Talk:Internet censorship in China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tool for checking which websites are blocked[edit]

You can use http://www.greatfirewall.biz to verify whether a certain website is currently blocked in mainland China.

No longer works, try http://www.blockedinchina.net instead. CouldThatBe (talk) 21:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Will somebody please reconcile the second sentence with the first and the third?[edit]

"Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China is conducted under a wide variety of laws and administrative regulations. There are no specific laws or regulations which the censorship follows. In accordance with these laws, more than sixty Internet regulations have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC) government..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.49.20 (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. This seems to have been fixed a long time ago (not by me). --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably should have left it the way it was :D
There are no "laws" in China - not as we understand "law", anyhow. It would be more correct to think of them as 'regulations'. Plus these regulations are written so badly that they are essentially meaningless. Contracts commonly say "Everyone should do their best to solve the problem ..." what the heck does that mean ? The words are so imprecise in all this stuff that you can make them mean whatever you want. The result is that the bureau in charge can pretty much do whatever they want and claim it is "according to the regulations."
Before someone beats me up, I don't think this is on purpose. The society is so biased towards "harmonious" appearances that the very concept of a law which is not flexible doesn't exist. So what you end up with is no law, really, just a bunch of regulations that can (and do) change with the wind. It's a cultural thing. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Allegations against Cisco[edit]

Reuters reported this week that a lawsuit has been filed in a California federal court alleging that "Cisco and its executives designed and implemented [the Golden Shield] surveillance system for the Chinese Communist Party, knowing it would be used to root out members of the Falun Gong religion and subject them to detention, forced labor and torture." Apparently the suit further alleges that some 5,000 Falun Gong followers have been wrongfully imprisoned, tortured, or killed with the help of technology provided by Cisco. This seems quite notable, but I'm wondering where it might best belong on this page. Thoughts? Homunculus (duihua) 04:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done. Cisco's involvement in the sale of equipment and technology to China is mentioned in the Enforcement section of this article and also in the Censorship in China section of the Cisco Systems article. But neither article mentions the lawsuit. I think the Cisco Systems article is the better place to mention this. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Before anyone gets all righteous about Falun Gong, let me explain that they were ... not exactly popular, but at least somewhat respected within China.
And then they burned their own children at Tiananmen. That was it. They have *zero* credibility within China now. None, nada, no, zip, zilch. Public opinion did a 180 to back the government at that point. (Been liivng in China for the past twenty years), feel free to geoip me. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

oh, the irony[edit]

http://www.greatfirewall.biz/url/55335

well, thats not ironic really, but just funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJLO (talkcontribs) 06:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

More background material[edit]

Now many of the sources are second-hand sources, and often not at all available on-line. It would be better to supply URLs of actual documents (even Chinese is ok) or at least credible expert sources, i.e. law firms, academic publications, or official organs instead of magazines

--Sigmundur (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No consensus for page move[edit]

As far as I am aware, there was a consensus reached to rename the page on China to be about the PRC, rather than China as a historical or cultural entity or whatever. I am not aware of a "consensus" that says that every instance were "People's Republic of China" appears in a title it should be changed to China. Consensus is reached, as far as I know, on the pages in which things are discussed. I have not heard of a process by which consensus by a group of editors discussing one matter on one page is then automatically extended to a number of other related pages in terms of what they are to be titled. I strongly suspect this would call for individual consensus on the various pages which moves were desired for. If I am mistaken, please correct me. In any case, I suggest first beginning with a proposal, explanation, and an attempt to form consensus about the move. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Packet filtering affects all protocols?[edit]

Terminate TCP packet transmissions when a certain number of controversial keywords are detected. This affects all TCP protocols...

It's obviously not true. It may only affect those protocols which contain any words, i.e. are unencrypted, uncompressed and carry any text. Even the article goes on to say that SSL and VPNs can act as a workaround, and what are they based on if not TCP/IP? Ustt (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. That section now reads:
Terminate TCP packet transmissions when a certain number of controversial keywords are detected. This can be effective with many TCP protocols.... --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

When will it stop?[edit]

Add a section mentioning experts opinions of when all this blocking of major websites nonsense will stop. Jidanni (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done. I don't think the "experts" or anyone else really knows if or when the blocking of major websties will end. If anyone knows of a reliable secondary source for that information, let us know. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
You are right. ShadowYC (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

A 2012 study of social media sites by other Harvard researchers found ...[edit]

I am about to revert a change made at 04:48, 22 March 2013 by IP 70.167.209.181 and go back to the version from 14:43, 20 March 2013 by JayJasper.

