based social network, Pengyou and Kaixin, the two small social networks with less than 100 million active users. There's even a Chinese equivalent to the micro-blogging service, Twitter, called Sina Weibo. I found it interesting that there is such a large amount of competition in China for the social networks. And yes, I'm calling five competitors "large" because compared to the United States, where we loose competitors in major markets fairly quickly and always have one or two dominating (see the media conglomerates, the social networks, and now even the cell phone service providers with the recent merger between AT&T and T-Mobile), five social networks with hundreds of millions of users is true competition. Perhaps the reasoning behind the high number of networks is because they all serve a different demographic and need. See the below chart for a clear break down of such:

It is interesting to note that renren was actually started by a few University of Delaware students who developed this version of facebook for China. I was fascinated to learn just how closely related the social network renren is to our well-known facebook. Renren actually takes all of it's cues from facebook and includes familiar features such as "liking," "poking," the infamous relationship status, "the wall," just to name a few. However there are some differences. One I found particularly interesting is that if a company wants to have a fanpage on renren, they need to pay upwards of $90,000 for one. $90,000. And well known American companies like Nike have agreed to pay up.

It's no secret that China heavily controls the internet, but just how much is it? According to this 2005 article from the Guardian, there are over 30,000 Internet police who troll social networks, blogs, online chat rooms, text messages -- you name it -- for any disseminating language against the government, hints at organizing a political revolution, and basically anything they feel poses a threat to the powers at throne.

In 1996, China's Central government released a new set of regulations for computer information over the internet. The first, perhaps most remarkable regulation states: “No units or individuals are allowed to establish direct international connection by themselves.” (Item 6) “All direct linkage with the Internet must go through ChinaNet, GBNet, CERNET orCSTNET. A license is required for anyone to provide Internet access to users.” (Item 8) The second regulation was the Ordinance for Security Protection of Computer Information Systems. It was issued on 18 February 1994 by the State Council to give the responsibility of Internet security protection to the Ministry of Public Security, which is entitled to “supervise, inspect and guide the security protection work”, and to “investigate and prosecute illegal criminal cases." The government also backed up these new regulations with saying that "in order to strengthen the security and the protection of computer information networks and of the internet, and to preserve the social order and social stability, these regulations have been established..."

There is a laundry list of "DO NOT's" under section five of the New Internet Regulations, stating that "no unit or individual may use the internet to harm national security, disclose state secrets, harm the interests of the state, of society or of a group, the legal rights of citizens, or to take part in criminal activities."Let's just talk about what China is afraid of: (1) harming national security -- like the recent and ongoing and future revolutions we are witnessing in the Middle East, (2) harming the interests of the state -- like when Obama took to his facebook page to talk about Don't Ask Don't Tell and received a bevy of mixed replies, could this then be harming the interests of the state? (3) harming the legal rights of citizens -- I'm not even going to touch this one because I'm not quite sure what the legal rights for Chinese citizens even are, and finally (4) taking part in criminal activity -- like the thousands of craigslist hoaxes that go on yearly, like the internet scam sites that we've heard about on the nightly news, and even WikiLeaks could be considered criminal activity.

Wikileaks is interesting to look at here because it's the exact type of uprising from the people that China is working so hard to prevent. Notably, the reaction of our government to Wikileaks is eerily in line with the New Internet Regulations of China; it's almost like they took cues from it.

So then, yes, there are four or five major social networks in China, but they are heavily monitored while appearing to mimic the "freedom" of facebook and twitter in the United States (even though we know they are not that free to begin with). I know I don't really think twice about what I post on facebook besides maintaining my own moral values and staying aware of what others may or may not take offense to, but I can't imagine a reality in which the internet is not a free-flowing portal of information as it, for the most part, is in the United States and many other countries around the World.

There is obviously a plethora of information about the censoring in China and this post only scrapes the top of a large heap of material. More to come on this fascinating topic...

Reflections on the Mirror of the Media

Reflections on the Mirror of the Media

Gwenyth Jackaway, Ph.D.

Fordham University

17 March 2011

Human beings are remarkably predictable. Throughout history, we have, again and again marveled – or trembled -- at our own technological innovations, certain that this time , at last, we’ve come up with the ultimate solution to our problems, or have finally ushered in our inevitable downfall. We either cheer or run in fear. And, we usually do both, in an age-old yin/yang dance of utopian and dystopian discourse that can be heard with the invention of each new channel of communication.

