Tag Archives: internet

China’s Press On Academic Freedom

Cambridge University Press, a leading academic publisher whose China Quarterly is one of the leading English-language social science journals devoted to China has reversed its decision to comply with the demands of China’s censors to block sensitive content.

The university press had initially removed some 300 China Quarterly articles on politically sensitive topics from its website in China on the instruction of the media regulator on penalty of not being allowed to publish at all in China.  The press changed its mind following protests, including a petition published by academics from around the world, condemning restrictions on academic freedom of thought.

It was a dilemma that many foreign businesses have faced: the choice between being shut out of the Chinese market for refusing to comply with authorities’ controls of markets or suffer reputational risk outside China by knuckling under. In information markets, the reputational risk of complying with controls on freedom of expression is potentially a higher cost for an academic institution that it would be for a commercial technology or media company. Online content providers,

Chinese and foreign, have been a particular focus of the censors’ attention this year, as online content, previously more laxly regulated than offline media, has been brought under the same control regime as traditional print and broadcast media.

Tech groups and media companies have bowed to government demands to close down hundreds of mobile video platforms and promised to work more closely with state media. Under the new cyber security law that came into force on June 1, only those online content creators who have been issued with a media licence are permitted to upload videos featuring news or political commentary.

This has reinforced Chinese firms’ pre-emptive self-censorship, and more foreign firms to accept specific demands.

Beijing has to tread a careful line with foreign academic publishers. While censoring politically sensitive material is one thing — and social scientists in Chinese universities, once an important source of policy advice to government, have come under greater freedom of expression constraints since President Xi Jinping took over in 2012 — it is another cutting off the country’s scientists and technologists from the latest foreign academic research in those fields.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics & Society, Uncategorized

China Systematically Cracks Down On The Internet

IT IS EASY to assume that the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC)’s investigations into three of the country’s leading social media platforms are just a tightening of censorship typically to be expected ahead of the forthcoming Party congress.

Tencent Holdings’ messaging app WeChat, Sina’s Twitter-like service Weibo, and Baidu’s communication forum Tieba face complaints that they have allowed their users to spread terror-related material, rumours and obscenities, breaches of the law that “endangered national security, public security and social order”.

But there is a more systematic effort to control information in play.

The new cybersecurity law that took effect on June 1 and of which the social media platforms have fallen foul as it makes online platforms responsible for the content they carry, is the third piece of recent legislation codifying China’s doctrine of cyber-sovereignty.  The National Security Law and the Anti-Terrorism Law, both passed in 2015, are the other two.

Collectively they form the basis of Beijing’s intended state control of the internet, which, in turn, is part of the greater crackdown on incipient dissent.

1 Comment

Filed under Politics & Society, Technolgy

And The Greatest Of These Is Order

THE WORLD WIDE Web is increasingly having national boundaries drawn over it. At the second Global Internet Conference, a meeting of a couple of dozen countries convened by China in Wuzhen in Zhejiang province, President Xi Jinping laid out his notions of online national sovereignty along with a defence of online censorship.

“Freedom is what order is meant for,” Xi said, “and order is the guarantee of freedom”. And the greatest of these are order, this Bystander is tempted to add.

The right of a country to control the information flows across and within its borders, which is what cyber sovereignty means, is at odds with the way the internet has grown up as a free exchange of information (and thus ideas).

Russian Prime MinisterDmitry Medvedev, Pakistani President Mamnoon Hussain, Kazakh Prime Minister Karim Massimov kept company with a host of executives from such US tech titans as Apple, Facebook, IBM, LinkedIn and Wikipedia were there to hear Xi’s message that “no country alone can claim the role of the sole universal regulator of the world-wide web”.

This all, though, fits squarely with the massive resources that are being directed towards internal security and with China’s creation of parallel institutions to circumvent what it sees as the Western-dominant existing ones.

3 Comments

Filed under Media, Politics & Society

Will Unravelling China’s VIEs Pull The Rug Out From Under Alibaba?

IS THE LAW of unintended consequences — or intended ones — in play with the new draft revisions to China’s foreign investment law? And if the later, whose intentions need to be examined?

What may be at stake is control of three of the fastest growing sectors of the Chinese economy — the internet, e-commerce, and cloud computing. Privately owned companies, not state-owned enterprises dominate all three. More to the point, these are about the only sectors of the economy to create large privately owned Chinese companies and from which state-owned behemoths are absent.

As Steve Dickinson of the China Law Blog points out, Baidu, Sina, and Alibaba are at risk of getting their wings clipped. To be fair, that is not the wording he uses. However, this Bystander sees it as a consequence of the significant implication he does note will result from the draft foreign investment law newly published by the commerce ministry: it will end a corporate governance structure known as the Variable Interest Entity (VIE).

