DIMINISHED THOUGHT

I just want us to question our assumptions. I think there are three major questions here:

1, Who has the right to legislate the internet?
2. Is China being singled out?
3. Is censorship of information good or bad?

The first two questions deal with matters of policy, while the third is evaluative. The internet obviously requires some legislation to protect copyright, children, and personal information. The frontier metaphor that dominated the World Wide Web is applicable here. Eventually laws and codes had to be instituted in the Wild West to control the violence and anarchy that existed in the absence of such things. The question in my mind is not whether we need laws but who has the right to determine internet legislation. Laws differ from country to country so that what is illegal in one place is legal in another. What makes the most sense is that countries have the right to govern internet usage within their borders. Therefore, I feel China is within its rights as a sovereign nation to make legislation and policy decisions that effect its citizens.

China is not alone in internet censorship. Most notably many Middle Eastern nations provide far reaching censorship of sexual content on the web. Again, these policies and laws are a reflection of the dominant Muslim culture of the region. Does the United States have a right to demand that they introduce internet pornography to their culture in the name of free speech? China seems to have been singled out for political reasons, both due to its high international profile and because its rapid urbanization stands in stark contrast to the conservative national policies the country holds.

I think the third question is a bit stickier and one with which most American’s have a problem. Censorship from an American perspective is bad. Our society is rooted in the value of free speech to the point that it is explicitly addressed in our constitution. I would not like to have my words censored or to have access to information restricted. However, I acknowledge that free speech has not been the historical norm and that our modern society is the exception rather than the rule. I value my free speech but I have a hard time imposing my value system on another culture.

Labels: China, internet regulation, net neutrality

I’m going to say something controversial. I know, I know. The internet is for free speech. It is the last remnant of the American sixties counterculture. It’s about self-expression and information sharing. So why do I think it’s being blown out of proportion that the Chinese can’t access the same web content as Americans?

CNN.com is running an article on Chinese access to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia blocked again in China BEIJING, China (AP) — The easing of a ban on the popular online encyclopedia in China was short-lived. Barely a week after Wikipedia viewers were able to access the Web site – after a year-long ban — they reported Friday that it was blocked again in several parts of China. Web surfers and free-speech advocates had earlier welcomed the apparent lifting of a ban on the English and Chinese versions of the site that provides free information written and edited by its users, although skeptics had voiced fears the end of the ban would be temporary.

So, you might say, why isn’t this a bad thing?

First, despite the belief that China stifles discourse online there are vibrant web communities. Internet bulletin boards are popular forms of communication at Chinese universities creating the potential to networked communities. It’s my understanding that these university communities have considerable freedom to address topics that interest them. Additionally, many of my Chinese acquaintances here in the United States use blogs to keep in touch with their network of dispersed friends and family.

Second, I’m not sure it matters that much to the average Chinese. When I was leaving for China one of my initial concerns was that I wouldn’t be able to access internet utilities that I use in the United States. When I spoke to professor Jian Wang about this he assured me that it would be a non-issue. However, when I got to China I found many of my favorite sites inaccessible and Google was crippled. This frustrated me but didn’t seem to bother the Chinese. Why? The web adapts. A majority of the content currently online is in English but that simple fact may make it inaccessible to most Chinese. Rather than relying on American web sites China has many which are homegrown, such as Baidu, which allow them to accomplish the same tasks.

Articles such s the one on CNN assume that China is trying to restrict the exchange of information. However, Wikipedia really isn’t an encyclopedia, it’s a community that exchanges information. The real issue at hand is not whether a government has the right to stifle free speech but whether they have the right to legislate cyberspace. I think they do. Creating codes of conduct and accountability in cyberspace is a good thing and serves to strengthen the community. Furthermore, when this legislation is enacted it will reflect the values of the societies that put them in place. We don’t have to look to China to see this. For example, American internet legislation protects copyright and prevents child abuse. The American government has a right to create these laws just as the Chinese have a right to legislate their citizens use of cyberspace.

In conclusion, blocking Wikipedia probably isn’t as earth shattering as journalists would like you to believe. Chinese communities are thriving and as China continues their rapid industrialization will probably become more prolific. When American journalists complain about policy decisions of the Chinese government they are imposing American values on a foreign country.

Labels: China, Community, internet regulation, net neutrality, wikipedia