Evgeny Morozov’s sobering observations, in The Net Delusion , on the dark side of digital communication, are an important wake-up call for those of us prone to techno-romanticism and cyber-utopianism. Of course, he’s right. It makes perfect sense that centralized, authoritarian governments can take full advantage of the internet for their purposes, just as would-be revolutionaries can use it for theirs. It is naïve, and indeed foolish, for those of us who imagine ourselves to be on the side of freedom to think that these technologies can only be used to liberate. Binary code knows no political philosophy.

Computers do not have a bias towards or against particular forms of government. Giving everyone a user name and a social network account does not mean that democracy – or capitalism—will automatically follow. Indeed, the case could be made that if anything, networked communication might tend towards a sort of ‘hive-mind’, a Borg-like collective consciousness as envisioned in Star Trek, a state of cyber-sharing in which there is no privacy, everyone’s location is known at all times, and all information is pooled for the ‘good of the whole’. In that case, China, with its emphasis on the priority of the group over the individual, may in the end find that the interconnectedness of the internet is ultimately quite compatible with their political philosophy. What better way to reach the entire nation with what we, in the West would see as ‘Chinese propaganda’?

It is, obviously, disappointing, for those with technophilic tendencies, to have to recognize, as Morozov so effectively argues, that social media and the internet can be used by dictators in chilling ways for frightening purposes. Upon any serious consideration, this becomes immediately obvious. The interesting question is: why would we imagine it could be otherwise? Why do so many, in the West, almost automatically expect that communication technologies are inherently liberating? There is, in fact, abundant evidence to the contrary.

History makes it clear that new communication technologies can be used for ill as well as for good. Even more troublesome, what one nation might see as an oppressive use of media might be seen by another nation as good common sense. Propaganda can just as easily be produced by democratic, capitalist governments as dictatorial ones, and indeed, one could argue (and many have) that one of the main functions of mass mediated culture both within America, and exported around the world, is to promote ‘our way of life’. It is no secret that the United States government has long made use of the (once new) technology of broadcasting to help spread democratic ideals around the world. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, funded by the U.S. Congress, established during the Cold War, and still in operation in many nations, is seen by many as a liberating force, a positive use of communication technologies to aid in the cause of freedom.

As Americans, we like to imagine such uses of radio – or indeed Facebook or Twitter -- as benign, or helpful ‘intervention’. According to this view, propaganda is what ‘the bad guys’ do. We disseminate information. They brainwash their people. But imagine our reaction if China or Iran set up a broadcasting system aimed at the U.S. to help ‘liberate’ Americans from our capitalist, secular ‘oppression’? Why is it that when ‘we’ use communication technologies towards ‘our’ own ends, we see it as a liberating, but if ‘the other side’ takes advantage of the reach of new media, we tend to see it as manipulative and repressive? Why is it that very same government (ours) that claims to be in favor of a ‘free and open internet’ was not more grateful to Julian Assange for his use of Wikileaks, to help create an even MORE open flow of information on the internet? Freedom of speech, it seems, is ever a relative concept, as are the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ uses of communication technologies.

In the now classic text , Four Theories of the Press, (Siebert, et al, 1956), the basic argument is as follows: Governments around the world use the media in ways that are consistent with, and an extension of, the basic assumptions and goals of their national political philosophy. This, of course, makes perfect sense. Given the power and reach of the tools of mass – and now social – media, those in power would want to see these channels used to support the aims of the nation. It has long been thus. The first book published on the new printing press, in the 1450’s, was a Bible. At that time, the Church and State were joined, and so it was only fitting for the leaders of Germany to use the remarkable device of mass printing to disseminate the faith. Ever since then, governments and religious institutions around the world have employed the available tools of communication to help reinforce their power. One approach is to censor any dissenting voices. Another is to use the media to help shape the worldview of the public. This can take the form of propaganda, or it can take another form, one that at first seems more benign.

In his discussion of the current nature of the internet in Russia , Mozorov observes that “simply opening up the information gates will not erode modern authoritarian regmines, in part because they have learned to function in an environment marked by the abundance of information.” (Mozorov, chapter two, emphasis added). It seems that the Kremlin has learned much from studying American media. Apparently, a popular internet television program currently produced by Russia.ru (supported by the Russian government) is a program with the catchy title of “The Tits Show”, which features a “horny and slightly overweight young man, traveling around Moscow nightclubs in search of perfect breasts’”. Not surprisingly, the show has an enthusiastic following.

