The most used metaphor in describing and understanding internet censorship in China, is the one of the Great Firewall, often shortened to GFW. In this essay, I argue that our (ab)use of the Great Firewall metaphor leads to blind spots that obscure and limit our understanding of internet censorship in China. A metaphor is a way to understand one thing in terms of another ( Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). While metaphors are often useful for understanding new, complex and often contradictory situations, they do that by highlighting and focusing on one certain set of characteristics but not others. The reduction in complexity through the use of metaphors is at the same time useful for gaining understanding but also creates blind spots in other areas. What I call ‘the myth of the great firewall’ then, is a rhetorical tactic to point out the existence of these blind spots. In constructing our narrative about the internet in China, we focus on one set of characteristics, the Great Firewall, but ignore or neglect other facets of its incredibly complex situation that now already counts over more than 120 million users online. By calling the Great Firewall a ‘narrative we construct’ or a ‘myth’, however, does not mean I am denying the existence of internet censorship in China. There is no denying about the materiality of internet censorship in China, as extensive documentation has shown. By using the words ‘narrative’ and ‘myth’, however, I do want to highlight that our understanding of a complex situation, such as the internet in China, is constructed through a selective process of often powerful imagination. These acts of imagination and fantasies often reveal a lot about ourselves and the way we come to understand and make sense of the world. Therefore, it is more productive to think about myths as alive or dead, rather than true or false. In our case at hand, I argue that the myth of the Great Firewall is very much alive. This essay will discuss two questions: first, what is the Great Firewall metaphor telling us about internet censorship in China, and more importantly, what is it not telling us? Second, what does the myth of the Great Firewall tell us with regard to how the West attempts to understand internet in China and how does this affect policy making?

But having come to this step, I already know it’s time. The occurance of Bingdan incident, I felt, was the time to make things clear. That is to be prepared that, alright, the price I have to pay for are: First, never be able to obtain a visa again. Second, all my books have to be unloaded from shelves. Third, essays will never be published again. These were factors that were being factored in and then you can write this kind of essay.

A list of websites to block has been provided to the ISPs but the list itself has not been made public. Several bloggers have started asking people to file a Right to Information (RTI) requesting the government to release the list of blocked websites. Not satisfied with the intransparent situation, bloggers have been organizing themselves and keeping track which ISP blocks what website.

For several days there was a general lack of further official government explanation and justification for these censorship practices. As of July 19, the Deputy Consul General has come forward with a clarification, stating that:

There are recent signs that the blanket filtering are slowly being lifted by ISPs. In the meantime, concerned bloggers have been communicating and organizing themselves using Google Groups, as well as a wiki that aggregates information, including information on how to bypass the block.

This not the first time India has practiced internet censorship. For example, in 2003 they closed down a Yahoo Group, called Kyhun, that was run by a banned militant outfit, the Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) of the Khasi tribe in Meghalaya. See the Opennet Initiative report for more detail on earlier Indian internet filtering practices.

Some of the work I do for the summer involves looking at internet censorship practices. A little while ago, I was asked to look at some of the more sensitive ‘hot button’ issues in India, in order to build a list of websites that might be censored. Most articles that I came across wrote how, in general, India has freedom of speech and press. The Indian case shows how situations can change fast, and how even democracies with a long standing history of freedom of speech can react in a knee-jerk way when faced with highly ‘explosive’ information online. The good thing is that the government responded to the massive protests. Hopefully this opens a window of opportunity that allows for a more accountable and transparent decision process of what will be blocked.

PS the original blog is posted at the OpenNet Initiative blog but I repost it here as a slightly amended and updated version.

It would have been more accurate if the BBC instead had written that they provide an insight to ‘what the internet means for people in China who highly depend on freedom of speech and press‘. This is not an incidental case, as the Western press is often obsessed with reporting about the internet in China through a democratization frame, disproportionally interested in the question whether the internet leads to democracy, turning a blind eye to other developments such as the large spread popularity of online gaming.