Chinese approve Internet censorship

[Eki]

According to a survey by Pew Internet & American Life Project, most Chinese approve of government control of the Internet. Over 80% said the internet should be managed and controlled and 85% of them said it's best done by the government:

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_China_Internet_2008.pdf

Interesting. I wonder what the figures would be in western countries.

[JSH]

As required of all public-opinion polling in China, either the survey or the surveyors must be approved by the government..


Ok, so I guess we can call that a good survey then....

[anthonyvop]

According to a survey by Pew Internet & American Life Project, most Chinese approve of government control of the Internet. Over 80% said the internet should be managed and controlled and 85% of them said it's best done by the government:

http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_China_Internet_2008.pdf

Interesting. I wonder what the figures would be in western countries.

I can picture it now!

Excuse me Mr. Chinese man. Do you approve of government of censure of the Internet?

"No. I don't!"

Bang!

Thud!

Ok. How about you sir?

Yes! Yes! Please censure more!

[Jag_Warrior]

Interesting. I wonder what the figures would be in western countries.

As long as it was presented as being part of the "war on turror"... it would be OK with many in the U.S.

[Azumanga Davo]

Most Chinese? How long did THAT survey take? Didn't know the internet was around back when they started with person one all the way back in 1932...

[veeten]

I know...

Let's ask Hugo Chavez. ;) :laugh:

[Azumanga Davo]

I know...

Let's ask Hugo Chavez. ;) :laugh:

Chavez the Oracle. He tells all. :D

[J4MIE]

It's interesting, my dad has been discussing a similar thing with his students and the only people to agree that there should be censorship is the Chinese students he has, as they trust the government to censor etc things that they think might not be good for them.

Guess it's just a different culture, who are we to say they are wrong? :)

[A.F.F.]

Did the poll reveal internet is created by Al Gore ??

[Daniel]

No no. It was Chairman Mao.

[Eki]

I can picture it now!

Excuse me Mr. Chinese man. Do you approve of government of censure of the Internet?

"No. I don't!"

Bang!

Thud!

Ok. How about you sir?

Yes! Yes! Please censure more!
Do you really think that over 80% of the Chinese have a death wish? I'd imagine that in your scenario, the approval rating would be closer to 100%.

[Eki]

As long as it was presented as being part of the "war on turror"... it would be OK with many in the U.S.
Didn't the government eavesdropping in the Patriot Act have a relatively high approval rating as well?

[Jag_Warrior]

Yep. I think it was roughly the same percentage that believed that there were Iraqis on the 9/11 planes. Whether it's a Chinese sheep or an American sheep, a sheep is a sheep.

[Canada Cornrow]

The link provided doesn't show the actual questions asked:

"As required of all public-opinion polling in China, either the survey or the surveyors must be approved by the government, and some topics that Westerners might have liked to see addressed directly, such as censorship, were not."

[Canada Cornrow]

It's interesting, my dad has been discussing a similar thing with his students and the only people to agree that there should be censorship is the Chinese students he has, as they trust the government to censor etc things that they think might not be good for them.

Guess it's just a different culture, who are we to say they are wrong? :)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they are wrong. There's no independent press or media in China so the views of the people are easy to manipulate:

"...Guo Liang, deputy director of the Research Center for Social Development, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. But Guo argues that it is particularly significant now because of stepped-up negative coverage of the internet in the Chinese press, which keeps the topic on the public’s mind...He writes that during the five years of surveying internet use in China, “media reports about negative aspects of the internet have increased both in scope and number.” Indeed, reports linking the internet to unfortunate or unsavory events abound. Many are personal, heavy with human interest and include names, hometowns, and photos."

[Eki]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say they are wrong. There's no independent press or media in China so the views of the people are easy to manipulate

It's not just China and government controlled media. The Fox News claims to be independent media, and it still manipulates the views of the people (especially in the US). I'd rather let the Chinese government manipulate my views than the Fox News.

[jso1985]

It's interesting, my dad has been discussing a similar thing with his students and the only people to agree that there should be censorship is the Chinese students he has, as they trust the government to censor etc things that they think might not be good for them.

Guess it's just a different culture, who are we to say they are wrong? :)

well... brainwashing can do wonders...