In the 19^th century, Karl Marx warned of the role of religion as a ‘opiate’ to the masses. In the 20^th century, neo-Marxist scholars theorized that commercial media, in the US and in Capitalist nations around the world, serve to keep the ‘workers of the world’ narcotized on dreams of salvation through consumerism. In the 21^st century, it seems, the latest drug of choice is digital distraction. One of the least expensive (and least violent) ways to prevent political uprising is to keep the population amused – with ‘bread and circuses’, or in this case, with tits and vodka. No need to blanket the nation with formal political propaganda. Just feed them eye candy. Combine that with news stories framed in a manner that serves the interests of the nation, and an educational system that discourages individual thinking, and you’ve got an easy way to keep people tranquil.

In addition, the reality is that many people are not driven by dreams of revolution. As disappointing as it may be for the cyber-utopians among us, according to Mozorov, “the most popular internet searches on Russian search engines are not for “what is Democracy” or “how to protect human rights”, but for “What is love?” and “How to lose weight” (Mozorov chapter three). Working toward political and economic transformation is hard work, and political blogs are not light reading. Why do we expect that people in other countries are busy blogging their way towards freedom when so many of us fail to do the same? Clearly, millions of Americans have access to Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, but we often seem far more interested in sharing silly cat videos, tweeting our whereabouts, and gaping at at celebrity meltdowns than in examining the role of the US in perpetuating various forms of oppression around the world, or rising in revolution against the excesses of Wall Street.

So we return to the question: Why do so many academics, journalists and policy makers in the West, almost automatically expect that communication technologies are inherently liberating? Why is Washington passionately pursuing a new doctrine of ‘internet freedom’? Why do we hear so much talk of the “Twitter Revolutions” sweeping the Middle East? Why do we love telling the story that all we need is the right technological solution to social problems?

The world faces many challenges. Solving them will take hard work and much cooperation. In listening to predictable, repeating patterns of technophilic rhetoric that so often accompanies the arrival of new media, it seems that we are waiting for the solutions to be delivered to us from the outside. Whether we expect we will be delivered by a Diety, or transformed by technology, we have, for so long, seen the answers as coming from without, not from within. Perhaps we project our most inspired yearnings and longings onto the machines… imaging that they can save us from ourselves. We peer into the mirror of the media, hoping to find in their screens a reflection of our highest selves. But like any good looking glass, the media reflect all sides of human nature, as we are, not just our brightest visions of who we could be. Communication technologies don’t have an inherent bias to liberate or oppress. The hard truth is that the media are neither good nor bad. It’s all there, because it’s all in us. In the end, the media can be no more or no less than we are. We are the handles of our tools. How we use them is our choice.

All of Our Eggs in the Cyber Basket

"Although virtually limitless in their power, our technologies are tools without handles." Langdon Winner

The revolutions we are witnessing happen in the middle east undeniably use modern technology and social networking as a tool for their upheaval. Dr. Jackaway talks about the word revolution and the various connotations, one on a political level and another on a social and societal level of change and shift in technology. However, perhaps now we see a new definition of revolution, one that directly relates to these "online revolutions" that are so widely talked about now in the middle east; a type of revolution that is congruently societal, social (media) and political. But notice that I didn't just say "social" or "political" or "societal;" it is important to see that the revolutions currently in Libya, Iran in 2009, and in Egypt in January 2011 are all the result of a mixture of these factors, a "perfect storm" of technology, people, and the tactics employed.

Evgeny Morozov, author of "The Net Delusion" talks about cyber-utopianism, "a naive belief in the emancipatory nature of online communication that rets on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the downside" (xiii). There are those who attribute the majority of the success in the revolutions in the middle east on the internet and are inherently technological determinists or as Morozov might say, "cyber utopianists." Morozov seems to be implying that we may be so wrapped up in the glitz and trend of the internet and social media that we turn a blind eye to some of the negative truth it also holds. While I won't delve into those "negative truths" (the opposition to revolutionaries, cyber crime, pornography), it is interesting to note that they do exist and they are also exist because of the internet.

