What do you think?
Rate this book
Censored: Distraction and Diversion Inside China's Great Firewall
A groundbreaking and surprising look at contemporary censorship in ChinaAs authoritarian governments around the world develop sophisticated technologies for controlling information, many observers have predicted that these controls would be ineffective because they are easily thwarted and evaded by savvy Internet users. In Censored, Margaret Roberts demonstrates that even censorship that is easy to circumvent can still be enormously effective. Taking advantage of digital data harvested from the Chinese Internet and leaks from China's Propaganda Department, this important book sheds light on how and when censorship influences the Chinese public.Roberts finds that much of censorship in China works not by making information impossible to access but by requiring those seeking information to spend extra time and money for access. By inconveniencing users, censorship diverts the attention of citizens and powerfully shapes the spread of information. When Internet users notice blatant censorship, they are willing to compensate for better access. But subtler censorship, such as burying search results or introducing distracting information on the web, is more effective because users are less aware of it. Roberts challenges the conventional wisdom that online censorship is undermined when it is incomplete and shows instead how censorship's porous nature is used strategically to divide the public.Drawing parallels between censorship in China and the way information is manipulated in the United States and other democracies, Roberts reveals how Internet users are susceptible to control even in the most open societies. Demonstrating how censorship travels across countries and technologies, Censored gives an unprecedented view of how governments encroach on the media consumption of citizens.
281 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 10, 2018
36 people are currently reading
507 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 1, 2021
Robert's book on internet censorship in China works on several levels. On the one hand, she has produced a theoretical framework for thinking about internet censorship in general. On the other, she has amassed a considerable body of empirical evidence on internet access and usage in China specifically.
After a theory-heavy introduction of why governments censor, Roberts moves to a discussion of three different methods: fear, friction, and flooding. Fear, of course, is the threat of punishment or coercion. Friction, on the other hand, involves limiting access to specific websites or preventing specific terms from being searched. Flooding involves redirection to what information the government would prefer for the reader to see, and often produces - such as positive comment sections, creating the illusion of mass consensus, or direction to more friendly media outlets. Fear-based coercion is expensive and difficult - so flooding and friction are more widely used.
Additionally, Roberts adds from observations and survey data. VPNs, or Virtual Private Networks, which are used to circumvent censorship, are often downloaded in urban areas with a greater degree of college graduates. Likewise, internet usage in China varies widely across different demographics, especially age groups. This data is valuable and well-presented and would be of considerable use to specialists.
This book also raises a series of valuable questions. For example: How are these techniques used outside of China? And how are they used today, with recent policy moves on VPNs, or with the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic? Censored is a valuable snapshot of the Chinese internet in the mid-2010s, although subsequent research would be useful in seeing how much is applicable today.
After a theory-heavy introduction of why governments censor, Roberts moves to a discussion of three different methods: fear, friction, and flooding. Fear, of course, is the threat of punishment or coercion. Friction, on the other hand, involves limiting access to specific websites or preventing specific terms from being searched. Flooding involves redirection to what information the government would prefer for the reader to see, and often produces - such as positive comment sections, creating the illusion of mass consensus, or direction to more friendly media outlets. Fear-based coercion is expensive and difficult - so flooding and friction are more widely used.
Additionally, Roberts adds from observations and survey data. VPNs, or Virtual Private Networks, which are used to circumvent censorship, are often downloaded in urban areas with a greater degree of college graduates. Likewise, internet usage in China varies widely across different demographics, especially age groups. This data is valuable and well-presented and would be of considerable use to specialists.
This book also raises a series of valuable questions. For example: How are these techniques used outside of China? And how are they used today, with recent policy moves on VPNs, or with the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic? Censored is a valuable snapshot of the Chinese internet in the mid-2010s, although subsequent research would be useful in seeing how much is applicable today.
July 28, 2021
This book was enlightening for me, describing mechanisms of censorship, which can be seen not only in China but also in other parts of the world. It has an academic tone, with many repetitions of the same idea in different chapters and sections and having a conclusion in each chapter, making it somehow dull.
August 27, 2021
I found this a really interesting read.
It had information about censorship, the sociology behind censoring, and the impacts on citizens.
I found the parts about politics particularly interesting - not only that, but fascinating.
4.2/5
It had information about censorship, the sociology behind censoring, and the impacts on citizens.
I found the parts about politics particularly interesting - not only that, but fascinating.
