This is the public version of a presentation I gave at the public seminar on Digital media, civic engagement and political mobilization in repressive regimes 10-11 November 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark

1. Chinaʼs Censorship 2.0:
How companies censor bloggers
Rebecca MacKinnon
Journalism & Media Studies Centre,
University of Hong Kong
rmack@hku.hk

2. 2 categories of Chinese
Internet censorship

3. 2 categories of Chinese
Internet censorship
• “Outside the great firewall”
• Filtering of websites outside of China

4. 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

5. Filtering research: Open Net Initiative

7. The “Great Firewall” in action

8. Human Rights Watch: search engine censorship research
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/index.htm

9. Human Rights Watch: search engine censorship research
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/index.htm

10. Human Rights Watch: search engine censorship research
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/index.htm

11. Nart Villeneuve: University of Toronto
See: http://www.nartv.org/writing/

12. Lawyer Liu Xiaoyuan tried to sue
blog host for censoring posts
... his lawsuit inspired my project to test censorship by
Chinese blog-hosting companies

13. Censorship by Chinese blog-hosting companies
Blog post about
“Tiananmen Mothers”

14. 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.

15. Password protected blog
used to manage project:
posted and categorized
different kinds of content
for testing across 15
different blog-hosting
services.

16. 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.

17. 50 subject categories
17. 3 gorges dam 34. discussion of polit reofrm
1. sudden incidents
18. Hong Kong politics 35. legal defence
2. overseas political events
19. Taiwan, general politics 36. human rights critiques
3. olympics
20. Taiwan, independence 37. political arrests
4. historical issues
21. Macau politics 38. independence movements
5. leftist critiques
22. AIDS 39. calls for regime change
6. military/security
23. health issues (non-AIDS) 40. FLG
7. foreign policy
24. crime & criminal cases 41. natural disaster
8. anti-japanese
25. city government policies 42. economic measures
9. anti-U.S.
26. provincial government policies 43. dissidents (unjailed)
10. North Korean refugees
27. national government policies 44. censorship/surveillance
11. foreign trade & investment
28. media/tech policy 45. opposition parties
12. financial and econ data/info
29. national leaders 46. NPC
13. probs. in govt. ministries
30. provincial and city leaders 47. labor issues
14. corruption
31. local leaders 48. migrant workers
15. relocation (due to
construction)
32. religious issues 49. economic disparity
16. environment
33. ethnic minorities 50. Tibet

18. Screenshots were taken at every
step of the testing process for
every blog post, and uploaded
into a database.

19. 15 blog hosts tested, 108 valid tests
Company A 60
B 44
C 34
D 31
NOTE: Company names have been replaced with
E 27 letters due to concerns that companies who censor
F 26
less will be subject to repercussions.
Blog services
G 24
NOTES:
H* 22
I 20 *H - 2 tests deleted the full post: 85 and 115 (both milk
powder related); 20 others replaced sensitive words with
J 19 “***”
K 17
**N - Connection reset when visiting blog from Chinese
L 13 ISP only. For: 66 (TAM mothers), 126 (milk powder); 117
(“Chinese people and religion” essay).
M 9
***O: 27 (“Why we are suing Yahoo” - by dissidents and
N** 3
human rights activists)
O*** 1
0 27 54 81 108
Number of blog posts tested

20. The percentages
A 55.6%
B 40.7%
C 31.5%
D 28.7%
E 25.0%
NOTES:
Blog services
F 24.1%
G 22.2% *H - 2 tests deleted the full post: 85 and 115 (both milk
powder related); 20 others replaced sensitive words with
H* 20.4% “***”
I 18.5%
**N - Connection reset when visiting blog from Chinese
J 17.6% ISP only. For: 66 (TAM mothers), 126 (milk powder); 117
(“Chinese people and religion” essay).
K 15.7%
L 12.0% ***O: 27 (“Why we are suing Yahoo” - by dissidents and
human rights activists)
M 8.3%
N** 2.8%
O*** 0.9%
0% 100%
Percentage of blog posts tested

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

22. Baidu: published, then removed after 24
hours. Also censored by: iFeng, MySpace,
Netease, Tianya, YahooCN, Qzone.
(Censored by 7 of 15 blog hosts)

23. 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.”

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

25. 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.”

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

27. 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

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

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

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

31. 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.”

32. 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.”

33. 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

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. 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

37. 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?