China Requires Real Names, Bans Spending By Teens In New Curbs On Livestreaming (nikkei.com) 57
New submitter SirKveldulv shares a report from Nikkei Asia: Livestreaming platforms now must limit the amount of money a user can give hosts as a tip. Users must register their real names to buy the virtual gifts, in addition to the ban on teens giving such gifts. The [National Radio and Television Administration, China's media watchdog] also asked the platforms to strengthen training for employees who screen content and encouraged the companies to hire more censors, who also will need to register with regulators.
The media regulator will create a blacklist of hosts who frequently violate the rules, and ban them from hosting livestreaming programs on any platform. "The livestreaming platforms should prioritize social benefits and spread the positive energy," the notification said. The administration also asked the platforms to strengthen training for employees who screen content and encouraged the companies to hire more censors, who also will need to register with regulators. The media regulator will create a blacklist of hosts who frequently violate the rules, and ban them from hosting livestreaming programs on any platform. "The livestreaming platforms should prioritize social benefits and spread the positive energy," the notification said.
The media regulator will create a blacklist of hosts who frequently violate the rules, and ban them from hosting livestreaming programs on any platform. "The livestreaming platforms should prioritize social benefits and spread the positive energy," the notification said. The administration also asked the platforms to strengthen training for employees who screen content and encouraged the companies to hire more censors, who also will need to register with regulators. The media regulator will create a blacklist of hosts who frequently violate the rules, and ban them from hosting livestreaming programs on any platform. "The livestreaming platforms should prioritize social benefits and spread the positive energy," the notification said.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Commies don't like competition for headspace (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty obvious what this one is all about.
~Neo-Rio-101
For every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, plausible — and wrong.
~ H.L. Mencken
FTA:Livestreaming -- a segment that contains e-commerce, online gaming and entertainment activities -- has flourished during COVID-19-related restrictions on social activity. But criticism is growing about the behavior of some programs, including manipulation of viewership data, the sale of incorrect products and the appearance of pornographic content.
So a measured response is to identify previously anonymous grifters and create a "blacklist" of repeated offenders and at the same time halt teenagers from spending their red envelopes on...what was that figure again?
FTA:In the first six months of 2020, the company produced revenue of 17.3 billion yuan ($2.64 billion) from livestreaming, mostly via virtual gift income. That represents 68.5% of Kuaishou's total revenue.
How much did Apple earn from children "'getting' apps with in-app purchases"? Across the globe?
But how China addresses some fraction of fraud behind its Great Wall to address teenage behavior known to be on the reckless side is "pretty obvious". Your political philosophy overview is as grounded in facts related by an article as an evangelical addresses national news with a bullhorn on a street corner and holding a placard that reads The Time Is Nigh.
Re: (Score:3)
You have never been to China, have you? You could try streaming China Central Television (CCTV) for a flavour of what state broadcaster content looks like. You will be surprised.
Anyway this is about things like women soliciting donations on their streams. Nothing pornographic, more like Instagram or Twitch. It's about people broadcasting banned news which are hard to filter because they don't have AI capable of monitoring all the streams in real-time. Some of it's about piracy, people ripping off PPV.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a privilege they think they enjoy.
I assume you meant to say it's a privilege they think they deserve. English speakers for the most part do enjoy the privilege of not needing to speak other languages to consume most online content. This privilege isn't just in their heads.
Re: (Score:2)
News at 11. Why you guys just don't move to China I'll never understand. You will be SO MUCH HAPPIER THERE. Why stay in the UK? They will love you in China! You will last about five minutes there.
~Russki3433
It's film at eleven because 1950-70s local, syndicated news programs broadcast in the early evening required the time it took to process film to be shown in the late evening broadcast.
The Chinese people, especially outside cities, have anticipated western guests for over two generations-- one might be received like a celebrity and frequently asked to pose for a photo even before smartphones made their expense trivial. Outside large cities, foreigners are still that rare. The Chinese government, on the o
Re: Commies don't like competition for headspace (Score:1)
Reality check.
