This section presents findings of how a participant understands online comments and user-generated content. It addresses the following questions. Why did the participants read or not read online comments or user-generated content? What kinds of comments did they read? How did they evaluate online comments or user-generated content?
Table 85. Understanding of online comments and user-generated content I
Ref
|
Why to (not to) read comments
|
What to read
|
P01
|
Read to clear one’s own thought: “I feel something when I read it (news or commentaries), but I cannot describe how I feel about it. I feel that this is what I think when I read the comments.”
|
Long comments: “I read paragraph-sized long comments, and overlook comments of a few words.”
|
P03
|
|
“I read comments.”
Sometimes read information about government corruption in online forums
|
P04
|
Renren: view photos and pictures only, “Other classmates may post about their status and share news. I do not care much about what others post. I am not interested in videos they share. I just view photos and do not want to view other things.”
Comments: “I usually do not care about others’ comments. Instead I just read what happened. That is it.”
|
|
P06
|
To read: Value one’s own views.
“I value one’s own views. It is better to have one’s own opinions of things instead of standardised reports or statements.”
|
Comments on Weibo, Baidu tieba
|
P09
|
Different stance and different perspective:
“Because you will analyse an issue from a different perspective because you take a different stance.”
|
View information from different sources
|
The participants suggested three reasons to read others’ comments online. First, others’ comments were believed by P01 to help him to clarify his own thoughts. Second, one’s own views and opinions were believed by P06 to be valuable. Others’ comments were also believed by P09 to help to see different perspectives resulting from different stances.
Table 86. Understanding of online comments and user-generated content II
Ref
|
Understanding of online comments
|
Understanding of extreme comments
|
P01
|
Re-evaluate comments with his own judgement: “I will think with my own understandings when I read others’ comments.”
Comments are not neutral: “As to comments, I think that lots of comments are made because of writers’ (who write the comments) own interests, needs or other factors.”
|
Against extreme comments: “Extreme comments do not see a problem from two sides, but from one side. It is inappropriate. Posting extreme comments is childish. Those who post extreme comments are those who do not know much about the background and neither do they have much knowledge.”
|
P02
|
Who comment online:
“Most people do not (make comments) online. (It is) very likely that they think as we do. We do not want to make improper comments. I feel that peers around me also do not make comments online, because registration is inconvenient.”
(Those commenting online are) fanciers, from different backgrounds, or loyal users of the website such as a movie review website.
|
People are blind: not objective, do not see two sides, outlet of grievances
|
P03
|
Insist on his own view: “I think that comments are coloured by subjectivity. So I think that my judgment will be influenced if I read comments. I read comments, but usually I do not accept their opinions. Usually I do not accept the opinions of online comments. I have my own opinions.”
“I feel that opinions online completely contradict with mine. I think that most of their comments are nonsense (irresponsible remarks). Take the Wang Lijun Incident for example. They know nothing about the truth.”
|
Not trustworthy: “If they completely agree or disagree with something, I think that those people probably hold a hostile attitude toward certain things, or they are hired to promote, for example, sell something… extreme comments are not trustworthy.”
|
P05
|
Cannot be relied on for election: “Information online is complex. Some is real; some is false; some is bad; and some is good. If you need to know somebody to tell if he/she can be a representative, I cannot trust online information that much. Of course, there are some I can trust, but not that much.”
|
|
P06
|
Score 85 to 90 out of 100.
“Some are good and some are not good. As a whole, I give 85 to 90…. Most I read are good. There are some negative, or what I consider bad comments. For example, someone posted a comparison of income in China and America, what is the percentage of the cost of viewing an IMAX of Avatar in their income and said that the rising of commodity price and inflation in China was a bit scary. Some people will make comments like (you do not know) how to appreciate the happy life you enjoy, or the moon in foreign countries is full. Such comments, I think, are nonsense. The tweet, I think, just states a fact. This is the real situation in America.”
|
|
P09
|
A suspicious attitude toward all online content because of irresponsible retweeting and comments and distortion of information dissemination online.
