Washington Note

Like all American journalists or public policy hands who visit China, I have been interested in what sites one could not get on to. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are the perennial blocked sites (though Chinese authorities permitted access to most these sites during the Olympic Games). However, to be quite honest, many of the sites — particularly news and information sites that I could not access a year ago when i was in Beijing — are available.

This is true. Most international news outlets on the left, right, and center of the political spectrum are regularly available here on the mainland; however, social media and networking sites are not so fortunate. Clemons goes on:

And as a result of very interesting and candid discussions with the Vice Minister of the State Council Information Office,Qian Xiaoqian, I believe that many Chinese government officials know that the practice of blocking this site or that is undergoing significant change or reform. According to Vice Minister Qian, Chinese authorities restrict access to sites based on four principal criteria: the incitement of hatred between ethnic groups, racial discrimination, pornography, and violence. He said that since China’s reform process started 30 years ago, the State and China’s citizens have moved into a mode of significant tolerance of criticism and dissent but that the government still objected and would intervene to “oppose fabrication of stories.”

I’m sure that many will continue to argue for some time that the Chinese government plays an oppressive force when it comes to internet management and monitoring.

But I disagree.

Clemons supports his position simply by contending that there is just too much internet use in the country for the government to effectively block “harmful” sites. Though I’m hopeful, I’m not sure that I wholly accept this premise given my recent experience within the country. Last year, for example, Godaddy.com, a major player in website hosting, endured a wholesale block. Millions of websites were affected for a few weeks. If the powers-that-be are willing to impose that magnitude of control, it is hard to believe that the government won’t resort to similar tactics in the future. Clemons concludes:

Some may see the practice of filtering sites to be disturbing and to be ‘the story’ that needs to be told.

But I have to say that even with my skeptic’s eye, the trends in China are very positive when it comes to public inquiry over the net and when it comes to the forward-leaning, more enlightened stance of many government officials who are incrementally liberalizing access. That I think is the real story.

It will be interesting to see if access to YouTube is restored before my next visit to China.

In my view the blocks are puzzling. I can easily access information on any topic offensive to the government from here in China. Why the government chooses to block certain sites taking a contrary position while leaving others alone is somewhat of a mystery to me. The only suitable answer I can come up with centers on the “viral” potential of certain sites. That is, the most irritating blocks are happening within social media sites wherein news and other media can travel with light speed. This could certainly pose a problem for Beijing, which makes me worry for Twitter’s future here.