Introduction
Media censorship in China is an ongoing issue that researchers, journalists, and political leaders are often willing to cover and examine. However, Hong Kong used to be a reasonably independent entity with more opportunities to avoid centralized viewpoints and obligations to fit into the political agenda promoted by the country’s primary party, The Chinese Communist Party (CPC). Such freedom did not align with the regime’s aim to control all informational sources, which is why several policies have been implemented to shift the situation in favor of the CPC. Moreover, it is important to mention the unique Chinese media system in regard to internet censorship.
While residents of China have access to internet sources, tech giants such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook cannot be accessed. Instead, analog websites have been created, yet the government heavily censures content related to political, social, and economic topics that are deemed dangerous and potentially harmful for the political party. Specifically, the conflict with Google was heavily covered by western media as an argument between freedom of speech and censorship. However, evidence shows a different picture where the tech company still derives benefits from working with the Chinese government and is not an avid freedom of speech advocate as portrayed during the conflict. It is certain that the measures that the Chinese government implements, such as introducing the National Security Act and selectively choosing content to be published, compromise the notions of freedom of expression and speech.
Background
As mentioned before, Hong Kong was a relatively independent region of China. It remains one of the most developed areas of the world in terms of infrastructure, technology, and economy. According to researchers, the relationship between the mainland and Hong Kong deteriorated the most in 2010, when the region’s population started expressing negative feelings towards the political situation in the country (Zhu & Zhang, 2019). The media outlets were relatively free at that point, which was an inconvenience for the political party holding the national power. It is vital to point out that the national agenda in regards to censorship started before that and illustrated itself with China’s restrictive policies towards western media platforms. The most well-known conflict which highlights the government’s strategies to limit free speech is the conflict with the most powerful international tech corporation, Google.
The Conflict with Google
China’s lack of freedom of speech and content that does not align with the government’s agenda limits the opportunities for international media platforms to enter the Chinese market. Since operating in the mainland would mean following the existing rules, tech platforms had to find a compromise to provide their service on a territory where the internet is highly censored. This is why Google decided to create a platform specifically for the Chinese market and try to operate within the existing regulations. The corporation created Google.cn in 2006 and became the third most used platform in the country (Stevens et al., 2015). However, Google representative did not agree with the government’s regulations in regards to sharing private information and censoring content.
While the situation seems one-sided, involving a company with humanistic values and a political system that strives to oppress freedom, it is more complex. A CNBC article specifically mentions Google’s plan to enter the Chinese market despite having to censor content (Kharpal, 2019). Project Dragonfly was created for the purpose of allowing Google content yet following the limitations, which contradicts the initial strategy to avoid censoring content and try to overcome the imposed rules. The situation proves to be less humanistic and more business and power motivated. Google as a corporation is striving for global influence, and the Chinese market is one of the most significant ones globally. The fact that the tech company aims to have the reputation of a platform that encourages freedom of speech is contracted by the contrasting policy to follow regulations imposed by China. Moreover, Google initially decided to step down in 2010 due to the seemingly different overviews on content limitations (Stevens et al., 2015). However, the following steps towards expansion and integration illustrate the corporation’s actual values.
Facebook Censorship
Another company that publically stated how unethical censorship is and that the platform encourages freedom of speech is Facebook. Facebook is one more corporation that decided to leave the Chinese market due to the tight regulations that it had to follow. These include sharing private information with the government, storing data, and limiting discussions on several topics. Similar to Google, Facebook proclaimed its independence and denied following the policy imposed by the Chinese government. However, evidence shows that the statements provided by the CEO and other representatives do not align with the corporation’s actual actions and policies. Facebook managers have openly admitted selling the user’s personal data to Chinese companies known to interfere with privacy and autonomy (Laforgia & Dance, 2018). Huawei was among the firms that have been involved in the conflict.
