Better coverage from the South China Morning Post.[1] (SCMP, which is based in Hong Kong, isn't as independent as it used to be be, but they do have actual reporters gathering news.)
Censorship requirements for live streaming in China have been in effect since 2008, and were tightened up in November 2016, with new regulations issued.[2] Now, apparently, three sites not in compliance have been told to shut down streaming. Sites are supposed to have licenses and in-house censorship staffs.
Over at People's Daily, we can read the party line.[3] "A documentary program promoted by the Finance Channel of CCTV has recently attracted public attention for encouraging ordinary people to plan and produce their own films. Amateur filmmakers can choose from a wide range of topics related to China’s achievements in recent years - for instance, the 4G telecommunications tower installed on a cliff, the Shanghai-Kunming high speed rail that has shortened travel time between the two cities to 10 hours, and artificial intelligence. Once the videos are shot and selected, they will be played on a number of TV programs, and will also be promoted by a dozen online video platforms." So that's what good Chinese citizens are supposed to be doing.
China's approach to censorship is not leakproof, but is effective. There's a combination of subtle pressure and explicit control. Once something becomes big enough to get attention, something is done about it.
I have been running a live streaming app here in China for two years.
The title of this gets so wrong - China did not ban livestreaming. Yes, the regulation of livestreaming services gets very very tight recently, we have been fined due to inappropriate content.
The website mentioned in the article like Weibo, AcFun are not about livestreaming, they're YouTube-like video sites. You need special license to run YouTube-like video sites, just the license is almost impossible to apply for non state-run company. There are only 500 something licenses ever issued, you need to acquire a company that have the license, surely the price is extremely high due to scarcity.
I'm confused. So are you saying China is banning Weibo, iFeng, and ACFUN from displaying videos (But not from livestreaming, since those sites don't do livestreams?) since they don't have a license?
The article says:
> On Thursday, the government ordered Weibo, iFeng and ACFUN to stop all its video and audio streaming services, according to an FT report.
"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master" - Pravin Lal, Alpha Centauri.
The difference here being that the CCP don't only dream themselves the masters of the Chinese people.
> free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny
More important is the enlightened citizens. You can name all sorts of intelligent ways to be the only safeguard against tyranny. In the end of day, if you are less intelligent and knowledgeable than the privileged few, no matter what you do, you'll be managed.
Historically, China wants what is good for China, and the rest of the world may as well be a sideshow. If being a global leader and running global industries is what it takes for China to remain stable and controllable by the Comminist Party, then that's how they'll go.
China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide.
Compared to British/American conquests and subversion in East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and so on, the far out (from the rich coast/interior) Chinese provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang are practically in China's back yard.
I am wondering how they plan to perform this ban, what protocols/how do they detect all forms of livestreaming ? Or will this be a ban on specific services (Fb, snapchat etc.)
You're thinking about this the wrong way. It's not primarily a technical ban, it's a "we'll track you down and throw you in jail if you do this" ban. Those are way more effective.
Actually, this is quite a nice way to tech-bomb a totalitarian economy- have some near suicidal or well hidden dissenters using soon to be important tech and watch the censor-ship department sabotage the countrys economy.
Highly cynical view-point, but hey, if it hurts, why not use it?
What's the policy on wholly paywalled content if it's the primary source? The article is light on some the facts presented in the FT article (like revenue stats, and the fact that Weibo's market cap dropped by $1B after the ban), and other than mentioning Papi Jiang, it's really just the FT article reworded. However, the FT article is completely behind a paywall, although it's accessible from a Google search.
The main reason I'm asking is that while I think the FT article is substantially better, it is behind a paywall, while the Mashable article isn't, so neither are ideal.
How much does the industrial scale subornment of children into quasi prostitution affect this decision?
The whole "live streaming plus tips" model turns my stomach and I was disgusted to see Apple give its imprimatur the other week.
For anyone that isn't familiar with what happens on these platforms (Snapchat Facebook and FaceTime iMessage once apple institutes payments): a streamer broadcasts herself, and People from the Internet "tip" her when she does something they like. It's beyond terrifying to find out someone you love stumbled onto this system.
A few hundred years ago, most shops did not display their goods. It would have been considered crass to keep wares in sight when customers didn't ask for it, and outright crazy to let customers look and touch at items without supervision.
The department store was a 19th century innovation that let people (women, mostly) browse and shop without pressure. It was widely considered immoral at the time. Emile Zola wrote a great novel about it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Bonheur_des_Dames
Getting tips from Internet viewers is shocking in the same way as a woman visiting a department store on her own.
We do the same with our attention. I don't think tip for me to do x or y is any different from 'celebrities' doing publicity stunts and us clicking on articles to see their body parts or whatever.
