Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China

[ice berg]

I start threads with significant stories about China which appear in a range of legitimate sources. I do not seek out a particular bias in the news,but if any of those stories are in the least unfavorable to the CCP, there is a strong reaction from DFI Chinese members. Many of those reactions are without factual basis; rather they are an almost reflex response. As I said, Chinese on DFI are almost monolithic. That is the pattern I observe.

I fail to see the target audience of your posts.

Anyone with "free" access to internet can digg out those stories anytime they want.

Most chinese living in mainland use their own version of tweet and facebook to communicate and hardly use english based sites.

They live there. They dont need someone to tell how bad things are in China.

That leaves a small group of indians who like to gloat on the chinese on every occasions.

The only purpose is to make them feel good. Most of them too lazy to digg out those kind news and prefer someone to do it for them,

in this case Ray and you, sir.

Looking through some of those threads you two started and there were hardly any response.

As to your jibe of how chinese on DFI are monolithic, maybe this got to do with your monolithic threads on the chinese subforum.

You reap what you sow.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

I fail to see the target audience of your posts.

Anyone with "free" access to internet can digg out those stories anytime they want.

Most chinese living in mainland use their own version of tweet and facebook to communicate and hardly use english based sites.

They live there. They dont need someone to tell how bad things are in China.

That leaves a small group of indians who like to gloat on the chinese on every occasions.

The only purpose is to make them feel good. Most of them too lazy to digg out those kind news and prefer someone to do it for them,

in this case Ray and you, sir.

Looking through some of those threads you two started and there were hardly any response.

As to your jibe of how chinese on DFI are monolithic, maybe this got to do with your monolithic threads on the chinese subforum.

You reap what you sow.

Your response is not well thought out. There is an existing sub-forum for China on DFI; I did not create it. China makes the world news, it seems to me, for three main areas which are outside the economic sphere. One is territorial aggression and internal oppression, the second is verbal threats against its neighbors, and the third is environmental pollution. That you object to those stories being posted on DFI implies you would like to see censorship imposed here. Since there is no censorship, you become angry and attack me personally, rather than refuting the facts in the articles I post. What that does, human nature being what it is, is to make me more inclined to post in the China sub-forum. Plenty of DFI members read my posts and add their own comments. See for yourself. (Unlike hello_10, I do not inflate my threads with ponderous posts of my own.)

 

[kseeker]

Your response is not well thought out. There is an existing sub-forum for China on DFI; I did not create it. China makes the world news, it seems to me, for three main areas which are outside the economic sphere. One is territorial aggression and internal oppression, the second is verbal threats against its neighbors, and the third is environmental pollution. That you object to those stories being posted on DFI implies you would like to see censorship imposed here. Since there is no censorship, you become angry and attack me personally, rather than refuting the facts in the articles I post. What that does, human nature being what it is, is to make me more inclined to post in the China sub-forum. Plenty of DFI members read my posts and add their own comments. See for yourself.

It's even a futile effort to convince brainwashed blokes who act like robots with their master's instructions.

These guys don't have their own thoughts, why waste our energy ?

Only one thing to do, ignore :sarc: since ignorance is always bliss

 

[ice berg]

Your response is not well thought out. There is an existing sub-forum for China on DFI; I did not create it. China makes the world news, it seems to me, for three main areas which are outside the economic sphere. One is territorial aggression and internal oppression, the second is verbal threats against its neighbors, and the third is environmental pollution. That you object to those stories being posted on DFI implies you would like to see censorship imposed here. Since there is no censorship, you become angry and attack me personally, rather than refuting the facts in the articles I post. What that does, human nature being what it is, is to make me more inclined to post in the China sub-forum. Plenty of DFI members read my posts and add their own comments. See for yourself. (Unlike hello_10, I do not inflate my threads with ponderous posts of my own.)

Instead of put your words in my mouth you may read my post more carefully.

I fail to see the target audience of your posts. That was my first sentence.

Translate: it got nothing to do with your stories. I am questioning your target audience. You are merely repeating the news with no alterntive views or insights. News that everyone can read somewhere else.
Instead of answering that you move the goal post and started to discuss censorship which there is plenty here btw.

And spare me your refuting the facts part. You are here to dictate and enforce group thinking. We are in a heavely biased indian site.

who are you kidding here?

