Besides its size, Baidu’s cloud drive offers features that will make downloading, streaming and sharing content extremely easy. The user can download content directly from a link or via torrent file link. They can also share content seamlessly between accounts, on the web via links, and across various Chinese social platforms.

One of the advantage of such affordable storage and sharing capacity is that it can support semi-public information and content sharing among users, in a truly “social” manner as opposed to broadcasting, and in large bulks as well. And this, to Chinese netizens, is quite significant if not groundbreaking.

Compared to US internet users, Chinese netizens seem to prefer small-community based, semi-public communication to completely open and public communication. An example of this is the localization of microblogging sites in China. Compared to Twitter’s open platform, for instance, China’s Sina Weibo is designed in such ways so that it allows users to have more control over the perimeter of the reception of the information they share on the platform (for details, see my dissertation “The shapes of cultures“). These changes, however, have somewhat rendered Weibo a kind of mutant where Twitter’s open and fast information dissemination and chat applications’ ability to support specified audience for closed communication are both lost. The fast rise of Tencent’s WeChat, an application based on chat application incorporating functions for group chat and semi-public broadcast (via its “public handles” for instance), is evident of Chinese netizens’ preference to somewhat private small community sharing. (There’s a multitude of reasons for such a preference that I will not be able to expound in detail here. Historically, China being a family-centered, politically and culturally centralized society, public discourse has always been discouraged since it entails great risk, socially and politically, and uncertainty to individuals. Secrecy, thus, has been a characteristic in all kinds of communication. The Communist Party really only continued such a tradition, although at times it has exacerbated its control over public discourse. In this sense, fear is a big factor that makes netizens to desire a sense of control over who can access their speech.)

With China’s increasingly harsh crackdown on “illegal” content online, Baidu’s cloud drive can become a channel for relatively safe content sharing, including large file sharing such as movies and videos, among smaller groups of users. Its P2P feature can step up once websites that distribute “illegal” content, such as foreign movies and TV shows, are close down by the government. That, however, depends on whether Baidu can protect users’ privacy from the government, which, with the lesson we learned from the NSA in the US, is probably an unreasonable expectation. On the other hand, such surveillance at least will allow Baidu to continue to provide this service. As a user myself, although it probably means that I’ll have to self-censor when I upload and share content on Baidu’s cloud drive, I still hope the life-long offer will last as Baidu promises.

According to Xinjing Bao, a Beijing based newspaper, the government shut down 16 websites because of their “creating and spreading rumors and negligence in management” which have resulted in “extremely negative social impact.” However, Beijing and Guangdong Internet administrative agencies only “severely criticized” Sina Weibo (based in Beijing) and TencentWeibo (based in Guangdong) and “punished them accordingly.” However, there is no information about the specifics of the “punishment.” Xinjing Bao also reports that “the two websites have agreed to abide the relevant laws, implement corrective measures, and further strengthen management.”

I tested both microblogging websites this afternoon and it appears that users can post, comment and repost microblogs as usually. As to what measures the websites are going to implement to “strengthen” their management, I haven’t seen any signs of stricter censorship or blockage.

It is possible that the commenting and reposting functions on weibo sites were suspended and recovered shortly, for some netizens have complained the blockage of comments on these sites. A journalist posted in the group “Chinese Journalists” on Sina Weibo, criticizing the government for “fabricating a harmonious society.” “It’s fine that you (the government) are shameless,” he wrote, “but what makes you really shameless is to block weibo‘s comments.”

It is still unclear what is going to happen to these websites. It will be hard for the government to flat-out close or directly censor these websites largely because of economic reasons. Moreover, like the journalist mentioned earlier, many Chinese are no longer willing to accept whatever imposed on them, and those who see weibo a freer and more open space for information sharing and public debate, many of whom are opinion leaders in China, will not let it to be smothered without a fight.

Updates:

April 1, 1:15 PM EST – As of now, Sina Weibo disabled commenting, but still allows reposting. On Sina Weibo, a message says when one clicks on “comments”: “From March 31, 8 AM, to April 3, 8 AM, commenting is suspended temporarily. We apologize for the inconvenience.” The reason for suspension, according to Sina Weibo, is so that website can “cleanse” the website of “harmful” and “illegal” information.

On Tencent Weibo, it seems commenting and reposting are both still functioning.

April 2, 6:25 PM EST – Tencent Weibo has blocked commenting, citing the same reason as Sina Weibo. However, posting, reposting, and modified reposting are still functioning properly.