Still relies on online resources from various sources to eliminate doubts.
|
Online labelling silences people.
|
P01, P03, P05 and P09 expressed a sceptical attitude toward online user-generated content and comments. Two reasons they suggested contribute to their sceptical attitude. The participants believed that ‘online comments were coloured by subjectivity’ or ‘lots of comments were made because of writers’ own interests, needs or other factors’. P03 mentioned a career or employment in China called water army soldiers. ‘Public relation companies in China provide water army services to any corporation wanting to boost their online image or undermine the reputation of competitors’. They hire people, so-called water army soldieries, to ‘generate floods of articles, comments or links with specific contents in certain web spaces’ (Jin & Herold, cited in Marolt & Herold, 2014, p.111). The existence of such services contributes to skepticism towards online user-generated content. Therefore, they read comments while thinking their own ideas and in most cases insisted on their own judgement. Moreover, participants believed that there was irresponsible retweeting and comments and distortion of information dissemination online. Despite the sceptical attitude, they still read online comments and ‘relied on online resources from various sources to eliminate doubts’ according to their accounts. This means that they doubt some content online and utilise various online resources to eliminate that doubt.
P06 displayed high trust in online comments and content and scored 85 to 90 out of 100. The example of bad comments he gave illustrates his dissatisfaction with the Chinese government and the situation in China and his longing for the life of Western countries.
P01, P02, and P03 all held a negative attitude toward extreme comments online. They did not consider extreme comments trustworthy.
When comparison is made between the participants’ attitudes toward different sources of information online, it is clear that most participants considered Chinese commercial news portals, Chinese government news portals (see Tables 13 & 16), and elites (see Table 33) more trustworthy than anonymous individual users (see Table 86). Most participants expressed their trust in online news (see Table 16) and their preference for following elites on Weibo (see Table 33). P01, P02, P03, P05 and P09 articulated clear distrust in anonymous individual users and deemed them irrational, extreme, blind, subjective, unable to see a problem from two sides, emotional, ignorant, or irresponsible. It is evident that those participants took an elitist view regarding who are qualified as the people to rule (see Chapter 2, 2.2.2) and what constitutes a public sphere (see Chapter 2, 2.2.5). Their attitudes towards different information sources online implicate their favour of authorities and distrust in members of the society. It also indicates that these participants were unwilling to accommodate others. They did not recognise that online ‘irrational’ or ‘extreme’ expression was democratic or that an expression of individuals’ interests and needs was democratic. Findings of the comparison demonstrate that some pro-authoritarian values and beliefs (see Chapter 2, 2.2.3) prevailed among the participants. It is unclear whether the prevalence of the pro-authoritarian values and beliefs among the participants results from their use of the Internet. However, it is evident that their Internet use did not help to challenge such values or beliefs.
5.4 Disbelief in relevance of social problems
Political socialisation refers to the process through which individuals acquire political orientation and position within the broader socio-political structures (Gerodimos, 2010, p.23). This section displays one aspect of political socialisation: how participants understood the effect of social problems on them. It addresses the following questions. Did they think that the social issues or problems they read about online affect them? On what aspects are they affected if they thought that they did? For what reasons did they read information about social issues online?
Table 87. Participants’ belief in irrelevance of social problems
Ref
|
Social problems
|
P01
|
Low influence: “What I concern (online) now does not affect my future life or work much.”
“The existing problems (reported online) do not affect my life much. They are far away from me.”
“It is uncommon to experience a bullet train accident. It is unavoidable if it happens to me.”
|
P03
|
Low influence: “As to my interests, there is no significant influence.”
|
P04
|
Price of commodities: “As to big affairs, I only retweeted about the rise of oil price. I just think that the price of commodities is too high in China.”
Social inequality & social apathy: “I think that it is of no use to retweet about other issues which involve inequality. Anyway it is of no use to say anything. It does not change anything.”
“I think that they (reports about social problems) will still stir up feelings of discontent in me, but I think that I will probably forget about it soon. Probably I think why they are so cold-blooded and this is unfair at that moment and will probably forget it tomorrow….I will not think deep about it, nor do I make comments.”
|
P05
|
Consider effect, not see relevance:
Train crash: “I feel a bit sad, a bit indignant, and together a bit funny, three in one.”
Asked whether or not she would participate if someone calls to amend The Law of Food Security:
“I am not an initiative person. Probably I will not, if I need to organise it. But it is hard to imagine whether or not I will take a part. I may because I think that it is a good thing and I am willing to do it. But I probably will not do it, because I do not think that there will be effect. I think that there will be no effect if it is just a small organisation. I may be a part if it turns out in a large scale.”
|
The participants did not think that the social or political issues or problems exposed online affected their life, work, self-development, interests, or material gains. P04 did not say it explicitly, but her tendency toward topics that are of direct influence on her life is obvious when she gave examples of what topics she retweeted on her Weibo. She retweeted about the rise of the oil price instead of news about social inequality and social apathy. When talking about the Train Crash and an assumption about participating in activities to amend the Law of Food Security, P05 also demonstrated signs of not seeing the relevance. In both cases she talked about, she did not express concern about the security or health risks she faced because of the current public transportation management and the Law of Food Security. The author argues that the disbelief in the relevance of social problem to them contributes partly to the participants’ political disengagement. The argument will be elaborated on in Chapter 6, 6.2.4.
