Monday, January 26, 2015

Censorship in China and the Occupy Hong Kong movement

Gary King, Jennifer Pan, and Margaret E. Roberts of Harvard University published their study in the American Political Science Review in 2013. This particular study delves into methods of government censorship – specifically those exercised by the Chinese government. From website banning to keyword blocking, the authors took an impressively in depth look at Chinese censorship methods and posts from the country’s various social media sites. After analyzing all of this, they hypothesize that the Chinese government censors posts with “Collective Action Potential”, or the danger of protests and demonstrations. It makes sense that such a government would want to quash the thing that, historically, has been the Achilles heel for many an authoritarian regime.
            But then how did the Occupy Hong Kong movement slip through the censors? How did so many people come together to demand democracy if it is so allegedly difficult to express oneself through social media without being censored? Let me quickly remind you that this study – although extensively researched, well-written, and detailed – was conducted in 2012 and published in May 2013. I have no qualms regarding the credibility and aptitude of these authors; however, the truths of the past can be misleading when looking for the truths of today.
            In September 2013, just a few months after the aforementioned study was published, China made Facebook available to a small area in Shanghai. Today Facebook and other social media avenues are available to the citizens of Hong Kong, which would explain the organization of a mass pro-democracy movement. Evidence of the Occupy Hong Kong movement (often called the ‘Umbrella Revolution’) is definitely visible online. People organize on Facebook to bring yellow ribbons, umbrellas, and banners to various events, and you can even listen to their unofficial anthem on YouTube.


In essence, comparing this study with the Umbrella Revolution is not a question of right or wrong but of facts in time.

No comments:

Post a Comment