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Instead of put your words in my mouth you may read my post more carefully.

I fail to see the target audience of your posts. That was my first sentence.

Translate: it got nothing to do with your stories. I am questioning your target audience. You are merely repeating the news with no alterntive views or insights. News that everyone can read somewhere else.
Instead of answering that you move the goal post and started to discuss censorship which there is plenty here btw.

And spare me your refuting the facts part. You are here to dictate and enforce group thinking. We are in a heavely biased indian site.

who are you kidding here?

I don't really think about an audience here, I post what interests me as a individual. I understand the concept of individual thought is beyond your grasp.

You give me too much credit if you believe I can enforce anything on DFI.

 

[Ray]

There is the DFI which is an audience to all who post.

But I don't think anyone is targeted!

 

[ice berg]

I don't really think about an audience here, I post what interests me as a individual. I understand the concept of individual thought is beyond your grasp.

You give me too much credit if you believe I can enforce anything on DFI.

Your ad hominems isnt gonna change the fact that your posts only increase the fractions and give no new insights.

Anyway I have made my points quite clear. Enjoy your threads.

 

[Ray]

Indian youth now communicate more via facebook than with texts or calls.

I thought they are more on texting.

 

[happy]

It's even a futile effort to convince brainwashed blokes who act like robots with their master's instructions.

These guys don't have their own thoughts, why waste our energy ?

Only one thing to do, ignore :sarc: since ignorance is always bliss

Yo mate......ignorance is bliss but chini should not be ignored. They should be blasted to earths inner core

 

[nimo_cn]

Any hidden malware or spyware ??? What is the need for parading your websites on our defence forum ??? Trying to get hold of some IPs ???

one thing about Indian posters is that your minds are full of conspiracy theories about China, everything Chinese are doing has a hidden agenda.

i came here to practise my English skills, but now people call me a propagandist paid by CCP.

i introduced a website which shares original Chinese news in English, but now you are accusing me of spreading malware.

try that link, and read what is posted in the website before rushing into any conclusion.

that is the best website for non-Chinese speakers to get a glimpse of what is going in Chinese cyberspace. it wont present you the full picture, but everything it present is true and original, something you can never get by watching CNN.

Sent from my HUAWEI T8951 using Tapatalk 2

 

[happy]

one thing about Indian posters is that your minds are full of conspiracy theories about China, everything Chinese are doing has a hidden agenda.

i came here to practise my English skills, but now people call me a propagandist paid by CCP.

i introduced a website which shares original Chinese news in English, but now you are accusing me of spreading malware.

try that link, and read what is posted in the website before rushing into any conclusion.

that is the best website for non-Chinese speakers to get a glimpse of what is going in Chinese cyberspace. it wont present you the full picture, but everything it present is true and original, something you can never get by watching CNN.

Sent from my HUAWEI T8951 using Tapatalk 2

I've heard enough of your commies rants that whatever you say gives a negative impression rather than a knowledgeable one.

Instead of self pity, show your worth through quality posts which encourage healthy debate.

Good bye or how do they say it ...... Zàijiàn !

 

[happy]

double post

 

[Compersion]

one thing about the PRC posters is that the use of internet by the communist party is not fully understood. it is a means of control and self-centered propaganda to maintain power (please refer to north korea state media and PRC state media - identical). the internet is such a wild beast that you cannot censor things absolutely. one such item is that "Good defeats Evil".

On the day of Diwali i wish all PRC people a Happy Diwali. A day where we Indians celebrate the good defeating the evil and where light overcomes the darkness. Hindus celebrate Dasara, the festival of victory, commemorating the triumph of goodness over evil and fear. At the end comes Diwali, the festival of lights and illumination.

to encounter that PRC leaders will suppress such themes will be difficult and a misfortune to the PRC people.

 

[Ray]

Chinese censorship's dangerous subtlety

As China's citizens use the web to protest and share information, the authorities' assault on internet "rumours" is only the most visible part of the clampdown

Posts censored with scalpel-like precision ... the Chinese microblogging site Weibo.

Earlier this year, while in the southern Chinese city of Kunming, I had the fortune to witness first-hand two sides of the nation's internet revolution. In August I attended a thousand-person protest against plans to build a petrochemical refinery and by-product paraxylene (PX) plant just 30km away. The protest had no central organisers; it was the organic escalation of an online discussion thread in which a small group of concerned citizens gathered to share information about the plant's possible environmental and health hazards.

