It's usually viewed as a protective measure more than a mechanism of oppression. And it is protective. If you believe that widespread dissidence could lead to the collapse of your government then preventing that is a necessary evil to ensure your own well being.
So, yeah, most mainlanders are aware of the censorship but it's not always viewed as inherently bad. And not just out of fear of being targeted or something. It's also easier to justify things that way when you're not even sure what exactly is being censored or why, you just assume it's probably for the better.
We allow similar censorship in the US (of things like extremist propaganda or hate speech) with a similar justification. But free speech in the US is rarely an actual threat to the authority of the government itself.
>We allow similar censorship in the US (of things like extremist propaganda or hate speech) with a similar justification.
The difference is that this is private companies doing it of their own volition and not by government demand. The US government can't do anything about you hosting a website and posting extremist propaganda/hate speech on it. (the exception being speech which is _likely_ to cause _imminent lawless action... see: Brandenberg v. Ohio)
You're right, I didn't mean to compare them in that way. There is a difference between government-mandated vs corporations voluntarily censoring.
My point was just to highlight that even here in the US we accept some level of censorship. Most of us are okay with Islamic extremist propaganda or videos of violence being removed from websites if it's done to prevent future violence. And that should explain why there are so many people in mainland China who accept censorship without seeing it as excessively oppressive. Especially when they aren't fully aware of what all is being censored or why.
The result isn't the same though. With hate speech there has been an open debate in society and the media about what is acceptable and what isn't, and that consensus is not complete and is regularly challenged. Even the media that is censored, such as videos of hostage executions, is often discussed widely and the content described so people still know about it andcan often track it down if they really want to, it's just not propagated in it's raw offensive form. The state censorship in China is of a completely different order.
It saddens me that so many people draw this sort of false equivalence. All it does is provide comfort and support for the sort of pervasive state imposed news blackouts and retribution against individual commentators practiced in places like China.
Yes, because the alternative is the government forcing a 3rd party to provide a platform for speech they disagree with. And since that platform isn't free, you're also forcing them to spend their own resources to support it.
Those 3rd parties have rights too. They shouldn't be required to support and provide resources for speech they disagree with.
> Yes, because the alternative is the government forcing a 3rd party to provide a platform for speech they disagree with. And since that platform isn't free, you're also forcing them to spend their own resources to support it.
> Those 3rd parties have rights too. They shouldn't be required to support and provide resources for speech they disagree with.
I think people keep conflating the notion of being _able_ to say what you please and having a platform to do so. I sympathize with these people because I have witnessed the erosion of the public square as a place to promote your own ideas (with people glued to their phones, with headphones on, etc).
However, I agree that we can't force service providers to host content they disagree with _for free_ but there's a reason we require water companies to provide water to synagogues and mosques alike.
I think as we advance technologically, access to information (and the platforms through which they are spread) will be regarded as a necessity to function as a member of society and will be regulated as such.
Not even close. In China, you cannot even talk about politically-sensitive topics like the Tiananmen Square massacre. I don’t think you appreciate the massive chilling effect of its policies, and the strength of the Party’s grip on the social consciousness. It’s a different ball game.
> If you believe that widespread dissidence could lead to the collapse of your government then preventing that is a necessary evil to ensure your own well being.
Stalin/Pol Pot/Hitler and all of the 20th century's historical tyrants would agree wholeheartedly with this statement.
So, yeah, most mainlanders are aware of the censorship but it's not always viewed as inherently bad. And not just out of fear of being targeted or something. It's also easier to justify things that way when you're not even sure what exactly is being censored or why, you just assume it's probably for the better.
We allow similar censorship in the US (of things like extremist propaganda or hate speech) with a similar justification. But free speech in the US is rarely an actual threat to the authority of the government itself.