Both Sina and Tencent schedule to reopen commenting function at 8 AM on April 3 Beijing Time. That’s less than two hours from now. It seems that the suspension of commenting on these websites are meant for purging the existing posts. Even it is only temporary, netizens are very unhappy and expressive about it. “Two more hours to go? I suddenly want to lash out at someone,” Hong Huang, a well-known business woman and opinion leader, wrote on Sina Weibo, and her sentiment is certainly shared by many.

April 2, 10:58 PM EST – Sina Weibo is back to normal. Commenting is allowed.

If there’s an internet policy that everybody hates, this might well be the one. People on Weibo don’t hold back ranting about it.

“I’m out of here ,” a Sina Weibo user writes.

Weibo has been a unique space where Chinese can disseminate information and express opinions and views with considerable freedom. That’s why weibo has been so successful since its launching in 2009. According to the latest statistics published by China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) in July 2011, among the 485 million Chinese internet users, 195 million were on weibo. Now the government is tightening its grip on this relatively free space, and Chinese are not hesitant to condemn the authoritarian government this time, hoping this will not be the last time they can do it.

A microblogger cites from George Orwell’s 1984, “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU,” and another virtually shouts out, “Democracy??? Freedom??? Where??? ”

“Our country is really highly civilized. Are we going back to the time of North Korea?” a Sina Weibo user writes sarcastically.

Many comments are bold and humorous:

“I thought of the Culture Revolution, and thought crimes…”

“Now I’ll just be a real onlooker.”

“Everybody dies, and some die of identity verification…”

“To block people’s mouths is more difficult than to block a river.”

Some people threaten to “climb over the wall,” meaning to use proxy servers to get around the Great Firewall the Chinese government put in to control online information. However, it seems that using web proxies really won’t really help if one wants to use weibo without identity verification, although users in China can switch to Twitter through proxies, which is banned in China.

Another way to get around this is to switch to another service that doesn’t require identity verification, such as google+, as suggested by some people, but if the government can require weibo service providers to verify the identities of their users, it can require any service provider to do so, if it comes to it.

To appease its users, Sina Weibo offers free accident insurance to 20 thousand existing users a day who verify their identities, but many users don’t buy it.

“There’re risks involved in identity verification, so they offer you free accident insurance,” a user jokes about Sina’s incentive.

“People around you will start to disappear now! Ping’an Insurance is going to make a lot of money now!” another writes. Ping’an is a big insurance company in China.

Of course, some people are more concerned about the security of their privacy than freedom of speech:

“I’d say, we should first talk about how our private information is not going to be leaked, and then we can talk about identity verification,” a microblogger writes.

“I just verified my information, and immediate regret it. Who’s going to be responsible if my information is leaked?” another writes.

Most people are still waiting to see where this is going. “Take this last chance to post as much as you can,” a microblogger writes, “tomorrow you won’t be able to even if you want .”

Let me first backtrack a little bit. Despite the occasional blocking of sensitive terms and topics (read examples here and here), the Chinese government had been quite lenient with microblogging, or weibo, according to the “Chinese standards” of course. People actually can get information and talk about things on weibo sites the way they can’t anywhere else. Many people also use weibo as a venue to express their dissatisfaction and critical views about the government, officials, or social vile.

But that may change now, as the Beijing authorities finally behaved as it was almost expected to. The City issued a regulation today requiring all the weibo service providers registered in Beijing to require their users to verify their real identities before they can post on weibo sites. The regulation requires the providers to “prohibit and limit users who disseminate harmful information and to report to the police department immediately when they are aware of actions that endanger the safety and security of society or of possible criminal activities.” To emphasize, it reiterates that the service providers must “assist and cooperate with concerned agencies in their regulating effort.”

Since two of the most popular weibo service providers Sina (weibo.com) and Sohu (t.sohu.com) are both registered in Beijing, this regulation can have unprecedented impact on the social media scene in China.

On Sina’s weibo.com, users are enraged by this regulation. “There’s one kind of rapists: because raping everyone has been going so smoothly, [they] are not excited any more,” one user writes, “so [they] figured out a new trick: the rape victims must report their real names so as to satisfy the rapists’ new fetish… They gave this regulating measure an appropriate name—identity verification.”

Many weibo users fire at the government’s and officials’ lack of transparency in comparison with their control over citizens privacy. “It is incredibly difficult to make [the information of] officials’ assets public, but it only takes a piece of paper [for the government] to violate citizens’ privacy,” another user writes. “What is dictatorship? This is it! Have you discussed it with citizens before you made any policy? What is dictatorship? This is it!,” she/he continues.