Many of the participants I talked to that day said that it was their first time taking part in a protest, and I was surprised at how well informed they seemed to be. Be they office workers, middle-aged mothers or young students, they could rattle off facts about air pollution and talk fervently about the importance of environmental impact assessment reports. In the days preceding the protest I had witnessed the stream of messages and posts being shared on the Chinese phone app WeChat, full of data, stats, pleas, declarations and poetry, designed both to inform and incite.

And in response came the heavy hand of the provincial government. There had been a mainstream media blackout on the protests, and posts on the microblog Weibo were being censored. I watched the frenzied posting of participants cease as one by one they were invited by the police to "drink tea" – a euphemism for being brought in for questioning. One woman who had participated in the original online discussions was interrogated for hours and warned me that "the police know everything", before abruptly breaking off communication.

Yet incidents like this, in which the push and pull between Chinese "netizens" and the government's control over public discourse erupt in such a confrontational manner, are rare. Mostly the hand of the government remains hidden. With close to 600 million users, the internet has become too integral to Chinese for the government ever to consider hitting the kill switch. Instead their manipulation of the online dialogue has grown subtler, and thus more dangerous.

Take, for example, the scalpel-like precision with which posts on Weibo are censored. Days before this year's anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, related search-terms were actually unblocked, but instead turned up filtered content unrelated to the protests. By rendering the censorship invisible, users have the impression that nothing critical is being said on the topic. Other devices include delaying when a post goes "public" in order to give censors time to review (to the user the post appears to have gone live), disabling the comment function and blocking selected pages rather than an entire website. By withdrawing censorship control from everywhere but the hotspots, the government effectively reduces the frequency in which users touch the Great Firewall that cages them, and yet the wall remains strong and effective.

And while breeding complacency is a cornerstone of control, it is useful, on occasion, to wield that hand in public to remind would-be troublemakers there is a line, and it can be crossed. This was seen last month with the latest anti-rumour campaign (users can be charged with defamation if online rumours they create are visited by 5,000 internet users or reposted more than 500 times) and a witchhunt against influential tweeters. And yet that line of what is acceptable to post online, and what is not, is kept intentionally hazy in order to create a culture of paranoia and the illusion that the oppression serves public good, rather than the preservation of power.

We may already be witnessing the effects of the high profile interrogations and detentions made under this new ruling. Earlier this month Bloomerg reported on the muted online response to serious flooding in the city of Yuyao, which contrasted the usual buzz that such a natural disaster would generate, and connected this to a new culture of self-censorship. The story also notes that the local government had arrested two women for "spreading what they characterized as flood-related rumours."

Rumour occupies a funny place online, and the Chinese government has failed to make the distinction between slander and misinformation. Citizen journalism is always messy work that unfolds over days, if not months, carried out by the amorphous online collective where pieces of the puzzles are discarded or clicked into place. And rumours can play a critical part in story-building, often containing nuggets of truth, when not eventually being confirmed as fact. There have already been several cases of citizens exposing low-level government corruption. And recent action to clean up China's air pollution can be seen as a response to years of increasingly informed, high-decibel online discussions.

Which is not to deny the destructive potential of rumours in society. A state-media editorial defending the new "judicial interpretation" mention of a 2011 incident in which unfounded fears of a radiation crisis led to a salt run in multiple major cities. But the antidote to this problem is not to shutdown rumour-mongering but to increase transparency. Citizens wouldn't be so susceptible to rumour if the government published more reliable data and information about the state of the nation. Citizen journalism is also most effective when conducted in tandem with fact-checking professional journalists, who can work unburdened of the official directives currently being issued on how a big news story should – or shouldn't – be told.

The battle of the government versus netizens is one that, in a best-case scenario, wouldn't exist in the first place. High-profile figures needn't be tried and hung in the public court of opinion when a strong and independent judicial system is in place. Mass protests can become final resort measures, when all other civil participation channels are exhausted. And the best way for the Chinese government to cool online criticism is to do good work, rather than criminalize it.

Chinese censorship's dangerous subtlety | Monica Tan | Comment is free | theguardian.com

 

[sorcerer]

China's Censors Take on Virtual Private Networks
Like for so many others in China, using a virtual private network (VPN) has become part of Rett Marie's daily routine. As the web editor of a Beijing expat magazine, it's both a personal tool and a professional necessity.

