UNIQLO has become a location for photo ops after the scandal.

A video of a young couple having sex in a fitting room of Uniqlo’s Sanlitun store in Beijing went viral on Wednesday and was deleted shortly after by censors. The discussion about this latest episode of “pornographic” private content leaks online that has continued in its wake, however, touches on issues that are gaining attention from the Chinese public.

The minute-long video, taken with a smart phone and showing a young couple — allegedly two college students — was spread on social media such as Sina Weibo and WeChat and viewed by millions of people before it was deleted on the order of the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) for violating the “socialist values.”

This isn’t the first time that explicit images and videos were leaked online in China despite the fact that the distribution of pornography is a criminal offense in the country. In 2008, more than a thousand of naked photos of several Hong Kong A-list movie and pop stars taken by singer-actor Edison Chen were leaked, which resulted in the arrests of at least ten people. In the Mainland China, a number of sex videos of government officials (e.g., Lei Zhengfu and several Fuzhou officials) and university professors (on a side note, in 2014, an appalling 57% of female college students in China said they had been sexually harassed by their professors) were leaked by their mistresses, whom have been hailed by many as a sort of heroines in combating corruption.

The Uniqlo’s sex video leak, however, is a different case in that it doesn’t involve celebrities or public/semi-public figures. This couple in the video are private persons and their sexual act appeared to be consensual, that is, with no apparent power imbalance or coercion implied as in the cases of officials and professors. Perhaps that was partly why rumors arose saying that the leak was either a marketing stunt by Uniqlo or the young couple’s attention seeking attempt. The Japanese fast fashion giant has since issued a statement denying its role in the distribution of the video. As to the young couple, their identities have not been officially disclosed, although attempts of revealing them, or what Chinese Internet users call “renrou,” have been made by hackers and several people’s personal information has been published online. In this Internet frenzy, one also sees ultra nationalist chatters advocating boycotting Japanese goods (as every time a Japanese company is involved in a controversy) and of course, slut shaming rhetoric springing from a self-righteous sense of morality and perhaps a kind of voyeuristic impulse.

No surprise there, but what’s worth noting is that in the midst of all this noise, there are thoughtful voices that demand our attention. For instance, in an article titled “Uniqlo and Lewinsky: the Price and Profit of the Shaming Economy” trending on the popular social media platform WeChat, author Wen Yan draws attention to Internet privacy and public shaming. Relating to Monica Lewinsky’s TED talk in March, she argues that in the age the Internet, there’s a certain “shaming economy” at work that allows corporations and individuals to profit at others’ expense:

The shaming economy is a tightly knit industrial chain, which, relying on an central event and by leaking private content via viral distribution, shames a particular individual while extracts value from public attention and profits from it. The price to pay in the shaming economy may be a young woman’s youth and reputation, but the profits are shared by leakers and certain groups. Everyone who has shared embarrassing photos and videos is a promoter of this economic chain, who amplifies the harm done to the victims and accumulates profits for those who benefit [from such distribution].

The author then challenges her readers: “Precisely because power can be easily put in your hand, will you chose to take the whip and wave it recklessly, or keep silence and think for yourself?”

On a different note, Dou Wentao of Phoenix TV, a Hong Kong-based Chinese television network, reflected on the phenomenon of ungrounded speculation of publicity stunt in the aftermath of the leak, attributing it to the seemingly ubiquitous presence of marketing and advertising in every slip of the Chinese social and private life and a growing fame-seeking culture. He said on his talk show:

Nowadays in China, many things in society perplex me. My judgment on this event is no judgment, because nothing is what it appears, and people’s thinking has become conditioned [accordingly]. Our producer, for instance, at once believed it was a publicity scheme. Have you noticed that nowadays, there isn’t any serious discussion, because all the discussion is about things being a media hype. This makes one not want to discuss anything.

Not without irony — since he himself is a high profile media personality — Dou expressed a deep anxiety rooted in the suspicion of the media in the grip of the government AND corporate power. Because of the lack of transparency, both in the sense of censorship and the aggressive marketing culture in today’s China, it’s very difficult for the public to construct a reality that corresponds accurately to the reality they live in as citizens and consumers. For years, the Chinese government has been cracking down “rumors” spreading on the Internet and failed, precisely because “rumors” are only a way in which people respond to the conditions of communication greatly shaped by, obviously, the government and the cut-throat materialistic culture it supports.

