Reframing the top-down censorship being performed by an authoritarian government as "cancel culture" feels like a double whammy of disservices: it manages to both downplay the severity of the PRC's actions <i>and</i> overplay a social movement in the US.
CCP doesn’t tolerate companies or persons becoming more influential than they are. It’s an existential threat to their survival. CCP doesn’t mess around. One day you’re a hotshot internet billionaire, the next day you’re touring Europe to help secure the food supply chain.<p>I wonder how long their reign will last. Nothing lasts forever. But as long as the economy keep growing the party is safe. The chances of war with Taiwan will increase in a recession. The perfect distraction for domestic issues.
That doesn't seem right. The comrades can just call a point of personal privilege.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLQNUVmq3o" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPLQNUVmq3o</a>
kind of a bad piece tbh. Viewing this through the lens of 'cancel culture' or 'censorship' is looking at China through a Westernized lens. Social prohibitions, shaming and cultivation of particular values have been bread and butter in China for 3000 years, it's like calling prohibitions on sexuality in an Islamic society cancel culture.<p>Secondly the more important miss is that the Economist focuses on the economic and political aspect of celebrities. There's some superficial truth to that but the party isn't afraid of the political power of internet celebs. What they completely omit in the piece is the resurgence of a nationalist, Confucian focus on cultural values and virtue, creating a particular way of Chinese life, it's not about socialist economics.<p>There's been a strong crackdown on individuals or media that promote promiscuous women 'feminine men', homosexuality, divorce and a strong focus on imposing traditional moral, not economic values.