{"id":3124,"date":"2022-04-17T18:31:05","date_gmt":"2022-04-17T18:31:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cornellilj.org\/?p=3124"},"modified":"2022-04-17T18:31:05","modified_gmt":"2022-04-17T18:31:05","slug":"combating-censorship-in-china-forcing-chinas-hand-through-the-wto-and-collective-action","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/2022\/04\/17\/combating-censorship-in-china-forcing-chinas-hand-through-the-wto-and-collective-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Combating Censorship in China: Forcing China&#8217;s Hand Through the WTO and Collective Action, Vol. 53"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The advent of the Internet was once seen as a democratizing force and a symbol of freedom. But today, it has not lived up to this promise in many authoritarian states, like China. The Chinese government has used the Internet to effectively maintain a status quo bias. Specifically, China\u2019s sophisticated censorship infrastructure enables the government to shape public discourse, promulgate propaganda, censor and quash dissent, engage in domestic protectionism, and control both multinational and domestic corporations operating within the country. Thus, contrary to the government\u2019s assertions, its censorship practices are not merely a domestic policy issue; rather, China\u2019s censorship practices have real consequences for the international community.&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The advent of the Internet was once seen as a democratizing force and a symbol of freedom. But today, it has not lived up to this promise in many authoritarian states, like China. The Chinese government has used the Internet to effectively maintain a status quo bias. Specifically, China\u2019s sophisticated censorship infrastructure enables the government&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3125,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13,22,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles-2","category-print-archive","category-volume-53-issue-4"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3124","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3124"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3124\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3125"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3124"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3124"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/cilj\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3124"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}