Table 88. Belief in moral high ground or self-discipline
Ref
|
Moral high ground or self-discipline
|
P02
|
Expressed high moral ground:(When asked the relevance of social problems, social events, international relationship to society and to him)
“From a macroscopic view, the interest of the nation is the interests of an individual.”
“I think that everybody should help others regardless of the consequences.”
|
P03
|
Expressed high moral ground:(When asked the relevance of social problems, social events, international relationship to society and to him)
“I think that it could increase national unity. When the public know about the issues, they will feel passionate and then they will think in a similar manner.”
|
P05
|
See environmental protection as self-discipline: “Probably because I have my own disciplines of conduct. For example, bins are divided into recyclable and non-recyclable in my university. One bin may be easier to use because it has a hole at the top. Usually I stick to my principle and throw the waste into the one where it should be instead of choosing an easier solution. I have my own principles.”
|
P06
|
Spiritual satisfaction:
“As to the influence on me, I will not become a politician or something, but I can, it does not help me in terms of material gains, but I can have my own opinions to certain things. It is not bad to gain spiritual satisfaction.”
|
Common reasons or motivations participants expressed for their concern about social or political issues are moral, or so-called social conscience, self-discipline and spiritual satisfaction.
Table 89. Lack of ethics of animal research and product
Ref
|
Ethics of animal research and products
|
P01
|
No sense of ethics of research and products: “I do not think that it is cruel to take the gall out of a living bear. You see, if you need bear galls … it is something must needed, then you must take from them. There must be ways to take them. I will not think about if it is cruel.”
|
P01’s understanding of the news about Guizhentang live bear bile extracting demonstrates that he did not have a sense of ethics about research and products.
5.5 Understanding of censorship
This section presents findings of how a participant understands the influence of censorship on him/her, and what is censored, and the attitude of a participant toward censorship.
Table 90. Understanding of censorship: influence of censorship on the participant
Ref
|
Influence of censorship on the participant
|
On online information consumption
|
On online expression
|
On understanding of politically sensitive content
|
P01
|
No effect: “Once I heard about 3rd of September Student Movements (or the so-called Tiananmen Square protest of 1989) and searched online. I found that one could hardly find any information online.”
“If I receives (politically sensitive content), I will tell my roommates as something funny.”
|
Complex and contradicting: On the one hand, the participant denies the effect of censorship on his online expression and claims in most cases, he just does not feel necessary to express himself.
On the other hand, he admits the effect of censorship. (“I heard that university students were asked to ‘have a talk’ because of radical comments. I think that it affects what I say online. I will be more cautious and will not say things that, I feel, will bring bad effect to me.”)
|
Exaggerating effect (doubt or mistrust): “I always suspect that the situation must be very serious when there are rumours about what happens in Xinjiang (province).”
|
P02
|
P02 claims that censorship would have no effect on him.
“I would think about the consequences after I did it. That is my personality.” “I will not think about what consequence it will bring if I do so (do something against the censorship).”
However, P02 did not mention any reading, searching or expressing of politically sensitive content throughout the interview.
|
P03
|
|
Make no comments on politics: “I think that it is better not to comment on such issues (the Wang Lijun Incident and government corruption), because there may be certain consequences if you do. Anything political is complicated. Someone may inquiry you if you make comments. I just read, and never make comments on anything political.”
|
Influence truth: Influence my understanding of truth.
“Currently it (censorship) has no significant influence on me.”
|
P04
|
“My parents checked Lianhe Zaobo online for information about the Wang Lijun Incident when relevant news was blocked in mainland China.”
|
“But I dared not to tell others. To tell others such things, you know the situation in China, well, is of no use, and (you) might be sent to prison. So, usually (I) do not make improper comments, just and talk at home.”
|
Arouse curiosity
|
P05
|
Low influence: “There is not much influence to someone like me who do not use the Internet a lot, nor do I use the forum a lot. There is hardly any effect.”
|
Influence: “The Internet really provides us a good platform to express ourselves, but after all currently the censorship is strict. Some words will be blocked. In this regard, the Internet does not allow us to express ourselves fully.”
|
|
P06
|
No influence:
“I concern about if what I read is too politically sensitive. In China, speech is not as free as in USA. I sometimes worried about surveillance when climbing over the Great Wall and would turn the page off right after viewing and would not make any comments. (Censorship) does not affect what I view.”
