China: Not Worried About Twitter's Decision to Self-Censor

Twitter Can Censor by Country

Service Is Able to Block Tweets Geographically, Marking Content as Withheld

By LORETTA CHAO And AMIR EFRATI

BEIJING—Twitter Inc. says it can now make content selectively available to users based on geography, and plans to use that ability to enter countries with "different ideas" about freedom of expression as a human right—reflecting the difficult ethical questions facing Internet companies.

The announcement, published on the official blog of the microblog operator, said Twitter is now able to withhold content from users in a specific country while keeping it available to the rest of the world.

The effort underscores thorny issues for Internet companies as their websites become more global and interconnected among different countries, and as they must cooperate with diverse views on Internet content control. For websites like Twitter as well as social-networking site Facebook, this has meant being blocked in countries like China where controls are more aggressive.

"As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression," the post said, adding that in Germany, pro-Nazi content is banned. It said the ability has not been put to use yet, however.

Twitter said in the post that it would take measures to notify users if it withholds posts. "If and when we are required to withhold a Tweet," or microblog post, "in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld, and why," it said.

Twitter will work with Chilling Effects, an Internet freedom advocacy website that compiles content take-down notices, to publish take-down notices. Such a practice would make it difficult for Twitter to operate in China, where Internet executives say prohibited keywords are treated like state secrets.

Enlarge Image

Getty Images

Twitter said it would notify users if and when it is "required" to withhold a Tweet.

The company did not list countries in which it plans to use its new ability, but said that it would not be a solution for all. Some countries "differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there," the post said, an implicit reference to countries such as China that have banned Twitter.

China has more Internet users than any other nation. Local Web firms in China employ dozens or hundreds of staff to police user-generated content daily, and are required by law to take down a frequently updated list of banned keywords for varying lengths of time, including those related to calls for peaceful political action.

Internet giant Google Inc., which had operated in China for four years while cooperating with censorship requirements, made the controversial decision two years ago to cease censorship in the country and to move its Chinese-language Web search service to Hong Kong. The decision was the subject of much disagreement both in and outside the company, and even among Internet freedom advocates, with some believing censorship in any form was unethical, and others believing that being present, even if censored, in China would ultimately help make information flow more freely within the country.

Twitter has been blocked for more than two years in China by Web filtering technology. Some loyal users use circumvention tools to access the website, but most microblogging users in China now use Chinese services, including by Sina Corp. and Tencent HoldingsLtd. Some loyal users use circumvention tools to access the website, but most microblogging users in China now use Chinese services, including by Sina Corp. andTencent Holdings Ltd.

These websites have grown quickly and collectively have hundreds of millions of user accounts, despite censoring content, and new regulations that require users to register for their services using real-names.These websites have grown quickly and collectively have hundreds of millions of user accounts, despite censoring content, and new regulations that require users to register for their services using real-names.

Though the new system likely wouldn't allow Twitter back into China, initial reaction was negative among those who use it there through proxy services. "If Twitter starts censoring, then I'll stop tweeting," tweeted Ai Weiwei, the outspoken Chinese dissident artist and frequent tweeter.

Twitter has been instrumental in helping people to organize revolutionary or political protests in countries such as Egypt, Tunisia, the U.K. and U.S.

Twitter, which has said it has more than 100 million active accounts around the world, is making a push to become an online-advertising giant like Google.

The San Francisco-based Twitter, created in 2006, currently has a handful of employees in the U.K. and Japan in addition to its more than 700 U.S. employees.

As it expands elsewhere, the company will have to comply with local law or its employees could potentially face prosecution or other legal action.

Twitter's general counsel, Alex Macgillivray, is a former Google lawyer who had a hand in crafting some of that company's censorship-related policies. He also has worked on ChillingEffects.org.

Twitter CEO Dick Costolo has stated that the company is "the free speech wing of the free speech party."

More than a year ago, Twitter publicly disclosed that the U.S. government had obtained a court order requiring it to hand over information about four accounts of Twitter users in connection with an investigation of WikiLeaks, the website that published secret and classified information.

Twitter disclosed the request so that the account holders could "fight the request," Mr. Costolo said last year.

Twitter said in its post, "One of our core values as a company is to defend and respect each user's voice. We try to keep content up wherever and whenever we can, and we will be transparent when we can't."

