2015年2月5日 星期四

Reader Response Draft 2

The article, “Who is the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia or the U.S?’’ by Morozov (2015) claims that the U.S. is the true enemy of Internet freedom. Morozov gives several examples to explain how the U.S obtains data from other countries by cooperating with American-based Internet Companies, and how it further challenges worldwide information sovereignty with its technology. On the other hand, it seeks to justify China’s and Russia’s efforts in defending Internet security and protecting citizens from Western culture influences, through the implementation of Internet restriction policies.

 

As Morozov’s article explores the reasons for Internet restriction in China and Russia, it is more important for us to discuss whether Internet restriction can be justified, instead of determining who the true enemy of Internet freedom is.

 

China has imposed restrictions on Internet platform services such as Google and Facebook due to several reasons. Firstly, the Chinese government is trying to protect its technological sovereignty. By reducing their people’s reliance on American-based Internet services, China lowers their risk of leaking information pertaining to confidential matters of state. Referring to the article, U.S. companies cooperate closely with the U.S government so as to obtain data from anywhere, as long as the country adopts American-run Internet services. It is demonstrated by the ongoing squabble between Microsoft and the U.S government(Morozov,2005), which is relevant to an investigation of Microsoft servers in Ireland, where the U.S government claimed to have rights to access data regardless where it is stored (Morozov, 2015). This shows that the U.S. is ambitious enough to control information on a worldwide scale. In fear of data leaks from state, the Chinese government has to restrict Internet services to protect its information sovereignty. Therefore, in the sense of protecting national security, Internet restriction can be understood and justified.

 

 

 

Frizell, (2004) argues that Chinese government had concerted effort to limit information about the incipient pro-democratic movement, such as Tiananmen Square Massacre and Xinjiang riots.  This shows the Chinese government is preserving its own interest in political terms, rather than protecting its citizens from Western influence and defending their Internet security. In my general opinion, citizens should have rights to access information and have freedom of speech. However, the successful attainment of Internet freedom is dependent on a nation’s actual condition, such as the state system and level of civilization. As a state with a large population, it is not easy for China to maintain peace and unity among citizens; so Internet restriction can be seen as a way to maintain state order. As Michael (2010) cited, laws in China clearly prohibit the spread of information which subverts state power and undermines national unity. This can be observed in the 2009 Xingjiang riot, where the Chinese government had censored posts related to the riot caused by resentment between the Han Chinese and Uyghur. This was to minimize the spreading of information which could challenge the harmony between the two races. If censorship had not been implemented, protesters from the two races may foment unrest, which could further put the country at risk of civil strife.
Although Internet restriction has prohibited citizens from accessing certain information, we cannot deny that it does protect a nation’s security to a certain extent.

 

In conclusion, it is important for us to understand that there is never an absolution for right or wrong, just like Internet restriction can be justified in some situation, as it does protect nation interest. It depends on country’s condition and how the government going to rule their country.

(585 words)


References: 

 Morozov, E. (2015). Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom - China, Russia, or the US. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/04/internet-freedom-china-russia-us-google-microsoft-digital-sovereignty

Frizell, S. (2014). Here Are 6 Huge Websites China is Censoring Right Now. TIME. Retrieved from http://time.com/2820452/china-censor-web/

Michael,B.(2010).China defends Internet censorship.BBS News.Retrieved from: www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8727647.stm














4 則留言:

  1. 作者已經移除這則留言。

    回覆刪除
  2. Hi Wei Chuan!

    We are focusing on your mistakes. Hopefully it will help you write better for your 2nd readers response :)

    - Capitalization error in the 1st paragraph
    - Use of punctuation is wrong (e.g. semi-colon)
    - Verb-tense (e.g. use of “is” and “are”)
    - Wrong word form (e.g. lesser)
    - Phrases or sentences taken directly from the article not in quotation marks(e.g. on-going squabble)
    - The link between some sentences are absent
    - Subject verb agreement errors
    - Irregular verbs

    All the best for readers response 2!

    -Hazwani & Guo Xiong

    回覆刪除
  3. Citations:
    It should be "BBC News" hahahah and italicized as well, but the rest are fine.

    Content:
    2nd paragraph: Aren't the reasons for Internet restriction the same as justifying why you restrict internet?

    In the fourth paragraph, the use of Internet restriction and the link to nation's actual condition is not made clearly. The state of the nation does not seem connected to internet freedom. That paragraph is quite unclear in the start and the middle while your argument is made in the end.

    Language:
    "This shows the Chinese government is preserving its own interest in political terms, rather than protecting its citizens from Western influence and defending their Internet security." could be rephrased as "This shows that the Chinese government is preserving its own political interest and to defend their Internet security, rather than protecting their citizens from Western influence"
    Arranging your phrases would make the sentence more effective in conveying your message and argument.

    The use of "absolution" is wrong, absolution is defined as "the act of forgiving someone for having done something wrong or sinful : the act of absolving someone or the state of being absolved" by Merriam Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/absolution. You could use "there is no definite right or wrong" perhaps?

    Use of ; needs to be controlled and not used interchangeably with a comma.

    Guoxiong and Paulette

    回覆刪除
  4. This is an interesting and well-argued reader response, Wei Chuan, with a clear, concise summary. I like the focus on the way that restrictions are justified, especially within the context of China. I'm just not sure that you can make such a sweeping statement as "It depends on country’s condition and how the government going to rule their country" without giving a more detailed explanation.

    Some language issues include:

    --- Referring to the article, U.S. companies ... > Who is referring to the article? US companies? The best way to express this is with this phrase: Within the article it is stated that.... or Morozov states that....

    --- absolution for right or wrong >>> ?

    回覆刪除