> Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong
These are not the types of issues that most Chinese people are upset about, when it comes to their government. These are the types of issues that play well to audiences outside of China.
There's a massive disconnect here. Most controversies, cultural trends, fads, etc. in China receive almost no coverage outside of China, not because it's intrinsically difficult to find out about them (all you need is an internet connection and Chinese language skills), but because the foreign media tends to focus almost exclusively on the types of issues you listed. The vast majority of people outside China simply have no idea what's going on in the country.
This isn't to excuse the lack of independent media in China, but just to point out that the foreign media is also doing the public a massive disservice on this count.
People within a 'closed system' (i.e. China) are going to have a view of an internal issue that the government wants them to have.
"There's nothing big happening here, just 'ABC' because 'XYZ', the Westerners a bit upset about it but that's their colonialist view, they should mind their own business"
So they justify their actions, don't allow debate, suppress the language of rhetoric, distract and use the 'foreigner' straw man, and make petty villains out of anyone challenging the authority.
That 'people don't care' is the result of that control.
The same thing is true in Russia. Putin has journalist and political opponents killed, and he's totally corrupt. And yet, he has an 80% approval rating.
If you can control the press and the narrative, you can convince people that your actions 'were necessary for the promulgation of the state', the plebes won't be able to make an informed consensus as to any situation.
Likewise, Russians seem to have an indifference to a lot of state corruption.
So I don't agree that 'The West' is doing a 'big disservice' by talking about issues that the average Chinese doesn't care about, or by highlighting how corrupt and murderous Putin is.
The whole point of the exercise is to contemplate that 'rights' are a material part of the equation - and, ironically - probably going to make them much wealthier in the long run anyhow. Hong Kong and Taiwan are considerably more wealthy on a per-capita basis, at least largely because they don't live under the sane ultra authoritarian system.
The Tiananmen protests were a very powerful and visceral display of where the power really lies in China, and the true consequences of challenging that power. It's an important bit of history.
Finally, we're all victims of this to some extent, western press has a number of potent institutional biases, and now we have the problem of completely fabricated news, which is another thing altogether.
I find that many Westerners believe that because they can read the New York Times or Washington Post, they know more about what's going on in China than people in China do. The problem is that those newspapers only cover a tiny sliver of what goes on in China, and they focus almost exclusively on a small set of negative stories (and very often, this reporting is extremely inaccurate, partial or exaggerated). Imagine if you didn't speak English and had never been to the US, and all you ever read about the US was how terribly prisoners are treated and all the wars it fights around the world. You would have an incredibly skewed picture of the country.
What do people actually care about? Things like the corrupt local officials who may be colluding with property developers (and consequently, the ongoing anti-corruption campaign is very popular), or the rat race to get ahead in an ultra-competitive society.
> Hong Kong and Taiwan are considerably more wealthy on a per-capita basis, at least largely because they don't live under the sane ultra authoritarian system.
The gap between the more developed parts of the mainland and Taiwan is rapidly closing, and is not that large any more. Beijing and Shanghai are not far behind Taipei, and may catch up in the next few years. Hong Kong, on the other hand, is considerably wealthier than either Taiwan or mainland China.
I just think that most of the Western press does a terrible job of covering China, and is actually significantly misinforming its audience in this regard. The quality standards for China coverage are just incredibly low (and because the audience is mostly uninformed on the topic, they mostly can't tell), and the geopolitical rivalry seems to color and shape the reporting to a huge extent.
So in other words... literally people all over the world, not in the US. Because that's exactly what happens in China, hell even in Europe where they speak English...
Exactly. The point of information control in closed society is not to avoid the exposure of particular events, but to suppress entire lines of thought.
F.ex. How would you begin a conversation with a North Korean about democracy?
Their very concept of the idea, inasmuch as they are likely aware of it at all, is alien to your concept.
Which means that conversation has to start all the way underneath, at the underpinnings and philosophical bases of democracy. Which is a much more difficult and lengthy conversation.
Which is the entire point, because most people won't make the effort. Anymore so than the average American is capable of and interested in learning enough to have a nuanced conversation on the differences between Soviet and Chinese communism.
> […]
> The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point.
> There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them.
The more effective approach by far is to condition people from childhood into believing that the ability to select from one of a few impotent political identities, all of which lead to the slightest variations of policy conclusions within the field of pre-determined acceptability, represents the universal best possible form of governance and the purest instantiation of such high-minded ideals as Freedom, Liberty, and Justice.
This way you can mollify a population into accepting almost anything as normal: endless wars, hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, lifelong debt, a constant struggle to afford housing, education, and medical care, etc. You can convince them at will that any rival is a tyrannical regime under a capricious, childish, genocidal maniac, and that any evidence to the contrary should be dismissed with self-satisfied smugness as coerced or compensated state propaganda.
Having a 'hole' in the information firewall can be useful for some things, but it's still a marginal effect.
Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream.
When Xi bans any negative mention of him, or any mention at all of taboos subjects i.e. Tiananmen, or any material discussion at all of sensitive issues like Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong, anywhere, at any time - then he'll effectively convince the general population of his will on the subject.
The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point.
There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them.
Xi could do anything he wants to the Uyghurs, he could subsequently justify it in the press irrespective of how truthful that information was, and the general public would be fine with it. The small number of dissenters would have no means to disagree.
When you combine information control with the fact that there's a lack of any right to organize or assemble, then you have total control. FYI - this is why 'freedom of assembly' is a primary right in all modern constitutions, it's mostly a means of organizing around information.
Finally, it would be incredibly naive to not grasp the implications of this regulatory movement which further entrenches total government control of information, without any oversight whatsoever.