Certain Provisions on the Administration of Micro-Blog Development

Beijing Municipal Government Information Office, Public Security Bureau, Communications Administration, and Internet Information Office jointly issued the "Certain Provisions on the Administration of Micro-Blog Development" on December 16, 2011. 

Certain Provisions on the Administration of Micro-Blog Development

Article 1. These provisions are enacted in order to regulate the development of micro-blog management, maintenance, network communication order, information security, protection of Internet information services unit and micro-blog user's legal rights, to meet the public demand for information on the Internet, to promote healthy and orderly development of the Internet, according to the "PRC Telecommunications Regulations," "Measures on the Administration of Internet Information Services," and other laws, regulations, rules, combined with the actual situation of the city.

Article 2. All websites launching micro-blog services and micro-blog users in the city's administrative area shall comply with these regulations.

Article 3. The development of management of this city's micro-blogs is conditioned upon the principles of active usage, scientific development, administration in accordance with the law, and ensuring security, in order to promote the building, utilization, and giving expression to a positive role for micro-blog services in the community.

Article 4. Websites that launch micro-blog services shall abide by the Constitution, laws, regulations, and rules, and operate in a sincere, honest, and civilized manner, actively spread the core values of the socialist system, disseminate socialist advanced culture, and build a socialist harmonious society.

Baidu, Sina, Tencent Search Results for "Xu Jinbo" - Man Who Died in Police Custody

On December 13, 2011, the state sponsored Global Times published an article entitled “Villager Detention Death Scrutinized.” Some excerpts:

A villager, who once led a demonstration in a village in Guangdong Province, died in detention on Sunday.

Some villagers suspect that he was beaten to death, but a local hospital said he died of cardiac arrest.

Xue Jinbo, 42, a villager from Wukan, Lufeng died two days after he was detained. The local government said Xue suddenly felt in pain and after emergency resuscitation failed was pronounced dead at Yihui Foundation Hospital in Shanwei on Saturday, according to Guangdong-based southcn.com.

In a timely fashion after Xue's death, leaders from the local government informed his family and comforted them. They also invited the local medical department as the third party to check the treatment process, the report said.

However, some villagers disagreed with the government's conclusions.

 "Xue was tortured to death," a 21-year-old villager, surnamed Zhang, from Wukan told the Global Times yesterday.

These screenshots were taken on December 14, 2011, and show that Baidu, Sina Weibo, and Tencent Weibo were censoring searches for “Xue Jingo” (薛锦波).

State Media Editorial Calling for Political Choice Gets Censored

On August 26, 2011, Shanghai’s Oriental Morning Post (东方早报) published an editorial called, “Give the People Choice, Give Everyone a Way Out.” (给人民选择权，给所有人退路). Some excerpts: 

Everything that has occurred in Libya to date only further reinforces an ancient political proposition: If the people are not given the right to choose, the path to peaceful mediated transformation is blocked, and all leeway for the public, including for those who hold power, is eliminated.
. . . .
Gaddafi's mistake was a kind of ancient chronic illness that has been seen repeatedly in people throughout the ages, "The people of the Qin Dynasty were too preoccupied for self-pity, but instead were pitied by subsequent generations. But those generations pitied the Qin without drawing lessons from its fate, and this lead to each future generation repeatedly pitying the previous generation." Unless the people are gradually but resolutely granted the right to choose, society is faced with the terrifying prospect of being left with path for escape, and ultimately every social transformation will lead inevitably to a nightmare of suffocation.

迄今为止在利比亚发生的一切，只是再次证明了一个千古皆然的政治命题：不给人民选择的权利，就堵死了和平协商的变革路径，也会堵死包括掌权者在内的整个社会的退路。
. . . .
卡扎菲的错误，是一种古老的痼疾，前有古人，后有来者，“秦人不暇自哀，而后人哀之，后人哀之而不鉴之，亦使后人而复哀后人也”。除非逐步但坚决地给人民选择的权利，否则，全社会退无可退的可怕图景，终会是每个转型社会挥之不去的梦魇。

These screenshots show that the article had been deleted from the website by August 30, 2011. Original URL: http://www.dfdaily.com/html/8698/2011/8/26/654801.shtml

These screenshots were show two instances where posts about the article were deleted from the blogging services of the Global Times and Sina.com.