Another user writes: “My weibo identity is verified, but have your assets been verified? … have your overseas green cards been verified? … has your using government vehicles for private use been verified? … has your using public funds for personal use been verified? … have your shabby construction projects been verified…? Weibo is no more than a social platform, just like people going to coffee shops or tea houses to chat. Have you ever seen anybody required to verify her/his identity to have a coffee?”

A user expresses her/his exasperation by depicting a very gloomy picture: “What’s going to happen after identity verification? What else can happen? Issuing laws to regulate the Internet, followed by prosecution based on speech (wenziyu), and then all those who are slightly critical of today’s society where the government officials conspire with businesses and thugs, where bribery and corruption [are rampant] will be thrown into jail. What else can it be? Today, rumor doesn’t even exist. There’re so many blood-boiling true stories that can’t be all told, and who has the time to spread rumors?”

Some users threaten to leave weibo.com. A user writes, “The day when weibo‘s identity verification takes effect, perhaps will also be the time when [I] say ‘goodbye’ to my friends online… It’s not that I’m afraid of anything, but I just don’t like it… I just don’t like it when I have to verify my identity before I open my mouth to chat… That is not chat… I might as well save the time to figure out things like Yi Jing and baguai.”

Others even threaten to take it to the street or the non-existing ballot booth. A user writes, “When there are fewer people on weibo, there will be more on the streets.” And another writes, “The day when weibo verifies identities is the day I vote with my feet!”

However, among all the angry voices, there’re some from whose who are not intimidated by the regulation. “Who’s scared of whom! If nobody’s scared, those thugs will be scared!” a user writes.

Another user points out that “the identities of most of the opinion leaders on weibo have been verified, which means that actually identity verification has long been applied to the core members of weibo. I hope people won’t see weibo‘s identity verification as intimidating. It’s just a paper tiger. Don’t be intimidated by it and stop talking from now. Just react to it like those who have been verified.”

He has a point. Identity verification has been offered as a service for public figures and celebrities long before the issuance of this regulation. Those with verified accounts are the ones who are the most popular and have the most influence on weibo, and many of them are quite vocal when it comes to commenting on social issues. However, this is also a group of elites who have more leverage confronting the authorities than ordinary citizens, who are more likely to be subject to sanction, often without even being known. The regulation is certainly worrisome.

Since Qin Dynastic in BC, the central government’s control over speech and culture has been consistently tight. There have been numerous periods when intellectuals and dissents were severely persecuted because of their speech or even their potential of speech. There have been a few moments in history when Chinese had a little bit more room to speak up and explore ideas, opinions and expressions, but they were all cut short, often accompanied by fire and blood. Are Chinese still willing to stand up for what we believe in? Is this the beginning of the end of another brief spring of relatively open public forum for information, ideas and expression in China?

“According to relevant laws and regulations, the search result of ‘Guangdong Wukan’ (广东乌坎) is not shown.” This is what you get if you type in “Guangdong Wukan” in Weibo’s search engine. The same alert will pop up if you type in “Xue Jinbo” (薛锦波).

In Chinese traditional medicine, a doctor can diagnose diseases by pressing the inner side of a patient’s wrist and feeling the pulse alone. It won’t be entirely unfair to say that Weibo’s search engine is like the wrist of China, one of the best places to feel the Chinese government’s pulse. It tells you what the government tolerates, or what it fears or feels absolutely paranoid about.

Since you’re reading this post, I assume you’ve known about the recent villagers’ revolt in Wukan, Guangdong in protest of the death of a villager under the custody of the police. Xue Jinbo was the said villager, one of the 13 representatives representing the villagers to negotiate with the local government on issues surrounding land seize, such as compensation. According to Xue’s family, his body had signs of torture. However, the forensic medical examiner’s report denied the possibility of abuse, and asserted that Xue died of cardiac arrest.

China News Service (CNS), a state news agency, reported the story (zh), which has been reposted on a few news websites. CNS reported that the situation in Wukan had been under control. It also asserted that the revolt was “provoked” by two village leaders, Lin Zulian and Yang Semao, who “spread rumors” and organized villagers to set up blockages to stop a “working group” to go into the village. “The blockages seriously disrupted villagers’ production and life,” according to CNS. The police arrested the two village leaders, who are waiting for punishment. Similar to Weibo, comments for the story are disabled on CNS and those websites that reposted it.