"I'm almost always on VPN," Marie says. "For my work, this is especially important as the expat community is still very much on international social media platforms."

For two years, censors have done all they can to make VPNs an unworkable technology in China. Lokman Tsui is the former head of Free Expression at Google's Asia Pacific branch. He says censors have taken a kitchen sink approach in blocking VPNs.

"Their perspective is a pragmatic one: let's use whatever works, including but not limited to software, hardware, laws and policies and market incentives," Tsui says by email."

To some degree, it worked. The initial crackdown sent users in search of new alternatives. But two years later, VPNs remain effective and popular in China, partly because private network providers have created VPNs that no longer look like VPNs when they cross the Great Firewall.

"In the last couple years, the Great Firewall has gotten much better at identifying VPN protocols via deep packet inspection of Internet traffic," says Andrew Staples of GoldenFrog, a company known for its VyprVPN service.

Staples describes this online arms race between China's censors and companies like GoldenFrog as a "cat-and-mouse game." Each party has adapted over the last two years to stay one step ahead.

GoldenFrog does this by scrambling OpenVPN packet metadata to ensure it's not recognizable to censors.

"No technology is perfect," Staples says. "But the results have been very good."

GoldenFrog's VyprVPN is among several top-rated VPN services, including WiTopia, Astrill and VPNinja, that have remained popular even during China's anti-VPN campaign.

Censors have made improvements to their own technology, though by their nature those improvements are considerably tougher to document.

Michel Hockx, a professor at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, notes rumors that the Chinese government had begun filtering VPN traffic. That would mean censors not only identified VPNs but selectively limited web traffic through them.

Some netizens said the South China Morning Post, specifically, was blocked even for VPN users.

"It's speculation, but it would mean China's government actually monitored traffic going through those VPNs, which would really be an achievement," says Hockx, author of "Internet Literature in China."

And Tsui, now a journalism professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, makes an important point about China's censors.

"Has it been effective? Let's not forget that their goal is not to have a 100 percent perfect block. Instead, the goal is to continue to raise the cost of circumvention, [so] that only people with enough technical sophistication (or money) can do this."
http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/chinas-censors-take-on-virtual-private-networks/

 

[Ray]

China steps up web censorship and blocks HSBC

China steps up web censorship and blocks HSBC

China has blocked access to HSBC's banking portal and possibly thousands of other websites in what appears to be a new censorship campaign days before it hosts a major internet industry conference.

Greatfire.org, a group that researches Chinese internet censorship, said on Tuesday HSBC had been caught up in a crackdown against so-called mirror sites which let users access censored sites such as YouTube.

Greatfire.org said Beijing had shut access to HSBCnet and EdgeCast, one of the world's biggest content delivery networks (CDN) in order to block a pathway to forbidden sites.

"This was a deliberate attack on the websites that we have mirrored," Charlie Smith, the pseudonym of a Greatfire.org co-founder, told the Guardian via email. He said it was "startling" that authorities would disrupt commerce, and risk infuriating its own internet users, to block access to forbidden sites which received relatively light traffic.

Greatfire.org set up what it termed "collateral freedom mirror sites" on the global cloud infrastructure knowing that censors who operate the so-called Great Firewall of China could not distinguish traffic to mirror sites and other traffic to the cloud provider.

It was a gamble that China would not risk major disruption by blocking global CDNs – a gamble that Greatfire.org concedes it has now lost, resulting, it said, in "collateral damage" of blocking of sites such as Sony Mobile's global and Chinese sites and the back-end framework drupal.org.

The group said it amounted to an attempt to cut China off from the global internet.

"I think that it is quite revealing," said Smith. "I think it also reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of how connected China truly is to the global internet."

HSBC, one of the world's biggest banks, makes two-thirds of its profits in Asia, notably Hong Kong. EdgeCast, a subsidiary of the US telecommunications company Verizon, delivers content and services for web companies, including the Atlantic magazine and Mozilla, the Firefox browser, as well as cloud service to sites and apps in China.