[Canada Cornrow]

It's not just China and government controlled media. The Fox News claims to be independent media, and it still manipulates the views of the people (especially in the US). I'd rather let the Chinese government manipulate my views than the Fox News.



Why stop at Fox News? The New York Times is even worse but they tack to the left. Any sensible person should understand this and make their own opinions accordingly. I find it odd that you would make a comparison between a private news organization and an authoritarian government. If you don't like Fox News you can watch or read something else. In China you don't get that luxury. But hey at least you're honest about your willingness to be manipulated.

[Valve Bounce]

Do you really think that over 80% of the Chinese have a death wish? I'd imagine that in your scenario, the approval rating would be closer to 100%.

The other 20% thought that internet was a new noodle dish! :rolleyes:

[Dave B]

It's not just China and government controlled media. The Fox News claims to be independent media, and it still manipulates the views of the people (especially in the US). I'd rather let the Chinese government manipulate my views than the Fox News.
In the UK we have some incredibly biased newspapers, but that's a reflection of how the press is free to stray from the official government line without fear of reprisal.

Look at today's Sunday papers and you'd be hard pressed to find a single good word about Brown's government, which at least is preferable to having state-controlled media telling us that everything's ticketty-boo.

[Eki]

I find it odd that you would make a comparison between a private news organization and an authoritarian government. If you don't like Fox News you can watch or read something else. In China you don't get that luxury.
So, basically you mean that the fans of Fox News have the right to choose to be stupid and ignorant and in China you're stupid and ignorant only if the government wants you to be stupid and ignorant. I'm not sure which one is better. The Chinese can blame the government but the Fox fans can only blame themselves. I'd imagine blaming the government is less depressing than blaming yourself.

[Dave B]

Fine, Fox News is biased. So what? At least Americans have a hundred other channels to choose from should they require balance. I don't understand why you're getting so angry about Fox when it's a private company operating legally in a democracy.

[Eki]

Fine, Fox News is biased. So what? At least Americans have a hundred other channels to choose from should they require balance. I don't understand why you're getting so angry about Fox when it's a private company operating legally in a democracy.
I'm not angry, but the purpose of Fox seems to be making profit using the lowest common denominators of people (patriotism/nationalism, violence, sex, and moral opinions) and not to distribute valuable and impartial information.

[Valve Bounce]

I'm not angry, but the purpose of Fox seems to be making profit using the lowest common denominators of people (patriotism/nationalism, violence, sex, and moral opinions) and not to distribute valuable and impartial information.

Yeah!! so what's your point?

[Dave B]

I'm not angry, but the purpose of Fox seems to be making profit using the lowest common denominators of people (patriotism/nationalism, violence, sex, and moral opinions) and not to distribute valuable and impartial information.
Again, so what? That's what several best-selling British newspapers do every day, but free from government interference. They're crap but we know it, and we have a choice of a dozen other papers.

So what's your solution to Fox spouting biased rubbish? Because any kind of state regulation would mean a move towards the Chinese culture you're (correctly) so keen to avoid.

[tmx]

he made his point quite clear, you shouldn't had to ask him.

[Dave B]

I don't believe he has.

The original subject of this thread was China's draconian and unfair censorship of the internet, and the general problem with the state (any state) controlling the media.

In the USA your news outlets are free to report the news in any manner they see fit, so long as they observe the usual libel laws. This is surely "a good thing", so I fail to understand why Fox being biased is such a problem in a county where there's plenty of alternative news sources.

[janvanvurpa]

I don't believe he has.

The original subject of this thread was China's draconian and unfair censorship of the internet, and the general problem with the state (any state) controlling the media.

In the USA your news outlets are free to report the news in any manner they see fit, so long as they observe the usual libel laws. This is surely "a good thing", so I fail to understand why Fox being biased is such a problem in a county where there's plenty of alternative news sources.

Brockman,
you talk rubbish.
When I visit family in Guangdong Province in China by Hong Kong, I watch the Hong Kong News on 3 channels, BBC news, Sky Channel, CBS Evening news, Singapore News, and if I want to read subtitles, Korean and Japanese News.
All part of the Cable TV service.

And try and expand your mind and TRY and consider that some people , particularly a people who have in living memory, or very recently before a history of 3 major upheavals in the last 100 years, that they may value some broad SOCIAL STABILITY over some vague and usually only theoretical concept of "Freedom".
Particularly when they can see the huge progress which has been made in just 20 years.

