Container Wide Web: What the internet means to China and the U.S. respectively

Control mechanisms emerge in many forms and occur throughout a variety of forums.  Control mechanisms can be tangible, like iron prison bars, but can also take shape virtually.  In this article, I will describe four approaches to controlling a new virtual mechanism of information flow, the internet.  The ways of managing internet use will be divided into four sections: (1) protectionism; (2) monetizing; (3) control; (4) adaptation.

It is appropriate to study this new phenomena, information flow over the internet, because the internet possesses a main quality of the nation-state itself: uncertain borders.  Additionally, there is discussion to be had regarding the creation and development of both entities, internet and nation-state.  “Nation-states are subsequently created around the world wherever a power shift allows nationalists to overthrow or absorb the established regime, quite independent of whether domestic modernization processes have readied a society for nation-building” (Wimmer & Feinstein, 2010).  The internet simply originated when computers started becoming linked together.  Because those computers held information, a flow developed.

Whether goods or citizens, controlling flow is of utmost importance to governmental regimes.  One way of defining an established regime is to say that it is a state that holds public authority (Habermas, 1991).  Maintaining public authority over information flow can be one of the most effective governmental methods of control.  In this article, I will show how various national governmental entities maintain public authority by enforcing control of internet use.  Further research is necessary to establish what effect that control has on respective individuals and groups.

Ways to Manage Use of the Internet

• Protect it
• Monetize it
• Control it
• Adapt to it

A Fearful Regime

“a power shift is more likely when nationalists have had ample time to mobilize the population and delegitimize the old regime or when the established regime is weakened by wars” (Wimmer & Feinstein, 2010)

Survival through Resistance

Like many of earth’s inhabitants, the State places survival near the top of the list of its priorities.  There are only two outcomes for a State: sustainability or disintegration.  Of course, there are varying levels of both outcomes yet most, if not all, States seek to sustain.  The current global economy is the new playing field that States must perform on.  “Claims concerning the status of the state in the contemporary global economic era range from declarations of the ‘death of the state’ to assertions of the ability of states to fight back, resist, or even actively shape global structures” (Chorev, 2005).  In order to survive, many States have taken a proactive approach.

One method of resistance is prevention.  If a State prevents something from happening, anything from trade to war, it has thus resisted the action from taking place.  This could be labeled passive aggression.  Rather than fighting back aggressively by claiming “if you do X we will retaliate with Y,” the State also has the certain ability to say “you simply cannot do X.”  This preventative resistance was exemplified by “social protectionist laws” that the U.S. employed in the 1980′s, particularly by way of the Shrimp-Turtle case (Chorev, 2005).  At that time, the United States required that nets used for shrimping included special devices ensuring turtles would not drown in the process.  An appellate panel ruled that this action protected the environment, in other words, prevented harm to the environment.  What the ruling actually did was prevent countries like India, Malaysia, Pakistan, and Thailand from exporting a good to the United States.  Sea farming is a major industry in those countries (FAO, n.d.).  The act simultaneously allowed the U.S. to resist free trade when it conflicted with environmental interests.

China is resisting free trade of the internet because it conflicts with legitimacy interests.  “A Chinese government-backed think tank has accused the U.S. and other Western governments of using social-networking sites such as Facebook to spur political unrest and called for stepped-up scrutiny of the popular sites” (Associated Press, 2010).  This is not a case of preventing the extermination of turtles.  China is clearly managing its survival as a nation-state by limiting political unrest through resisting the internet.

Business Unusual

Somewhat ironically, China has not yet seized the internet as an opportunity for financial gain.  Goldman (2007) explains how water, a good more prevalent and fluid than the internet, can be positioned so that “everyone wins [including] the firms that join into partnerships with the global development community and governments to bring water to the poor, and those who are at the receiving end of the water pipeline.”  The scenario of water trade creates a nifty illustration of the internet.  As Goldman points out, it is appropriate to ask “How will the poor become customers?”  There is also a flaw within the water trade discussion when water is treated as a free natural resource.  The internet faces similar conundrums.

Yet, China doesn’t seem to care about the internet as a business.  The Chinese government views the internet more as a tool of control.  For example, “Google temporarily shut down its search engine in response to assaults from hackers and now redirects users to the Hong Kong site.  But the Chinese government could change that arrangement at any minute” (Miller, 2010).  Google is at the mercy of the Chinese government are the Chinese, financially and through other means of constraint.

Opposite Control Methods

The United States and China can be placed on opposing ends of the spectrum when analyzing connectivity to information.  The idea for Google came from the mind of a Michigan State University professor’s son who then hired a University of Chicago MBA.  The latter, an American businessman, exclaimed in 2009 on his blog that pretty soon “all the world’s information will be accessible from the palm of every person” (Rosenberg, 2009; Google 2010).  A few months later, U.S. President Barack Obama “told students in Shanghai that a free and unfettered Internet is a source of strength, not weakness” (Cooper & Barboza, 2009).  This presidential assurance was a solicited response to an inquiry from a Chinese college student at a town hall forum in China (albeit the audience “seemed handpicked by the government”) .  The President’s quote can be deconstructed to parse its entire meaning.

A free internet is strong and powerful; few would question that statement.  The Chinese government is obviously quite aware of that fact.  Consequently, the Chinese government would prefer to maintain a hold on that power as opposed to relinquishing it into the hands of the people.  Granted, this approach is converse to the U.S. citizenry’s access to a “free and unfettered” internet but it is only another distinct method of governmental control.  The U.S. also controls connectivity to information, albeit inconspicuous.