All three companies and hundreds of others, particularly technology and telecoms firms, use VIEs to get round the investment regulatory rigidities of sectors of the economy the government deems strategically important and so proscribes or limits foreign investors.

The new draft revisions specifically set out to end VIEs. The revisions’ other main goals are:

  • to lessen the red tape for foreign direct investors wanting to own businesses in China;
  • to switch to a system of monitoring foreign investors via annual reports from pre-approvals for new foreign investments, save for in sectors of national significance; and
  • to put Chinese companies with foreign investors under the same legal regime as domestic companies.

China’s foreign investment law is outdated, so modernisation is to be welcomed — even if the draft law runs to a weighty 179 articles across eleven chapters.

VIEs are a loophole that has let foreigners operate businesses in the country through Chinese front companies. They are a corporate sleight of hand by which an investor controls a company through contractual legal agreements rather than through share ownership.

In short, VIEs say to authorities in country A ownership resides in country A while at the same time telling investors in country B that ownership resides in country B. This Bystander doesn’t need to be a lawyer to see that doesn’t pass many smell tests for good corporate governance.

There have been a number of VIE-related scandals, including involving Alibaba, Sina.com, and New Oriental Education, as VIEs open too many creases along which any or all of regulatory, ownership and operational risk can spread.

Nevertheless, VIEs have become widely used. At first, they were a way for inward foreign investors to enter parts of the Chinese market otherwise closed to them. Increasingly they have been used by privately-owned Chinese companies that list overseas, especially those from industries in which having any foreign shareholders is forbidden or restricted, such as tech and telecoms.

They circumnavigate regulatory rigidities: the constraints on Chinese firms raising capital domestically and the need for private firms to get permission to invest overseas, and restrictions on foreign investors and firms having ownership of Chinese enterprises in certain sectors of the Chinese economy. But given those restrictions on foreign investment exist, VIEs aid and abet in breaking the spirit of the law, if not its letter.

The straightforward solution would be to remove the regulatory rigidities. However, Beijing is not going to abandon keeping sectors of the economy ‘off-limits’ to foreign investors. Its new draft foreign investment regulations use where ‘effective control’ of a company resides to determine ownership.

At a stroke of the legal drafting pen, VIEs becomes irrelevant. Any business that authorities determine to be effectively foreign controlled will be breaking the law if it operates in a restricted or prohibited industry.

All of which would leave the likes of Baidu, Sina and Alibaba and all the other internet businesses that operate as VIEs in China, in a pickle. So, too, foreign investors who bought into the initial public offerings with such gusto and who could end up holding the paper of a company that is illegal.

Now, we don’t doubt that between drafting and final promulgation of a new foreign investment law, accommodations will be made to resolve any such discomforts. While the regulators appear to have rejected lobbing from the companies to, in effect, grandfather them into legality, the draft regulations would let a VIE that is controlled by Chinese to be considered a Chinese company. That determination would be made by authorities on a case by case basis. It would be incumbent on the VIE to show it should be exempted from being put out of business like every other VIE.

Beijing has to walk a fine line if it is not to discourage the development of those industries in which Baidu, Sina and Alibaba operate. All of them could play critical roles in encouraging domestic consumption and thus help meet the government’s goal of rebalancing the economy away from infrastructure investment- and export-led growth. On the other hand, it can’t be too blatant in showing that there is one rule for the powerful and well connected and another for all the rest.

Such companies could also switch their governance to a two-share-class model, and keep the relationship between investors and owners as effectively separated as they are with a VIE. (We don’t approve of companies having A and B shares as a matter of good governance, but that is a topic for another day.)

However, the cost of that will be greater government regulation over them and possibly the promotion of state-owned enterprises to rival them, though perversely it may also give the big, established players some protection from new entrants who won’t be allowed to go the VIE route or anything that looks like it (though opening the capital account would mitigate the need to).

There are several parts of the political establishment, from the security and propaganda arms to the state-owned enterprises themselves, who would welcome reining in the big private Internet groups. Abolishing VIE’s might be intended primarily to kill a lot of flies, but, intentionally or not, there are some endangered tigers, too.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy, Technolgy

How Sino-Centric Is The World Wide Web?

As Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, wanders around Shanghai, he will no doubt reflect, and not for the first time, on the fact that China accounts for barely 500,000 of his highly successful social network’s 400-plus million users around the world. He might also like to consider this: by 2016 China will have more internet users, at nearly 800 million, than the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, India and Japan — combined.