This screenshot was taken on September 1, 2011, and shows that a search for the title of the editorial on Yahoo.cn returned a notice saying that "Web pages that do not comply with relevant laws and regulations have already been filtered!" (已经过滤了不符合相关法律和法规的网页！)

Government Revokes Registration of Whistleblower Website "I Paid a Bribe"

On June 16, 2011 the state sponsored China Daily published an article entitled “China's 'I-Paid-a-Bribe' Sites Face Shutdown.” Some excerpts:

China's grassroots anti-bribery websites may all be shut down because they are not registered with authorities, the Nanfang Daily reported Thursday.

Bribery-reporting websites have been burgeoning this week, allowing Internet users to share their experiences in giving bribes though shying away from revealing corrupt figures.

Inspired by the Indian anti-bribery site ipaidabribe.com, at least eight Chinese online forums have sprung up since last Friday, bearing names with similar meanings.

But safety concerns and an assumption that authorities will not give them the go-ahead are stopping many from registering their anti-bribery websites, choosing instead to operate unregistered and at the risk of being shut down.

On August 11, 2011, the state-sponsored Guangzhou Daily published a report entitled "'I Paid a Bribe' Permanently Closed, Blooming of Private Anti-Corruption Was Short-Lived" (“我行贿了”永久关闭 民间反腐网站或昙花一现). An excerpt:

Between June and today, the number of private anti-corruption websites exploded to almost 60, and the growth leaves one speechless -- every day they were getting almost 300,000 hits. Nevertheless, the majority of the anti-corruption websites still existed in a very narrow space - - only four have obtained registration so far. The relatively well-known "I Paid A Bribe" website re-opened between July 14 and July 20 after it registered, but after only 20 days it was forced to announce it was permanently shutting down.

从6月初至今，国内民间反腐网站已骤增至近60个，火爆程度令人咋舌——每日访问量达30万人次。然而，多数反腐网站至今仍在“夹缝中生存”——目前获得备案的仅有4家。知名度较高的“我行贿了”网站自从7月14日备案后于7月20日重开，但仅20天后就迫于压力宣告永久关闭。

The same day the state sponsored Changing Business Times reported:

As early as June 21 the Chinese version of “I Paid A Bribe” was shut down. That day, “Xiaoxiao Sheng” received a call from his hosting service informing him that websites that have not registered would not be able to operate, so “Xiaoxiao Sheng” could only shut down his site temporarily.

On July 14, the already-shuttered “I Paid a Bribe” completed its registration. The result came as a surprise to “Xiaoxiao Sheng.” On around July 20, “I Paid a Bribe” quietly relaunched, and during this time “Xiaoxiao Sheng” refused to speak to the media, “fearing that too much attention would lead to the site being shut down.”

Then on August 9 “Xiaoxiao Sheng” received another notice, this time informing him that his registration had been revoked. He posted a notice on the website’s home page “A Note to Friends of ‘I Paid a Bribe’” announcing the final fate of the website: the site’s registration had been revoked, and the site was being permanently shut down.

早在今年6月21日，中文版“我行贿了”就曾被关闭。当天，“笑笑生”接到机房电话通知，称网站没有备案不能开启，“笑笑生”只得将网站暂时关闭。

7月14日，已经关闭的 “我行贿了”通过备案。这个结果，让“笑笑生”备感意外。7月20日左右，“我行贿了”网低调重开，在此期间，“笑笑生”一度拒绝记者采访，“害怕太过高调让网站再度关闭。”

直到8月9日，“笑笑生”再次接到通知，网站注销备案。他在网站首页的公告——《告“我行贿了”网友书》中宣告了网站最终结局：网站备案被注销，网站将永久关闭。

These screenshots were taken on August 23, 2011, and show that a search for "I Paid A Bribe" on Sina's Weibo micro-blogging service does not return any results, just a notice that says "In accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and polices, search results have not been displayed." (根据相关法律法规和政策，搜索结果未予显示。) The same search on Baidu's Tieba forum returns a notice saying "Apologies, in accordance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies, this forum cannot be opened" (抱歉，根据相关法律法规和政策，本吧暂不开放。).

After Protests in Anshun Over Beating by Chengguan, Sina Weibo Censors "Anshun Chengguan"

On July 27, the state sponsored China Daily published a report entitled "Crowd Riots After Death of Vendor." Some excerpts:

The death of a vendor, who was believed to have been killed by urban management officers in Southwest China's Guizhou province on Tuesday afternoon, caused a gathering of thousands of angry local residents. The unidentified vendor died in front of the gate of a market at Nanhua Lu, Xixiu district of Anshun city, at about 1:43 pm on Tuesday, which led to the gathering of the local people, according to a statement sent to China Daily from the publicity department of Anshun. 

