Despite being designed to go unnoticed, censorship apparatus would occasionally manifest itself under various circumstances. In this study, we formulate four layers of censorship exposure where individual users can come across censorship. We investigate how different layers of censorship exposure influence users’ opinion expressions. Results show that people tend to stay silent when the censorship in the global environment is intensive, whereas they tend to “rebel” against censorship by voicing their opinions, when they experience censorship themselves or witness censorship occurring to their friends or reference persons. We also find community acts as a critical buffer against the influences of censorship. Outspoken crowd could shield individuals from the fear of punishment and outspoken friends could mitigate individuals’ anger against censorship. In either case, individuals can be liberated from their overconcern with censorship and be empowered to act for themselves.
BammanDO’ConnorBSmithN (2012) Censorship and deletion practices in Chinese social media. First Monday17(3): 234.
2.
BarabásiAL (2002) Linked: The New Science of Networks. New York: Plume.
3.
BaxterJLeeD (2004) Understanding expressed low concern and latent concern near a hazardous waste treatment facility. Journal of Risk Research7(7–8): 705–729.
4.
BondesMSchucherG (2014) Derailed emotions: the transformation of claims and targets during the Wenzhou online incident. Information Communication and Society17(1): 45–65.
5.
BrehmJW (1966) A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.
6.
BrownJJReingenPH (1987) Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research14(3): 350–362.
7.
BurkeMKrautRE (2016) The relationship between Facebook use and well-being depends on communication type and tie strength. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21(4): 265–281.
8.
CameronACTrivediPK (2013) Regression Analysis of Count Data, vol. 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CarverCSHumphriesC (1981) Havana daydreaming: a study of self-consciousness and the negative reference group among Cuban Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40(3): 545–552.
10.
CentolaD (2010) The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science329(5996): 1194–1197.
11.
CentolaDMacyM (2007) Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology113(3): 702–734.
12.
ChenQ (2012) The impact of ignoring a level of nesting structure in multilevel mixture model: a Monte Carlo study. SAGE Open2(1): 1–10.
ChoiSYP (2020) When protests and daily life converge: the spaces and people of Hong Kong’s anti-extradition movement. Critique of Anthropology40(2): 277–282.
15.
ChristakisNAFowlerJH (2007) The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine357(4): 370–379.
16.
CNNIC (2019) Forty-Third Statistical Report on Internet Development in China. Beijing, China: CNNIC.
17.
CreemersR (2017) Cyber China: upgrading propaganda, public opinion work and social management for the twenty-first century. Journal of Contemporary China26(103): 85–100.
18.
DeLisleJGoldsteinAYangG (2016) The internet, social media, and a changing China. In: DeLisleJGoldsteinAYangG (eds) The Internet, Social Media, and a Changing China. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 1–27.
19.
Del VicarioMVivaldoGBessiA, et al. (2016) Echo chambers: emotional contagion and group polarization on Facebook. Scientific Reports6: 37825.
20.
EndeshawA (2004) Internet regulation in China: the never-ending cat and mouse game. Information and Communications Technology Law13(1): 41–57.
21.
EvelandWPThomsonT (2006) Is it talking, thinking, or both? A lagged dependent variable model of discussion effects on political knowledge. Journal of Communication56(3): 523–542.
22.
FinkelSE (1995) Causal Analysis with Panel Data (Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
FowlerJHChristakisNA (2008) Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ337: a2338.
24.
FoxNAHendersonHAMarshallPJ, et al. (2005) Behavioral inhibition: linking biology and behavior within a developmental framework. Annual Review of Psychology56(1): 235–262.
25.
FuKWChauM (2014) Use of microblogs in grassroots movements in China: exploring the role of online networking in agenda setting. Journal of Information Technology and Politics11(3): 309–328.
26.
FuKWChanCHChauM (2013) Assessing censorship on microblogs in China. IEEE Internet Computing17(3): 2–10.
27.
FuWW (2012) Selecting online videos from graphics, text, and view counts : the moderation of popularity bandwagons. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(1): 46–61.
28.
GallagherMMillerB (2019) Who not what: the logic of China’s information control strategy. Working Paper. Available at: http://blakeapm.com/
GleissMS (2015) Speaking up for the suffering (br)other: Weibo activism, discursive struggles, and minimal politics in China. Media, Culture and Society37(4): 513–529.
31.
GlynnCJParkE (1997) Reference groups, opinion intensity, and public opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research9(3): 213–232.
32.
GlynnCJHayesAFShanahanJ (1997) Perceived support for one’s opinions and willingness to speak out: a meta-analysis of survey studies on the “spiral of silence.”Public Opinion Quarterly61(3): 452–463.
33.
GranovetterMSSoongR (1988) Threshold models of diversity: Chinese restaurants, residential segregation, and the spiral of silence. Sociological Methodology18: 69–104.
34.