China: Not Worried About Twitter's Decision to Self-Censor

Global Voices by John Kennedy

Twitter's announcement Thursday that the site will begin censoring content according to the relevant laws, regulations and policies of each country in which it has users was followed not only by American netizens, but discussed as far away as China.
Although Twitter remains blocked in China, the site's Chinese-language users, an assorted bunch, moved quickly to source people to translate [zh] the company's statement and figure out what it might mean—a Twitter.cn, for example, or, as Ai Weiwei wonders, if the time has come to move on in search of a new platformwith more respect for its users [zh].

Wen Yunchao, a well-known Internet activist from Guangzhou now working in a sort of domestic exile in Hong Kong as a producer for a new TV station, posted his thoughts on Twitter's new censorship measures to his Twitter account (@wenyunchao) several hours ago:

从推特发布的公告来看，现在是比以前进步了，以前是接到一国政府要求删除推特信息时，全球均不可见，现在是只是该国用户不可见。（1）

1. From the looks of Twitter's announcement, this is an improvement. Previously, a tweet could be deleted at the request of a country's government, leaving no one in the world able to see it. Now, only the users in that specific country won't be able to see it the information in question.

推特新的审查政策不会对现有中文用户产生影响。现在翻墙使用推特的用户，推特很难从技术上认定这些用户来自中国，因此亦无足够的依据屏蔽这些信息在中国的显示（无从显示）。（2）

2. Twitter's new censorship policy won't affect current Chinese-language users. It won't be easy for Twitter to determine through technical means which of its users come from China, as they have to scale the GFW to access the site, meaning the company won't have enough information to know who in China to block information from.

推特想进入中国，至少存在两在不可克服的障碍。一是黑箱的审查机制与透明规则之间的冲突无法解决。除非像谷歌那样以内资公司的方式存在，否则推特屏蔽特定信息将面临用户的诉讼。（3）

3. If Twitter decides to set up operations in China, there are at least two obstacles it won't be able to overcome. The first is that there's no way of resolving the conflict between black box censorship mechanisms and transparent regulations. Unless Twitter were to do like Google and set up a joint venture in China, it's going to have to deal with lawsuits from all the users who get singled out.

二是推特既然有新浪的政府公关能力，亦无法做到像新浪一样巨量的审查投入。对于中国当局来说，不会允许一个比新浪更宽松的类推特平台在中国提供服务。（4）

4. The second is that even if Twitter had as much PR sway over the government as Sina, it still wouldn't be able to commit as vast an amount of resources as Sina has to censoring content. Nor would Chinese authorities permit a platform like Twitter, far more open than Sina, to provide services within China.

The Rationale and Costs of Chinese Censorship

While China has opened itself to the world in many ways and is gradually acting upon some of its global responsibilities, it continues to keep its media and computer networks under tight control and seeks to prevent the elements of globalization it finds distasteful from influencing the Chinese population. Historically, the government has heavily censored uncomfortable political issues such as the Tiananmen Square protests, the corruption of government officials, and the independence movements in Xinjiang and Taiwan. According to Reporters without Borders, today China has one of the least free presses in the world and operates an incredibly sophisticated internet and electronic censorship system.

The Chinese government has previously generally paid scant attention to non-political programming. Recently this has changed, as the authorities have increasingly begun to target the content of Chinese entertainment television, labeling certain shows "vulgar" or "excessively entertaining." Such 'dissident programs' include a singing competition called Super Girl and a dating show called If You Are The One. The authorities have ordered media outlets to limit the amount of such 'entertainment shows.' The government has even prohibited television plots that involve spies and time travel. The censors have instead suggested that television stations air more cultural, informational, and educational programming.

There is some debate as to why the Chinese authorities have adopted this approach at this time. Some believe that the singing contest Super Girl was targeted, in particular, because it incorporated audience voting -- but this explanation is weak and, as far as Sino-pessimists are concerned, would be too good to be true. The government also targeted similar programs that did not include audience participation. Moreover, there is little reason for the government to feel threatened by a television program that incorporates voting, given that the Chinese people have been voting in local elections for many years -- and viewers are voting for a talent contestant, not a political ideology. It therefore seems unreasonable to assume that Chinese authorities fear a television program because it is tangentially related to the notion of democratic governance.

A more plausible viewpoint holds that the move is indicative of a generational divide between a modernizing younger generation and a traditional older generation. The older generation -- which largely controls the Chinese Communist Party -- is worried that it is losing control of the media and is trying to bring television back to its traditional socialist roots. Under this paradigm, the function of the media is not to entertain the masses, but to educate the people, build social solidarity, and bolster state power. For these individuals, Chinese television has grown too western and culturally degrading.