4.2/5
June 21, 2021
নাগরিকদের মুখ এবং কানের ব্যবহার সীমিত করতে চৈনিক ছাঁচের নীতি অনুসরণ করছে বহু রাষ্ট্রই। সেই নীতির সারবস্তু রবার্টসের এই অ্যাকাডেমিক ঘরানার বইতে বেশ সরল ভাবে উঠে এসেছে।
June 7, 2019
The book itself should be a 3.5/5
Here are my reasons for the gone 1.5 stars ✨
First of all, its because I am from China, and I'm pretty familiar for the propaganda and censorship, the contends are a bit of common and nothing special for me. But if you are totally unaware of what is happening in China, the book is suitable for you.
Secondly, the theory is not sophisticated. 3 mechanism are throughout the nook, which makes the structure of this book seem relatively plain and simple.
So why did I give an 4?
because I can see how many efforts molly has put on this project. Getting information in China can be very hard, especially this topic.
By the way, this book is invisible in China’s book market, and no Chinese edition, so most of the middle or low educated Chinese won't be able to read this, and they are exactly those people who should read this book.
How ironic!
Here are my reasons for the gone 1.5 stars ✨
First of all, its because I am from China, and I'm pretty familiar for the propaganda and censorship, the contends are a bit of common and nothing special for me. But if you are totally unaware of what is happening in China, the book is suitable for you.
Secondly, the theory is not sophisticated. 3 mechanism are throughout the nook, which makes the structure of this book seem relatively plain and simple.
So why did I give an 4?
because I can see how many efforts molly has put on this project. Getting information in China can be very hard, especially this topic.
By the way, this book is invisible in China’s book market, and no Chinese edition, so most of the middle or low educated Chinese won't be able to read this, and they are exactly those people who should read this book.
How ironic!
December 31, 2022
这是一本学术书，在豆瓣上不存在的一本书。从书的写作风格和结构来看，可以说是学术写作里标杆作品了。从最开头起就把书的主题和内容展现得清清楚楚，没有任何废话，然后在接下来的一章就把理论结构说清楚了。剩下的几章就是把理论结构的三个方面详细展开而已，把针对每一个方面做的study都拿出来说一说，最后回归到为什么会得出来最初这个理论。整本书，每一句话都写得很清楚；一句话与一句话之间的逻辑联系很明确；一句话内的词语也是用在该用的地方，真的是我最喜欢的那种清晰明确的学术写作。就内容本身而言也是非常好，作为中国人天天生活在censorship下，看到作者把理论框架提取出来，再结合自己的生活经验，有醍醐灌顶的感觉：“啊，就是这样！真是这样！” 这可能也是理论的真正魅力所在吧，来源于经验，又可以重新启发经验。唯一的小小遗憾可能就是有些具体的研究发现可能已经不适用于中国现在的情况了，因为极权对于审查的理解和手段也是在不断成长和更新的，但这不妨碍这本书值得五星。
March 26, 2025
What kills me about the tactics described in this book is how hidden they all are. It leaves you thinking in conspiracy. Is someone pushing this story to cover something else up? Are certain websites getting delisted in social media search fields in order to avoid starting public discourse? We know that state actors and tech companies are doing this, but it's never 100% censored. There's always a veneer of plausible deniability. "What do you mean? The information IS accessible."
Setting up a framework for censorship in the digital age is very helpful though. You either function through fear, friction, or flooding, and there can be a lot of overlap between the tactics. There are a couple ways I could see these being used that weren't covered in the book. One would be flooding any posts by journalists or dissidents spreading "bad" ideas with hate messages. This kind of interaction online is very alienating and often works in getting people to stop posting politically. Seeing a lot of vitriol on a post makes people not want to engage with the subject as well. This would be a kind of combination of fear and flooding.
The second is flooding with highly contentious content. The Chinese censorship model doesn't want discord online. Funny enough one of the goals of their bot farms is "positive messaging". If you don't care about the consumers fighting, it's much easier to flood with highly debatable content. Half-truths and speculations keep people posting and not focusing on more important issues. I'm often thinking about how so many of us know social media is bad for us and we all hate it, but we still constantly come back to it and participate in it. That's a highly exploitable feeling.
Setting up a framework for censorship in the digital age is very helpful though. You either function through fear, friction, or flooding, and there can be a lot of overlap between the tactics. There are a couple ways I could see these being used that weren't covered in the book. One would be flooding any posts by journalists or dissidents spreading "bad" ideas with hate messages. This kind of interaction online is very alienating and often works in getting people to stop posting politically. Seeing a lot of vitriol on a post makes people not want to engage with the subject as well. This would be a kind of combination of fear and flooding.