GrayJA (1982) Précis of the neuropsychology of anxiety: an enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. Behavioral and Brain Sciences5(3): 469–484.
35.
HarriganNAchananuparpPLimEP (2012) Influentials, novelty, and social contagion. Social Networks34(4): 470–480.
36.
HobbsWRRobertsME (2018) How sudden censorship can increase access to information. American Political Science Review112(3): 621–636.
HugEC (2013) The role of isolation in radicalization: how important is it? Master’s Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
39.
JansenSCMartinB (2015) The Streisand effect and censorship backfire. International Journal of Communication9: 656–671.
40.
JiangM (2016a) Managing the micro-self: the governmentality of real name registration policy in Chinese microblogosphere. Information Communication and Society19(2): 203–220.
41.
JiangM (2016b) The coevolution of the internet, (un)civil society, and authoritarianism in China. In: DeLisleJGoldsteinAYangG (eds) The Internet, Social Media, and a Changing China. Pennsylvania, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 28–48.
42.
JiangMFuKW (2018) Chinese social media and big data: big data, big brother, big profit?Policy and Internet10(4): 372–392.
43.
KangYZhangCWangXT (2015, June) Analysis of sentiment transition of retweeting messages on Sina Weibo. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on management, information and educational engineering (MIEE 2014), Xiamen, China, 22–23 November 2014, p. 105. CRC Press.
44.
KingGPanJRobertsME (2013) How censorship in China allows government criticism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review107(2): 326–343.
45.
KingGPanJRobertsME (2014) Reverse-engineering censorship in China: randomized experimentation and participant observation. Science345(6199): 1251722.
46.
KitchinR (2013) Big data and human geography: opportunities, challenges and risks. Dialogues in Human Geography3(3): 262–267.
47.
KraftMEClaryBB (1991) Citizen participation and the NIMBY syndrome: public response to radioactive waste disposal. Western Political Quarterly44(2): 299–328.
48.
KrassaMA (1988) Social groups, selective perception, and behavioral contagion in public opinion. Social Networks10(2): 109–136.
49.
LeeSY (2016) Surviving online censorship in China: three satirical tactics and their impact. China Quarterly228: 1061–1080.
QinBStrömbergDWuY (2017) Why does China allow freer social media? Protests versus surveillance and propaganda. Journal of Economic Perspectives31(1): 117–140.
SternREHassidJ (2012) Amplifying silence: uncertainty and control parables in contemporary China. Comparative Political Studies45(10): 1230–1254.
67.
StockmannD (2018) Toward area-smart data science: critical questions for working with big data from China. Policy and Internet10(4): 393–414.
68.
StoycheffE (2016) Under surveillance: examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA internet monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly93(2): 296–311.
69.
SullivanJ (2012) A tale of two microblogs in China. New Media & Society34(6): 773–783.
70.
SullivanJ (2014) China’s Weibo: is faster different?New Media & Society16(1): 24–37.
71.
TsuiL (2003) The panopticon as the antithesis of a space of freedom: control and regulation of the internet in China. China Information17(2): 65–82.
WackerG (2003) The internet and censorship in China. In: HughesCRWackerG (eds) China and the Internet: Politics of the Digital Leap Forward. London: Routledge, pp. 58–82.
74.
WangQJinYYangT, et al. (2017) An emotion-based independent cascade model for sentiment spreading. Knowledge-Based Systems116: 86–93.
75.
WellsCCramerKJWagnerMW, et al. (2017) When we stop talking politics: the maintenance and closing of conversation in contentious times. Journal of Communication67(1): 131–157.
76.
WexlerMN (1996) A sociological framing of the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) syndrome. International Review of Modern Sociology26: 91–110.
77.
WorchelSBakerMCarolinaN (1975) The effects of censorship on attitude change: the influence of censor and communication characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology5(3): 227–239.
78.
YanCDillardJPShenF (2010) The effects of mood, message framing, and behavioral advocacy on persuasion. Journal of Communication60(2): 344–363.
79.
YangG (2004) The co-evolution of the internet and civil society in China. Asian Survey43(3): 405–422.
ZengJChanCHFuKW (2017) How social media construct “truth” around crisis events: Weibo’s rumor management strategies after the 2015 Tianjin blasts. Policy and Internet9(3): 297–320.
82.
ZhuTPhippsDPridgenA, et al. (2013) The velocity of censorship: high-fidelity detection of microblog post deletions. In: Proceedings of the 22nd USENIX security symposium, Washington, DC, 14–16 August, pp. 227–240. Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.
83.
ZhuYFuKW (2020) Mapping ideological landscape of social media: a neural network approach. In: ICA (International Communication Association), 69th annual ICA conference. Virtual conference 20–27 May 2020. Washington, DC, United States. Available at: https://juniorworld.github.io/YunerZhu_Ideology_underreview.pdf
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