The statement did not give details of the cause of the vendor's death, only saying that "before the incident occurred, chengguan (urban management officers) were working in the area". According to a video clip uploaded onto the youku.com website by an unidentified netizen, a vehicle with the sign "12319" on it, the local phone number of chengguan, was destroyed and turned over in the middle of the road. Many police officers were trying to break up the angry crowd.

This screenshot was taken on July 29, and shows that search on Sina Weibo for "Anshun chengguan" (安顺 城管) returned no results, just a censorship notice.

Police Station Attacked in Hotan, Examples of Sina Weibo and Search Engine Censorship

On July 18, 2011, the state sponsored People's Daily published an article entitled "Police Station in Hotan, Xinjiang Attacked, Several Attackers Shot Dead" (新疆和田派出所遭袭 数名袭击者被击毙). It published an English version of the article the following day entitled "Rioters Gunned Down, Hostages Rescued in Xinjiang Police Station Attack." Some excerpts:

Police gunned down several rioters who attacked a police station and killed four people in Hotan city of northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region on Monday noon, sources with the Ministry of Public Security said.
Rioters broke into the police station shortly after 12 p.m.. They assaulted the police, took hostages and set fire to the station, according to the ministry.
A member of the armed police, a security personnel and two hostages were killed during the ordeal, the ministry said, adding that another security personnel was severely injured.

These screenshots were taken on July 18, and show that on that day searches on Sina Weibo for "Xinjiang" (新疆) and "Hotan" (和田) returned no results, just a censorship notice.

These screenshots were taken on July 21, and show that a search for "Xinjiang" is returning results, and in fact provides “Xinjiang Hotan” (新疆和田) as a suggested search term. But when a user clicks on that link (outlined in red), they are taken to a page with no results, just a censorship notice.

The Global Times subsequently published several articles regarding the July 18 incident in Hotan, Xinjiang:

• Yang Shu: Hotan Has a Little Incident, But Xinjiang's Sky is not Falling (杨恕：和田出点事，新疆的天塌不下来) http://opinion.huanqiu.com/roll/2011-07/1830424.html
• Sky Not Falling in Xinjiang After Hotan Attack http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/666919/Sky-not-falling-in-Xinjiang-after-Hotan-attack.aspx
• Xinjiang Police Say the Surprise Attack in Hotan Was a Serious Terrorist Incident (新疆警方称和田袭击案属严重暴力恐怖事件) http://china.huanqiu.com/roll/2011-07/1835649.html
• Thugs' Surprise Attack Kills Innocents, Xinjiang Authorities Refute Foreign Rumors (暴徒搞突袭杀害无辜 新疆官员反驳境外谣言) http://china.huanqiu.com/roll/2011-07/1830512.html
• Investigation of Xinjiang Hotan Incident Finds 14 of 18 Thugs Killed at the Scene (新疆和田事件查明：18暴徒当场被毙14个) http://mil.huanqiu.com/china/2011-07/1833241.html
• Reporter Unmasks Foreign Rumors, Hotan Incident is a Terrorist Act and Not an Ethnic Conflict (本报记者拆穿境外谣言 和田事件系恐怖活动非民族冲突) http://world.huanqiu.com/roll/2011-07/1833330.html

The last article included the following statement:

On July 19, anti-terrorism expert Li Wei told the "Global Times," that this terrorist surprise attack in Hotan was a violent attack similar to the Mumbai surprise attack that took place several days ago, and the hostage taking, whether in terms of methods, tools, targets or form, were all consistent with a classic international terrorism incident. But the West ignores this, and conflates it with Han and Uighur ethnic contradictions, and panders to the "World Uygur Congress" version, and creates problems for China. So China faces a predicament that is similar to many non-Western countries when they trying to fight terrorism. 

中国反恐问题专家李伟19日告诉《环球时报》，这次发生在和田的恐怖袭击和前几天发生在孟买的袭击事件一样是暴力攻击、劫持人质，不论从手法、工具还是袭击目标、表现形式上，都和国际上典型的恐怖主义事件如出一辙。但是西方不顾这一事实，将此与汉维民族矛盾结合起来，迎合“世维会”的说法，给中国制造麻烦。这是像中国一样的很多非西方国家在反恐时面临的人为困境。

The Global Times’ website also put up a video entitled “Hu Xijin: Western Media Broadcasts On Behalf of the World Uyghur Congress, How China Handles It” (胡锡进：西媒替世维会传谣 中国怎应对) http://v.huanqiu.com/news/201107/20110721213034.shtml

The screenshot below was taken on July 22, and shows a search for the Chinese abbreviation for “World Uyghur Congress" (世维会) on the Sogou search engine returns no results, just a notice that says “The keywords you entered may relate to content that does not comply with relevant laws and regulations.” (您输入的关键词可能涉及不符合相关法律法规的内容。)

Two China Media Figures Quit Sina Weibo Over Censorship

On July 14, two China-based bloggers, Song Shinan (宋石男) and Jia Jia (贾葭), simultaneously published announcements on their iFeng.com blogs that they would no longer be posting to Sina's Weibo. As the screenshots below show, their blog posts (which linked to one-another) were deleted in less than an hour. 