The second is flooding with highly contentious content. The Chinese censorship model doesn't want discord online. Funny enough one of the goals of their bot farms is "positive messaging". If you don't care about the consumers fighting, it's much easier to flood with highly debatable content. Half-truths and speculations keep people posting and not focusing on more important issues. I'm often thinking about how so many of us know social media is bad for us and we all hate it, but we still constantly come back to it and participate in it. That's a highly exploitable feeling.
April 3, 2022
Roberts perhaps stretches the central premise a bit, but she's also very insightful in her observations, dropping truth bomb after truth bomb.
Perhaps my biggest complaint is that, although she mentions it in passing here and there, she's not emphasising enough how her described techniques, in use in China, are also, to an unknown extent, used by western democracies, exactly because of the advantages they offer the censor.
'Shadow banning', for example, is a form of censorship pioneered by Reddit, where the person who's shadow banned doesn't even know others can not see his contributions, because he himself can still contribute.
The central observation of Roberts is that most censorship methods implemented by the Chinese government act not as a ban but as a tax on information, forcing users to pay money or spend more time if they want to access the censored material.
Many governments have the capacity to enforce censorship more forcefully, but choose not to do so.
Roberts classifies three types of censorship. First, blatant censorship and threats, invoking fear, which may deter citizens from spreading or accessing information. This requires the threat of punishment to be observable to be credible. But, fear is problematic for authoritarian regimes because it can cause backlash, draw attention to censored information, and create information-gathering problems for governments.
If the threat is not credible, censorship may instead draw attention to authoritarian weakness or create backlash. Therefore, it is discreetly targeted toward the most capable and motivated individuals.
The other two types are friction and flooding. Friction, which imposes small taxes on information access, and flooding, which creates distractions, do not need to be obviously driven by political entities to have an impact on information consumption and dissemination. Friction and flooding are more porous but less observable to the public than censorship using fear, and therefore are more effective with an impatient or uninterested public.
Friction can more easily be explained away or go unnoticed. While flooding can be discounted or avoided. Flooding requires the consumer to take time and effort to separate out good information from bad.
Excellent observations which Roberts makes:
+ Although many people are resistant to censorship when they notice and observe it, they are very affected by it when they are inconvenienced by it, but do not recognise it as censorship, or can explain it away.
+ Circumventable censorship can be useful to authoritarian regimes precisely because it has different effects on different segments of the population.
+ Porous censorship drives a wedge between the elite and the masses.
+ By separating the elite from the masses, the government prevents coordination of the core and the periphery, known to be an essential component in successful collective action.
+ Incomplete censorship, by contrast, is more easily masked by political entities, giving the government the cover of plausible deniability.
What Roberts identifies as the 'Achilles heal' of porous censorship I find less strong an argument: The strategy of porous censorship can be counterproductive and dangerous to the regime when it uses this censorship too decisively during times it needs censorship most.
To me, this does sound like a drawback, but also one that, mostly, can probably be managed reasonably well.
In short, Roberts major findings are on point:
+ Censorship is more than fear. Because it is also friction and flooding.
+ Censorship is customised. That is, a well oiled censorship machine treats users in the way Google does, but in stead of surfacing what they want to access, it is obfuscated.
+ More media does not always lead to better information. See 'flooding'.
+ A broader definition of censorship has implications for democracies. Social media both floods and creates friction. Therefore censors.
Smaller observations are immensely interesting:
+ All else being equal, those who have experienced censorship persist in writing about the censored topic and are more likely to complain about censorship, even as they become increasingly targeted with censorship.
So, 'hard' censorship does not work very well.
+ Internet users, particularly those who report having experienced censorship, are much more likely to report being unfazed or angry about censorship than fearful or worried.
+ The observation of censorship creates more, not less, interest in the censored topic and also decreases support for government censorship policies.
+ The Chinese government, likely aware that experience with censorship can undermine its reputation, adopts a two-pronged censorship strategy targeting high-profile users with fear-based censorship while attempting to make online censorship efforts less observable to the public.
+ The best predictor of the number of social media posts that accompany a self-immolation event (which she studied as part of protests in Tibet) is whether the event occurs on the weekend, when the censors are slower to censor, suggesting that the speed of censorship has important implications for the spread of information in China.
+ Those who evade The Great Firewall are technologically savvy, well-educated, high-income internet users in China who have high levels of political efficacy.
+ The Great Firewall pulls this political elite away from their potential followers.
+ Newly blocked websites have precipitous declines in usage directly following their block, showing how small impediments to access have an immediate impact on traffic from typical Chinese users.
+ Flooding in both online and traditional news media in China coordinates messages to distract the public from sensitive events.
It's easy to be cynical, but Boris Johnson has been accused of exactly this. Read this:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion...
