As I said in the other thread, this is straight up hubristic history-ignorant chauvinism. The USSR tried the same thing: it was called Glasnost. This just led to the already pre-established interest groups, compradors funnelling Western propaganda that is, to set up the dominant media channels in the new “free and open” era. There is a direct lesson from the catastrophic consequences of Glasnost that is available to China to learn from and trying to pull something like this is straight up chauvinistic conceit: “Yeah the dumb Soviets tried the same thing, but actually, we can do better. Why, you ask? Just cause.”
At least Gorbachev framed Glasnost under a “socialists should be confident and confront all knowledge” idealistic narrative. This Shanghai Yakolev moron is instead blathering about “accessing the innovative ChatGPT” and how using “Facebook and Twitter will contribute to Shanghai as a global hub.”
Even if this lib plagiarized Gorbachev’s Glasnost talking points, it would still be a worthless idea. The West is so determined to shut out all dissident voices to its narrative control that it is banning and forcibly divesting TikTok. There is no realm of possibility that CIA and NSA freaks on the board of directors of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, Wikipedia, Twitch etc. are going to allow the much-fantasized scenario of “a billion Chinese shitposters to storm the keep and liberate the West from their propaganda” to take place. Imagine believing some shitlib anti-communist freak subreddit mod will actually allow Chinese people to come in and deprogram their sub audience or that Chinese editors could ever be allowed to bully Natopedia CIA rubberstamp editor admins to actually ban Voice of America and RFA as “reliable sources.” Those people are all simply going to be banned, easier than ever now thanks to algorithms and AI monitoring. The only people that would be allowed to stay are those that would toe the line and accept being lectured to without ever being able to talk back, you will never be allowed the high ground or even equal ground for any actual “freedom of speech” discourse. If this isn’t true, then ask why are leftists stuck on sites like Hexbear and Lemmygrad rather than being able to use the mainstream platforms. Because just on Reddit alone, places like chapo and genzedong were straight up banned and the only people that remain are defanged: either baby leftists on r/thedeprogram or useless ultras on r/communism.
Framing this as a Shanghai first policy would also be idiotic. It would make accessing the “international internet” as some kind of privilege and luxury rather than a “normal thing” that Chinese people could use if they wanted to and that same shit is why all Glasnost amounted to was people lining up to read Gulag Archipelago because that propaganda slop was so hyped up as a formerly nomenklatura-exclusive “Glasnost privilege” and that stunt just turned swathes of Soviet citizens into outright anti-communists.
The good news is that the SCMP article covering this tried to track down the original publication and alleged it was deleted. A hopeful sign that whatever libs on the Shanghai Party committee proposed this got shitcanned for this slop.
Glasnost was much more about changing what could be discussed within the USSR. And Yakovlev - who really did want to bring the whole thing down - went nuts and had all his anti-communist buddies in positions in power in all forms of media practically overnight. That was the real damage from glasnost, the “information and ideas from the outside world” was a negligible part of it. Or at least, the damage was done by insiders who were familiar with western ideas, rather than the west “infiltrating”.
Also, I see nothing here that indicates Facebook et al won’t be obligated to play by the CPC’s rules. This isn’t flinging the barn door wide open. If Facebook, Google et al are allowed back in, no doubt they will still need to stay within the confines outlined by the CPC (and I doubt they will care so long as they are allowed back in and can make money).
Glasnost was Soviet Occidentalism. The parameters of what “could or could not” be discussed under Gorbachev’s paradigm was defined entirely by what was said about the USSR and the socialist project from the West. The damage done to public perceptions of the CPSU and Soviet socialism through Yakolev’s hijacking of the high grounds of media control was because these anti-communists began importing all the anti-Soviet ideology that was created and festered as a parallel structure of cognition through the decades since the October Revolution. It wasn’t as if Yakolev started to synthesize his own original critiques but that Western narratives were transplanted to frame the mode of critique against the CPSU and socialism that he promoted through his control of Soviet media. This is exactly what also happened on the micro-scale to every SSR that later seceded: anti-communist ultranationalist parallel histories in which the existence of those SSRs in the Soviet system could be completely re-interpreted were imported in wholesale from the West, where they were fostered by Soviet emigres in the decades since the October Revolution. The Baltic secessionist movements were precisely powered through the fabricated grievances that Soviet emigre in the West were able to re-introduce within the populace following the Glasnost period.