Like others preceding it, the Uniqlo viral video will die down from the media — perhaps sooner than we think — as we move on to a fresh scandal. Let’s hope that next time we’ll deal with it better, with a bit more humanity and decency.

No one knows whether the City would have made this move if there were no public pressure for transparency on this issue, but anyone who has some understanding of China’s politics wouldn’t discount the power of public opinion expressed online. The City has been standing by their initial number of 37 since the torrential rain caused the deadly flood in the city. In fact, about 24 hours earlier, at the 2nd press conference held by the Beijing City Press Office after the flood, the reported death toll was still 37 (ZH). One would wonder if the authorities changed their mind in response to the public outcry for transparency.

One thing is for sure. The Chinese government is taking what people say online and what they think about official information seriously these days. On the afternoon of July 26, People’s Daily, the mouthpiece of the government, published an article titled, “The Casualty Number Is Not a ‘Sensitive Topic’” (ZH). Apparently, this article is written in response to people’s suspicion about the official death toll and their outrage about the government’s suppression of information and discussions about the flood online.

In the article, the author, People’s Daily‘s columnist Fan Zhengwei, first defended the government’s slow release of information in times of crises:

There is a well-known saying on the Internet, “When the truth is still putting on its shoes, the rumors have travelled across half of the world.” Different from citizens publishing information as individuals, the government has a process of verifying and synthesizing information; also, different from publishing information in real time online, the government has to follow a process of publishing statistics as well. Especially with the advances in new media technologies, mobile devices and weibo have pluralized the ways information is communicated, and the authorities today are met with more serious challenges [than ever before]. To a certain degree, we have to admit to a fact: in many cases, no matter how fast and timely official information is communicated, it always falls behind rumors and heresay on the Internet.

But then Fan cited the “international experience” in emergency response and information transparency, and seemed to try to appease people by acknowledging that the government has to communicate with the public better:

It is required qualities in authorities on every level to study the nature of communication in the Internet era, to respect the laws of public opinion development in the era of social media, to recognize the public concerns in a society of increasing awareness of rights, and to be able to build credibility through interactive communication. In fact, in terms of “negative news,” people are more concerned with the government’s attitude to the “negative news” [than the news itself]. As a comment about the casualty number a netizen left on the People’s Daily‘s official weibo page goes: “Only by confronting [problems], can [the government] resolve [them]; only [through its] dedication to resolving problems, can [the government] win people’s hearts and minds.”

Of course, this piece is still full of bureaucratic platitudes, and one would doubt whether this commitment to better communication is sincere. In other words, no one knows whether the government will truly commit to transparency or it will just use technologies and media with more sophistication so as to manipulate the public opinion. Nevertheless, when we see that the government has to directly answer to people’s outcries on weibo and other social media, we know that no one can discount the power of media technologies in empowering people to make their voices heard and to pressure the government to do better — despite the censorship.

The recent deadly flood in Beijing exposed the municipal government’s poor infrastructure and emergency response. The government didn’t have any effective warning system in place for the public. Taking advantage of the high cell phone use rate in China, some cities use text messaging to send out warnings to the public in case of emergencies. Of the 20 million permanent residents in Beijing, more than 95 percent own cell phones, but the city doesn’t have a text messaging warning system in place. The municipal government’s excuse is that it takes too long to send out text messages to such as big population, but a few days after the flood, telecommunication service providers such as Beijing Mobile and Beijing Telecomm issued statements that there is no such technical barrier as claimed by the Beijing city authority.

The authority is slow in response to the flood, but it has been quick to muzzle people’s mouths. Webmasters, under the pressure of the government, have been deleting the discussions about the flood, its casualty, and criticism of the government. The official death toll released on July 22, a day after a monstrous storm was 37. Days later, despite the increasing doubts raised in the public, the authority still stands by this number. In the cyber sphere, weibo users have been posting photos and witness accounts of the disaster, which have amounted to more suspicion in the public that the actual death toll is way larger than the officially released number.

“Liangxiang residents witnessed with their own eyes, that more than 20 bodies were recovered from the water this morning, and there are more under the water,” a netizen 鸥orianna posted. Liangxiang is a neighborhood in Beijing’s Fangshan District, where the food caused the most damage in the region.