As soon as the news became public, Facebook put out a statement that the transactions would stop soon. This situation is another one that portrays the western tech company as an innocent party of the conflict and the Chinese system as the main villain. However, it is important to mention that China was not the only country that was buying the data. The same articles mention the American corporation Apple and the South Korean Samsung. Moreover, Facebook agreed to the deal in the first place, making it evident that such unethical practices are not nuanced. The situation illustrates how censorship is not the deal-breaker that caused the technological corporation to avoid the Chinese market. There is a possibility that such decisions are influenced by the company’s will to keep a relatively clean reputation and an appearance of ethical global businesses with virtues that do not align with those of authoritarian governments. However, the aforementioned events illustrate how global expansion and financial opportunities motivate mass media giants to engage in controversial deals and policies.
The National Security Law
Hong Kong’s democratic views that opposed to those that the government promotes have led to sudden systematic changes that affected multiple areas. After the protests against the political system, which made the Hong Kong population more politically involved than usual, the Chinese government implemented the 2020 National Security Law (Toru, 2020). The new policy’s formulation allows any media, journalist, and platform to be deemed guilty of terrorism and affiliated with foreign services, which is an offense punishable with life in prison.
The National Security Law was introduced to further oppress freedom of speech and limit the media in regards to topics brought up in public, published content, and influence on the collective mindset. The National Security Law is tied to China’s relationship with the US during Trump’s presidency. Since Trump imposed sanctions on China after limiting Hong Kong’s democratic actions, the geopolitical situation worsened. The situation highlights that freedom of mass media is a global concern that can influence a country on every level, from the citizen’s disposition for protests or stagnancy to relationships with other nations and overall global political dynamics.
Censorship Objectives
Censorship is used by multiple political leaders and parties in different countries for various reasons. First, it is vital to highlight the influence that mass media has on people. The only source of news were TV programs and newspapers that the government could easily regulate and limit. However, in this day and age, censoring content has become much more complicated. Internet access is an almost definite answer to informational shortages since every individual can follow different media outlets and sources that illustrate contrasting points of view. However, instead of allowing open conversations, debates, and civil discussions between people with opposing opinions, oppressive governments tend to minimize any political discourse unless it highlights an idea that the party in power promotes. Furthermore, China’s government appears to have a much more complex plan for mass media and content sharing.
Censored Topics
There are several topics that the Chinese agenda includes in regards to subjects that are to be censored on mass media platforms, which subsequently became targeted in terms of journalism in Hong Kong. It is certain that political discourse is highly monitored and limited. Any democratic outlets and subjects that are brought up can be deemed as terroristic narratives according to the formulation of the National Security Act. The aim is to create an apolitical environment where the general population is not involved in national regulations, which can strengthen the influence of the communist party. A social stagnancy when it comes to politics is a dangerous trend that compromises political change, criticism, and individual expression. On the other hand, it is a logical strategy for a political power that strives for longevity and exclusivity without the risks of being overthrown. In a country where the regime does not focus on democratic values, the population has to lack interest in politics and eagerness to contribute to significant national issues.
While limiting political discourse is an essential censoring aim, there are other topics that also tend to be minimized in terms of cover. According to researchers, discourse involving the national economy and financial problems is often removed from public platforms (Hassid, 2017). While Hong Kong is a stable and flourishing region from an economic perspective, there are certain cities and areas that do not have the same levels of development and prosperity. The government minimizes discourse on this topic, which can be motivated by several reasons.
On the one hand, authoritarian leaders are often preoccupied with having an excellent national reputation for arguing that their policies are beneficial for the general population despite being restrictive. Bringing up subjects such as poverty allows individuals from more developed places to better understand the factual problems that occur in remote areas. On the other hand, there is a possibility that the government is trying to avoid links between poverty and current political strategies implemented by the communist party. Individuals understand that the per-capita income and quality of life are strongly dependent on the implementations that occur in politics. In case the quality of life is low, it is certain that the government has not put effort into diminishing this issue. Avoiding this link may be the other cause for the limited discourse on economic topics.
International trade deals and global politics are other topics that cannot be openly discussed on Chinese social media platforms and shared through media outlets. Researchers refer to the conflicts between China and the US that have not been covered in the media (Tai & Fu, 2020). In case there was an article or a thread regarding the sanctions or the overall geopolitical tension, moderators would remove it instantly. Moreover, it is essential to make a remark that even pro-regime messages were limited if the overall discussion involved international conflicts (Tai & Fu, 2020). There are several possible reasons why the government chooses to limit any political discourse and prevent the subject from being publically accessible altogether.