Other National Approaches to the Internet

Internet as Social Media in the Public Sphere

Previous research discovered that “nation-states are subsequently created around the world wherever a power shift allows nationalists to overthrow or absorb the established regime” (Wimmer & Feinstein, 2010).  One way of defining an “established regime” is to say that it is a state that holds public authority.  Habermas (1991) described the state as a “public authority” that is put to the “task of promoting the public or common welfare of its rightful members.”  As was previously discussed in this article, “Chinese authorities are now more worried about the social media than the mass media” (Gapper, 2009).  At the same time the worry shifts, mass and social media regularly intertwine within the public sphere and nation-state.

Within the public sphere, information can either remain stagnant or it can flow.  During the phase in which Habermas described the public sphere as a platform for advertising, he professed that the publisher developed an interest solely in establishing an enterprise purely as a business.  This caused the publisher to focus on stimulating an active organization of the flow of news and the collating of the news itself (Habermas, 1991).  As information began to flow, those publishers then began to determine from where news came and to whom it went.  As was previously discussed in this article, China currently controls information flow whereas the U.S. allows information to flow relatively freely.

Previous research has focused on mass media and given attention to the “gatekeeper” role of the newspaperman (Carter, 1958).  Other research has sought to determine what factors are related to the decisions by newspaper gatekeepers to run certain pieces of information and not others, or to feature certain items and “bury” others (Donohew, 1967).  Future research must analyze the role of gatekeeper from a new perspective: an electronic gate-keeper of information, be it public or private.

France – Unbiased and Accurate

Due to the French government’s promotion of the internet, use has skyrocketed in the country (Hutchinson & Minton, n.d.).  “As part of a trend toward globalization, scores of participating citizens are transcending France’s cultural borders to join these powerful online communities and in turn, bypassing established policies concerning the free flow of information, isolation and protectionism” (Warlaumont, 2010).  France is quite internet-friendly.

South Africa – Educational

South African internet use extends to the classroom.  Bosch (2009) “explores student use of Facebook at the University of Cape Town, as well as lecturer engagement with students via the new social media.”

Mexico, Colombia, and Various Terror Networks

“Sureos gangs, Mexican drug cartels, and online terrorists, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Hamas, and al Qaeda, are distinctly different in the way that they utilize the Internet, but there are some similarities” (Womer & Bunker, 2010).

Russia – Economic

“Yuri Milner and his partner, Gregory Finger, had built Digital Sky Technologies from a small Russian investment venture to a holding company that controlled the businesses behind 75% of the pages served on the Russian-speaking web.  Milner has invested nearly $1.3 billion in American Internet companies.  He has increased his Facebook stake to just more than $800 million for roughly 10% of the company, which makes him the second-largest outside investor” (Hempel, 2010).

India – Watchdog

Police are using Facebook to nab traffic violators (Kumar, 2010) and discover student teacher tiffs (Kanwar, 2010).

Globally, In General

Survey of Government Internet Filtering Practices Indicates Increasing Internet Censorship

First Year of Global Survey Examines 41 Countries by Political, Social and National Security Filtering

“Twenty-five countries around the world out of 41 countries surveyed block or filter Internet content, indicating a global trend towards Internet censorship”

“Censorship is expanding into new countries and becoming more sophisticated over time. Countries are not only blocking Web sites, such as pages online that show pornographic pictures, information about human rights, or YouTube but also applications, such as Skype and Google Maps.”

• 25 out of 41 countries surveyed showed evidence of filtering;
• Iran, China, and Saudi Arabia not only filter a wide range of topics, but also block a large amount of content related to those topics;
• South Korea’s filtering efforts are very narrow in scope, but heavily censor one topic, North Korea;
• Countries engaged in substantial politically-motivated filtering include: Burma, China, Iran, Syria, Tunisia, and Vietnam;
• Saudi Arabia, Iran, Tunisia, and Yemen engage in substantial social content filtering;
• Burma, China, Iran, Pakistan and South Korea have the most encompassing national security filtering, targeting the websites related to border disputes, separatists, and extremists;
• No evidence of filtering was found in fourteen countries, including Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, West Bank and Gaza, Malaysia, Nepal, Venezuela and Zimbabwe, many of which one might expect to find Internet filtering.  (Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society, 2007)

unused citations

Adapt to Survive

“The U.S. position in multi-lateral negotiations and its practices at home clearly show the U.S. government is not interested in trade liberalization [i.e. coherently supporting neo-liberal globalism].  Instead, it is interested in imposing trade liberalization on other countries in order to improve the access of its internationally-competitive industries to foreign markets, while at the same time preserving policies that protect declining U.S. industries from international competition” (Chorev, 2005)

From the National to International

“The re-scaling of political authority from the domestic to the international also affected the relative influence of actors at the national level” (Chorev, 2005).

Further Reading

1. Barry Wellman, “Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism.” Pp. 11-25 in Digital Cities II, edited by Makoto Tanabe, Peter van den Besselaar, and Toru Ishida. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
2. Barry Wellman and Keith Hampton, “Living Networked On and Offline” Contemporary Sociology 28, 6 (Nov, 1999): 648-54
3. Hampton, Keith and B Wellman. 2002. “The Not So Global Village of Netville.” Pp. 345-371 in The Internet in Everyday Life, edited by Barry Wellman and Caroline Haythornthwaite. Oxford: Blackwell.