+ The government uses propaganda to distract with coverage of the mundane details of Party meetings or with encouraging quotes and positive thoughts directed at the public. For the most part this strategy is effective—highly coordinated propaganda used by the Chinese government is more likely than articles that are less coordinated to be re-shared in both the domestic and international social media spheres.
In the last chapter, Roberts speculates that authoritarian governments may adopt the strategy of porous censorship in part because citizens themselves are strategic consumers of information.
Now, the contest over free speech is not so much anymore whether someone can take the public stage, but instead which voices will rise to the top and which will be lost in the cacophony. Hence, the contrast between democracies and autocracies less stark.
Censorship consists not only of preventing individuals from speaking but also of determining how their speech is prioritised and presented to the public.
If the prioritization of information for political purposes has the impact of censorship, as this book suggests, then Roberts concludes, in democracies we have to rethink how we can protect free speech in a world of information overload.
Perhaps my biggest complaint is that, although she mentions it in passing here and there, she's not emphasising enough how her described techniques, in use in China, are also, to an unknown extent, used by western democracies, exactly because of the advantages they offer the censor.
'Shadow banning', for example, is a form of censorship pioneered by Reddit, where the person who's shadow banned doesn't even know others can not see his contributions, because he himself can still contribute.
The central observation of Roberts is that most censorship methods implemented by the Chinese government act not as a ban but as a tax on information, forcing users to pay money or spend more time if they want to access the censored material.
Many governments have the capacity to enforce censorship more forcefully, but choose not to do so.
Roberts classifies three types of censorship. First, blatant censorship and threats, invoking fear, which may deter citizens from spreading or accessing information. This requires the threat of punishment to be observable to be credible. But, fear is problematic for authoritarian regimes because it can cause backlash, draw attention to censored information, and create information-gathering problems for governments.
If the threat is not credible, censorship may instead draw attention to authoritarian weakness or create backlash. Therefore, it is discreetly targeted toward the most capable and motivated individuals.
The other two types are friction and flooding. Friction, which imposes small taxes on information access, and flooding, which creates distractions, do not need to be obviously driven by political entities to have an impact on information consumption and dissemination. Friction and flooding are more porous but less observable to the public than censorship using fear, and therefore are more effective with an impatient or uninterested public.
Friction can more easily be explained away or go unnoticed. While flooding can be discounted or avoided. Flooding requires the consumer to take time and effort to separate out good information from bad.
Excellent observations which Roberts makes:
+ Although many people are resistant to censorship when they notice and observe it, they are very affected by it when they are inconvenienced by it, but do not recognise it as censorship, or can explain it away.
+ Circumventable censorship can be useful to authoritarian regimes precisely because it has different effects on different segments of the population.
+ Porous censorship drives a wedge between the elite and the masses.
+ By separating the elite from the masses, the government prevents coordination of the core and the periphery, known to be an essential component in successful collective action.
+ Incomplete censorship, by contrast, is more easily masked by political entities, giving the government the cover of plausible deniability.
What Roberts identifies as the 'Achilles heal' of porous censorship I find less strong an argument: The strategy of porous censorship can be counterproductive and dangerous to the regime when it uses this censorship too decisively during times it needs censorship most.
To me, this does sound like a drawback, but also one that, mostly, can probably be managed reasonably well.
In short, Roberts major findings are on point:
+ Censorship is more than fear. Because it is also friction and flooding.
+ Censorship is customised. That is, a well oiled censorship machine treats users in the way Google does, but in stead of surfacing what they want to access, it is obfuscated.
+ More media does not always lead to better information. See 'flooding'.
+ A broader definition of censorship has implications for democracies. Social media both floods and creates friction. Therefore censors.
Smaller observations are immensely interesting:
+ All else being equal, those who have experienced censorship persist in writing about the censored topic and are more likely to complain about censorship, even as they become increasingly targeted with censorship.
So, 'hard' censorship does not work very well.
+ Internet users, particularly those who report having experienced censorship, are much more likely to report being unfazed or angry about censorship than fearful or worried.
+ The observation of censorship creates more, not less, interest in the censored topic and also decreases support for government censorship policies.
+ The Chinese government, likely aware that experience with censorship can undermine its reputation, adopts a two-pronged censorship strategy targeting high-profile users with fear-based censorship while attempting to make online censorship efforts less observable to the public.
+ The best predictor of the number of social media posts that accompany a self-immolation event (which she studied as part of protests in Tibet) is whether the event occurs on the weekend, when the censors are slower to censor, suggesting that the speed of censorship has important implications for the spread of information in China.