In the 2009 Iran protests, US State Department officials sent an email to the powers behind Twitter asking them to reschedule previously scheduled maintenance on their site so as not to disrupt the Iranian protests (Morozov, 9). Here we have an example of western government, intervening with private business ventures and "requesting" that they sustain their services and perform maintenance at a later date. Although Twitter did comply, they made it clear in an open letter that it was based off their own discretion and not the result of the impeding powers of our government. What would have happened if Twitter did perform their maintenance in the height of the protests? How would the US government have responded? Would the protests in Iran just stop? What if hackers got into facebook during the Egypt protests and revolution and shut down their infamous facebook page? Would Mubarak still be in power? Would the streets around Tahrir Square be docile and typical? We all have the tendency to place an extreme amount of power and authority in social media and new internet technologies (I'm guilty of it myself) and we become disillusioned with the reality and causality of revolution.

Langdon Winner presents the antithesis of what our informed and critical public seems to believe. The US State Department sees Twitter as a revolutionary powerhouse when, as Morozov reports, there were less than 20,000 Twitter accounts registered in Iran during the 2009 elections, making up less that .30% of the entire population; that's less than HALF a percent. Were these Twitter accounts truly the driving forces of the revolution? As Morozov posits, no, it wasn't nor could it have been.

When I started reading "The Net Delusion" I wasn't sure how I felt toward Morozov's ideas and strong views about the internet and authoritarian governments. I was a little turned off by his verbiage and one-sided arguments about cyber-utopianism (although impeccably astute). However, as I continued through the introduction and first chapter, his argument opened up my mind to the reality of how our society, government and western world view new media technologies. Perhaps we are too caught up with the trendy nature of social media, our smart phones, and the internet. Does social media really play such a large role in the revolutions in the middle east? Would there still be people who show up to our birthday parties if they weren't publicized on facebook? It almost seems a little naive to think that the internet is now the godfather of revolution and non-mediated organization. The internet is in fact a tool, but as Jackaway analogised, merely having a gym membership will not get us in shape or buff, we need to do the physical work involved and more importantly, show up; the internet is there for our use, but it is the person, humanity, that decides how they will use it and for what.

We see tweets about revolution make the news, showing us that there is a political discussion occuring online. Tweets like those from oxfordgirl, a popular twitter user brought to our attention by Morozov who describes herself as: "I am writer, journalist and I dabble in politics. Yes I am a girl, I was born in Iran and the avatar is Colonel Mohammad Taghi Pessian, a great Iranian Hero."

As Morozov implies, oxfordgirl did an excellent job of providing up-to-the-minute information about the revolutions in Iran, but she played no role in the actual revolutions themselves. Perhaps "we" (the media) are too caught up in what is said on Twitter and Facebook versus what actually occurs. It almost seems unorthodox to make statements like Twitter is the vehicle for the revolutions in Iran and Facebook in Egypt. Do we have hard evidence for such causality? Although I may be playing devil's advocate here, I am interested in further study of this. Our news media has a great influence on society and puts a lot of thoughts into our heads. If CNN were to show a tweet from oxfordgirl on the news, some may think she is headlining the social revolution, secretly delegating revolutionary plans and tactics when she is merely an information hub with a large following. 

Again, Jackaway makes a valid point about these devices for causality (smartphones, social media), saying that if there truly is such an inherent power within these devices, then we should be focusing our attention to the distribution of such in all people in oppressed nations. But we all know that's not happening. We have a dichotomy; on one side our government and society places a colossal power on new media technology and social networking, saying that facebook and twitter are necessary tools for revolution in the middle east, while on the other side there is little action to support that claim. 

Perhaps we have gotten ahead of ourselves with new media (I am kicking myself writing this). Yes, the internet and social media are here to stay, but are we treating them appropriately? The more credit and power we place on and give to technology the more we take away from people, society, and human nature. Why, in a western society that thrives on democracy and free-speech, do we place so much power in technology and new media? We are almost going backwards, while tricking ourselves into thinking we are moving forwards and towards "the future." Will then, "the future" consist of holograms of ourselves crafted on facebook and twitter fighting in Tahrir Square? Those who are technologically determinant are inevitably (and perhaps subconsciously) making the argument that the human race has no power nor ability to convene and organize for great things on their own, when in fact it was humans who created the technology in the first place! To really see the true nature of what is happening, we need to take a step back from technology, remove ourselves from the digital realm of communication, and only then will we be able to understand that is the the people who make things happen, not the technology.