That forecast comes from The Connected World, a Boston Consulting Group report published at the time of the annual Davos shindig in January. If more than a quarter of the 3 billion people in the world the report reckons will be online by 2016 are in China, compared to a tenth in the U.S., should we be thinking of China as being at the center of the Internet and the global digital economy rather than the U.S.?

It may be misguided to think of anything as distributed as the Internet as having a center. Yet sheer weight of population is fast swelling the China node, and challenging the notion that China, by its own volition, can be a web world of its own.

The first e-mail sent from China contained the message, “Across the Great Wall, we can reach every corner of the world” — even if the opposite hasn’t proved particularly to be the case. Yet more and more of that world is increasingly inside the Great Wall. With a population of 1.3 billion and an internet penetration rate of 38.3% at the end of last year, there is plenty of scope for grow the ranks of netizens. In raw number of internet users, China passed the U.S. in 2008, though fewer than one in four Chinese was online then compared to almost three out of four Americans. Between 2007 and 2010 China added more Internet users than exist in the U.S. It now has 513 million netizens. The U.S. has 245 million. If China now had America’s current online penetration level (78.3%), it would already have more than 1 billion internet users.

China, like other emerging economies, is also riding a second underlying trend, a world going digitally mobile. It doesn’t have to put a PC on every desk to get its citizens online, just put a smartphone in their hand. Two-third’s of China’s online population accesses the Internet via mobile phone. This year, for the first time, more smartphones will be bought in China than in any other country. China can leapfrog the desktop just as some emerging economies skipped the landline in telephony.

It can also go straight to the social Web. Tencent’s QQ messaging service is what set the company on the road to becoming China’s largest Internet company by market capitalization. Its Weibo (microblogging) service is easing ahead of rival Sina’s (they have more than 500 million users between them). Its Weixin mobile app took barely 400 days to acquire 100 million users. Social networking is a substitute for having no siblings to talk to at home, we are told. Well perhaps. More likely, weak IP protection and weak competition from TV has driven heavy use of the Internet in China for entertainment, particularly online music and videos, and the conversations that follow that. Tencent has adeptly cashed in on that with online games and entertainment. Consumers expect to pay for mobile phone services. They have grown used to them being free on a PC, to the detriment of any business in a country that was an early adopter of desktop computing.

China has also walled off its domestic market to censor and protect domestic industries. There are only two major economies where Facebook isn’t the leader in social networking and Google in search. One is Russia. The other is China, where Renren leads in social, and Baidu in search. Google’s problems in China are too well documented to need rehearsing here, but it is worth noting that Zuckerberg’s 500,000 Facebook users in China constitute a 0.0004% local market share. It has 50% in the U.S.

China’s Internet companies have been in the happy position of being fast followers of the leading global companies, able to learn from them without facing undue competition from them and all the while riding a fast growing economy playing catch-up in Internet use. It seems inevitable that there will be foreign pressure to open up China’s Internet market, just as there has been to open up other sectors of the economy. Domestic Internet companies are starting to position themselves for that eventuality. The recently announced proposed merger of the online video sites Youku and Tudou is sector consolidation to that end.

% of online population whose first language is English or ChineseEach country will fashion the Internet in its own image to a certain extent. Whether the Internet more globally is Anglo- or Sino-centric is determined not only by users but also by usage and content. More than half the content on the Internet is still in English. That is despite the fact that the share of all Internet users who count English as their first language is shrinking (the blue line in the chart to the left). In 2000, it was almost two in five. As of March last year, the latest available figures, it is, at 27%, barely one in four. Over the same period the share of native Chinese speakers (the green line in the chart) has risen to 24%, or almost one in four, from 9% or one in eleven. Native Chinese language speakers are the second largest group online after English speakers. (Japanese, Spanish and German round out the top five languages online, accounting for a dominating 68%).

Where Chinese’s sway falters is that English is the dominant second language and language of business. Even if the official push to promote China’s culture increases the volume of Chinese language cultural and entertainment material online, the international audience for it will be relatively limited. A tonal language like Chinese is ill-suited to the battering it gets when spoken by non-native speakers. English has proved far more robust. It has even spawned a variant, Globish, for just that purpose.

A shift in geographic center towards the emerging economies is not the only change shaping the Internet. Bits and bytes now follow the Brics, as trade once followed the flag, perhaps. Reflecting the shift from nation states to a global economy bestrode by mulitnationals, it is also forming around digital ecosystems that have companies at their center, such as Google, Facebook and Apple in the U.S., Tencent and Baidu in China and Yandex in Russia. They are shaping an Internet economy that cuts across old national boundaries. BCG forecasts the Internet economy will be worth $4.2 trillion in the 20 richest nations by 2016. By that time, IBM has forecast, 1 trillion devices, from phones to fridges and control systems will be connected to it. BCG says the Internet economy will account for 8% of G-20 nations’ GDP, up from 4.1% in 2010. That would be like adding another Italy or Brazil to the G-20 (we are a sucker for such analogies; and, yes, we know GDP figures are probably not adept at capturing Internet economic activity).

