censorship by chinese blog-hosting companies

Chinaʼs Censorship 2.0:How companies censor bloggers

Rebecca MacKinnon

Journalism & Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong

rmack@hku.hk

2 categories of Chinese Internet censorship

2 categories of Chinese Internet censorship

• “Outside the great firewall”

• Filtering of websites outside of China

2 categories of Chinese Internet censorship

• “Outside the great firewall”

• Filtering of websites outside of China

• “Inside the great firewall”

• Deletion of content on domestic commercial websites

• Takedown of domestically hosted websites

• Shut-down of data centers

Filtering research: Open Net Initiative

The “Great Firewall” in action

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/index.htm

Human Rights Watch: search engine censorship research

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/index.htm

Human Rights Watch: search engine censorship research

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/index.htm

Human Rights Watch: search engine censorship research

Nart Villeneuve: University of TorontoSee: http://www.nartv.org/writing/

Lawyer Liu Xiaoyuan tried to sue blog host for censoring posts

... his lawsuit inspired my project to test censorship by Chinese blog-hosting companies

Blog post about “Tiananmen Mothers”

Censorship by Chinese blog-hosting companies

Your post “Tiananmen mothers organization publishes a website” has been successfully submitted! Because it

contains sensitive words, please wait for the community editors to approve it. Please donʼt re-post. Thank you.

Password protected blog used to manage project: posted and categorized different kinds of content

for testing across 15 different blog-hosting

services.

Example of one piece of content for testing: excerpt from a BBC

Chinese news story. Link to original website and the full story are included below the test item.

50 subject categories1. sudden incidents

2. overseas political events

3. olympics

4. historical issues

5. leftist critiques

6. military/security

7. foreign policy

8. anti-japanese

9. anti-U.S.

10. North Korean refugees

11. foreign trade & investment

12. financial and econ data/info

13. probs. in govt. ministries

14. corruption

15. relocation (due to construction)

16. environment

17. 3 gorges dam

18. Hong Kong politics

19. Taiwan, general politics

20. Taiwan, independence

21. Macau politics

22. AIDS

23. health issues (non-AIDS)

24. crime & criminal cases

25. city government policies

26. provincial government policies

27. national government policies

28. media/tech policy

29. national leaders

30. provincial and city leaders

31. local leaders

32. religious issues

33. ethnic minorities

34. discussion of polit reofrm

35. legal defence

36. human rights critiques

37. political arrests

38. independence movements

39. calls for regime change

40. FLG

41. natural disaster

42. economic measures

43. dissidents (unjailed)

44. censorship/surveillance

45. opposition parties

46. NPC

47. labor issues

48. migrant workers

49. economic disparity

50. Tibet

Screenshots were taken at every step of the testing process for every blog post, and uploaded

into a database.

15 blog hosts tested, 108 valid testsCompany A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H*

I

J

K

L

M

N**

O***

0 27 54 81 108

1

3

9

13

17

19

20

22

24

26

27

31

34

44

60

Number of blog posts tested

Blog

ser

vice

s

NOTES:

*H - 2 tests deleted the full post: 85 and 115 (both milk powder related); 20 others replaced sensitive words with “***”

**N - Connection reset when visiting blog from Chinese ISP only. For: 66 (TAM mothers), 126 (milk powder); 117 (“Chinese people and religion” essay).

***O: 27 (“Why we are suing Yahoo” - by dissidents and human rights activists)

NOTE: Company names have been replaced with letters due to concerns that companies who censor

less will be subject to repercussions.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H*

I

J

K

L

M

N**

O***

0% 100%

0.9%

2.8%

8.3%

12.0%

15.7%

17.6%

18.5%

20.4%

22.2%

24.1%

25.0%

28.7%

31.5%

40.7%

55.6%

Percentage of blog posts tested

Blog

ser

vice

s

The percentages

NOTES:

*H - 2 tests deleted the full post: 85 and 115 (both milk powder related); 20 others replaced sensitive words with “***”

**N - Connection reset when visiting blog from Chinese ISP only. For: 66 (TAM mothers), 126 (milk powder); 117 (“Chinese people and religion” essay).

***O: 27 (“Why we are suing Yahoo” - by dissidents and human rights activists)

Baidu: short report about riot in Weng An county, Guizhou

Baidu: published, then removed after 24 hours. Also censored by: iFeng, MySpace,

Netease, Tianya, YahooCN, Qzone. (Censored by 7 of 15 blog hosts)

Baidu: clash between protestors and police in Yunnan province.

Error message: “Sorry, your article has failed to publish. The articleʼs content contains inappropriate content, please check.”

Netease: report about explosion in Xinjiang, posted successfully in “private view” (can be seen when author is logged in to system).

Netease: attempt to access same post from “public view”: anybody who is not logged in to the

system as the author of that blog.

Error message: “This post is not public, you presently cannot view it.”

Sina: Same report about explosion in Xinjiang, published successfully for public view...

Sina: post is removed within 24 hours.Error message at same URL: “Sorry, the blog address

you visited does not exist.”

8 OUT OF 15 BLOG SERVICES TESTED CENSORED THIS CONTENT

“Letter to my son” wishing for multi-party democracy in China: censored by nobody

Bao Tong essay blasting 1-party system (with his name removed): censored by only 2 of 15

Xinhua: Hu Jintao pep talk to Olympic athletes censored by Mop.com and Blogbus

Xinhua: Hu Jintao pep talk to Olympic athletes censored by Mop.com and Blogbus

Mop: “Sorry, your article has been sent to the recycling station, please revise it then publish again.”

Xinhua: Hu Jintao pep talk to Olympic athletes censored by Mop.com and Blogbus

Mop: “Sorry, your article has been sent to the recycling station, please revise it then publish again.”

Why so much variation?• Instructions to companies from city or provincial State

Council Information Office Internet Section, interpreted differently

• Different methods devised for implementation

• What province/city company is registered in

• Manager/editorʼs relationship with local State Council

• Background and priorities of individual web company managers and editors

• Relationship between company management, investors, and regulatory bodies

Conclusions• Internet filtering (“the great firewall”) is only one part of

Chinese Internet censorship.

• Domestic censorship is not centralized.

• Domestic web censorship is outsourced by government to the private sector.

• Censorship is inconsistent - itʼs usually possible to post your content somewhere, for at least a while.

• The system of “managing” user-generated web content in China follows similar logic and approach as the system for controlling professional news media.

Implications for research “inside the great firewall”

• Need larger-scale studies of domestic web censorship (include chat rooms, social networking sites, instant-messaging, mobile services)

• Unlike automated filtering tests, these tests require manual testing and constant analysis by Chinese speakers with contextual knowledge - it is tedious work requiring attention to detail.

• Need surveys of web service company employees.

• Need surveys of users and bloggers about their experiences.

Implications for activism• Circumvention is important but itʼs not the

solution to the whole censorship problem.

• Educate bloggers and netizens about strategies for successfully disseminating information online about politically sensitive subjects

• Global “user rights” movement demanding greater transparency and accountability by Internet companies on privacy and free expression

Global questions

• Where else in the world is this kind of political censorship by web service companies of user-generated content happening? (Companies in the West already censor for child porn, copyright violations and sometimes hate speech.)

• Will the “Chinese model” - of demanding censorship by companies - spread globally?

• What issues in this vein should the advocacy community be preparing for?

• What further research needs to be done to better understand global trends?