Brockman, not everybody has the same values as you.

That doesn't mean that they're wrong,, or they're worng, or that they're bad, or you're good.

Is it impossible for you to imagine other people having different values and concerns?
If you can't imagine it, why can't you just simply GRANT the right to other people to think differently and be different?

[Canada Cornrow]

So, basically you mean that the fans of Fox News have the right to choose to be stupid and ignorant and in China you're stupid and ignorant only if the government wants you to be stupid and ignorant. I'm not sure which one is better. The Chinese can blame the government but the Fox fans can only blame themselves. I'd imagine blaming the government is less depressing than blaming yourself.


Eki, please stop putting words in my mouth and twisting my aguments in bad faith. That's SOD's job.
:D

[Dave B]

Brockman,
you talk rubbish.
When I visit family in Guangdong Province in China by Hong Kong, I watch the Hong Kong News on 3 channels, BBC news, Sky Channel, CBS Evening news, Singapore News, and if I want to read subtitles, Korean and Japanese News.
All part of the Cable TV service.

And try and expand your mind and TRY and consider that some people , particularly a people who have in living memory, or very recently before a history of 3 major upheavals in the last 100 years, that they may value some broad SOCIAL STABILITY over some vague and usually only theoretical concept of "Freedom".
Particularly when they can see the huge progress which has been made in just 20 years.

Brockman, not everybody has the same values as you.

That doesn't mean that they're wrong,, or they're worng, or that they're bad, or you're good.

Is it impossible for you to imagine other people having different values and concerns?
If you can't imagine it, why can't you just simply GRANT the right to other people to think differently and be different?
You can't start a post with "you talk rubbish" then go on to argue that "not everybody has the same values... that doesn't mean that they're wrong,, or they're worng, or that they're bad, or you're good." You contradict yourself. :s

When you visit Guangdong you're fortunate to enjoy a wide choice of news programming. Would you still feel so happy if your viewing was restricted to state-controlled media? Or if your internet connection was firewalled to only allow "approved" sites?

Essentially your arguement boils down to "ignorance is bliss". Sorry, but I'd rather have the choice.

[Canada Cornrow]

Brockman,
you talk rubbish.
When I visit family in Guangdong Province in China by Hong Kong, I watch the Hong Kong News on 3 channels, BBC news, Sky Channel, CBS Evening news, Singapore News, and if I want to read subtitles, Korean and Japanese News.
All part of the Cable TV service.

And try and expand your mind and TRY and consider that some people , particularly a people who have in living memory, or very recently before a history of 3 major upheavals in the last 100 years, that they may value some broad SOCIAL STABILITY over some vague and usually only theoretical concept of "Freedom".


I think we're more interested in "Liberty". Not "Freedom". If what you said is true then the original link Eki provided has false information regarding the nature of media control in China. Therefore any information from the study should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Eki]

Or if your internet connection was firewalled to only allow "approved" sites?

In my previous job, some Internet sites were blocked by my employer. Company censorship can be as bad as government censorship. I've heard the Finnish government is going to make a law that would give employers the right to monitor employees' use of email (mainly the addresses they're sending email to, not the content), because employers fear that their employees might send company secrets to competitors.

[Dave B]

In my previous job, some Internet sites were blocked by my employer. Company censorship can be as bad as government censorship. I've heard the Finnish government is going to make a law that would give employers the right to monitor employees' use of email (mainly the addresses they're sending email to, not the content), because employers fear that their employees might send company secrets to competitors.
That's fairly common. If you're being paid to do a job then your employer probably doesn't want you wasting time on social networking or games sites (for example). Everywhere I've ever worked I could request access to sites if they were directly relevant to my job - and of course I always had the freedom to look for work elsewhere.

So long as a company is upfront about the monitoring, and it's clearly specified in your contract, I've no problem with it. A work computer is simply a tool to help you do your job, paid for and provided by your employer. I'd say that gives them the right to say how you can or can't use it.

Now if the government started intercepting those emails or watching my internet use, I'd be concerned. Actually, I'm more worried about advertisers monitoring my internet use - if my ISP go ahead with Phorm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm) I'll be off like a shot.