+ Those who evade The Great Firewall are technologically savvy, well-educated, high-income internet users in China who have high levels of political efficacy.
+ The Great Firewall pulls this political elite away from their potential followers.
+ Newly blocked websites have precipitous declines in usage directly following their block, showing how small impediments to access have an immediate impact on traffic from typical Chinese users.
+ Flooding in both online and traditional news media in China coordinates messages to distract the public from sensitive events.
It's easy to be cynical, but Boris Johnson has been accused of exactly this. Read this:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion...
+ The government uses propaganda to distract with coverage of the mundane details of Party meetings or with encouraging quotes and positive thoughts directed at the public. For the most part this strategy is effective—highly coordinated propaganda used by the Chinese government is more likely than articles that are less coordinated to be re-shared in both the domestic and international social media spheres.
In the last chapter, Roberts speculates that authoritarian governments may adopt the strategy of porous censorship in part because citizens themselves are strategic consumers of information.
Now, the contest over free speech is not so much anymore whether someone can take the public stage, but instead which voices will rise to the top and which will be lost in the cacophony. Hence, the contrast between democracies and autocracies less stark.
Censorship consists not only of preventing individuals from speaking but also of determining how their speech is prioritised and presented to the public.
If the prioritization of information for political purposes has the impact of censorship, as this book suggests, then Roberts concludes, in democracies we have to rethink how we can protect free speech in a world of information overload.
December 15, 2024
Well...
Whenever I start with the term well, l it becomes obvious that I have mixed feelings about the title I am reviewing, and this is certainly the case with this book by Margaret Roberts.
Censored is an interesting and informative read. I know you hear the inevitable "but" lingering in the background, and we will address that shortly.
Roberts makes very lucid observations concerning China's three censorship strategies and, by extension, other "authoritarian" regimes. She classifies these as repressive, responsive, or porous tactics that rely on throttling or distraction.
The first problem, and perhaps the most significant, regarding this title, is the redundancy of the text. The mantra of fear, friction, and flooding is constantly hammered into the reader's psyche.
The author's argument endlessly repeats the same thesis in different terms. This is annoying but still bearable. The politically correct use of largely exclusive female pronouns instead of more academically neutral ones, less so. I was surprised not to find any Zis, or Zer’s or whatever in there.
One of the most significant shortcomings is the failure to address the fact that while the author excoriates Chinese censorship, the same practices by Western industrialized nations are overlooked and given a free pass. Granted this title does concern China, but the author's pontification over the evils of authoritarian regimes as the harbingers of doom and chaos rings empty and false to those aware of Western chicanery. A single line devoted to this, where the author addresses this lacuna, albeit marginally, can be found on page 231, only six pages before the end of the book, almost as an afterthought. More on this later.
The author relies heavily of leftist sources of empirically questionable validity, such as the irreputable “Guardian,” the L.A. Times, the NY Tims, MIT Technology Review in support of her thesis.
P.32 The author queries: "But how do free and commercialized media decide what to cover, when they are not politically constrained?" Is this an honest observation you might be asking yourself, already at this point? The fact is that confidence in the mainstream media, or MSM, is at a historic low, and anyone, but the naivest individuals, will believe that MSM is anything but fair, honest, and unbiased.
P.33 A similar reflection to the above, MMSM has no credibility and hence no reputation to worry about.
P.45 The book harps on the authoritarian regimes and their lack of free speech. This, however, fails to address similar practices is so-called democracies. Here we go Western governments have been notorious and increasingly authoritarian in addressing free speech, the right of expression. And for silencing dissent. This could clearly be witnessed during the covid fiasco, where repression of human rights became the norm. Further the advancement of political agendas by silencing opponents such as President Trump on social media is a tactic worthy of the most ruthless authoritarian regime. Justin Trudeau’s institution of martial law and the freezing of bank accounts of anyone supporting the trucker strike were a clear example of despotic repression of the worst sort. Currently oppressive measures against free speech in the UK even going as far as threatening foreign citizens with imprisonment are common under its new leadership. Germany, and its leftist factions, are extremely repressive and increasingly attempts to muzzle any sort of political dissent from within. These are but several examples of the marvels of modern democratic regimes.
p.48 Grammatical error: “…and print information that reflects badly [on of] local officials.”
p.55 Author raises a good point concerning too much information (TMI) and clickbait versus consumer preferences and manipulation [my interpretation].
P.63 A bit of apologetic semantics for Google and Facebook [now Meta].
P.69 Whose truth is true? When speaking about conservatives the author uses the term “unverified in a pejoratives sense,” and for liberals “speculative,” which has a more positive ring to it. Now I have no way of knowing the author’s political orientation, but given here source reliance and use of loaded language I could make a fair guess. This is important for the reader to bear in mind.
