China joined the Internet in 1994 year, becoming the earliest country to mark this achievement in Asia, but in the world taking 71th place registering to the global network. Use of the Internet in China has dramatically changed- from 22 million users in 2000 to 854 millions in 2020. That makes every second citizen in China (59,3% precisely) being on the Internet. In 2021 the
percentage of the Chinese population on the Web skyrocketed to 70% with 1,01 billion users.
In this essay I argue that the advent of the Internet in China is not liberating in both two dimensions: outside of the Internet (referring to the digital divide) and on the Internet (for netizens). Moreover, Virtual China rather resembles an endless mouse-and-cat game. With mouse being the official authorities and cat chinese netizens. Although it could have a liberating potential,
it is not very effective. On the other hand, it also contributes to social inequalities, as not every citizen has access to the Internet or simply the will (as in the case of elderly group) to actively use it. This all deepens social tensions, which are destructive for the mass mobilization that is so much needed in the fight for democracy. The battlefield for the and on Internet counties endlessly without the clear winner. As soon as one side of the duvet (Internet) is trying to pull into one’s direction, the other side responds instantly pulling into one's side.
For the authorities, the Internet is being implemented as an instrument of digital authoritarianism. Chinese netizens however recognize in the Internet the potential of liberating technology. They are proactively trying to make use of its own needs, by online protests, posts and comments that criticize, mock and satirize the ruling power. They do it as long as they are not being caught by online censors or outside of the Web by officers and judicial authorities.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1. Literature review
2. China’s political system and governance
2.1. digital authoritarianism
3. Virtual China
3.1. Internet censorship
3.1.1. friction and flooding
3.1.2. self-censorship and censorship by private institutions
3.2. blogger culture
3.2.1. blogosphere in Xinjiang
3.3. “picking quarrels and provoking troubles”
3.4. Chinese netizens as the “new opinion class”
3.5. mass mobilization
4. Digital Divide
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This work critically analyzes the socio-political impact of the Internet in China, investigating whether the digital space serves as a platform for democratization or as an instrument of state control. It explores the evolving methods of state surveillance and censorship, the emergence of a mobilized "new opinion class," and the exacerbating effects of the digital divide on social inequality.
- The mechanisms of digital authoritarianism and state surveillance.
- Sophisticated censorship techniques including friction, flooding, and corporate regulation.
- The development of grassroots online activism and its potential for mass mobilization.
- The "new opinion class" and the dynamics of online public dissent.
- Socio-digital inequalities represented by the digital divide and its impact on marginalized groups.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1.1. friction and flooding
Margaret E. Roberts introduces two types of indirect censorship- friction and flooding. Friction affects the accessibility of information by creating the barrier made of extra time or money needed in order to obtain or spread certain information. In terms of the Internet it could be a slowly loading website page(Roberts:2018). In 2010 the government suppressed access to the Google services, like Gmail and others, by allowing only about 75% of requests allowed to access those sites (Roberts:2018).
Roberts argues further that another method of friction is the Golden Shield Project (Jindun Gongcheng金盾工程) or most commonly know as “The Great Firewall of China” (Dickson:2021, MacKinnon:2011,Negro:2017, Roberts:2018, Yu:2022), which blocks access to thousands of selected foreign websites, like Twitter (Clothey et al.:2015, MacKinnon:2011, Roberts:2018, Yu:2022)Google(Dickson: 2021,Clothey et al.:2015, Yu:2022), Wikipedia (Clothey et al.:2015), Facebook (Dickson:2021,Roberts:2018, Yu:2022), Voice of America News (Roberts:2018), WhatsApp (Yu:2022) and YouTube (Dickson:2021). However the Great Firewall is permeable and could be easily circumvented. A user needs only to download a Virtual Private Network (VPN) and can access foreign websites from his location (Roberts:2018). However in order to fill this gap on the Internet, China has created it’s own version of those websites. Instead of Twitter Chinese use Weibo, instead of WhatsApp WeChat and Baidu is replacing Google. In this vein, regular Chinese netizens don't really feel the need to make any special effort to circumvent the Great Firewall, because they already have those corresponding websites and applications (Yu:2022).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the initial hopes that the Internet would foster democratization in China and presents the thesis that the web is not a liberating technology but a controlled battlefield.