The attacks came in the lead-up to the World Internet Conference which is due to open in eastern Zhejiang province on Wednesday, showcasing China's burgeoning role in technology and internet governance issues. Organised by China's newly formed Cyberspace Administration, it is expected to draw policymakers and senior industry figures, including the chief executives of Alibaba and and Baidu.

EdgeCast, which is based in Los Angeles, said in a blogpost that its operations had been disrupted. "This week we've seen the filtering escalate with an increasing number of popular web properties impacted and even one of our many domains being partially blocked "¦ with no rhyme or reason as to why."

It said it was trying to mitigate the filtering but warned it would be "an ongoing issue" and sympathised with frustrated customers. "We share your frustration, as does the whole content delivery and hosting industry."

Chinese authorities shut HSBC's banking portal last month, Greatfire.org reported, in the process of blocking access to Akamai, a CDN which it used to host mirror websites. HSBC uses an Akamai domain reserved for encrypted websites.

The bank posted a notice on its site acknowledging the problem but gave no details, saying only it was "working with local providers to deliver a prompt resolution". The notice subsequently disappeared.

A US-based spokesman for the bank declined to comment, saying he was "looking into the matter".

Greatfire.org said authorities were willing to stifle commerce to plug a small leak comprising tens of thousands of visits to forbidden sites – a tiny fraction of overall traffic, said Smith. "If the authorities think they can block the dissemination of information by continuing to cut off access to global CDNs, then they will be in for a big surprise when their own netizens stand up and express their discontent."

Smith said the web conference was a coincidence of timing but hoped it would compel the authorities to explain the censorship. The conference aims to "promote the development of (the) internet to be the global shared resource for human solidarity and economic progress".

Organisers have sent accredited journalists a warning about restrictions: "If the conference has not arranged an interactive session, please do not ask questions or interview at the scene. During the meeting please do not walk about at will within the venue."

William Nee, a China researcher at Amnesty International, warned that the event underlined China's goal of promoting its domestic internet rules as a model for global regulation.

"This should send a chill down the spine of anyone that values online freedom. China's internet model is one of extreme control and suppression. The authorities use an army of censors to target individuals and imprison many activists solely for exercising their right to free expression online."
China steps up web censorship and blocks HSBC | World news | The Guardian

An interesting way to gag knowledge.

China wants to host a a major internet industry conference, and yet runs scared that China has much to 'lose face' over.

China wants to present a pretty picture by shutting others' mouth (or keyboard tapping in this case).

And imagine stating that no questions will be allowed by the reporters or others.

And out Chinese posters vociferously whine that there is NO internet censorship and there is total freedom.

 

[nimo_cn]

Re: China steps up web censorship and blocks HSBC

An interesting way to gag knowledge.

China wants to host a a major internet industry conference, and yet runs scared that China has much to 'lose face' over.

China wants to present a pretty picture by shutting others' mouth (or keyboard tapping in this case).

And imagine stating that no questions will be allowed by the reporters or others.

And out Chinese posters vociferously whine that there is NO internet censorship and there is total freedom.

Ray, no Chinese poster ever denied the existence of Internet censorship in China or claimed that there is total freedom in China.

There is Internet censorship and no total freedom in a democratic India, no one expects the opposite in a totalitarian China.

It's intellectually dishonest to make a case of China based on remarks we never made.

Just for your information, I just visited the website of HSBC, it is not blocked.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Srinivas_K]

one thing about Indian posters is that your minds are full of conspiracy theories about China, everything Chinese are doing has a hidden agenda.

i came here to practise my English skills, but now people call me a propagandist paid by CCP.

i introduced a website which shares original Chinese news in English, but now you are accusing me of spreading malware.

try that link, and read what is posted in the website before rushing into any conclusion.

that is the best website for non-Chinese speakers to get a glimpse of what is going in Chinese cyberspace. it wont present you the full picture, but everything it present is true and original, something you can never get by watching CNN.

Sent from my HUAWEI T8951 using Tapatalk 2

When China employs thousands of people only for doing propaganda, It is natural to think internet chinese are paid propagandists

I visit "global times china" for news about China.

 

[Ray]

Re: China steps up web censorship and blocks HSBC

Ray, no Chinese poster ever denied the existence of Internet censorship in China or claimed that there is total freedom in China.

There is Internet censorship and no total freedom in a democratic India, no one expects the opposite in a totalitarian China.

It's intellectually dishonest to make a case of China based on remarks we never made.

