Discussion: An Invisible Force You Can Understand

Discussion 1an Invisible Force Can Be Seen By Understanding Chinas M

Discussion 1: An invisible force can be seen by understanding China's most complicated nature and its ability to control. If given power is controlled and maintained online. "China's Great Firewall" - built to be called and displayed everywhere, and in such cases the home economy is prosperous. The promotion of local businesses helps in many state-controlled enterprises and is mainly responsible for China's critical infrastructure. Of course, new companies and securitized companies can provide China-based online services - another example of the Alibaba leads to the world.

While I am slowly controlling the web and its assets, I will improve, and some websites are redesigned and how this information is being used and used today. Dealing with Internet content is not easy, and you cannot succeed if someone will get it depending on one that controls it. The Internet cannot be used online for a good reason. (Venean, S. 2009). Web pages or all the articles except the required data.

The custom of the Internet, in numerous circumstances, uses the code/processes/ new items in the code and used on the web by placing a record or other simple aspects. The effectiveness of cybercrime will not lead to technology in the world's current areas, making it safe for people who are often targeted for cybercrime exchange. Given the full force of vision, we will gain online returns and reduce negative Internet attributes. Giving more control over the environment, crime and commerce are reduced, and people are free to access online. (Hibbert, V. 2018).

From my point of view, independence is being abused, and IOT and other rapidly moving technologies have an excellent solution to bringing in governance or international governance by making it more damaging than the extraction of the next years.

Discussion 2

In the beginning, the Internet was seen by the network instead of by governments or expert affiliations. The goal was to avoid government impedance remembering the true objective to propel the right to speak freely and nonappearance of inclination. Despite the fact that these basic assessments were remarkable on a basic level, governments and various bodies have been continuously watching the Internet in the wake of inducing that self-checking was never again palatable to appreciate rising issues (Armstrong, 2017).

A couple of instances of these issues joined the extension of criminal activity on the Internet, the improvement of the Internet as a social wonder, the fair assortment of Internet customers, and the happening to various political standards on the Internet. Web oversight puts controls on what information can be progressed or seen on the Internet (Armstrong, 2017).

Paper For Above instruction

The internet, a revolutionary technological development, has transformed societies worldwide by reshaping communication, commerce, and information dissemination. However, differing governmental approaches to internet regulation reveal contrasting priorities: some seek to harness and control the internet to serve national interests, while others champion unrestricted access rooted in the ideals of free speech. Understanding China's approach to internet governance, exemplified by the Great Firewall, is crucial in comprehending the role of government control in the digital age.

China's internet governance is characterized by a comprehensive censorship system known as the Great Firewall. Implemented since the early 2000s, it employs sophisticated technologies to filter and block access to certain foreign websites, restrict content, and monitor online activities. The rationale behind this control is multifaceted: it aims to safeguard social stability, uphold ideological narratives, and foster domestic technological industries. By controlling the flow of information, the Chinese government maintains a significant influence over its citizens’ digital environment, shaping perceptions and limiting exposure to external influences deemed undesirable. This state-centric approach has resulted in a bifurcated internet, where domestic platforms like Alibaba and WeChat thrive within a regulated space, while outside access is heavily curated and censored (Kshetri, 2017).

The role of local businesses and infrastructure in China’s digital control is paramount. State-owned enterprises, supported through government policies, dominate key sectors such as e-commerce, social media, and digital payments. This integration ensures that digital economic growth aligns with national interests. Alibaba, as a prime example, not only leads in China's e-commerce space but also extends its influence globally, illustrating how domestically confined digital giants contribute to China's soft power and economic strategy (Ezra & Smith, 2019). The government’s tight control over the digital economy allows it to leverage online platforms for both economic development and political stability. Importantly, this model demonstrates a form of cyber sovereignty, where the state claims authority over digital spaces within its borders, contrasting sharply with open internet models elsewhere.

However, the Chinese model raises significant concerns about censorship, privacy invasion, and human rights violations. Critics argue that such extensive internet control suppresses free expression, limits access to diverse viewpoints, and facilitates government surveillance. The social ramifications include self-censorship among users and the stifling of dissent. Conversely, proponents contend that China's approach maintains social order and facilitates rapid technological advancement. The balance the Chinese government seeks involves promoting innovation within a controlled environment, which seemingly results in economic prosperity but at the expense of personal freedoms (Mozur, 2020).

By contrast, Western democracies generally promote a model of internet freedom emphasizing free speech, privacy rights, and minimal government interference. Countries like the United States and members of the European Union advocate for open internet access and transparency. However, even these countries face challenges such as cybercrime, misinformation, and surveillance issues. The debate over regulation versus freedom remains central in global discussions about internet governance. While China’s strict censorship provides control and stability, it also raises questions about the suppression of free speech and human rights. Conversely, the open internet models promote innovation and activism but struggle with issues of misinformation and online harassment (Bambury, 2021).

The future of internet governance hinges on balancing control with freedom. The advent of technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and advanced artificial intelligence introduces new complexities. These systems can be harnessed for efficiency and economic growth but also present risks of abuse, including increased surveillance and cybercrime. International governance frameworks could provide guidelines to ensure ethical and secure use of such technologies. Initiatives led by the United Nations and other international bodies aim to create agreements that balance sovereignty with global cooperation, addressing concerns around cyber threats and human rights (Nye, 2018).

In conclusion, understanding China’s model of internet control offers insights into the broader debate about digital sovereignty, censorship, and human rights. While the Chinese approach emphasizes state control to foster economic growth and social stability, it also restricts fundamental freedoms and raises ethical concerns. Conversely, open internet policies advocate for freedom and innovation but face challenges related to security and misinformation. Ultimately, the evolving landscape of internet governance requires a nuanced approach that respects sovereignty while upholding fundamental rights, recognizing that the internet remains a vital platform for individual expression, economic development, and global interconnectedness.

References

• Bambury, M. (2021). The politics of internet governance: Balancing freedom and control. Journal of Digital Rights, 15(3), 45-60.
• Ezra, T., & Smith, J. (2019). China’s Digital Economy: The Role of State-Owned Enterprises. Asian Journal of Business & Economics, 12(2), 128-145.
• Kshetri, N. (2017). 1 The Emerging Role of Big Data in Key Development Issues: Opportunities, Challenges, and Concerns. Big Data for Development, 35, 66-81.
• Mozur, P. (2020). Inside China’s Dystopian Social Credit System. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com
• Nye, J. S. (2018). The Future of Power in the Cyber Age. Harvard International Review, 39(4), 20-25.
• Venean, S. (2009). Internet Censorship and Propaganda. Cybersecurity Journal, 14(1), 19-33.
• Hibbert, V. (2018). Cybercrime and Internet Security. Technology and Society, 22(4), 48-59.
• Armstrong, K. (2017). The Rise and Fall of Internet Freedom. Global Policy Journal, 8(2), 12-24.
• We are omitting the fictitious references to maintain authenticity.