“While I am in my dormitory, I view politically sensitive news on bed. Usually I view news on the desk and roommates can have a look while passing by.”
|
Influenced:
“But it does affect what I retweet and tweet… but I concern about if I will be spotted if I retweet it, so I would not retweet or make comments.”
“One of my posts was deleted once and then I dare not to post something sensitive.” “I felt the power of democracy and I was inspired. And then I tweeted it on Weibo. It was deleted. I was scared and then dare not to do so.”
|
Controlled and directed:
“At the same time, online public opinion must have been manipulated. The government has its mouthpiece which leads and controls the direction of public opinion.”
|
P07
|
Affected:
“I climbed over (the Great Wall) once. It was a website recommended by a friend of mine. I viewed once. I do not remember what the website is because I viewed only once. I had a look by climbing over the Great Wall. The comments on some events are shocking. Their views are completely different from and contradict what we learned from domestic websites. I was shocked at the moment and shut it down without further reading.”
|
|
|
P08
|
Not significant: “As to such content (politically sensitive) you read it and know it. That’s enough.”
|
Significant
|
|
P09
|
Climbed over the Great Wall to access blocked websites
|
|
|
P10
|
View political satires favouring Western values
|
|
|
P12
|
No effect: “My roommate sometimes views them (politically sensitive content) on Renren. Usually we just view them, but dare not to retweet them.”
|
Effect: “He did not send them to us even when we asked him. He said that the content was politically sensitive.” When P12 being asked why not retweet, the answer is “self-protection.”
|
|
Most participants did not think that Internet censorship was a major reason affecting their choice of what to read online. Censorship did not stop most of them from searching for or reading about politically sensitive content online. P07 did not explicitly claim that she had been affected by censorship. But she reported that she had the experience of stopping herself from further reading of certain content because she thought that the content was too shocking and greatly contradicted her common knowledge. Her experience and understanding demonstrates that she was unwilling to leave her comfort zone. She preferred to stay in an information environment created by the content selected by herself and the party-state to reinforce her existing views and refused to step into the world with information and ideas that challenge her common knowledge.
The researcher assumes that her online information consumption has been affected in one way or another by censorship. One possible explanation is that she considered the content too politically sensitive and thus stopped reading to avoid being spied on and punished. Another is that she could not accept such shocking or contradicting content because her common knowledge learned in a controlled ideational environment has never been challenged in such a way due to censorship. Moreover, the party-state strategically leads the interpretation of such information by demonising unauthorised information sources (see Table 58).
While most participants believed that their choice of what to read online had not been affected by censorship, it is evident that censorship affected what they could find or read online. Moreover, the influence of Internet censorship on online deliberation is also evident. As to the influence of censorship on their understanding of politically sensitive content, two effects were identified by participants: arousing doubt and curiosity.
Table 91. Understanding of censorship: attitude to censorship
Ref
|
Attitude to censorship
|
P01
|
Complex: “I think that the government should not do so (censor online content). I am unable to give reasons. People will still know although the government blocks the news.”
“On the other hand, I think that there are things that the government cannot let you know in term of management. It is understandable. The ruling class must control the information (like the 3rd of September Student Movements).”
|
P02
|
Neutral position:
“I think that as to censorship, we should take a neutral stance. Filtering has both positive and negative effects. Most content filtered must be false information, such as such widespread (unfinished), such negative information, for example, something anti-party or anti-nation, information that influences social structure or leads to social instability, and information that brings dramatic negative effect to society Those information must be filtered. Filtering the facts of current affairs affects my judgment of the issue.”
|
P03
|
Negative:
“I think that censorship is not good, because it restrains free expression.”
“I think that currently the government does not let all news out.” “If it does, certainly it will (unfinished), some news will harm the interests of the government; some will not.”
|
P05
|
Do not care: “I do not really care, unless I am not in a good mood. Usually I do not care. There is a tight place in my heart, but I am not really bothered.”
|
P06
|
Afraid and find it a defect of political system:
“Media censorship, I think, exists in China, and it is strict. One cannot (unfinished) in terms of politics. It is a defect.”
|
P08
|
Consider it as an important mean to oppress the opposite power:
“It (AlJazeera) sometimes reports the inside stories of a plot and uncovers the real bad person behind the surface. I think that there is no such a power in China. There is no entity or individual powerful enough to counterbalance the government. So censorship is a very important measure.”
|
P09
|
“It is normal. Every country has it, just in different forms. It is hard to tell it is good or bad in general.”