Facebook et al. have never been more openly partisan for US state interests and have no negotiating enticements to give whatsoever to the Chinese government to allow for their access to the Chinese internet. The only thing is if they completely excised Western propaganda points about China on their platforms or allowed Chinese moderation control but this would be the point where the US state would intervene to forbid such a mechanism. This is what happened in the early 2010s when Zuckerberg was bragging about his Mandarin and Google was trying to squeeze into China. Any requests for accommodation to the Chinese government concerns was shut down by Clinton as Secretary of State who intervened (or was recruited by those companies to bat for them) and wanted it to be a unilateral entry without any concessions to China. This is why they were denied entry in the first place. Google voluntarily exited the Chinese internet because, egged on by the Obama admin, it refused to meet any Chinese regulatory requests.
Chinese liberals, who just until recently apparently though you could live a Homer Simpson middle class lifestyle by being a dishwasher in America, have a hyped up view of Facebook, Google and other Western platforms as some Disneyland where there’s so much they’re “missing out on” but in reality, there is nothing of intrinsic value in those platforms compared to China’s own indigenous ecosystem. China should promote more international connections within internet space but this must be done on Chinese or “non-aligned” country platforms like Singapore where China can either set the terms of engagement itself or at least prevent the West from doing so like it does on the likes of Facebook et al. XHS is an example of this how this should be done. Something like this Shanghai Yakolev’s proposal would actually take the wind out of the sails of platforms like XHS.
After reading about Shanghai’s technology system a bit more after hearing about this, this seems more potentially like a petulant politicking scheme as most of those Chinese platforms were created and headquartered elsewhere in places like Shenzhen. Introducing Western platforms would be Shanghai’s way to admit they’re incapable of domestically competing and fostering similar companies (their major feather in the cap seems to be just attracting Tesla, so this may be them trying to ape the same playbook for the media sector) and simply flipping the table to sabotage and cannibalize the user-share of Chinese domestic media platforms, as this would be what such a Glasnost policy would entail in reality.
As I said in the other thread, this is straight up hubristic history-ignorant chauvinism. The USSR tried the same thing: it was called Glasnost. This just led to the already pre-established interest groups, compradors funnelling Western propaganda that is, to set up the dominant media channels in the new “free and open” era. There is a direct lesson from the catastrophic consequences of Glasnost that is available to China to learn from and trying to pull something like this is straight up chauvinistic conceit: “Yeah the dumb Soviets tried the same thing, but actually, we can do better. Why, you ask? Just cause.”
At least Gorbachev framed Glasnost under a “socialists should be confident and confront all knowledge” idealistic narrative. This Shanghai Yakolev moron is instead blathering about “accessing the innovative ChatGPT” and how using “Facebook and Twitter will contribute to Shanghai as a global hub.”
Even if this lib plagiarized Gorbachev’s Glasnost talking points, it would still be a worthless idea. The West is so determined to shut out all dissident voices to its narrative control that it is banning and forcibly divesting TikTok. There is no realm of possibility that CIA and NSA freaks on the board of directors of Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, Wikipedia, Twitch etc. are going to allow the much-fantasized scenario of “a billion Chinese shitposters to storm the keep and liberate the West from their propaganda” to take place. Imagine believing some shitlib anti-communist freak subreddit mod will actually allow Chinese people to come in and deprogram their sub audience or that Chinese editors could ever be allowed to bully Natopedia CIA rubberstamp editor admins to actually ban Voice of America and RFA as “reliable sources.” Those people are all simply going to be banned, easier than ever now thanks to algorithms and AI monitoring. The only people that would be allowed to stay are those that would toe the line and accept being lectured to without ever being able to talk back, you will never be allowed the high ground or even equal ground for any actual “freedom of speech” discourse. If this isn’t true, then ask why are leftists stuck on sites like Hexbear and Lemmygrad rather than being able to use the mainstream platforms. Because just on Reddit alone, places like chapo and genzedong were straight up banned and the only people that remain are defanged: either baby leftists on r/thedeprogram or useless ultras on r/communism.
Framing this as a Shanghai first policy would also be idiotic. It would make accessing the “international internet” as some kind of privilege and luxury rather than a “normal thing” that Chinese people could use if they wanted to and that same shit is why all Glasnost amounted to was people lining up to read Gulag Archipelago because that propaganda slop was so hyped up as a formerly nomenklatura-exclusive “Glasnost privilege” and that stunt just turned swathes of Soviet citizens into outright anti-communists.
