Category Archives: censorship

dear facebook, freedom or friends? that’s not a choice

facebook fail

I finally decided to leave Facebook.

I won’t lie, that was not an easy decision. In fact, it was really hard. See, Facebook is the only place where all my friends are together. Leaving Facebook is not just quitting a website, but it also means saying goodbye to all my friends. I am afraid I will no longer be invited to birthday parties, see cute pictures of their babies, or be able to find out that they have graduated and congratulate them.

But I have also seen Facebook slowly change over the years, for the worse, a decline that is beautifully documented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. There are many good reasons why you might want to consider leaving Facebook. One of them is that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s CEO, apparently says that he “doesn’t believe in privacy”. Well, he just happens to be the guy who is in charge of the website where I hang out pretty much all the time with my friends. I compare this to being invited to a house party with all my friends, but where the owner secretly records everything we do and say, and tries hard to sell it to advertisers. When he gets caught, we rage, and he says “oops, sorry”. Again and again, like an abusive partner, he promises to clean up his act. At what point do we say “enough is enough”? Should we trust him never to do it again? Not if it is clearly against his financial interest. Why not leave?

Facebook effectively holds our friends as hostages. The ransom is not our privacy, but our freedom. Let me explain: I do have (some) privacy on Facebook. Most of my information on Facebook was not exactly secret. The problem is not privacy: it is not being in control of your own life. Facebook might give us privacy, but always on their terms. They make it incredibly hard to leave. They make it almost impossible to save your messages, photos and profile. We are talking about them refusing to give back our information, our photos, /our/ life! It is almost impossible to leave, so we stay and they will continue to take whatever privacy they feel they can get away with. How much do they feel they can get away with? Let me ask you: how much privacy are our friends worth to us?

Dear Facebook, freedom or friends? That’s not a choice. So I quit. Instead, I plan to write on this blog, twitter, and longer e-mails to friends. It will not be a perfect replacement, but it will have to do until a better option comes along (psst there was life before Facebook!).

Allow me to make a wild analogy, one I believe is not entirely out of left field. Many people know that there is censorship in China. Many people also tell me that 1) the poor Chinese must feel really repressed or 2) they must be okay with it. But if that’s the case, who in their right mind can be okay with censorship? They must be brainwashed.

Ask yourself this: if I decide not to leave Facebook, yet I know they do not care at all about my privacy, what does that mean? How is that different from the people who continue to use the internet in China day in day out despite the prevalent and prolific practices of censorship? This is not a rhetorical question. Of course I realize Facebook is not the Chinese government, but I do think there are similarities between them, in kind although perhaps not in degree. Are you still on Facebook, and if so, why?

My vote goes to Global Voices Advocacy

I vote for GV Advocacy, because I have long been concerned with questions of censorship and control. I believe the internet has great potential to change and improve the condition and constraints of the public sphere, but that does not mean this will happen by itself – governments that seek to restrict websites such as YouTube, Flickr act out of fear and by doing so severely limit the potential of civil society. 

This blog post is part of Zemanta’s “Blogging For a Cause” campaign to raise awareness and funds for worthy causes that bloggers care about.

last-minute: talk coming up, will be webcast live

After attending ICA in Chicago then going back to Philadelphia for the 7th Chinese Internet Research conference I helped organize, I will finally have some rest in a few hours once I am done with my public talk at Harvard

The talk will be webcast live. Hope you can join me on the interwebs.

Here’s the teaser:

This project attempts to help us understand the cultures, practices and people of a new kind of news production environment: Global Voices, an international project that brings together and translates blogs and citizen media from around the world in order to, “aggregate, curate, and amplify the global conversation online – shining light on places and people other media often ignore.”

Drawing on Global Voices as an exemplar, I argue that we need to move beyond objectivity towards “hospitality” in pursuing the potential of journalism in a networked world. Roger Silverstone defines hospitality as the “ethical obligation to listen.” Indeed, in a world where the internet makes it so much easier for everybody to speak, Global Voices asks us: “The world is talking. Are you listening?” What is ultimately at stake is perhaps best described by Silverstone, who argues that, “it is only by attending to the realities of global communication, but also and even more so to its possibilities, that we will be able to reverse what otherwise will be a downward spiral towards increasing global incomprehension and inhumanity.”

Global Voices shows us that we would do ourselves a disservice by limiting our imagination to the ideal type of journalism from a previous era. Without expanding our imagination, we cannot hope to understand how the internet might alter the constraints of the relationship between journalism and democracy for the better. Indeed, communication scholar James Carey helped us understand that “the meaning of democracy changes over time because forms of communication with which to conduct politics change.”

understanding the rules of hospitality

“.. that what makes conversation democratic is not free, equal, and spontaneous expression but equal access to the floor, equal participation in setting the ground rules for discussion, and a set of ground rules designed to encourage pertinent speaking, attentive listening, appropriate simplifications, and widely apportioned speaking rights.”