There seems to be a very real fear among Beijing's elite that if left unchecked, television programming could lead to Chinese cultural decline. Some may quickly dismiss or even ridicule this concern, however it becomes more understandable if we consider the content of much of American television programming today -- such as Jersey Shore, Jerry Springer, Mob Wives andToddlers and Tiaras. Indeed, we would argue that people all over the world would be pleased if governments restricted the broadcast of such trash, and we agree that it does actually contribute to the cultural degradation of America. Of course, no one is forced to watch such programs, and that fact that so many apparently do is a sad indication of the state of American society today. So why would the Chinese government want its people to descend to the same level of decay?

Moreover, the Chinese government sees television (particularly state-run TV) more as a cultural institution rather then a mode of entertainment. In that regard, television shapes culture in profound ways, and culture in turn shapes society and ultimately, the future of the Chinese state. The officials in Beijing look at the United States and see a nation with a failing economy, a burgeoning deficit, and a dysfunctional political system. They also see an American media replete with trashy television, scandal-prone Hollywood stars, and drug addicted pop stars. Although many Americans may not necessarily see a connection between the two, the officials in Beijing do.

By making television programming more respectable, they hope to promote enlightenment and morality, and avoid a cultural decay that, in their minds, has gripped many western nations. We actually agree with that -- however (and no offense to Warren Buffett) hearing Buffett play the ukulele and sing "I've Been Working on the Railroad" (a song first recorded in 1927) on China's equivalent of Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve is not likely to endear many people to the Chinese government's definition of 'entertainment.'

Even if the Chinese censors have the best intentions (which can of course be questioned), there are, naturally, costs to censorship. Beijing already employs tens of thousands of people to monitor the internet, a number that is certain to increase as the country becomes more digitalized. Censorship will also become less effective as time goes on; When censors restrict one form of media, people will gravitate to another, less controlled, form. In a globalized world, unless the government cuts all ties to the outside world -- as North Korea has done -- it cannot control everything, and censored content will increasingly seep through. Another problem is that restrictions on lowbrow programming will only make these programs more popular in some circles, especially among the young. What would be considered standard programming in the West will be infused with an aura of forbidden fruit where it is restricted. As a consequence, censored material may garner even more cache among China's youth -- something the old guard wants to avoid.

The new rules will also hurt China's image abroad. The prohibition against "excessive entertainment" has been widely criticized and belittled around the world. To many observers, these moves seem archaic and are disturbingly reminiscent of "1984" and the old communist bloc. It also confirms what many Sino-pessimists are saying: that China is racked with internal dissent and its government is increasingly tightening its grip in order to strengthen its power. After all, what does a country destined to becoming the next superpower really have to fear from a signing contest called Super Girl?

Censorship also unnecessarily hamstrings the growth of Beijing's international power and influence. One of the United States' biggest assets is "soft power," generated by the global appeal of American movies, music, and television. China cannot hope to expand its global cultural influence if it retards the growth of its own entertainment programming. By limiting the production and export of its cultural goods, China is unnecessarily limiting its already meager cultural influence abroad. Surely, patriotic television programs will only be watched in China.

Additionally, the Party's grip on the media may have economic consequences. Some foreign investors may be wary of investing in a country with rampant censorship, as it is indicative of a country where the government is more likely to favor its domestic industries, and will monitor a business's communications. Moreover, censorship implies that political and economic data needed to understand and monitor a country may be missing, difficult to acquire, or false. It is not easy doing business in such an intrusive and uncertain environment. The World Bank Group's 'Doing Business 2012' ranking already lists China as 151st in a list of 183 countries when it comes to starting a business. The new rules only exacerbate generational tensions and seem to be a waste valuable political capital in a time of growing global economic inequality and discontent.

In light of the admittedly trashy programming that passes for much of 'entertainment' today in the West, it is easy to understand why the Chinese government wants to encourage the enrichment of television programming in China. However, this move comes with costs. Censorship will increasingly become more difficult to achieve and less effective with time, it will drain an even larger amount of physical and political resources, and it will unnecessarily weaken Beijing's image abroad. Worst of all, censorship seems only to confirm what many believe -- that 'benign' Chinese authoritarianism is not so benign after all.

*Daniel Wagner is CEO of Country Risk Solutions (CRS), a cross-border risk management consulting firm based in Connecticut (USA), Director of Global Strategy with the PRS Group, and author of the forthcoming book Managing Country Risk (March 2012). Michael Doyle is a research analyst with CRS.

 

Follow Daniel Wagner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/countryriskmgmt