Another post showed a still shot from a video in which a group of government officials waited for other people to pull out the bodies in the water and then took off their pants posing for publicity photos.

Both of these posts, however, were deleted by “little secretaries,” a name weibo netizens have given to the “security editors” hired by Sina to self-censor the site, shortly after they were posted. In fact, posts like these will only survive for a few hours on the website.

But the netizens haven’t given up. As the original posts are getting deleted, images of screen captures of these deleted posts started to be circulated fast. Because texts in the images are not searchable, it is harder for little secretaries to search for sensitive posts and delete them. Sometimes, instead of reposting, some people attach these images to their posts so that when the original post gets deleted, their posts won’t be affected.

Li Kaifu, an IT entrepreneur and opinion leader on Sina Weibo, even posted a tutorials of how to avoid posts getting deleted. “Don’t repost the original, but post the screen shot. This way, you can avoid getting into trouble, and can also save the screen shot for later use,” wrote Li.

Even these posts are disappearing too, but the hide-and-seek game between the netizens and the authority has just started. Netizen 摄影爱好兔 collected a long list of posts from witnesses of the flood, all of which had already been deleted, made it into a long image and posted it on Sina Weibo (see partial below). The post was reposted for more thousands of times before it was finally deleted by the administrator. However, new posts are still popping up, one at a time, keeping the little secretaries busy.

Two posts in a collection of deleted posts of images and witness accounts about Beijing’s flood in late July

The flood has passed, leaving rubles of buildings, damaged cars, and grieving families in Beijing. However, the flood of speech hasn’t been muzzled, despite the government’s effort to. On the contrary, people’s enthusiasm in participating in the public discourse has been going ever stronger. Maybe it is time for those in power to reconsider the ancient Chinese wisdom. For thousands of years, Chinese have seen too many times the demise of dynasties, and perhaps the authority should learn something from history after all.

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.

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?

Initially, shengnu has a derogatory undertone, a creation by ill intended men as some say. But now, many shengnu’s in China have turned the tables and owned the word, with confidence and even pride. This confidence sometimes is based on pure materialist views on relationships and life in general, and itself can be a form of sexism, but it nevertheless is confidence, something Chinese women have been discouraged to have by society and even their families. The Communist Party of China has always claimed to promote gender equality. My parents’ and my generation of Chinese grew up believing “women can hold up half the sky,” a quotation from Mao. But the reality is, women in China have never enjoyed true equality with men socially, economically, or politically. They have been often used as resources by the state such as in 50’s, or sacrificed so men can have resources for economic and political success. Cultually, sexism has never died out in China and seems to be increasingly pervasive in various forms nowadays. Owning shengnu, to many independent single women, is a way to resist and, indeed, a personal triumph over the male dominant society.

The following music video, “No Car, No House,” is a good example of this confidence of shengnu. It features a song sang by a group of shengnu’s. It’s circulated widely on major Chinese video sharing sites such as tudou.com, ku6.com, and youku.com. The lyric is translated below.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YB9RcyUP_A]

Readers in China watch here: http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XMjUxNjY3NDY4/v.swf

“No Car, No House”

Golden Shengnu Edition

*Affectionate sunshine/On your face/Take a look at the young men around/Everyone’s like a woman

What a woman wants is a car and a house/Her biggest wish is to marry the right one

I ask you if you have a car and a house/My mom also asks you/How many bank accounts you have

If you don’t have a car/If you don’t have a house/Get out of my way and don’t block

I have a car and I have a house/I also have RMB in the bank

If you’re not as strong as I/Don’t expect me to surport you ’cause I’m not your mother

You don’t have a car/You don’t have a house/Don’t dream to have a hottie in your bed

Don’t pretend to be poor and drive a shabby BMW/Don’t pretend to be a boss and try to keep me *

[repeat *]

You don’t have a car/You don’t have a house/And you want to get married and be a groom

If your life is not yet affluent/Why should I go and wonder with you

You say that I’m realistic and I admit it/You accuse me of being materialistic and I won’t be hurt

A man should look like a man/Without a car and a house/Don’t dream of finding a bride

Lalala…

              More Share and Comments