The Reasoning for Limiting Mass Media
While limiting political discourse in mass media is a common practice in countries with systems that are not based on democracy, there are physiological reasons for such actions. Google, Facebook, Instagram, and other social media platforms have become tools people use to express their opinions and find out that other individuals think about relevant political and social topics. These platforms have definitely engaged in unethical behavior related to lack of consumer privacy, selling data, and monitoring activity. However, they are undoubtedly the most significant social measures for exercising freedom of speech. Dimitrov (2017) highlights that the reason the Chinese government oppresses speech is to limit discussions aimed to induce collective action and encourage dialogue that contributes to unimportant issues. There is an information gap that needs to be filled in. This is why most content support topics that do not have a significant political and economic meaning.
The immediate solution that Chinese authorities use to control mass media is to focus the public’s attention on information unrelated to politics. According to researchers, categorizing free speech as a punishable offense compromises social and political rights (Clift, 2020). Undoubtedly, Google and other search engines, informational outlets, and social media platforms have not been motivated to leave the Chinese market because the imposed regulations were unethical. Instead, the actions have been motivated by image-related issues that would occur if the corporations were to abide by the Chinese policies. However, them leaving the market was another factor that limited access to unbiased media and contributed to a more autocratic internal environment in Hong Kong. Such events have further mitigated the small successes the democratic population has achieved through protests.
Conclusion
There is a lack of freedom of speech in China, which has been extended to the less oppressed Hong Kong. The regulation that allowed for mass media limitations is the National Security Law, which implies a possibility for any person or media to be punished for publishing material deemed terroristic and anti-national by the authorities. The new regulation has worsened the relationship between the government and platforms such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, influencing them to leave the Chinese market to avoid sharing private information and censor content. However, rather than viewing the situation from one point of view, it is important to consider all the evidence that portrays the technological companies as opportunistic. Google was willing to secretly provide their services after publicly criticizing China, and Facebook stated they sell information about their users to Chinese firms. While these platforms have reported their unwillingness to participate in censoring and limiting discussions, their actions prove either wise. There is direct evidence that shows how these corporations have engaged in unethical practices. However, their lack of presence further worsens the chance for Hong Kong to engage in political and social discourse.
Reference List
Clift, B. (2020) ‘Hong Kong’s Made-in-China National Security Law: Upending the legal order for the sake of law and order’, Australian Journal of Asian Law, 21(1), pp. 1–23.
Dimitrov, M. K. (2017) ‘The political logic of media control in China’, Problems of Post-Communism, 64(3-4), pp. 121–127. doi: 10.1080/10758216.2017.1318346.
Hassid, J. (2017) ‘Corruption, censorship, the media, and the market in China’, SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3041421.
Kharpal, A. (2019) Google has been accused of working with China. here’s what they’ve been doing there, CNBC. CNBC.
Laforgia, M. and Dance, G. J. J. X. (2018) Facebook gave data access to Chinese firm flagged by US intelligence, The New York Times. The New York Times.
Stevens, C. E., Xie, E. and Peng, M. W. (2015) ‘Toward a legitimacy-based view of political risk: The case of google and yahoo in China’, Strategic Management Journal, 37(5), pp. 945–963. doi: 10.1002/smj.2369.
Tai, Y. and Fu, K.-wa (2020) ‘Specificity, conflict, and focal point: A systematic investigation into social media censorship in China’, Journal of Communication, 70(6), pp. 842–867. doi: 10.1093/joc/jqaa032.
Toru, K. (2020) ‘Development of the Hong Kong pro-democracy protest into a ‘New Cold War’: Shift from opposing the fugitive offenders (amendment) bill to opposing the Hong Kong National Security law’, Asia-Pacific Review, 27(2), pp. 94–108. doi: 10.1080/13439006.2020.1835304.
Zhu, J. and Zhang, X. (2019) ‘Sovereignty, national security, and political reform: Prevention mechanism against ‘Hong Kong independence’ under the Hong Kong Basic Law’, Critique of Hong Kong Nativism, pp. 97–112. doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-3344-6_7.