Networked Creativity on the Censored Web 2.0: Chinese Users' Twitter-based Activities on the Issue of Internet Censorship

  • Published : 2015.05.31


In most of the world, the current trend in information technology is for open data movement that promotes transparency and equal access. An opposite trend is observed in China, which has the world's largest Internet population. The country has implemented sophisticated cyber-infrastructure and practices under the name of The Golden Shield Project (commonly referred to as the Great Firewall) to limit access to popular international web services and to filter traffic containing 'undesirable' political content. Increasingly, tech-savvy Chinese bypass this firewall and use Twitter to share knowledge on censorship circumvention and encryption to collectively troubleshoot firewall evasion methods, and even mobilize actions that border on activism. Using a mixed mythological approach, the current study addresses such networked knowledge sharing among citizens in a restricted web ecosystem. On the theoretical front, this study uses webometric approaches to understand change agents and positive deviant in the diffusion of censorship circumvention technology. On policy-level, the study provides insights for Internet regulators and digital rights groups to help best utilize communication networks of positive deviants to counter Internet control.


  1. Ackland, R., & O'Neil, M. (2011). Online collective identity: The case of the environmental movement. Social Networks, 33(3), 177-190.
  2. Bloomberg. (2012). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  3. boyd, D., Golder, S., & Lotan, G. (2010, January). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
  4. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. science, 323(5916), 892-895.
  5. Burnett, S., & Feamster, N. (2013). Making sense of Internet censorship: a new frontier for Internet measurement. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 43(3), 84-89.
  6. Carter, L. (2013). The Grass-Mud Horse Lexicon: Classic Netizen Language. China Digital Times Inc.
  7. China Digital Times. (2009). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  8. Choi, S., & Park, H. W. (2013). An exploratory approach to a Twitter-based community centered on a political goal in South Korea: Who organized it, what they shared, and how they acted. New Media & Society, 1461444813487956.
  9. Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political participation by other means?. First Monday, 16(2).
  10. CNNIC. (2014). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  11. The Diplomat. (2014). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at
  12. Freedom House. (2013) Accessed on 01/13/2015 at
  13. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification.Social networks, 1(3), 215-239.
  14. Forbes. (2013). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  15. Global Times. (2013).
  16. Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318.
  17. Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange. Library & information science research, 18(4), 323-342.
  18. Huang, R., & Sun, X. (2014). Weibo network, information diffusion and implications for collective action in China. Information, Communication & Society, 17(1), 86-104.
  19. Introna, L. D., & Gibbons, A. (2009). Networks and Resistance: Investigating online advocacy networks as a modality for resisting state surveillance.Surveillance & Society, 6(3), 233-258.
  20. Katona, Z., Zubcsek, P. P., & Sarvary, M. (2011). Network effects and personal influences: The diffusion of an online social network. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 425-443.
  21. Kenengba. (2010). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  22. King, G., Pan, J., & Roberts, M. E. (2013). How censorship in China allows government criti-cism but silences collective expression. American Political Science Review, 107(02), 326-343.
  23. Leberknight, C. S., Chiang, M., Poor, H. V., & Wong, F. (2012). A taxonomy of Internet censorship and anti-censorship.
  24. Meng, B. (2011). From steamed bun to grass mud horse: E Gao as alternative political discourse on the Chinese Internet. Global Media and Communication,7(1), 33-51.
  25. Meraz, S., & Papacharissi, Z. (2013). Networked gatekeeping and networked framing on# Egypt. The international journal of press/politics, 1940161212474472.
  26. Morozov, E. (2009). Iran: Downside to the" twitter revolution". Dissent, 56(4), 10-14.
  27. Mou, Y., Wu, K., & Atkin, D. (2014). Understanding the use of circumvention tools to bypass online censorship. New Media & Society, 1461444814548994.