Nobody has a complete list of terms blocked in China online in general or on social media specifically. There are some classic standards such as “free Tibet” and “Taiwan independence,” but the list apparently keeps growing. Speaking only of this year, during the Arab Spring, “jasmine flower” was added to the list, and after Occupy Wall Street started this fall, for a certain time, “Occupy Wall Street” was also blocked. And only a couple of months later, these blocked terms have two new members.

I wouldn’t say that the government has tender nerves. After all, this year is the year of protest, and China is not entirely a country that’s short of things worth protesting.

Since October 6, on popular Chinese social media sites like Weibo (the Chinese equivalent of Twitter) and kaixin001.com (a Chinese version of Facebook), a grainy smartphone photo has been widely shared. It shows chrysanthemum bouquets leaning against a glass wall, propping up black- and-white photos of Steve Jobs. In front of the flowers sit a dozen scattered apples, all missing a bite. The accompanying text reads, “Shanghai. Nanjing Road. Countless Apples. Mourning a Genius.”

The shrine was set up outside of an Apple store in Shanghai for the late former CEO of Apple Inc., Steve Jobs, and it is just one drop of Chinese Apple fans’ outpouring grief rarely seen in China. Within two weeks after his death, 93 million postings appeared on Jobs’s tribute page on Weibo, the most on any single subject in the most popular Chinese social media’s two-year history. “Your products changed the world and your thinking influenced a generation,” one posting reads, and countless awe-struck remarks like this are still circulating on the Internet weeks after Jobs’s death.

Without a doubt, China has caught Applemania. It is Apple’s second largest market behind the US and the fastest growing one. The members of its rising middle class are hunger for Apple products, and their appetite is huge. For the fiscal year ended September 24, Apple’s sales in China rose to $13 billion from $3 billion. As CEO Tim Cook said, “China—the sky’s the limit there.”

However, this appetite is not without a price, perhaps more so to Chinese workers who assemble Apple’s slick gadgets than anybody else. Since 2009, numerous reports such as “iSlave Behind the iPhone” by NGOs, activists and media have exposed the harsh working and living conditions for workers working for Apple’s suppliers in China. The most notorious among them is Foxconn, Apple’s largest contractor. In the first six months of 2010, thirteen Foxconn workers threw themselves out of the company’s tall buildings. The suicides happened so frequently that the company was nicknamed by Chinese netizens “suicide express.”

Foxconn is not the only Apple contractor that is extremely exploitive. According to a report by 36 environmental and activist groups, “The Other Side of Apple,” a number of Apple’s contractors have occupational safety issues, environmental protection issues and labor issues. One of the cases involved the use of a toxic chemical to clean the touch screens for Apple products that got many workers sick.

Apple, while making billions of dollars each year, has turned a blind eye to these issues. After the series suicides in Foxconn, Apple conducted an investigation under the public pressure. It concluded that there were “a number of areas of improvement,” and the ways in which Foxconn attempted to improve the situation were to put safety nets around its buildings, ask the worker to sign an agreement promising they will not commit suicide upon employment, and install care hotline for workers that does not work.

What’s sad is that the suicides and cases of abuses and health hazards all happened in Apple’s plants when Chinese Apple fans flock to the Apple stores for the newest iPhones and iPads. And while hipsters in Beijing sought after the $2000 iPhone 4GS on the gray market before its official release, the workers working for Apple’s suppliers may never be able to own any of the trendy gadgets they made. Making about $5 a day, a worker would have to spend about four months of her wages to buy an iPhone.

There is a stark difference between two worlds. While media and consumers hail Jobs for his “innovation” and “vision” in one world, they conveniently turn away from the real lives—not the abstract branding concepts—in another world, lives that have actually created Apple’s wealth.

But Applemania is not new. It is the quintessence of the old consumerism, now more than ever spreading across the globe. It is easier for us to hate Wal-Mart than Apple, because we adore iPhones and iPads and despise the “shoddy goods” that are “made in China,” although they are made in factories perhaps just miles away from each other. This fetish for Apple gadgets, here in the US and in China, is at the root of our double standards for corporate responsibility.

“Although every suicide is tragic, Foxconn’s rate is well below the China average (which is false). We are all over this,” Jobs wrote in an email in response to a Chinese Apple device user’s demand “Apple can do better!” This is hardly the same demigod worshiped by Apple fans in China, or anywhere. Or is it?