the propaganda departments of provincial and municipal governments have recently been instructed to build teams of internet commentators, whose job is to guide discussion on public bulletin boards away from politically sensitive topics by posting opinions anonymously or under false names… A summary of objectives declared that commentators should “be proactive in developing discussion, increase control, accentuate the good, avoid the bad, and use internet debate to our advantage.”
The Guardian covers China’s move to hi-tech Big Brother-ism, to prevent freedom of speech or expression of dissent via the internet.
How are they going to make those heretical thoughts ultimately unthinkable?
Interesting how they are going about it, by trying to change what the conversationis about, not by trying to shut it down. Although this could work on a micro level with soemthing like the internet, it’s just to big to have this be even slightly effictive on the macro level.
Also you run the risk of the conversation threads changing the opionion of a goverment paid internet commentator.
Apparently they are some sites are banning words such as ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’.
And quite right too! Can’t have everyone running about declaring “FREEDOM!!” that right lies with that Aussie bloke who pretended to be Scottish… Mel thingywotsit..
Interesting point, but surely the control over the internet isn’t really the key factor here. I wonder if I could move the discussion on to what I see as really being at the nub of this issue. What does anyone think about the Glazer takeover of Manchester United. Is there any way that Glazer’s plans for development of the United brand in the Far East could enable the Chinese Government to boost the Chinese economy?
No, no, no, Bjorn! The real issue is who should Mark McGhee spend the
No, no, no, Graybo! The real issue is: how much rug would a throw rug throw if a throw rug could throw rugs?
That’s easy to answer – eleventeen. Everyone knows that.