Just for your information, I just visited the website of HSBC, it is not blocked.

Sent from my HUAWEI P7-L07 using Tapatalk 2

Now, don't ask me to trawl this forum to indicate how come Chinese poster had indicated that there is no censorship.

It has been repeatedly indicated by many that it is YOU ALL who are dishonest in all ways and not only in the intellectual sphere alone.

If there were internet censorship or no total democratic freedom in India, then there would have not been such open and critical expression on Twitter and Facebook or even in this Forum.

So, Bite Me.

 

[sorcerer]

Chinese Authorities Snuff out Last Online Remnants of the New York Times

On Monday the Chinese authorities played one of the last cards in their war against the New York Times in Chinese cyberspace. Although the newspaper's English and Chinese websites have been blocked since October of 2012, when the newspaper reported on the vast wealth of the family of Wen Jiabao, then China's prime minister, the publication recently still had a presence on Sina Weibo. But this ended on Monday, when it was taken offline, to the chagrin of its 70,000 followers.

This wasn't the first time this has happened, but it was unusual in that on the same day, two weibo accounts labeled as belonging to New York Times staff were also taken offline – even though one of them had recently left the newspaper. The real-name verified weibo accounts of the paper's technology writer as well as the former executive editor both disappeared along with the main account. Both journalists had been listed as employees of the New York Times.

Inquiries with Sina Weibo regarding the reason for the shutdown were answered with three very telling characters – 网管办 (wang guan ban) – the Internet control authorities.

Given the timing of the removal of all three accounts on the same day as well as the reasons cited, it seems clear this is a direct move to remove the last vestiges of the New York Times from Chinese cyberspace – regardless of what content they were spreading. If this is the case, this shutdown is likely to be permanent.

The New York Times' Sina Weibo account didn't tackle subjects with the same sensitivity as those in the publication, which is probably why it outlasted the other social media accounts of the Chinese edition of the newspaper. The Times previously boasted a number of verified Sina Weibo accounts as well as a WeChat account and a mobile app. One by one they have all succumbed.

It's been clear for quite some time that the Chinese authorities take a dim view of critical news coverage. This attitude was highlighted at a press conference in November of 2014, when Xi Jinping, standing next to U.S. President Barack Obama, responded to a question regarding foreign press coverage and visa restrictions on journalists by stating: "When a car breaks down on the road, perhaps we need to step down and see what the problem is." The comment was seen as the most pointed reference yet to the government's approach to critical press coverage.

Even state media outlets are finding that coverage has recently been getting more difficult. One anonymous employee at a state-owned media outlet recently remarked that the topics available have become significantly restricted when compared to two years ago.

It is interesting to contrast the woes being faced by the New York Times with the fate of Bloomberg. Both companies found themselves going through a trial by fire at the hands of the Chinese authorities, albeit with different responses.

Bloomberg sorely tested the patience of Chinese censors with a report on the vast wealth of Xi Jinping's extended family. That story broke in June 2012 – well before the New York Times report on the wealth of the family of Wen Jiabao, and before Xi Jinping even became President.

The stakes were even higher for Bloomberg, which relies on financial terminals – and more important than the terminals themselves, access to economic information on the Chinese market – to make the vast majority of its profits in China, as well as a significant amount of revenue from foreign players dealing with the Chinese market.

This is believed to have been the motivating factor behind the spiking of a Bloomberg story in November 2013, which reportedly would have forensically shed light on ties between China's richest man at the time and top Party officials.

The New York Times, seemingly resigned to its fate as outcast, went the other way entirely, even going so far as to hire Michael Forsythe, the journalist who had prepared Bloomberg's spiked story. In November 2014, in a scathing editorial that is believed to have been approved from the highest levels of the paper's ownership, the newspaper announced "The Times has no intention of altering its coverage to meet the demands of any government – be it that of China, the United States, or any other nation. Nor would any credible news organization."

Evidently, given the gradual removal of the New York Times' presence from Chinese cyberspace, these decisions are still having ramifications. These days, Bloomberg and the New York Times both continue to operate businesses on the Chinese mainland, but Bloomberg's websites and social media are not blocked.

David Dawson is an Australian writer based in Beijing, with extensive experience in Chinese state media.


Chinese Authorities Snuff out Last Online Remnants of the New York Times | The Diplomat