Chinese authorities banned a popular blogger known for his strong anti-Western comments, according to the South China Morning Post.
Sima Nan, who has more than 3 million followers on China’s social media site Weibo, has been banned across different platforms for a year, according to the paper, which cited two unidentified sources. Sima last posted on Nov. 5 to voice support for Donald Trump during the US election, saying his victory will be more beneficial for China.
According to the paper, Sima Nan is seen by many as “a symbolic voice on the nationalistic left.” He frequently accused groups or individuals of betraying China’s interests and colluding with the US. In 2021, he accused Lenovo Group Ltd. of selling state assets for less than they were worth and paying top executives unreasonably high salaries.
I imagine China cares a lot more about his criticism of China than they do about his criticism of the US. Makes for a more clickable headline though, I guess
The govt will ban voices that are pro-china as well as anti. The marker tends to be those who people will form behind and have the ability to create movements. It’s about keeping people atomised.
No it’s about not allowing traitors to the Chinese people to gain power. You can have and express nearly any opinion in China, as long as you agree it should exist and it’s people should flourish. If you post dissent that would harm the people or the state they control, you’re penalized.
They solved the paradox of tolerance by enforcing a base level of morality, fall behind it and you’re not really worth tolerating.
How do you define what “will harm the people?”
Deregulation, unscientific claims, advocating for negative public health decisions, advocating for war, advocating for other countries propaganda. It’s genuinely an easy thing to do.
If you advocate for, say, allowing private companies to operate essential services like medical care or water purification, you’re arguing to harm the people. We know both of those are terrible things to have privatized, we have the US as an example.
Because the state determines anything that potentially threatens the state as a “threat to the people” while not allowing the people to organise, especially with anything that may threaten the state.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees
The people are the state, the people organized once upon a time, you might have heard of it.
And yeah rebellion isn’t allowed. That’s a given, no idea why you think that’s a bad thing.