Online video: If it's not from Beijing, it's banned

To me, this whole story points towards an interesting collusion of interests: The interests of copyright owners (often media-related companies) and the interests of those who are eager to censor critical voices (often governments). The battleground is hidden under the representations/labels of "fighting online piracy" or "creating a harmonious society" but is in fact a covert attempt to manipulate public opinion and subvert personal freedoms in order for the involved agencies to maintain/increase power/profits/legitimacy.

Conclusively, I fail to see any "bright side" in all this. With the possible exception that an increasing number of people may get annoyed by being censored (and their anger may spur dissent that may increase resistance to domination).

So what does STD stand for in Chinese?

Synaptically transmitted disease.

Peter:

These days, there is very little that the government does which isn't aimed at controlling people's thoughts. You should read the Shi Tao abstract. In it Beijing actually comes out and directly instructs a newspaper team do exactly what you are suggesting.

Just check out article 3.3 "坚持正确的舆论导向，有效地防范境外敌对分子的破坏，坚决不发任何和中央政策不一致的任何言论" This is the actual words of the government.

Translation: "Continue to manipulate public opinion to the correct form, have an effective defense against destructive external forces, resolutely never express any opinions that are not consistent with the central (Government’s) opinion"

ACB: I'm aware of this, and you are right, manipulating public opinion is not very "covert" (if you know where to look -- which many people don't). The whole new system is called 'media politics' -- and is based on cooperation between governments and "leading"/"mainstream" media, both of whom have a stake in it (legitimacy, power, profit). I'm not saying that this phenomenon is limited to China -- but it seems that the 'corpocracy' involved there are bringing it to a new level. Western governments/media should watch and learn... (and I have no doubt they do).

Peter:

I'd actually disagree with you there, but not for the reasons that you might expect. In China, this isn't happening because of the collusion of state and media, it's happening because the state is in direct control of the media. Seriously, state officials in editorial briefings. Just read the Shi Tao documents.

ACB, I see your point, and I concede that currently, it's (still) mainly the party-state who plays 'media politics', using the media for its purposes. It's just that I'm not sure who is "in direct control" of whom. There are very powerful (and rich) media players in China. Plus, from one angle, the party-state, the media, oligarch-enterpreneurs, the military, etc. are different agencies. But on another level they are so intertwined that it's hard to say who controls/influences whom. Please see our latest blog-post at http://www.civicchina.com/?p=37 to see what I mean.

My expeirence has been that even when the state is not in direct control, the media generally tends to fall into three categories 1) Toadies who tow the state line because doing so is a business opportunity 2) fearfuls who censor themselves because they want to stay in business, 3) Those who want to be free who push the envelop. Sadly, the last of the three is in the minority in China right now, and hey often get stamped on.

Yep, I happen to know a few of those in the minority category, and it seems that things have gotten worse for them recently. Pushing the envelope has become near-impossible, and they recently get stamped on more violently. I believe that the Chinese party-state is currently testing their resolution for the 'Olympic Year 2008', i.e. how far they can go (silencing dissenting voices) without creating a big outcry abroad. Very far, it seems... at least I can't see much of an outcry.

Ironically, it's almost the exact opposite in some Western countries. The state does little or nothing to silence decent, but the private sector does a lot using/because of social and economic pressure instead of legal threats.

It's been like this in Hong Kong since the early 90s. The media has to look to sponsors and advertisers for revenue, and sponsors and advertisers often won't come to them if they rock the boat because they are afraid for their own profit margins. You won't get any companies that are looking to Mainland customers advertising in papers that criticize the Mainland. It's the same too in the US. Many TV networks and media groups won't do anything to upset certain groups for fear of the financial costs. It's why children's TV in the US is often relies on wacky comedies rather than drama or commentary, the networks are afraid to upset conservative suburban parents because if they get upset then they put pressure on the networks advertizers and sponsors, who pull out to avoid the bad press, which hurts the network's bottom line.

Yep, really an irony. Silencing dissent seems to become more popular than ever, and all means that facilitate this end are taken into consideration. There are global (neoliberal) tendencies that gradually replace a political logic of violence, clear restrictions and censorship with a more covert and easier to legitimize (!) economic logic that favors indirect/psychological manipulation and self-censorship. The new role of the state seems to be to facilitate economic agendas rather than having their own ideological ones. I think one could make a strong argument that the party-state in China is also developing into the Hong Kong direction.

Peter:

It's funny that you should think of this as being neo-liberal. In my experience it varies from country to country. For example, in the US under the Bush administration both society and politics have slanted considerably to a neo-conservative angle where people are far more accepting of being censored and censured than ever before. In politics a good example would be the increasing domestic surveillance. People are now accepting levels of survailance an restrictions that they would have thrown up their hands in horror to pre-9/11. You can also now be detained on suspicion of doing things now that you could only be detained before if they had hard evidence. It' the same in civil society, too. Only a year or so back they wanted to censor Saving Private Ryan when it was shown on TV. pre-9/11 it wold have been the liberals wanting this, but now it's the conservatives. On the other hand, in Anglophile countries like Canada and the UK society is becoming regressively liberal. Liberalism is actually being forced on people by the state which is using social pressure to brand anybody who disagrees as being some kind of Nazi.

In the US they protect your freedom by taking away your freedom, in Canada and the UK they protect your freedom by taking away your right to complain when you find something objectionable.

Personally, I find both just as unacceptable as I do the situation on the Mainland.

ACB: Neoliberal adaptations may vary from country to country... but the general idea to take away people's rights and property in the name of 'freedom' or 'national security,' through (sometimes more, sometimes less) covert manipulation seems to be very popular in lots of places. In light of the nice examples you mentioned, I'd rather nobody would "protect my freedom." This is to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you, as I too find the situations in the US or UK/Canada (almost as) unacceptable as in mainland China. A question arises: What needs to be done? In other words, is it still possible to reverse this process, or are those who could and want to change something already too marginalized and thus too irrelevant to make a difference?