Having lived in China, USA and Saudi, I agree to 100% with what you wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty obvious that this is both about party-approved discourse, like cracking down on free HK messages, and about taxes. That's why there is a real name requirement, there's no good reason for that otherwise. "The livestreaming platforms should prioritize social benefits and spread the positive energy," is obvious code for "no critical speech will be tolerated". Making excuses for fascism is not a good look, dude.
Re:Commies don't like competition for headspace (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure why you consider anything that suggests China's government isn't motivated by pure evil is "making excuses" for them. You are just enabling them, making it harder for others to understand China and putting them in a position where there is no incentive to do anything right because you will find some way to condemn it anyway.
It's entirely possible they have seen what a shitshow Facebook is and how it is fucking up Western countries and decided that they don't want to make the same mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
It's entirely possible they have seen what a shitshow Facebook is and how it is fucking up Western countries and decided that they don't want to make the same mistake.
They want to make the mistake of Fascism instead. But any locking down of social media can only be in order to control the narrative, and keep the people ignorant of their actions.
Re: (Score:3)
I completely agree that they want to control what information is put out, I said so in my original post. What I'm saying is that they may have other motivations too, not all of which are 100% totalitarian evil.
I want thing to get better in China, I have family there. Telling them that their government is evil doesn't work though, they have quite a high opinion of it in general and while part of that is down to misinformation and censorship it's also in large part down to the fact that their lives have drama
Re: (Score:2)
keep the people ignorant of their actions.
You assume there is some exemplar country out there with citizens of supreme civic duty which are not by and large an ignorant populace. A citation is needed for which country this could be, because none come to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bingo... We can agree the measure is authoritarian but we should make a better statement on the nature of that authority. The Chinese government attempts to operate like a parent and likewise why these actions are mainly aimed at curbing the spending from minors.
I also do not know if westerns know just how common place phones are in china for usage with media and likewise just how seamless the cashless society is that exists here. It's very easy for these behaviors to become an addiction.
Likewise the
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese government is very concerned about addiction among the young. Gambling is illegal but it's hard to craft a law that covers things like mobile games and loot boxes.
They don't want an Onlyfans type situation developing I'm sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you consider anything that suggests China's government isn't motivated by pure evil is "making excuses" for them.
Evil is arguably in the eyes of the beholder. China may or may not be motivated by evil depending on one's viewpoint. However, it's clear that China's leadership is motivated by control. It's the obsession with control and the willingness to go to extremes to exert that control that are disturbing.
Re: (Score:2)
Money laundering is also another example of why you would want to keep track of who is sending money around. Bribes too.
You think anyone needs reminding that critical speech won't be tolerated? I think they know that by now, it's hardly a new thing.
They also limit how many hours kids can play online games and such. They don't want everyone addicted to useless timewasting, but would prefer them to do something more productive instead.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want everyone addicted to useless timewasting, but would prefer them to do something more productive instead.
This is the biggest part of it. To avoid this addiction. I have been close to being sucked into it before. These measures effectively are to try to protect the most vulnerable while still allowing the majority to continue these frivolous pursuits. In this way, I have a lot of respect for these kinds of measures by China which is a kin to "good parenting".
Re: (Score:2)
What about Canada [parl.ca]?
Re: (Score:3)
"Online streaming takes away eyeballs and headspace from government propaganda."
The propaganda phase was over in the last millennium.
Now it's the "do as we say or we send the brute squad"-phase.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty obvious what this one is all about.
Online streaming takes away eyeballs and headspace from government propaganda.
Huh? Online streaming is government propaganda, or at least an opiate for the masses so that government can manipulate them more easily.
Re: (Score:1)
A new low (Score:3)
This article is a "dup" of itself
Re: (Score:1)
If you are gonna dupe, crank it to 11. Half-ass fukkups are boring.
Moderation not censorship (Score:4, Interesting)
This is done by private companies. So it is moderation not censorship. So, please stop calling the employees doing this censors. They are moderators. Or something...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No, it does not matter;-) My post was irony of the position taken by all the hobby semanticists who defend corporate censorship by arguing that it really is not censorship but moderation.
Sarcasm [Re:Moderation not censorship] (Score:1)
Until the coffee kicks in, many of us won't recognize the sarcasm quick enough.