Beyond all that, what a gift this would be to the CIA. The West itself bragged during Biden’s term that Trump Term 1 signed off on a covert influence campaign on the Chinese internet to turn Chinese people against their own government and now Trump Term 2 can just ChatGPT bot its own platforms even more because the targetted Chinese users are apparently going to be delivered straight to their front door for whatever new covert influence campaigns they’ll be trying to pull this time around.
The good news is that the SCMP article covering this tried to track down the original publication and alleged it was deleted. A hopeful sign that whatever libs on the Shanghai Party committee proposed this got shitcanned for this slop.
Glasnost was much more about changing what could be discussed within the USSR. And Yakovlev - who really did want to bring the whole thing down - went nuts and had all his anti-communist buddies in positions in power in all forms of media practically overnight. That was the real damage from glasnost, the “information and ideas from the outside world” was a negligible part of it. Or at least, the damage was done by insiders who were familiar with western ideas, rather than the west “infiltrating”.
Also, I see nothing here that indicates Facebook et al won’t be obligated to play by the CPC’s rules. This isn’t flinging the barn door wide open. If Facebook, Google et al are allowed back in, no doubt they will still need to stay within the confines outlined by the CPC (and I doubt they will care so long as they are allowed back in and can make money).
Glasnost was Soviet Occidentalism. The parameters of what “could or could not” be discussed under Gorbachev’s paradigm was defined entirely by what was said about the USSR and the socialist project from the West. The damage done to public perceptions of the CPSU and Soviet socialism through Yakolev’s hijacking of the high grounds of media control was because these anti-communists began importing all the anti-Soviet ideology that was created and festered as a parallel structure of cognition through the decades since the October Revolution. It wasn’t as if Yakolev started to synthesize his own original critiques but that Western narratives were transplanted to frame the mode of critique against the CPSU and socialism that he promoted through his control of Soviet media. This is exactly what also happened on the micro-scale to every SSR that later seceded: anti-communist ultranationalist parallel histories in which the existence of those SSRs in the Soviet system could be completely re-interpreted were imported in wholesale from the West, where they were fostered by Soviet emigres in the decades since the October Revolution. The Baltic secessionist movements were precisely powered through the fabricated grievances that Soviet emigre in the West were able to re-introduce within the populace following the Glasnost period.
Facebook et al. have never been more openly partisan for US state interests and have no negotiating enticements to give whatsoever to the Chinese government to allow for their access to the Chinese internet. The only thing is if they completely excised Western propaganda points about China on their platforms or allowed Chinese moderation control but this would be the point where the US state would intervene to forbid such a mechanism. This is what happened in the early 2010s when Zuckerberg was bragging about his Mandarin and Google was trying to squeeze into China. Any requests for accommodation to the Chinese government concerns was shut down by Clinton as Secretary of State who intervened (or was recruited by those companies to bat for them) and wanted it to be a unilateral entry without any concessions to China. This is why they were denied entry in the first place. Google voluntarily exited the Chinese internet because, egged on by the Obama admin, it refused to meet any Chinese regulatory requests.
Chinese liberals, who just until recently apparently though you could live a Homer Simpson middle class lifestyle by being a dishwasher in America, have a hyped up view of Facebook, Google and other Western platforms as some Disneyland where there’s so much they’re “missing out on” but in reality, there is nothing of intrinsic value in those platforms compared to China’s own indigenous ecosystem. China should promote more international connections within internet space but this must be done on Chinese or “non-aligned” country platforms like Singapore where China can either set the terms of engagement itself or at least prevent the West from doing so like it does on the likes of Facebook et al. XHS is an example of this how this should be done. Something like this Shanghai Yakolev’s proposal would actually take the wind out of the sails of platforms like XHS.
After reading about Shanghai’s technology system a bit more after hearing about this, this seems more potentially like a petulant politicking scheme as most of those Chinese platforms were created and headquartered elsewhere in places like Shenzhen. Introducing Western platforms would be Shanghai’s way to admit they’re incapable of domestically competing and fostering similar companies (their major feather in the cap seems to be just attracting Tesla, so this may be them trying to ape the same playbook for the media sector) and simply flipping the table to sabotage and cannibalize the user-share of Chinese domestic media platforms, as this would be what such a Glasnost policy would entail in reality.
GOOD post