This is just more direct way without any social norms attached.
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
Censorship requirements for live streaming in China have been in effect since 2008, and were tightened up in November 2016, with new regulations issued.[2] Now, apparently, three sites not in compliance have been told to shut down streaming. Sites are supposed to have licenses and in-house censorship staffs.
Over at People's Daily, we can read the party line.[3] "A documentary program promoted by the Finance Channel of CCTV has recently attracted public attention for encouraging ordinary people to plan and produce their own films. Amateur filmmakers can choose from a wide range of topics related to China’s achievements in recent years - for instance, the 4G telecommunications tower installed on a cliff, the Shanghai-Kunming high speed rail that has shortened travel time between the two cities to 10 hours, and artificial intelligence. Once the videos are shot and selected, they will be played on a number of TV programs, and will also be promoted by a dozen online video platforms." So that's what good Chinese citizens are supposed to be doing.
China's approach to censorship is not leakproof, but is effective. There's a combination of subtle pressure and explicit control. Once something becomes big enough to get attention, something is done about it.
[1] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/209... [2] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/204... [3] http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0623/c90000-9232613.html
[+] [-] btw0|8 years ago|reply
The title of this gets so wrong - China did not ban livestreaming. Yes, the regulation of livestreaming services gets very very tight recently, we have been fined due to inappropriate content.
The website mentioned in the article like Weibo, AcFun are not about livestreaming, they're YouTube-like video sites. You need special license to run YouTube-like video sites, just the license is almost impossible to apply for non state-run company. There are only 500 something licenses ever issued, you need to acquire a company that have the license, surely the price is extremely high due to scarcity.
[+] [-] Ajedi32|8 years ago|reply
The article says:
> On Thursday, the government ordered Weibo, iFeng and ACFUN to stop all its video and audio streaming services, according to an FT report.
[+] [-] gozur88|8 years ago|reply
I'm curious as to whether you were fined for political content or something else.
[+] [-] dmoy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcb0|8 years ago|reply
doesn't matter if live or not.
companies are forbidden to have user generated content at all?
[+] [-] hd4|8 years ago|reply
The difference here being that the CCP don't only dream themselves the masters of the Chinese people.
[+] [-] justicezyx|8 years ago|reply
More important is the enlightened citizens. You can name all sorts of intelligent ways to be the only safeguard against tyranny. In the end of day, if you are less intelligent and knowledgeable than the privileged few, no matter what you do, you'll be managed.
[+] [-] rjzzleep|8 years ago|reply
http://www.zdnet.com/article/police-get-broad-phone-and-comp...
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|8 years ago|reply
China simply does not have the consistent history of far-reaching imperialism that other historic empires like Britain or America have. There is also an absence of an enlightened ideology of imperialism, which the aforementioned British and American empires used to justify mass conquest and genocide.
Compared to British/American conquests and subversion in East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and so on, the far out (from the rich coast/interior) Chinese provinces of Tibet and Xinjiang are practically in China's back yard.
[+] [-] Maven911|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonnyj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CydeWeys|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] louithethrid|8 years ago|reply
Highly cynical view-point, but hey, if it hurts, why not use it?
[+] [-] justicezyx|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yladiz|8 years ago|reply
The main reason I'm asking is that while I think the FT article is substantially better, it is behind a paywall, while the Mashable article isn't, so neither are ideal.
Article: https://www.ft.com/content/8a06dd5e-5752-11e7-9fed-c19e27000...
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|8 years ago|reply
The whole "live streaming plus tips" model turns my stomach and I was disgusted to see Apple give its imprimatur the other week.
For anyone that isn't familiar with what happens on these platforms (Snapchat Facebook and FaceTime iMessage once apple institutes payments): a streamer broadcasts herself, and People from the Internet "tip" her when she does something they like. It's beyond terrifying to find out someone you love stumbled onto this system.
[+] [-] pavlov|8 years ago|reply
A few hundred years ago, most shops did not display their goods. It would have been considered crass to keep wares in sight when customers didn't ask for it, and outright crazy to let customers look and touch at items without supervision.
The department store was a 19th century innovation that let people (women, mostly) browse and shop without pressure. It was widely considered immoral at the time. Emile Zola wrote a great novel about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Au_Bonheur_des_Dames
Getting tips from Internet viewers is shocking in the same way as a woman visiting a department store on her own.
[+] [-] spery|8 years ago|reply
This is just more direct way without any social norms attached.
[+] [-] stale2002|8 years ago|reply
Livestreamers aren't the same thing as cam girls.
The vast majority of them are just people playing video games, and viewers tipping to play a funny text to speech message to the streamer.