P.86 Last paragraph, the author dons her ethnocentrically correct glasses.
P.95 Critical historical background information provided
P.124 The validity of this research is called into question given a number of important variables being overlooked consider for instance individual user variables such as age, cultural influence, social variables.; rural versus urban dwellers, education, finances, political exposure, extra-national access to information, technical proficiency, frequency of access and so many others.
P.140 horrible syntax: “I conducted an experiment to study how consumers of social media posts react to censorship with two universities in China, students at over the summer of 2013.” [Huh???]
P.141 This evaluation smacks of researcher bias. This was a highly select control group of young university students, who are automatically rebellious by nature. Thus, these findings cannot be generalized across a wider population.
P.144 A question concerning the validity of the findings persists with the possibility of researcher bias.
P.155 Why has the author not addressed the topic of shadow banning directly?
P.170 Falls again under the mantle of ethnocentric observations.
p.173 Highly circumspect “N” Population and guess work in this piece of research. Findings cannot, thus, be extrapolated for application for analysis.
P. 194 Author raises interesting perspective of distract/Control/shaping of a narrative. Henceforth [DCS].
P.212 The author mentions “criticism,” which is not mentioned on the categories listed on page 211.
PP. 225 -228 The author again conflates her terminology. Flooding is listed as more costly and difficult on page 225 and then as “impossible.” On page 228.
Final Analysis.
Is the book worth reading? Yes…but [the one you have been expecting], arm yourself with patience given the redundancy, the ethnocentric orientation, and a subtle leftist bias. A one-woman democracy-powered bulldozer in action. Democracy is not bad, but it is not great either, it is merely different. In fact, all systems are basically the same regardless of what they are called. The difference resides in the numbers and the needs, population, economics, productions… In some states a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise simply is a preferable solution and works better. Like it or not.
The theory espoused by Roberts is sound and adds to the literature.
I am amazed that for all the criticism she levies against China, Roberts is still afforded the freedom to conduct her research there freely and without impediment. This fact alone argues against a major thrust of her thesis.
It is a dry read, though not overly taxing. I would suggest breaking it down into manageable chunks like twenty pages a day so as not to burn yourself out.
Worth reading, albeit with a bit of frustration.
Whenever I start with the term well, l it becomes obvious that I have mixed feelings about the title I am reviewing, and this is certainly the case with this book by Margaret Roberts.
Censored is an interesting and informative read. I know you hear the inevitable "but" lingering in the background, and we will address that shortly.
Roberts makes very lucid observations concerning China's three censorship strategies and, by extension, other "authoritarian" regimes. She classifies these as repressive, responsive, or porous tactics that rely on throttling or distraction.
The first problem, and perhaps the most significant, regarding this title, is the redundancy of the text. The mantra of fear, friction, and flooding is constantly hammered into the reader's psyche.
The author's argument endlessly repeats the same thesis in different terms. This is annoying but still bearable. The politically correct use of largely exclusive female pronouns instead of more academically neutral ones, less so. I was surprised not to find any Zis, or Zer’s or whatever in there.
One of the most significant shortcomings is the failure to address the fact that while the author excoriates Chinese censorship, the same practices by Western industrialized nations are overlooked and given a free pass. Granted this title does concern China, but the author's pontification over the evils of authoritarian regimes as the harbingers of doom and chaos rings empty and false to those aware of Western chicanery. A single line devoted to this, where the author addresses this lacuna, albeit marginally, can be found on page 231, only six pages before the end of the book, almost as an afterthought. More on this later.
The author relies heavily of leftist sources of empirically questionable validity, such as the irreputable “Guardian,” the L.A. Times, the NY Tims, MIT Technology Review in support of her thesis.
P.32 The author queries: "But how do free and commercialized media decide what to cover, when they are not politically constrained?" Is this an honest observation you might be asking yourself, already at this point? The fact is that confidence in the mainstream media, or MSM, is at a historic low, and anyone, but the naivest individuals, will believe that MSM is anything but fair, honest, and unbiased.
P.33 A similar reflection to the above, MMSM has no credibility and hence no reputation to worry about.