From Michael Schudson, “Why Conversation is Not the Soul of Democracy,” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 14 (1997), 297-300

A(nother) great piece by Michael Schudson, although its title might be a bit misleading. I’d say he’s not necessarily arguing against conversation, but making sure we don’t take its role in democracy for granted. As the quote shows, he insists that for conversation to play an important role in democracy, it has to be worked hard for – there is nothing spontaneous about quality conversation.

I do wonder though – is any conversation that does not necessarily have all the ideal requirements Schudson sets out any less democratic? (equal access to the floor, equal participation in setting the ground rules, attentive listening, etc) We might want to think about what a minimum threshold could be for democratic conversation to be considered as such.

James Bohman stresses the importance of such an exercise. Thinking about what would constitute a minimum threshold for a political system to be considered democratic, just and free from domination, he coins the idea of a “democratic minimum”: the capability to initiate deliberation and thus democratic decision-making processes. But as we see from the above, even Bohman’s absolute minimum requirement to be able to initiate deliberation is not a simple or straightfoward matter.

In practice, no conversation is ever equal, whether it comes to access to the floor, or having a part in determing the rules of conversation. Starting with the simple choice of language. Growing up as a son of Hong Kong immigrant parents in Amsterdam, the Netherlands – I learned the lesson of how undemocratic conversation can be, especially in multicultural societies. Conversations in public were always an away game for me. And again, being an international student in grad school in the United States, I don’t have the luxury of enjoying a home game during discussions and conversations. What often aggravates this is that the opposite side often presumes conversation is equal, unaware that there is a home/away game difference. And therefore not quite capable to “listen to silences”. These are soft, rather than hard, constraints on speech – but unlike hard measures like censorship, they are also harder to spot and less visible. Not only are they undemocratic, to the untrained eye, it is also invisible that they are undemocratic.

What to do? Here Roger Silverstone’s idea of hospitality is useful. Instead of imagining a talk being conducted out in an equal and open field, hospitality signals to us that conversation takes place in the particularity of someone’s home, with a host and a guest. The host, out of hospitality, aware that this is home, becomes temporarily the servant of the guest, in order to make the guest comfortable. What we see here is a situation where the one holding the power, being aware of it, temporarily makes an effort to subvert the power relationship with the other, in order to create a situation where a democratic conversation can take place.

What I am thinking hard about: while the notion of hospitality is universal, the rules of hospitality are not. Each place, each group and each culture has its own specific rules of what constitutes hospitality. What we need in this current day and age is a way of making these rules of hospitality, these protocols, be able to talk to each other, to be interoperable. Ideas, suggestions, known examples and experiments in the broadest sense are welcome.

is the RIAA killing chickens to scare monkeys?

Since when has the RIAA turned to tactics the Chinese government often employs in their fight against internet censorship? Since for some time, Charles Nesson might argue in the most recent case he is taking on.

Professor Charles Nesson is defending Boston University graduate student Joel Tenenbaum against the RIAA. The RIAA is suing Tenenbaum for illegally downloading a few songs many years ago. This is how it usually goes: People get a scary letter from the RIAA saying they have been downloading songs illegally and are going to sue them in an expensive lawsuit; people often settle for a few thousand bucks to get the RIAA and their formidable litigation team off their back. This is a tactic that they have been effectively using against many people. What is the point of this? According to Nesson:

“The plaintiffs and the RIAA are seeking to punish [Joel Tenenbaum] beyond any rational measure of the damage he allegedly caused. They do this, not for the purpose of recovering compensation for actual damage caused by Joel’s individual action, nor for the primary purpose of deterring him from further copyright infringement, but for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using computers, and so frightening to parents and teachers of students using computers, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future.”

The part where Professor Nesson is arguing that these actions are neither to recover compensation nor to deter the person from future copyright infringement, but rather that their purpose is to send a signal to frighten everybody else: we will find you if you dare to download even a few songs illegally.

In writing a paper on Chinese internet control and censorship a few years ago, I often came across a Chinese proverb that would describe tactics like this. “Killing the chicken to scare the monkeys” (殺雞警猴) is a Chinese saying that illustrates how setting an example can be a very effective way of scaring people and deterring behavior you find undesirable. It was a particular powerful way of illustrating how a few well-placed and properly timed, not to mention highly publicized arrests, of dissidents would let the Chinese online population know that they were being watched and that those who would use the internet for “undesirable” purposes would have a less than desirable fate. Analogous, what Nesson is saying is that what is happening right now to Joel Tenenbaum is the RIAA way of resorting to the age-old “killing the chicken, to scare the monkeys” tactic.

We can debate about whether downloading songs from peer to peer networks should be illegal or not, especially when millions of kids do this, whether the music model is just broken, or whether this is really the only way to protect future innovation and creation of music. Let’s accept that it is illegal for now. Professor Nesson is not arguing that downloading songs should not be illegal – his argument really is that this should not be criminal. If downloading a song would be like speeding, this is how the current system would compare:

  • a $750 fine for every mile over the speed limit, escalating to $150,000 per mile if the speeder knew he was speeding;
  • the fines are not publicized and few drivers know they exist;
  • enforcement not by the government but by a private police force that keeps the fines for itself

Professor Nesson furthermore argues that a system like this

  • has no political accountability
  • can pursue any defendant it chooses at its own whim
  • can accept or reject payoffs in exchange for not prosecuting the tickets, and pockets for itself all payoffs and fines. Imagine that a significant percentage of these fines were never contested, regardless of whether they had merit, because the individuals being fined have limited financial resources and little idea of whether they can prevail in front of an objective judicial body.

I wonder how the relatively young legal system in China would compare to the system as perfected by the RIAA?

If you want to read more, the case has been getting some amazing amount of press so far.

nancy fraser – rethinking the public sphere

I’m reading Fraser and it’s really good. Quote on page 64:

Subordinate groups sometimes cannot find the right voice or words to express their thoughts, and when they do, they discover they are not heard. [They] are silenced, encouraged to keep their wants inchoate, and heard to say ‘yes’ when what they have said is ‘no.’ [..] many of these feminist insights into ways in which deliberation can serve as a mask for domination extend beyond gender to other kinds of unequal relations, like those based on class or ethnicity. They alert us to the ways in which social inequalities can infect deliberation, even in the absence of any formal exclusions.

In: Nancy Fraser, Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy, Social Text, No. 25/26 (1990), pp. 56-80.

Reading her quote reminds us how access alone often is not enough for equal communication. Access, of course, is a first prerequisite that is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In this light, one can think about to what degree citizen media empowers or emancipates; that is to say, how being able to blog alone is not enough, one also has to be heard in a voice that does justice to the speaker – a proper voice. This problem gets only more challenging in a global context, where not just social inequalities but also linguistic and cultural, not to mention basic human rights to freedom of speech, are often an immense barrier to any remote possibility for a healthy conversation between different people, groups, cultures in an age of growing interdependence.

Global Voices Summit 2008 – day 1

Currently attending the Global Voices Summit 2008 held in Budapest, Hungary. It’s an amazing happening so far, with over 200 bloggers all sitting in one room (scarcity of power strips!). The first day so far has been focusing on all the different kinds of problems bloggers worldwide face, an issue the Economist also recently wrote about. It’s a bit overwhelming, imagine hearing all the different forms of censorship practices worldwide in one day and it only reinforces the importance of open spaces online. Sometimes the discussion about censorship can become quite abstract – but the discussions today ground us back into reality again.

Follow the Summit on twitter, irc (#globalvoices on freenode), liveblog, video stream, facebook, flickr, and slideshare (I am sure I am still missing some!).

“wikipedia” unblocked in China

According to Danwei, wikipedia is currently unblocked in China. But wait, which wikipedia are we talking about? Apparently it is only the English wikipedia that is unblocked; the Chinese wikipedia is still blocked.

One of the arguments I make in an article I wrote earlier on Chinese internet policy is how this metaphor of the Great Firewall obstructs our understanding of internet censorship. The Great Wall metaphor leads us to think internet censorship is all about the (Western) barbarians trying to invade China – think CNN, BBC, and also (the English) Wikipedia. What the Great Firewall metaphor obscures are the ‘internal barbarians’ trying to talk to 1) ‘other internal barbarians’ (e.g. Chinese citizens talking to each other) and 2) the outside world (e.g. censorship is not just about the right to receive information, but also to impart and share it with others yourself). If the internet is truly going to have an impact, it is because Chinese citizens are empowered because they can talk to each other, coordinate and form associations and also share their views with the rest of the world.  In this light, it is really really telling and problematic that the English wikipedia is unblocked, but the Chinese wikipedia remains censored and blocked.

turkey’s choice

A great op-ed by Palfrey and Zittrain in the Turkish Daily News on March 5, 2008 outlines the choices that Turkey is facing now with regard to the internet. As they argue, Turkey has a decision to take.

Does one choose to embrace the innovation and creativity that the Internet brings with it, albeit along with some risk of people doing and saying harmful things? Or does one start down the road of banning entire zones of the Internet, whether online Web sites or new technologies like peer-to-peer services or live videoblogging?

This is a choice that most countries have to take. What I would have wanted to see a bit more in the op-ed was tailoring this question to the particular situation and context Turkey is in that shapes how they are going to decide on this issue. How should the fact that Turkey seeks entry to the European Union informs this decision towards a more open or more closed internet? What about the unique situation of Turkey as a secular country with a Muslim majority? What about the hot button topic of the Kurdish minority? How do these questions come into play when deciding on how much generativity to allow? One concern of mine is that this debate will be framed as choosing between either innovation and creativity, or national security and stability. How do we alleviate their concern? How do you advice a government and a public that is deciding on this issue with these questions in mind?

EDIT: John Palfrey’s blog has a slightly more elaborate and detailed argument on the Turkey case.