  28. Nam, Y., Lee, Y. O., & Park, H. W. (2013). Can web ecology provide a clearer understanding of people's information behavior during election campaigns?.Social Science Information, 52(1), 91-109.
  29. OpenITP. (2013). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  30. OpenNet Initiative. (2011) Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  31. Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The Internet as a public sphere. New media & society, 4(1), 9-27.
  32. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Decomposing social and semantic networks in emerging "big data" research. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 756-765.
  33. Park, S. J., Lim, Y. S., Sams, S., Nam, S. M., & Park, H. W. (2011). Networked politics on Cyworld: The text and sentiment of Korean political profiles. Social Science Computer Review, 29(3), 288-299.
  34. Pascale, R. T., Sternin, J., & Sternin, M. (2010). The power of positive deviance: How unlikely innovators solve the world's toughest problems (Vol. 1). Harvard Business Press.
  35. Powell, A. (2012). Assessing the Influence of Online Activism on Internet Policy-Making: The Case of SOPA/PIPA and ACTA. Available at SSRN:
  36. Reuters.(2014).Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  37. Seidman, S. B. (1983). Network structure and minimum degree. Social networks, 5(3), 269-287.
  38. Shapiro, M. A., & Park, H. W. (2014). More than entertainment: YouTube and public responses to the science of global warming and climate change. Social Science Information, 0539018414554730.
  39. Shirazi, F. (2014). Interrogating Iran's restricted public cloud: An Actor Network Theory perspective. Telematics and Informatics, 31(2), 228-236.
  40. Skinner, J. (2011). Social media and revolution: The arab spring and the occupy movement as seen through three information studies paradigms.
  41. Storify. (2014). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  42. South China Morning Post. (2014). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at
  43. Thelwall, M. (2009). Introduction to webometrics: Quantitative web research for the social sciences. Synthesis lectures on information concepts, retrieval, and services, 1(1), 1-116.
  44. Theocharis, Y. (2013). The wealth of (Occupation) networks? Communication patterns and information distribution in a Twitter protest network. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 10(1), 35-56.
  45. Tselikov, A. (2014). The Tightening Web of Russian Internet Regulation.Berkman Center Research Publication, (2014-15).
  46. Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2009). Cyber-protest and civil society: the Internet and action repertoires in social movements. Handbook on Internet crime, 230-254.
  47. Van Laer, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires: Opportunities and limitations. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1146-1171.
  48. Woo-young, C., & Park, H. W. (2012). The network structure of the Korean blogosphere. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(2), 216-230.
  49. Xinhua News. (2012). Accessed on 01/13/2015 at:
  50. Xu, W. W., Chiu, I. H., Chen, Y., & Mukherjee, T. (2014). Twitter hashtags for health: applying network and content analyses to understand the health knowledge sharing in a Twitter-based community of practice. Quality & Quantity, 1-20.
  51. Xu, W. W., & Feng, M. (2014). Talking to the Broadcasters on Twitter: Networked Gatekeeping in Twitter Conversations with Journalists. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(3), 420-437.
  52. Xu, W. W., Sang, Y., Blasiola, S., & Park, H. W. (2014). Predicting Opinion Leaders in Twitter Activism Networks The Case of the Wisconsin Recall Election. American Behavioral Scientist, 0002764214527091.
  53. Yang, G. (2013). The power of the Internet in China: Citizen activism online. Columbia University Press.
  54. Yang, F. (2014). Rethinking China's Internet censorship: The practice of recoding and the politics of visibility. New Media & Society, 1461444814555951.
  55. Yang, Q., & Liu, Y. (2014). What's on the other side of the great firewall? Chinese Web users' motivations for bypassing the Internet censorship.Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 249-257.

Cited by

  1. Theories in communication science: a structural analysis using webometrics and social network approach vol.108, pp.2, 2016,
  2. Analysis of technological innovation based on citation information vol.51, pp.3, 2017,
  3. Uncovering stakeholders in public–private relations on social media: a case study of the 2015 Volkswagen scandal vol.51, pp.3, 2017,
  4. Social media, trust, and disaster: Does trust in public and nonprofit organizations explain social media use during a disaster? pp.1573-7845, 2017,
  5. pp.19442866, 2018,