Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of internet censorship, which is represented by the Great Fire Wall, on Chinese internet users’ self-censorship.

A 3×2 factorial experiment (n=315) is designed. Different patterns of censorship (soft censorship, compared censorship, and hard censorship) and the justification of internet regulation are involved in the experiment as two factors. The dependent variable is self-censorship which is measured through the willingness to speak about sensitive issues and the behavior of refusing to sign petitions with true names.

The results show that perceived internet censorship significantly decreases the willingness to talk about sensitive issues and the likelihood of signing petitions with true names. The justification of censorship significantly decreases self-censorship on the behaviors of petition signing. Although there are different patterns of internet censorship that Chinese netizens may encounter, they do not differ from each other in causing different levels of self-censorship.

The subjects are college students who were born in the early 1990s, and the characteristics of this generation may influence the results of the experiment. The measurement of self-censorship could be refined.

The study contributes to the body of literature about internet regulation because it identifies a causal relationship between the government’s internet censorship system and ordinary people’s reaction to the regulation in an authoritarian regime. Unpacking different patterns of censorship and different dimensions of self-censorship depicts the complexity of censoring and being censored.

This paper aims to investigate whether citizens censor their own expressions regarding large corporations in social networking sites (SNS) and how self-censorship is associated with the perceived power of, knowledge about and media exposure about large corporations.

A nationwide survey was conducted in South Korea (N = 455). The data were analyzed with structural equation modeling.

As exposure to news about large corporations increased, the degree of self-censorship regarding large corporations increased. This effect of media exposure on self-censorship was mediated by the amount of knowledge about large corporations and the perceived power of large corporations.

Although this study focused on the SNS context, the results of this study cannot provide the features of the self-censorship process that are distinct in SNS compared to other contexts. Although a causal model was provided based on theoretical reasoning, the nature of the data is correlational. Thus, one should be cautious when interpreting the results.

The findings suggest that, while establishing privacy protection policies with regard to the SNS, policy makers need to consider how to prevent invasion of privacy and misuse of personal data by large corporations, interest groups and the unspecified public.

This study extends the literature related to self-censorship by identifying the effects of economic power and the psychological factors involved in self-censorship.

Creative processes halt when those who generate creative ideas self‐censor them. Self‐censorship may become a greater concern in performance management as organizations of the future are likely to face growing pressures to be creative, innovative, and adaptive. Self‐censorship was addressed in early research on managing the performance of brainstorming groups, and may have broad implications for creative performance in many facets of today’s organizations. This paper re‐examines the research on self‐censorship in view of recent management and social psychology research in an effort to better understand how the self‐esteem motive and a lack of self‐concept clarity cause self‐censorship. Person‐focused and feedback‐focused strategies to reduce self‐censorship are described, and directions for future research are suggested.

Academic freedom is often constrained by self-censorship. Measurement of this constraint is difficult because it is often unconscious, so it is useful to explore the underlying motivations. Greater-good arguments are an important motivator of self-censorship. Humans are social creatures who fear being accused of harming the greater good. When a scholar’s findings conflict with a paradigm alleged to serve the greater good, self-censorship is tempting. However, the greater good is not necessarily served by paradigms that invoke it. Discrepant data often lead to truths that a dominant paradigm obscures. Thus, the greater good is better served by a free flow of evidence than by conforming to a paradigm that evokes the greater good. This chapter presents an example in the Social Sciences. The paradigm of social harmony in the state of nature appears to serve the greater good, and evidence of aggression in the state of nature is often dismissed. But understanding the conflict in the state of nature can help people manage aggression today. This example can help scholars recognize and transcend the natural tendency to self-censor.

This paper aims to investigate behavioural changes related to self-censorship (SC) in social networking sites (SNSs) as new methods of online surveillance are introduced. In particular, it examines the relationships between SC and four related factors: privacy concerns (PC), privacy awareness (PA), perceived vulnerability (PV) and information management (IM).

A national wide survey was conducted in the UK (N = 519). The data were analysed to present both descriptive and inferential statistical findings.

The level of online SC increases as the level of privacy concern increases. The level of privacy concern increases as the levels of PA and PV increase and the level of effective IM decreases.

This study extends the literature on online SC, showing that PCs increase the level of SC in SNSs. It provides support for three antecedent factors to PC which impact upon levels of SC when communicating in SNSs.

The question of how we know when censorship occurred has several sides. Problems of evidence of censorship do not only arise from practical obstacles, but also from its very nature as a knowledge-related phenomenon. Scarcity and abundance of information about censorship may be determined by the extent of the censors’ success or by uneven research efforts. These factors often make it complicated to demarcate censorship from similar restrictions and to identify patterns and trends in the relationship between power and freedom. The present chapter looks into this epistemological problem by mapping the set of concepts governing and surrounding censorship in the particular field of history. It draws up a mini-dictionary with definitions of 26 key concepts related to, larger than, and different from the censorship of history. As these definitions are interrelated, the set in its entirety forms a taxonomy.

This chapter argues that self-respect—an integral, but often overlooked value in discussions of social justice—provides a robust foundation upon which libraries might build a renewed defense of privacy and intellectual freedom in the face of today’s advanced information and communication technologies.

The chapter begins by laying out the value of self-respect for social justice as it has been defined in the domains of moral and political philosophy. From there, the author demonstrates the relevance of self-respect for libraries and, in particular, for underwriting important library values like privacy and intellectual freedom. Finally, the author presents two case examples—Library 2.0 and #AmazonFAIL—that further demonstrate how advanced ICTs have the potential to undermine libraries as a site of self-respect.

Through the use of relevant and current case examples, the chapter lays bare how the adoption of new ICTs and an uncritical adherence to Library 2.0 (and the Web 2.0 ideology that underwrites it) threatens to further marginalize users unable to navigate the increasingly complex (and increasingly opaque) systems of data collection, analysis, and dissemination.

This discussion surfaces and translates the value of self-respect from moral and political philosophy and makes it available for librarians and scholars interested in social justice issues in library and information science. Further, it preserves two key historical moments—the rise of Library 2.0 and the case of #AmazonFAIL—for current and future reflections by scholars, librarians, and other information professionals.