The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Censorship and deletion practices in Chinese social media
Open accessAbstract
With Twitter and Facebook blocked in China, the stream of information from Chinese domestic social media provides a case study of social media behavior under the influence of active censorship. While much work has looked at efforts to prevent access to information in China (including IP blocking of foreign Web sites or search engine filtering), we present here the first large–scale analysis of political content censorship in social media, i.e., the active deletion of messages published by individuals. In a statistical analysis of 56 million messages (212,583 of which have been deleted out of 1.3 million checked, more than 16 percent) from the domestic Chinese microblog site Sina Weibo, and 11 million Chinese–language messages from Twitter, we uncover a set a politically sensitive terms whose presence in a message leads to anomalously higher rates of deletion. We also note that the rate of message deletion is not uniform throughout the country, with messages originating in the outlying provinces of Tibet and Qinghai exhibiting much higher deletion rates than those from eastern areas like Beijing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance
Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2005) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1970 · Cited by 832
Cited by
How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression
KING, G., PAN, J., & ROBERTS, M. E. (2013) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055413000014 · Cited by 2,415
“We begin with social media blogs in which it is at least possible for writers to express themselves fully, prior to possible censorship, and leaving to other research social media services that constrain authors to very short Twitter-like (weibo) posts (e.g., Bamman, O’Connor, and Smith 2012).”
BackgroundWhy Does China Allow Freer Social Media? Protests versus Surveillance and Propaganda
Qin, B., Strömberg, D., & Wu, Y. (2017) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.31.1.117 · Cited by 353
The social impact of natural language processing
Hovy, D., & Spruit, S. L. (2016) · Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-2096 · Cited by 329
Resilience to Online Censorship
Roberts, M. E. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032837 · Cited by 131
Capturing Clicks: How the Chinese Government Uses Clickbait to Compete for Visibility
Lu, Y., & Pan, J. (2021) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1765914 · Cited by 130
Censored Planet: An Internet-wide, Longitudinal Censorship Observatory
Sundara Raman, R., Shenoy, P., Kohls, K., & Ensafi, R. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3372297.3417883 · Cited by 75
On Predicting Deletions of Microblog Posts
Bagdouri, M., & Oard, D. W. (2015) · Proceedings of the 24th ACM International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/2806416.2806600 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Bamman, D., O'Connor, B., & Smith, N.
- Venue
- First Monday
- Publisher
- University of Illinois Libraries
- Published
- 2012-03-04
- ISSN
- 1396-0458 (ISSN-L)
- 1396-0466
- OpenAlex
- W2149920828
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 70.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.