Before (version by JayJasper):

A 2012 study of social media sites by other Harvard researchers found that 13% of internet posts were blocked, focusing mainly on any form of collective action (anything from false rumors driving riots to protest organizers to large parties for fun), pornography, and criticism of the censors; significant criticisms of the government were allowed.[1]

After (version by IP 70.167.209.181):

A 2012 study of social media sites by other Harvard researchers found that 13% of internet posts were blocked, focusing mainly on any form of collective action (anything from information driving riots to protest organizers to large parties for fun), criticism of the censors, and criticism of corruption; criticisms of the government were not allowed.[2]
References
  1. ^ "China's 'Internet Police' Targets Collective Action". NPR. 8 August 2012. 
  2. ^ http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-10-26/opinions/35498777_1_chinese-officials-fight-corruption-bo-xilai

The after version changes the information conveyed entirely by adding the word not and changing the source of the reference to one that does not talk about the "2012 study of social media sites by other Harvard researchers". The change seems misleading to me. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Earlier this afternoon I did revert to the prior version by JayJasper. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to help craft a proposal[edit]

Surveillance awareness day is a proposal for the English Wikipedia to take special steps to promote awareness of global surveillance on February 11, 2014. That date is chosen to coincide with similar actions being taken by organizations such as Mozilla, Reddit, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Feedback from editors of this article would be greatly appreciated. Please come join us as we brainstorm, polish, and present this proposal to the Wikipedia Community. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does China care if websites are anti Japan? Do they?[edit]

Hello originally the lead of the article said " The escalation of the government's effort to neutralize critical online opinion comes after a series of large anti-Japanese, anti-pollution, anti-corruption protests, "

I took out the part about anti-Japanese because the source didn't say that, it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article and it didn't make sense, I think someone meant to say anti-Chinese protests? The article does say that all thru out, that china is censoring anti-china websites and posts. Popish Plot (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The section "technical implementation" shouldn't have "Main article: Golden Shield Project". It should be "Main article: Great Firewall of China"[edit]

Golden Shield Project (GSP) and Great Firewall of China (GFW) are completely different. GFW is only about internet censorship in China, but GSP includes security management information system, criminal information system, exit and entry administration information system, supervisor information system and traffic management information system. GSP also includes Bureau of Public Information and Network Security Supervision (公共信息网络安全监察局, or 网监局 for short) , which may possibly be GFW. As a result, GFW may possibly be one of the sub-projects of GSP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.38.6.56 (talk) 03:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia.org blocked 2015[edit]

Since four days ago wikipedia.org has been blocked by the great wall. On the 26:th is the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. http://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2015/05/22/wikipedia-disturbed-over-fresh-china-censorship/ CouldThatBe (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It was ? I keep reading this stuff, but since I seem to be posting to Wikipedia and use it on a daily basis, it seems odd that I have not noticed this. Strange.
(A lot of the stuff in this article is horse feathers, but oh well, not worth the time to fight with all you guys on the Outside who "know" all about China.)
Oh yeah. I use gmail, too. Three accounts' worth. From behind the gfw. Without a vpn. But don't tell anyone. 210.22.142.82 (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Internet censorship in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Friday??????[edit]

In the Under Enforcement -> Use of service providers section, the article states: "In July 2007, the city of Xiamen announced it would ban anonymous online postings after text messages and online communications were used to rally protests against a proposed chemical plant in the city. Internet users will be required to provide proof of identity when posting messages on the more than 100,000 Web sites registered in Xiamen.[33] The Chinese government issued new rules on Friday requiring Internet users to provide their real names to service providers, while assigning Internet companies greater responsibility for deleting forbidden postings and reporting them to the authorities." (Boldface added by me.) The ambiguous use of the word Friday confuses me. Does that mean this last Friday (which would be December 16), and so have to be changed on the 23rd; or does it mean the Friday directly following Xiamen's previously mentioned announcement, which is of indeterminate date given the information provided in the article. I don't know what date it was, so I can't fix it except with "soon afterwards" or something to that effect, which I don't want to do because it's very nonspecific. Does anyone know what date this occurred? Thanks! A lad insane Channel 2 17:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It's December 28, 2012. In fact, that's just a regulation until China passed a controversial internet security law on November 7, 2016. --逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC).
Thanks. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Reference 104 may has a error.[edit]

Looks like reference 104 has a error. ShadowYC (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)