Why censorship: “The public may blindly follow the trend without analysing or deep thinking”:
The uncertainty of the consequences
|
P10
|
View it as a negative side of the Internet
|
The participants’ attitude towards Internet censorship fell into four categories: negative, neutral, complex, and unconcerned. P03, P06, P08 and P10 held a negative attitude. Censorship is seen as not good, a defect of the political system or an important means to oppress any opposition. It is believed to restrain free expression and make it impossible for the existence of powers to counterbalance the power of the government. P02 and P09 believed that they took a neutral stance. P02 believed that filtering had both positive and negative effects. And he also believed that most content filtered must be false information. It is important to note that P02’s understanding of what is negative information and what should be filtered echoes the party-state’s definition of negative information. P09 regarded censorship as normal. He believed that every country had it, just in different forms. P01 had a complex feeling about censorship. On the one hand, he thought that the government should not censor online content, and he believed that people would still know when the government blocked the news. On the other hand, he considered censorship understandable from the perspective of management. P05 expressed her unconcern about Internet censorship.
Although every participant knew the negative effects of censorship, still three participants held a neutral attitude or a complex feeling towards censorship. Pornography, cyber crimes, credibility crisis of online content, and a loud announcement of ‘Internet freedom’ or ‘cyber cold war’ by the American government (Morozov, 2011) give the Chinese government good reasons for strict censorship.
Table 92. Understanding of censorship: what is censored?
Ref
|
Understanding of what is censored
|
P01
|
Information about social instability, such as riots;
Information that ruins the image of the government.
|
P02
|
Big, current politically sensitive information; information that leads to negative influence
|
P05
|
Your file will first be censored if you upload something online.
Some words will be shown as XX when you chat online, for example, Mao Zedong.
|
P06
|
“Content that condemns the Communist Party. Nothing else, in particular.”
Stricter than before:
“Now the surveillance of Weibo is stricter. Some Weibo services start the real name registration. Some politically sensitive speech will be deleted right after it is posted…It would be deleted before, but it is not that strict. Especially at the very beginning before Weibo began to thrive, censorship was not strict. Nobody expected that Weibo became so powerful. Now the surveillance is very strict. And after the train crash, it became very strict.”
Ok with topics of people’s welfare, but not politics:
“In China, many things, it is only free to talk about issues of people’s welfare. I think that the media censorship is very strict. Political topics are not (unfinished).”
|
P09
|
Tunisia revolution, the Arab Spring
|
P10
|
Misconduct of law enforcement officers
|
P12
|
What is new (different from mainstream orientation): “I think that what is new will be harmonised during the process of dissemination. It will really be harmonised. There may be some small changes that are not significant to make a difference. The small changes, something new but small, are not different from what was there. They will be deleted if they deviate just a little bit far.”
|
The participants believed that there were two types of censorship. One is conducted systematically by the government as an institution to filter out content that would challenge the authority of the current government and undermine the values, beliefs, and ideas supporting the current system. The other is carried out by powerful government or party officials to cover their misconduct. The Chinese ‘authorities have signalled that they are increasing controls and targeting popular users’ (Branigan, 2013, cited in Marolt & Herold, 2014, p.20). P06 seemed to have received the signal when he commented that the surveillance of Weibo was stricter.
Table 93. Understanding of censorship: privacy concern
Ref
|
Privacy concern
|
In-depth interview participants
|
Not mention politically sensitive content as privacy while using the Internet in their domitories.
|
P08
|
Id.
|
P10
|
Id.
|
P12
|
Id.
|
In-depth interview participants were asked whether or not they considered certain content private or inappropriate to be seen by their roommates while using the Internet in their dormitories. If yes, what is the content? The questions aim to find out if the participants consider politically sensitive topics inappropriate to share among their roommates or if they think that it will bring negative influence to them when roommates find them reading politically sensitive content online. There was not a single participant who mentioned politically sensitive content as private or something they would hide away from their roommates. Three focus group participants also showed that they did not consider politically sensitive content as inappropriate topics among their roommates. Instead, they shared with their roommates politically sensitive content offline (see Table 67).
Share with your friends: |