Re: (Score:2)
At least China is honest and open about having a one-party system. They think it's best for them and is a model for the world. And to be honest, a lot of American elites are looking longingly at their system, such as the New York Times. [nytimes.com] The Chinese system gets things done, and would never yield an invalid result like Trump or Brexit. One can see the attraction.
The article you referenced wasn't American elites longing for a Chinese based system. The author was simply saying even the Chinese system is better than a system where only one party is trying to make meaningful improvements. When even centrist policies such as universal health-care are spun as liberal left wing ideas, the US government is essentially in a dead-lock.
It has been this way for decades, with very little meaningful legislation since the 60's. From 1865 - 1971 there were 14 amendments to the Con
Re: (Score:2)
Well I certainly don't agree with much of what Jack Goldsmith wrote in that article. It is fairly common for me to agree with a bit of Goldsmith's opinions but disagree with a lot, which makes sense to me since he was a rising conservative star until he came at odds with the Bush administration over what he felt was abuses of power (that is a severe over-generalization of his beliefs, but I believe is mostly accurate). I think the opinions and beliefs of conservatives who are at odds with the most extreme c
Don’t blame China (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is frequently made that free speech keeps the crazies out where you can see 'em. I've made that argument before myself, in fact. This idea is utterly incompatible with the idea that social networking should never have existed. It's also fundamentally ridiculous because all networks which permit socializing are social networks. USENET was essentially a social network, for example, when coupled with other commonly provided services like mail, finger, and talk. Your client would let you follow peo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Don’t blame China (Score:4, Insightful)
"That's not your place, right, nor area of concern."
Yes, it is all of those things. People who are dumb as shit threaten my quality of life, and even my very existence. I have a right to defend myself.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Don’t blame China (Score:2)
I'm not telling anyone they can't do those things. But I do feel free to criticize their beliefs, more in the hopes of helping others who have not succumbed to their idiocy yet. And I feel free to attack their establishments of stupidity, which have a tendency to do harm if left unchecked. I attack them with words, but if they are actively promoting harm then it is fully reasonable to actively destroy them.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is in China you merely have to say something disparaging of the gov't to have your social score reduced, in the western world you have to tell dangerous lies or harmfully troll etc.
You have a right to free speech but if your speech is endangering or hurting people then don't expect everyone to cooperate with you. You don't get to shout fire in a theatre that is not on fire, but the scumbags on the internet with their anti-vax messages and all of the rest of it are effectively doing this. It i
where are the hacktivists. (Score:2)
You know, I'd like to believe there aren't thousands of anti-authoritarian hacktivists attacking China every day? Certainly their should be.
Is it too hard a target? Not high enough reputation? Or is it just not reported on?
Anyone have any idea?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not convinced that China has anything of value.
American Big Tech is "hactivating" the hell out of all users no matter where they reside on the planet (void in some areas like China).
Hacktivists of the caliber you're suggesting can pick and choose their cause. Perhaps they are busy trying to affect change in other areas like the immigration concentration camps in America and just don't have time for the Muslim camps in China.
More likely, I think, hacktivists of caliber are abandoning the futility of soci
Re: (Score:1)
hmm.. so you are saying there isn't really anyone good enough , who actually cares about other people and freedom of information.
I mean if you are targeting small potatoes like U.S violations vs billions of people , I guess you got to have your priorities. My guess is that most of them are just scared because the U.S might jail you but china is just as likely to take a hit out on you if you get caught.
Re: (Score:2)
hmm.. so this is what I'm saying:
"I'm not convinced that China has anything of value.
American Big Tech is "hactivating" the hell out of all users no matter where they reside on the planet (void in some areas like China).
Hacktivists of the caliber you're suggesting can pick and choose their cause. Perhaps they are busy trying to affect change in other areas like the immigration concentration camps in America and just don't have time for the Muslim camps in China.
More likely, I think, hacktivists of caliber a
TFS ... (Score:2)
... is a duplication wherein it appears twice.
TFS is a duplication wherein it appears twice.
Big Bother (Score:1)
It's almost as if they are controlled by a bunch of com... oh, wait.