1.1. Literature review: Reviews existing research on Internet censorship, covering topics from keyword blocking to the potential for collective action and the skepticism surrounding political change.
2. China’s political system and governance: Explains China’s "pragmatic authoritarianism" and the adoption of "cyber sovereignty" to maintain state stability.
2.1. digital authoritarianism: Details China's use of high-tech surveillance and the social credit system to exert control over the population.
3. Virtual China: Examines the operational processes of the Chinese Internet, including the tension between state control and user resistance.
3.1. Internet censorship: Discusses the institutions responsible for media control and the regime's focus on preventing collective actions.
3.1.1. friction and flooding: Defines specific censorship tactics like slow connection speeds, the Great Firewall, and the practice of using state-hired commentators to distract the public.
3.1.2. self-censorship and censorship by private institutions: Explores how private corporations and fear-induced pressure lead to self-censoring behaviors among netizens.
3.2. blogger culture: Chronicles the rise of the blogging community and its role in challenging the power balance between the public and the state.
3.2.1. blogosphere in Xinjiang: Analyzes the specific surveillance environment and resistance strategies used by bloggers in the Xinjiang region.
3.3. “picking quarrels and provoking troubles”: Examines the legal charge frequently misused by authorities to silence online dissenters and rights activists.
3.4. Chinese netizens as the “new opinion class”: Describes the emergence of a politically engaged public capable of influencing societal discourse through rapid online dissemination.
3.5. mass mobilization: Investigates how online protests facilitate real-world collective actions and the role of platforms like Weibo and WeChat.
4. Digital Divide: Analyzes the socio-economic inequalities in Internet access and usage, and how this prevents equal digital participation.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the study’s findings, confirming that the Internet in China serves as a tool for hegemonic rule rather than a catalyst for democratic change.
Keywords
Digital authoritarianism, Internet censorship, China, Great Firewall, Digital divide, Mass mobilization, Netizens, Cyber sovereignty, Social credit system, Online activism, Collective action, Surveillance, Pragmatic authoritarianism, Self-censorship, Political dissent.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the central focus of this work?
The work examines how the Chinese state has adapted to the Internet, implementing digital authoritarianism to reinforce its rule rather than allowing the technology to foster democratization.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Key themes include state Internet control, censorship strategies like friction and flooding, the rise of a politically engaged "new opinion class," and the social inequalities created by the digital divide.
What is the fundamental research question?
The research explores whether the advent of the Internet in China acts as a liberating force for democratic change or if it is effectively utilized as an instrument of state control.
Which scientific methods were employed?
The study utilizes a review of existing academic literature, case studies of specific events (such as the Ningbo protests and Dr. Li Wenliang's death), and policy analysis regarding censorship and legal frameworks.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section covers the mechanisms of cyber sovereignty, the cat-and-mouse game between authorities and netizens, blogger culture, mass mobilization incidents, and the persistent issue of digital inequality.
How can the work be summarized via keywords?
The work is defined by terms such as digital authoritarianism, censorship, Internet activism, cyber sovereignty, and digital divide.
How does the regime use the charge of "picking quarrels and provoking troubles"?
The government uses this vague legal provision to selectively silence online bloggers, dissidents, and activists who criticize the regime on digital platforms.
What is the "digital divide" in the Chinese context?
It refers to the unequal access to and usage of the Internet caused by economic disparities, geography, and age, which excludes portions of the population from digital participation and social benefit.
What role does the "new opinion class" play?
This class consists of engaged netizens who rapidly disseminate information, often exposing government failures and forcing transparency through online mass incidents.
What distinguishes the online environment in Xinjiang?
Xinjiang serves as a "main battlefield" with significantly higher censorship rates and required surveillance software, though local bloggers still employ innovative metaphors to resist.
- Quote paper
- Katarzyna Skorska (Author), 2023, The Internet in China as liberating technology, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1498946
