Well, China has done nothing here though. This is the NBA and Blizzard acting to prevent what I like to call the "Weibo Outrage Machine" from revving too high. (Not that it worked, because in the NBA's case, the machine was red lining. In Blizzard's case, there was nary a peep though, so that one is a bit puzzling?) For any who were unaware, the "Weibo Outrage Machine" is pretty much exactly what it sounds like, think Reddit, HN, or Twitter. Only in Mandarin, and with consensus opinions essentially 100% opposed to consensus opinions in the West on these issues.
I'm afraid we may have entered an era where outrage machines in China effectively dictate market access. Senators, Prime Ministers, Premier's, and Presidents will be powerless to stop it. (Well, short of shutting the outrage machines down.)
The NBA said "the person can say what he wants on Twitter, even if we don't like it". Blizzard banned the player for a year, took his earnings from the tournament, and fired the casters that were interviewing him.
However the case may be though, it's clear that the actors here are the "Weibo Outrage Machine", the NBA, and Blizzard. Which should be more concerning than Chinese government censorship. These outrage machines are are proving themselves at once more powerful than governments and less controllable.
I'm not sure I'd agree with your assumption that "outrage machines" are wholly unconnected/uncontrolled by governments. We know governments have used bots on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit to stir controversy, why would Weibo be any different?
This is why outrage machines everywhere are supremely dangerous. I just want to throw out the possibility here that more entities than governments are using sock puppets to rev the world's outrage machines.
I'm about to do a thought experiment here. Only a thought, I'm not accusing anyone of anything. But just consider, what sort of messages would sock puppets controlled by, say, CBA teams be throwing into the Weibo Outrage Machine on the subject of the NBA? You say, "Well the NBA is likely doing the same", and I'd probably agree. Point is though that this is a new era really in public manipulation.
Think along those lines and you can kind of get an idea how these outrage machines around the world can be far more powerful tools than any government.
"consensus opinions" authorized by Chinese government - likes, "trending" and timelines are all artificially constructed to make you feel like it's the consensus of Chinese people.
How does this "outrage machine" affect the actions of the Chinese government? If people get outraged enough, will they vote against the communist party?
I am a Chinese American but my wife is Chinese. I have a large number of Chinese friends. You may be surprised to learn that vast majority of Chinese natives are very pro-China; and while they can be critical of the Chinese government at times, they tend to be united against any actions taken by foreign entities they consider anti-China or anti-Chinese government.
Talk to a few Chinese immigrants and you will know.
The younger Chinese generation grew up in an era of Chinese economic boom and are the benefactors of the efficiency in decision making that came with a more top-down (dictatorial if you will) government. The younger generation is much more focused on economic well-being and safety over liberty or freedom.
So as long as China can maintain the economic growth it's been having the past two decades, the Chinese public will by and large support the government.
>But how do they justify this when their personal economic well-being requires trampling the freedom of other people?
There are 3 great evils in China: terrorism, separatism and extremism. HK/Tibet/XinJiang/Taiwan are not economic issues but security ones. People balance prosperity for security everywhere. The west sees HK as a large pro democracy movement, the Chinese see's this as fringe separatist violence by 0.001% of the population. They see HK as Chinese alt-right getting bold undermining domestic serenity: disenfranchised, social media savvy, economically anxious youth who see their culture being displaced and their privileged being eroded by mainland immigrants. They're acting accordingly.
The physical island is a huge geopolitical asset or security risk. See island chain strategy. Also look up elevation map of Taiwan + Taiwan straight. Chinese coast is very shallow and hard to hide Chinese subs, whereas east Taiwan drops straight into deep water which enables China to hide subs which is important in controlling regional waters against US Navy. Regardless, the Chinese military planning certainly doesn't pretend the land isn't there. The government (from both sides) just doesn't recognize each others sovereignty.
It's both. Politics is a huge part, reunification is #1 CPC policy consideration since founding and her entire legitimacy rests on it. Occupation goal is by 2050. No one is censoring discussion of Taiwan? If you're talking flag emoji that's equivalent to banning confederate flag in Chinese context. People talk about Taiwan in China all the time but under context of reunification. On refusing sovereignty claims. If Taiwan was sovereign they would be free to host US bases which challenges Chinese security, particularly shipping lanes where China imports oil. China is not energy secure. Taiwan has been a Chinese "redline" for many reasons.
> If Taiwan was sovereign they would be free to host US bases
Taiwan is clearly sovereign, anyone saying otherwise is ignoring reality or avoiding offending China.
The US had military bases in Taiwan for 20 years, the military bases were removed to assist with normalizing relations with China.
I can absolutely see why insisting that the US not place military bases on Taiwan is a security concern, but this has nothing to do with the sovereignty of Taiwan. (Similar to US concerns about Russian military installationa in Cuba which were unrelated to Cuba's sovereignty.)
The institutional double-speak around the sovereignty of Taiwan is purely political and has no impact on actual security issues.
> But how do they justify this when their personal economic well-being requires trampling the freedom of other people?
The same way every one in every other country on earth deals with the awful things their country does I guess. By ignoring it.
> By that logic, would pro-China people would support China going to war with and taking over other countries if it brought them "economic well-being"?
The same thing happens with the US: despite the problems that (most of) the rest of the world has with its government, the US citizens are very much supportive of their government.
To paraphrase your last statement, as long as the US can manage to not destroy their economy completely, the US public will by and large support the government.
Most Americans are angry about the president or some senator. Medicare? FBI? The US Navy / Air Force / Army? The police? Most Americans love those. (When did you last see a group of people asking for the disbanding of the FBI? Heck, for the disbanding of the IRS even.)
No, because the government generally puts on a big show to satisfy the outrage machines if the machines red line on a given subject for too long. Nothing and no one is safe. The outrage machines demand blood, then just like in the US, those in power will give the outrage machines blood. They will jail, and have even been known to execute, any political or business leader if an "outrage machine" revs about the guy for too long.
In this case, the volume of messages I was reading made clear mainlander disdain for the NBA's perceived position on Hong Kong. (The great irony being that the NBA actually has no position on HK, but just like in the US, that fact does little to stop the outrage machines.) In cases like this, the government tends to sit back, do nothing, and let American entities be embarrassed.
It doesn't seem plausible that Xi is worried about the opinions of neckbeards. It may suit his purposes to pretend that to be the case, but they certainly have enough control over the infrastructure to silence any counterproductive "outrage". As in USA, TPTB like to pretend that there are ways for the hoi polloi to determine national priorities.
I'm afraid we may have entered an era where outrage machines in China effectively dictate market access. Senators, Prime Ministers, Premier's, and Presidents will be powerless to stop it. (Well, short of shutting the outrage machines down.)