[Eki]

So long as a company is upfront about the monitoring, and it's clearly specified in your contract, I've no problem with it. A work computer is simply a tool to help you do your job, paid for and provided by your employer. I'd say that gives them the right to say how you can or can't use it.


Well, the government provided the hospital for my mother to give birth to me, paid allowance to my parents to bring me up, provided the kindergarten, schools and university I went to and provides me with affordable health care. I'd think they should have about the same right to own me as my employer. Oh, I'm free to move to another country if I'm not happy. That's only if other countries want me, just like if other employers want me. I've read that for example Australia favours immigrants under 35 years of age. It seems to be the same with many of the employers, they prefer the younger applicants.

[Hondo]

Well, the government provided the hospital for my mother to give birth to me, paid allowance to my parents to bring me up, provided the kindergarten, schools and university I went to and provides me with affordable health care. I'd think they should have about the same right to own me as my employer. Oh, I'm free to move to another country if I'm not happy. That's only if other countries want me, just like if other employers want me. I've read that for example Australia favours immigrants under 35 years of age. It seems to be the same with many of the employers, they prefer the younger applicants.

Actually, the government distributed funding to your parents and you that they collected through taxation. In other words, you're paying to live there. I don't know of any companies that make you pay to work for them. It's the companies equipment and the companies connection, They have the right to monitor it's use and restrict it if they feel they need to do so.

[Eki]

Actually, the government distributed funding to your parents and you that they collected through taxation. In other words, you're paying to live there. I don't know of any companies that make you pay to work for them. It's the companies equipment and the companies connection, They have the right to monitor it's use and restrict it if they feel they need to do so.
Yes, but the government (and trade unions) is a buffer that prevents the employers from exploiting you too much and a buffer that protects the employers from violent revolutions and other mutiny.

[Canada Cornrow]

Yes, but the government (and trade unions) is a buffer that prevents the employers from exploiting you too much and a buffer that protects the employers from violent revolutions and other mutiny.


:?:

Could you please expand on this? I have no idea what point you are trying to make per Fiero's comment.

[Canada Cornrow]

Well, the government provided the hospital for my mother to give birth to me, paid allowance to my parents to bring me up, provided the kindergarten, schools and university I went to and provides me with affordable health care. I'd think they should have about the same right to own me as my employer.


Since when did being "owned" become a "right"? You've got some rather peculiar notions about what constitutes a right. :vader:

[Hondo]

Yes, but the government (and trade unions) is a buffer that prevents the employers from exploiting you too much and a buffer that protects the employers from violent revolutions and other mutiny.

I can say from personal experience that I'm glad my employer now restricts internet access. We use the computers a lot to generate work orders, find spare parts, purchase spare parts, check equipment specifications, check equipment histories, download manuals from manufacturers, and to call up, check, troubleshoot, and sometimes "force" process control loops. It will annoy you no end to be in a bind, looking at production downtime, and you can't use the computer because it is locked up on some silly porn site or has picked up a virus and now jumps from site to site on it's own. Even worse is when the equipment problem you're dealing with was caused by operations surfing the web instead of paying attention to their control panels. Now, as sites are identified and tagged, a big red hand saying stop comes up on the monitor, access to that site is blocked, and a record is made of the attempt. That policy is making life better around here.

Again, if your employer owns the equipment, the connection, and your time while you are there, then I have no problems with them restricting the use of the equipment. If an employee doesn't think thats proper and he should be free to use the equipment any way he wants, then he has the right to terminate his employment with that company and seek out employment with a company that sees things his way.

[Valve Bounce]

In my previous job, some Internet sites were blocked by my employer. Company censorship can be as bad as government censorship. .

Next we'll hear, they will want you to work instead of surfing the net and chatting about motor racing; that's just unacceptable. I hope they havn't blocked access to the porno websites tho', have they? :(

[BDunnell]

I'm not angry, but the purpose of Fox seems to be making profit using the lowest common denominators of people (patriotism/nationalism, violence, sex, and moral opinions) and not to distribute valuable and impartial information.

The attitudes of Fox and their effects on American opinion are worrying, I grant you. However, as others have said, this is absolutely nothing compared to censorship and oppression of attempts at a free media.

Anyway, I'm sure I've seen you posting links to Fox stories in the past without a disclaimer. You are clearly a consumer of its output.