P.45 The book harps on the authoritarian regimes and their lack of free speech. This, however, fails to address similar practices is so-called democracies. Here we go Western governments have been notorious and increasingly authoritarian in addressing free speech, the right of expression. And for silencing dissent. This could clearly be witnessed during the covid fiasco, where repression of human rights became the norm. Further the advancement of political agendas by silencing opponents such as President Trump on social media is a tactic worthy of the most ruthless authoritarian regime. Justin Trudeau’s institution of martial law and the freezing of bank accounts of anyone supporting the trucker strike were a clear example of despotic repression of the worst sort. Currently oppressive measures against free speech in the UK even going as far as threatening foreign citizens with imprisonment are common under its new leadership. Germany, and its leftist factions, are extremely repressive and increasingly attempts to muzzle any sort of political dissent from within. These are but several examples of the marvels of modern democratic regimes.
p.48 Grammatical error: “…and print information that reflects badly [on of] local officials.”
p.55 Author raises a good point concerning too much information (TMI) and clickbait versus consumer preferences and manipulation [my interpretation].
P.63 A bit of apologetic semantics for Google and Facebook [now Meta].
P.69 Whose truth is true? When speaking about conservatives the author uses the term “unverified in a pejoratives sense,” and for liberals “speculative,” which has a more positive ring to it. Now I have no way of knowing the author’s political orientation, but given here source reliance and use of loaded language I could make a fair guess. This is important for the reader to bear in mind.
P.86 Last paragraph, the author dons her ethnocentrically correct glasses.
P.95 Critical historical background information provided
P.124 The validity of this research is called into question given a number of important variables being overlooked consider for instance individual user variables such as age, cultural influence, social variables.; rural versus urban dwellers, education, finances, political exposure, extra-national access to information, technical proficiency, frequency of access and so many others.
P.140 horrible syntax: “I conducted an experiment to study how consumers of social media posts react to censorship with two universities in China, students at over the summer of 2013.” [Huh???]
P.141 This evaluation smacks of researcher bias. This was a highly select control group of young university students, who are automatically rebellious by nature. Thus, these findings cannot be generalized across a wider population.
P.144 A question concerning the validity of the findings persists with the possibility of researcher bias.
P.155 Why has the author not addressed the topic of shadow banning directly?
P.170 Falls again under the mantle of ethnocentric observations.
p.173 Highly circumspect “N” Population and guess work in this piece of research. Findings cannot, thus, be extrapolated for application for analysis.
P. 194 Author raises interesting perspective of distract/Control/shaping of a narrative. Henceforth [DCS].
P.212 The author mentions “criticism,” which is not mentioned on the categories listed on page 211.
PP. 225 -228 The author again conflates her terminology. Flooding is listed as more costly and difficult on page 225 and then as “impossible.” On page 228.
Final Analysis.
Is the book worth reading? Yes…but [the one you have been expecting], arm yourself with patience given the redundancy, the ethnocentric orientation, and a subtle leftist bias. A one-woman democracy-powered bulldozer in action. Democracy is not bad, but it is not great either, it is merely different. In fact, all systems are basically the same regardless of what they are called. The difference resides in the numbers and the needs, population, economics, productions… In some states a dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise simply is a preferable solution and works better. Like it or not.
The theory espoused by Roberts is sound and adds to the literature.
I am amazed that for all the criticism she levies against China, Roberts is still afforded the freedom to conduct her research there freely and without impediment. This fact alone argues against a major thrust of her thesis.
It is a dry read, though not overly taxing. I would suggest breaking it down into manageable chunks like twenty pages a day so as not to burn yourself out.
Worth reading, albeit with a bit of frustration.
December 20, 2020
I recently finished reading Censored by Prof. Molly Roberts. This book provides a theory of censorship and empirical evidence that supports the theory in the book. Regarding the theory of censorship, the book argues that there are three mechanisms of censorship: fear, friction, and flooding. The research has significant implications for digital world.
To develop a theory of censorship, the book first considers two types of actions that can be restricted by censorship: expression of information and access to information. The first mechanism, fear, is to increase the cost of the expression of information. Therefore, fear can disincentivize relevant entities to supply the information to the public. The second mechanism, friction, is to increase the cost of finding relevant information. Relevant entities can increase the cost of certain information. And if the elasticity of consumers’ demand for that type of information is high, then, a small increase of the cost can prevent most consumers from consuming the information. Flooding is to use irrelevant information to distract consumers’ attention, which can also be thought of as increasing the cost of accessing the information.
To develop a theory of censorship, the book first considers two types of actions that can be restricted by censorship: expression of information and access to information. The first mechanism, fear, is to increase the cost of the expression of information. Therefore, fear can disincentivize relevant entities to supply the information to the public. The second mechanism, friction, is to increase the cost of finding relevant information. Relevant entities can increase the cost of certain information. And if the elasticity of consumers’ demand for that type of information is high, then, a small increase of the cost can prevent most consumers from consuming the information. Flooding is to use irrelevant information to distract consumers’ attention, which can also be thought of as increasing the cost of accessing the information.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 1, 2019
Some inference in the book is worth a re-think. Like the correlation between the VPN usage and the wealth of people. Correlation does not imply causation.