Yet China’s Internet giants have a long way to become the corporate hubs of global digital ecosystems. The commercial growth to come domestically may act as a deterrent to them becoming so. In 2010, the search engine market was worth $1.75 billion and is forecast to reach $14.5 billion by 2015. But over the same period, e-commerce is forecast to expand from $75 billion to $315 billion, at which point it would pass the value of e-commerce in the U.S., estimated to grow from $180 billon to $304 billion in 2010-2015.

China’s sheer size makes national bricks and mortar retailing difficult. E-commerce is further boosted by cheap shipping and high rates of urban broadband penetration, already on a par with America’s at 68%. However, as BCG says, broadband infrastructure alone isn’t enough to push a country to the forefront of the Internet economy. Also needed are “a favorable regulatory environment, strong payment systems, consumer protection for e-commerce transactions, and a willingness on the part of governments, business and consumers to go online”.

Forecasts about the Internet in China should always carry a large caveat not only about the commercial environment, but also about the political uncertainties surrounding them. China censors its social networks internally and the wider web externally with its Golden Shield, more familiarly known as Great Firewall. Leaders brought up in the era of state-run broadcasters and newspapers have very different hopes, fears and aspirations for the Internet than the generation that is growing up with it. China’s digital natives have just as much scope to use it to change society and commerce as their equivalents elsewhere. The question is the degree to which they will be constrained from doing so. What is certain is that the rising tides of the global web, like those of the global economy, are shifting in their direction.

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics & Society

Online Gold Farming: The Next Front In Trade Wars?

This Bystander hadn’t much thought of the commerce in virtual goods having the potential to become an international trade issue, but a report in the Guardian about prisoners being made to spend endless hours playing online games so that their guards could covert the credits earned into cash made us think again.

The practice is known as gold farming, from the gold in the World of Warcraft game where much of this sprung from. The article suggests that by setting 300 prisoners to the task for 12 hours, the prison guards could earn 5,000-6,000 yuan ($770-925) a day. Nor is it just prison guards that are forcing inmates to play online games for 12 hours a day for their benefit, businesses are at it, too, according to a new World Bank study. There are now an estimated 100,000 gold farmers in China, accounting for four out of five gold farmers worldwide.

In 2009, Beijing issued rules on game credits trading, with an estimated 13 billion yuan-worth having been traded the previous year. Though businesses now need a license to do so, that seems to be being ignored, clearly including in prisons in the north-east. The business of hard cash for virtual goods is a $3 billion dollar one, according to the World Bank estimates, with two-thirds of it accounted for by Chinese gold farming.

Millions of gamers around the world will pay real money for online credits and virtual goods like avatars, objects and powers, to help them progress up the levels of multiplayer role-playing games and in virtual worlds like Second Life. Cash payments for virtual items are becoming key to attracting players to the fast growing world of free-to-play online gaming. As gamers have been turned into consumers, so suppliers have sprung up to meet demand, further blurring the distinction between games and the physical world.

This new economy has mimicked the real world in creating black markets and crime. Last month, Sichuan officials started prosecuting a gamer who allegedly stole 3,000 yuan of online credits. It has also created inflation as gold farming is, in effect, a rapid increase in the money supply. (Real world) governments are starting to look at whether there are revenues to tax.

Trade disputes can’t be far behind, especially if China is running a trade surplus on the scale the numbers above imply. In the borderless world of the internet, the trade issues are a potential activists’ delight, especially if China is now not just the workshop of the world, but its virtual workshop, too–and not only creating virtual exports in low-wage, low-margin commercial gaming studios but also producing them by the sweat of prison labour.

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy, Media

Battling The Google Hegemony

Google as a modern-day British East India Company, exercising imperial hegemony in the American interest, is the theme of an editorial by Zheng Yan, published by the People’s Daily at the end of last week and widely reposted on local websites such as QQ since (English translation via China Media Project). The author, identified near anonymously as “a web user”, touches on a well-scratched nerve of national shame, but the piece is worth a read as it more than just another knock at the American search and media company. It represents yet more string to the nationalist bow, a perspective of social media held in Party circles not as a liberating force but as a tool of national interest, and another Orwellian reason that freedom lovers should stand in the way of Google’s world domination. In its corner, China stands ready to fight the good fight.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Media, Politics & Society