[janvanvurpa]

You can't start a post with "you talk rubbish" then go on to argue that "not everybody has the same values... that doesn't mean that they're wrong,, or they're worng, or that they're bad, or you're good." You contradict yourself. :s

When you visit Guangdong you're fortunate to enjoy a wide choice of news programming. Would you still feel so happy if your viewing was restricted to state-controlled media? Or if your internet connection was firewalled to only allow "approved" sites?

Essentially your arguement boils down to "ignorance is bliss". Sorry, but I'd rather have the choice.

No Dave, I don't contradict myself. My "you talk rubbish" was directed to your flat, unqualified statements that there is no choice of new outlets in PRC, and that "freedom", in this narrow sense, is defined as freedom of choice of news outlets.

I explained to you that for hundreds of millions of Chinese, there is broad choice of TV and radio. Your completely ignoring the comments explaining something that I presume you were not aware of leave me a bit puzzled.
I'd imagine if you just found that out the was abroad array of news you might say something to the effect "Damn, I didn't know that....."
But I don't think you're really interested in conceding that there might be any good, any reason that a billion people accept and even support---for their own reasons--- anything different from what you think you already know for a fact.

If I would be happy to be limited to mainland Chinese sites really isn't the subject we're discussing; of course I wouldn't since i am somebody who has lived and worked and have contacts and friends all over Europe where I had an extremely broad array of choices---far broader than in the US for one example. I am used to reading news and articles from the Atlantic to the Urals.

The rest of your post is just noise.

[Canada Cornrow]

No Dave, I don't contradict myself. My "you talk rubbish" was directed to your flat, unqualified statements that there is no choice of new outlets in PRC, and that "freedom", in this narrow sense, is defined as freedom of choice of news outlets...
...If I would be happy to be limited to mainland Chinese sites really isn't the subject we're discussing; of course I wouldn't since i am somebody who has lived and worked and have contacts and friends all over Europe where I had an extremely broad array of choices---far broader than in the US for one example. I am used to reading news and articles from the Atlantic to the Urals.


Freedom for me but not for thee. These "news and articles from the Atlantic to the Urals" you read are apparently not printed on paper but internet based. Why can't Chinese people have the same access to those sites? Are those sites and the information they convey that subversive?

[Valve Bounce]

Freedom for me but not for thee. These "news and articles from the Atlantic to the Urals" you read are apparently not printed on paper but internet based. Why can't Chinese people have the same access to those sites? Are those sites and the information they convey that subversive?

Only if they refer to Falun Gong, the Tienamen Square Massacre and corruption of members of the Chinese Communist Party.

[SOD]

funny people mention fox news. Wasn't it Rupert, in 1994, who agreed to censoring content on the satellite TV service he beams into China?

Dont forget Google obeying the wishes to of the Chinese government.

if Rupert or google can't tell the Chinese govt where to shove it, who can?

take away their gas-guzzling SUV and tell 'em "arent ya glad you dont live in China!"

[Canada Cornrow]

funny people mention fox news. Wasn't it Rupert, in 1994, who agreed to censoring content on the satellite TV service he beams into China?

Dont forget Google obeying the wishes to of the Chinese government.


And your point is?



"if Rupert or google can't tell the Chinese govt where to shove it, who can?!"


Anybody other than Rupert or google? Are they the only credible voices the Chinese govt accepts? As a free thinking individual you have the ability to personally tell the Chinese govt "where to shove it". Don't waste your chance. Now get Blogging!! Just look out for that firewall. It's a bit%h.

[Eki]

Since when did being "owned" become a "right"? You've got some rather peculiar notions about what constitutes a right. :vader:

By owning me I mean the right to control me. Both my government and my employer control me.

[Eki]

The attitudes of Fox and their effects on American opinion are worrying, I grant you. However, as others have said, this is absolutely nothing compared to censorship and oppression of attempts at a free media.

Anyway, I'm sure I've seen you posting links to Fox stories in the past without a disclaimer. You are clearly a consumer of its output.
I'm also a consumer of comics. What worries me is that some people seem to take Fox News seriously.

[BDunnell]

I'm also a consumer of comics. What worries me is that some people seem to take Fox News seriously.

Why have you posted links to it, then, without an apparent hint of irony regarding the veracity or bias of the information from the source? I don't like Fox, therefore I don't ever look at its website.

[Valve Bounce]

I'm also a consumer of comics. What worries me is that some people seem to take Fox News seriously.

Well, I am glad that you only take comics seriously, not Fox News. In that case, if you don't complain about comics, why complain about Fox News? You can't have it both ways.

[Valve Bounce]

funny people mention fox news. Wasn't it Rupert, in 1994, who agreed to censoring content on the satellite TV service he beams into China?

Dont forget Google obeying the wishes to of the Chinese government.

if Rupert or google can't tell the Chinese govt where to shove it, who can?

take away their gas-guzzling SUV and tell 'em "arent ya glad you dont live in China!"

Why the hell would that toady Rupert want to alienate the Chinese? He wanted to get into China to make money, and Rupert would sell his soul, let alone half his family to make money.

I really don't understand why/how Rupert could be held in any position of esteem. He got rid of his wife for a young Chinese gold digger to get into China.

Have you ever wondered why Lauchlan left the old man to come back to work in Australia?

[gadjo_dilo]

I'm aware that chinese people still have to censor what they say so maybe the percentage is correct even if it doesn't represent reality. At the same time, no offence, but I'm not very sure that all the guys who were questioned know exactly what internet is.

[Azumanga Davo]

By owning me I mean the right to control me. Both my government and my employer control me.

Good grief, I see your occupation is now "state-controlled robot".

You have democratic rights to do many different things (like trashing FOX News) that are available to you. If your Prime Minister said "Don't do that Eki, it's criminal", would you still do it?

[Daniel]

Why have you posted links to it, then, without an apparent hint of irony regarding the veracity or bias of the information from the source? I don't like Fox, therefore I don't ever look at its website.

Funny that. I hate Fox but I do sometimes watch Fox on Sky. If only for a laugh :D

[Dave B]

I'd never watched it until 5 minutes ago, and now I understand why. After a lengthy commercial break I was treated to the headlines: no newsreader but just a series of stills accompanied by a one-sentence summary of the story and what appears to be the background music from Wii Sports. Then they cut away abruptly to a cop who had fallen off his motorbike in LA :s

[Daniel]

I'd never watched it until 5 minutes ago, and now I understand why. After a lengthy commercial break I was treated to the headlines: no newsreader but just a series of stills accompanied by a one-sentence summary of the story and what appears to be the background music from Wii Sports. Then they cut away abruptly to a cop who had fallen off his motorbike in LA :s
You're not watching the good stuff. Fox and Friends is funny to watch :D

[Azumanga Davo]

You're not watching the good stuff. Fox and Friends is funny to watch :D

Plus if you tune in at the right time, a good ol' boy carchase from a local station helicopter. ;)

[anthonyvop]

It's not just China and government controlled media. The Fox News claims to be independent media, and it still manipulates the views of the people (especially in the US). I'd rather let the Chinese government manipulate my views than the Fox News.
Leave it to you to take a thread about censorship in the PRC and turn it into a FOX news bashing thread.

What has one to do with the other?

What you call bias in FOX's reporting I call freedom of expression. Fox is a private organization and because the US has freedom of the press they are allowed to report as they see fit.

FWIW Fox is probably the Most Middle of the Road of all the major News Media outlets in the U.S. CNN, ABC and NBC tend to skew to the left. CBS and PBS are extreme left.

There is no Media Outlet that can really be called Right wing in the US. Radio on the other hand is a different story.

[Eki]

Good grief, I see your occupation is now "state-controlled robot".

You have democratic rights to do many different things (like trashing FOX News) that are available to you. If your Prime Minister said "Don't do that Eki, it's criminal", would you still do it?
If I were taught not to bash FOX News since childhood, like I was taught not to steal or kill, it's very much possible I wouldn't do it, but "Thou shall not bash FOX News" isn't one of the ten commandments.

Some people believe in God, some believe in their government, some doubt everything. It was interesting to see when an animated film bashed the Finnish national hero Mannerheim, many Finns seemed to get angry and upset. It was much like Muslims got angry when the Danish newspaper bashed Muhammed, except there were no violent protests.

[Valve Bounce]

You still don't get it Eki - you can bash Fox News all you like - it has nothing to do with Chinese censorship of the internet.

Fox is owned by Murdoch, and he will do anything to keep the money rolling in.

Your ramblings just show how little you know about this sleazebag.