But generally a good book. Fear, Friction, and Flooding is a good generalisation of the sensor methods used by the CCP.
But generally a good book. Fear, Friction, and Flooding is a good generalisation of the sensor methods used by the CCP.
June 1, 2019
A commendable work, quite in-depth and concerning many angles of censorship. Be forewarned, however, it is extremely academic and dry, really only for those with an inordinate interest in this obscure topic.
November 8, 2020
This is a very academic text, lots of repeated definitions, intros and conclusions constantly summarizing what we're about to read or have just read. I would have preferred to read the general-audience version of this, but it was very interesting nonetheless. Roberts defines different methods of censorship, looks at the current situation in China, and then crunches the numbers on a couple of studies that show the effects of censorship.
Censorship is the restriction of expression of information, and the restriction of access to information.
The three methods of censorship:
- fear ... government issued punitive consequences
- friction ... increase the "cost" for distribution or retrieval of information (extra technical know-how or time needed to access blocked websites, via VPN etc)
- flooding ... release of competing distracting information to drown out unwanted information (mostly propaganda)
In the past Fear-based censorship was more common, yet today has more potential for backlash. Friction and Flooding are much less obvious forms of censorship, often can't be easily detected, and therefore lead to less negative reactions from the public. Friction that's slowly introduced is the most effective. The government can for example slowly throttle the responsiveness of external websites, and the public wouldn't notice and believe that the quality of the website itself deteriorated.
In China the government owns and controls the media. Journalists need to be government certified. The so-called 50 Cent Party government-paid internet trolls spreading pro-China propaganda across the internet. Only 10-15 years ago, most international websites were still accessible in China. Today, China has the Great Chinese Firewall which blocks twitter, facebook, google, etc and channels everyone to use Chinese (state-controlled) equivalents instead. People can still circumvent this restriction by using VPNs but the cost/effect is too high for the masses.
Fascinating. Even if the text was very dry.
Censorship is the restriction of expression of information, and the restriction of access to information.
The three methods of censorship:
- fear ... government issued punitive consequences
- friction ... increase the "cost" for distribution or retrieval of information (extra technical know-how or time needed to access blocked websites, via VPN etc)
- flooding ... release of competing distracting information to drown out unwanted information (mostly propaganda)
In the past Fear-based censorship was more common, yet today has more potential for backlash. Friction and Flooding are much less obvious forms of censorship, often can't be easily detected, and therefore lead to less negative reactions from the public. Friction that's slowly introduced is the most effective. The government can for example slowly throttle the responsiveness of external websites, and the public wouldn't notice and believe that the quality of the website itself deteriorated.
In China the government owns and controls the media. Journalists need to be government certified. The so-called 50 Cent Party government-paid internet trolls spreading pro-China propaganda across the internet. Only 10-15 years ago, most international websites were still accessible in China. Today, China has the Great Chinese Firewall which blocks twitter, facebook, google, etc and channels everyone to use Chinese (state-controlled) equivalents instead. People can still circumvent this restriction by using VPNs but the cost/effect is too high for the masses.
Fascinating. Even if the text was very dry.
November 12, 2022
A great look into how the CCP effectively sensors China in the 21st century. Instead of using fear on a mass scale by punishing anyone who evades sponsorship, the CCP uses friction (slow loading, paywalls, etc) and flooding (mass social media posts to distract from other news, etc) methods to "tax" the opportunity cost of information. In the modern aren't, most Chinese netizens aren't willing to go through the effort (be it times or money) to dodge censors and get information.
Want to read
May 30, 2020Mentioned by Josh Tucker during the "Just How Bad is Social Media for Democracy?" episode of Ask a Political Scientist on 5/28/20: https://youtu.be/zwE9u68fvMM
October 13, 2020
This was an engaging and fascinating read! A must for anyone who is interested in the ways modern day government find ways to restrict speech
March 28, 2021
Good book about how censorship works in the Information Age: it doesn't have to be an impenetrable wall, it's more like a tax on information. It's still enough to keep most people in the dark. Information isn't inaccessible in China, they just put hurdles up to make it harder to get, knowing most people can't or won't bother to jump the hurdles. This creates an information gap between those who can take the time/effort to access the censored information and those who can't. These techniques are being copied by various repressive regimes around the world. A must-read for anyone concerned about censorship on the internet.
Want to read
January 26, 2019love
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews