The Subtler Big Brother [Ben]
It's difficult for writers to keep George Orwell's name out of their political commentary. His quotes come shrink-wrapped with relevance and a sort of staid responsibility. Need something about early resistance to or the dangers of underestimating a totalitarian (or even better, Fascist!) regime? DONE. Unadorned, yet perfectly formed prose that you can enlist in your fight against an alarmingly resurgent surveillance state? See how smoothly "Big Brother" rolls off the tongue?
Witness Bill Kristol recently dusting off an Orwell essay about Rudyard Kipling on the NYT's editorial page in an attempt to exonerate the Republican party for the ongoing debacle in Iraq. Honestly. This, a piece where Orwell clearly states that Kipling's overt imperialist sympathies obviously taint his entire body of work. Clearly it's time to erect some boundaries.
Bill Kristol, Orwell does not have your back. Name-dropping him is not earning you street cred with NYT readers. Plus, it's dishonest and stupid. I have more sympathy for writers using Orwell who aren't totally perverting his intentions with selective quotation--it's difficult not to trot him out as an ally when he dropped knowledge on so many subjects.
Leave it to James Fallows to show everyone how it's done. Taking time out of his busy biological myth-debunking schedule to write about Internet censorship in China--"The Great Firewall", heh--he avoids the enticing allusions to 1984 that would have undoubtedly snared a lesser writer.
And the piece is much more enlightening because of it. Because the boogyman of Big Brother looms over any discussion of governmental manipulation of information, the tendency of rational people is to overlook the pernicious nature of the more subtle forms of propaganda and censorship when the comparison is explicitly made. Yes, recent amendments to FISA are frightening and reprehensible. Yes the fact our craven legislative branch will likely grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that illegally cooperated and continue to cooperate with intelligence agencies disturbs me exceedingly. Yes, fuck you Diane Feinstein. But, it's still unlikely that I'll ever suffer parallel indignities to the citizens of Oceania by enduring GWB constantly smirking at me, unbidden, from my television screen. And I won't lie, my eyes glaze over a little when the comparison gets made.
Fallows's description of the filtering techniques employed by the Chinese government are all the more chilling because they show an understanding of the limits of technology as well as the limitations of human nature. Rather than a totally controlling the state of information, a la 1984 and North Korea, the Chinese government realizes that knowledge is impossible to keep from people if they're in persistent pursuit of the truth. They also realize that most people are busy, easily distracted, and not technologically inclined. Therefore:
It's a good question. And if our own country and its free press can serve as any sort of example, most people in China are likely to content themselves with the information they have access to and not think about it too much.
Witness Bill Kristol recently dusting off an Orwell essay about Rudyard Kipling on the NYT's editorial page in an attempt to exonerate the Republican party for the ongoing debacle in Iraq. Honestly. This, a piece where Orwell clearly states that Kipling's overt imperialist sympathies obviously taint his entire body of work. Clearly it's time to erect some boundaries.
Bill Kristol, Orwell does not have your back. Name-dropping him is not earning you street cred with NYT readers. Plus, it's dishonest and stupid. I have more sympathy for writers using Orwell who aren't totally perverting his intentions with selective quotation--it's difficult not to trot him out as an ally when he dropped knowledge on so many subjects.
Leave it to James Fallows to show everyone how it's done. Taking time out of his busy biological myth-debunking schedule to write about Internet censorship in China--"The Great Firewall", heh--he avoids the enticing allusions to 1984 that would have undoubtedly snared a lesser writer.
And the piece is much more enlightening because of it. Because the boogyman of Big Brother looms over any discussion of governmental manipulation of information, the tendency of rational people is to overlook the pernicious nature of the more subtle forms of propaganda and censorship when the comparison is explicitly made. Yes, recent amendments to FISA are frightening and reprehensible. Yes the fact our craven legislative branch will likely grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that illegally cooperated and continue to cooperate with intelligence agencies disturbs me exceedingly. Yes, fuck you Diane Feinstein. But, it's still unlikely that I'll ever suffer parallel indignities to the citizens of Oceania by enduring GWB constantly smirking at me, unbidden, from my television screen. And I won't lie, my eyes glaze over a little when the comparison gets made.
Fallows's description of the filtering techniques employed by the Chinese government are all the more chilling because they show an understanding of the limits of technology as well as the limitations of human nature. Rather than a totally controlling the state of information, a la 1984 and North Korea, the Chinese government realizes that knowledge is impossible to keep from people if they're in persistent pursuit of the truth. They also realize that most people are busy, easily distracted, and not technologically inclined. Therefore:
As a practical matter, anyone in China who wants to get around the firewall can choose between two well-known and dependable alternatives: the proxy server and the VPN...
...What the government cares about is making the quest for information just enough of a nuisance that people generally won’t bother. Most Chinese people, like most Americans, are interested mainly in their own country. All around them is more information about China and things Chinese than they could possibly take in. The newsstands are bulging with papers and countless glossy magazines. The bookstores are big, well stocked, and full of patrons, and so are the public libraries. Video stores, with pirated versions of anything. Lots of TV channels. And of course the Internet, where sites in Chinese and about China constantly proliferate. When this much is available inside the Great Firewall, why go to the expense and bother, or incur the possible risk, of trying to look outside?
It's a good question. And if our own country and its free press can serve as any sort of example, most people in China are likely to content themselves with the information they have access to and not think about it too much.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home