I think that your definition of neo-liberal differs somewhat from my own.

I'd in no way have defined it as being "to take away people's rights and property in the name of 'freedom' or 'national security". In fact the definition of neoliberalism that I know would be the opposite of that. Instead I'd argue that a neo-liberal was the policy followed by Reagan, Mulroney and Thatcher (former UK leader). I would define the neo-liberal agenda as being the deregulation and privatization of the economy and the transfer of power from a centralized state to a free market state (basically, the dismantling of socialist systems). In this instance Thatcher is the perfect example of why I define neo-liberalism as the opposite of your definition. Thatcher disbanded most of the UK's big state run monopolies and actually gave property to the people by selling of government housing projects to the residents at below their market value.

I can't actually think of any instances where Reagan, Mulroney and Thatcher actually took away people's property or rights other than those instances where other systems of government would have done the same?

"What needs to be done"

I think that we are bound to disagree on this one as we both appear to have different ideas about what the end result should be. Personally, I'd like to see the next person who stands up and tries to take away my right to say that I find something objectionable receive a sound flogging as a lesson to all those who are try to sleepwalk the world into being a PC-nanny-state where liberal and neo con extremists (because they are both as bad as each other) have the monopoly on free speech and the average person on the street has to keep biting their tongue for fear of being labeled a terrorist or an extremist or for fear of offending someone who quite frankly doesn't care is they offend you.

This is why I prefer to live in Asia. Life is much simpler. At least Beijing admits that it wants to rule your life.

I think that our disagreement is not as big as it seems, and can be traced back to a definitional misunderstanding.

Unlike you, I would characterize Thatcherism/Reaganism as liberalism, and not as neoliberalism. And (which may not be a commonly accepted view), I also think that Friedrich Hayek's ideas in "The Road to Serfdom" (which e.g. Thatcher drew on a lot) were inherently liberal, and not neoliberal. Why? Because I would characterize Hayek's ideas as permeated with his belief in individual liberty -- thus as inherently liberal.

Only with the onset of preachy market fundamentalism propagated by the neo cons did those ideas develop into neoliberal ideas (and beyond).

Therefore, when I talk about neoliberal ideas, I don't talk about Thatcherism/Reaganism, I talk about neo con adaptations of these ideas into a system that 1) replaces individual rights and freedoms with the concepts of market fundamentalism (i.e. market is more important than anything, even freedom) and neoliberal imperialism (i.e. actively spreading market fundamentalism all over the world); 2) replaces the purpose of liberalism to reduce the likelihood of wars with a justification for (pre-emptive) warfare; 3) replaces the possibility of democracy with a quasi-fascist pressure to tag along with neoconservativism ("you're either with us, or against us"); and last but not least, 4) precludes any possibility for creative engagement (and increasingly limits open discussion, depending on where you are).

All these developments can not be blamed on Hayek's ideas -- thus my contention that he was a liberal (following in the footsteps of J.S. Mills), not a neoliberal -- and definitely not a neo con.

I see this as a gradual process from liberalism --> neoliberalism --> neo conservativism, a process during which creative engagement and open discussion were gradually and covertly replaced by a, as you call it, "PC nanny state the monopoly on free speech and the average person on the street has to keep biting their tongue for fear of being labeled a terrorist or an extremist or for fear of offending someone who quite frankly doesn't care if they offend you."

Admitted, my definition of neoliberalism in is a bit playful and may even be misleading, but given the intermingling of representation and reality in today's world, I thought it would still make some sense.

"What needs to be done"

Implicit in my argumentation above, I'd argue for the revival of possibilities for 'creative engagement' and 'open discussion'. Much like our constructive exchange via comments on your blog -- but maybe on a larger scale ;-)

Those possibilities are the prerequisite for the building of 'shared meanings' that help us to transcend convenient ideological blinders based on produced representations of a binary world order ("you're either with us, or against us") and find out more about issues of responsibility/trust/authority/values that are changing very fast but are currently (deliberately?!) removed from public discussion.

Having said all this, I agree with you that, on one level, life in Asia is much simpler since "Beijing admits that it wants to rule your life". But For me there is an important caveat: Beijing's insidious success in controlling information by cutting down 'creative engagement' and 'open discussion', and the violence it exhibits as a 'nanny'. Despite all this, like you I also prefer to live in Asia. Actually I'm living in Beijing right now. Because of my caveat, I do have doubts whether it's really easier to live here, but I'm interested in answering the question "what can be done," and cannot but hope that everyday life here will inspire some thoughts and ideas.

Ah, I see. I think that I may have misunderstood your English. I thought that you meant to say that neo-liberal governments were totalitarian regimes that took away people's human rights and personal freedoms.

Were you actually saying that they were taking away peoples rights and freedoms by refusing to protect them. For example, the current US administration "not acting" to protect people form cooperations by refusing to bring in extra consumer protection legislation?

I agree that that is dangerous, but it's also bad to go the other way. For example in the UK right now they have a government that is the exact opposite. It has rought in so much legislation to protect the consumer that the consumer often cannot be server in the way that they want. Either because the goods that they want are not available because the companies can't risk making/selling them, or because there is so much legislation that it has make goods artificially expensive due to the cost of complying.

You get this a lot in schools in the US these days. Schools won't do half of the activities they used to because they are so afraid of being sued. It's kind of weird. A school won't take kids on a nature hike any more in case one of them gets hurt, but they will force them to play dodge ball where kids deliberately try to hurt each other?