The articles were also deleted from other blogging services where they had been reposted.

Jia's post was entitled "Everyone is a Victim-Dear Sina Weibo" (每个人都是受害者——致新浪微博), and it was originally available here: http://blog.ifeng.com/article/12395590.html. Here is an excerpt:

It was around February 2010 when two Sina Weibo editors repeatedly called asking me to open a Sina Weibo account. In early 2009 I had opened a Twitter account around the time of the big CCTV building fire, and I wasn't particularly interested in domestic copy-cat products, but the inability of so many friends to circumvent the Great Firewall left me with no choice but to try Weibo, so I agreed to register. The address was t.sina.com.cn / jajia, and my verified identity was "GQ" Magazine Senior Editor.
. . . .
In early December last year, because of a certain porcelain brand, I was unilaterally blocked for 15 days. I was the only person who could see what I wrote, others couldn't see it (and many other users had been unilaterally designated in this manner). In May of this year, because of some black seeds, my speech was censored for 26 long days (there are even more users who are like this). In the past half year my ID has been hidden and my account has not been searchable by other users. On June 12, after I merely reposted some photos of the Zengcheng incident I was immediately banned from logging into my account.
I want to particularly note that, during those latter two incidents Netease, Tencent, Sohu, and Phoenix did not block or delete my speech. Those familiar with Internet management should know that when it comes to microblog censorship, there is only one set of requirements, and Sina Weibo wouldn't be subjected to stricter orders or a broad blocking scope. The conclusion is therefore obvious that during the latter two incidents the scope of Sina Weibo's censorship was self-imposed.
As a someone who works in media, I have a deep understanding of where the bottom lines are when it comes to speech in China. Most of the time when a given topic becomes the subject of heated public discussion, certain concessions will be made in the scope of censorship. If the volcano of public opinion is rashly kindled, the consequences will be unthinkable. Its a game of struggle and compromise. In other words, when everyone takes a step forward, the bottom line will take a step back. 

大概是2010年2月，新浪微博的两位编辑，轮番打电话请我在新浪微博开设账户。我早在09年初央视大火之时注册了推特，对国内的山寨产品兴趣不大，但碍于很多不能翻墙的朋友只能玩微博，就答应注册了。地址是t.sina.com.cn/jajia,认证身份是《GQ》杂志资深编辑。
. . . .
在去年12月初，因为某个瓷砖品牌，我被单向屏蔽15天之久。说的话只有我自己看得到，别人都看不见（还有许多用户被这样单向认证）。在今年4月，因为几颗黑瓜子儿，我被审核发言长达26天（这样的用户就更多了）。这半年里，我的ID被隐藏，账户无法被其他用户搜索到。6月12日，因为增城事件，我仅仅转发了几张照片，账户被立刻禁止登录。
     
我要特别说明的是，在后两起事件中，网易微博、腾讯微博、搜狐微博、凤凰微博并未屏蔽或者删除我的发言。熟悉互联网管理的人应该知道，在微博审查这块，口径是一致的，新浪微博并不会得到更严格的指令或者更广阔的封杀范围。结论很明显，在后两起事件中，新浪微博的审查尺度是自我设置。
     
作为媒体人，我深知中国言论的尺度和底线何在。在更多的时候，如果一个公众话题被激烈讨论之时，审查尺度会做些许有限度地退让。民意的火山如果被轻易点燃，后果无法设想。这是一个斗争与妥协的游戏。易言之，当所有人都往前走一步的时候，底线会后退一步。

Song's post was entitled "Why I Left Sina Weibo" (我为什么离开新浪微博), and it was originally available here: http://blog.ifeng.com/article/12395633.html. Here are some excerpts:

In the past I have asserted that the structure of Sina Weibo and the structure of Chinese society have much in common. Now I think I only go it half right. It would be more accurate to put it this way: The user structure of Sina Weibo and the structure of Chinese society have much in common in that the means by which Sina Weibo is ruled has much in common with the means by which totalitarians rule.
What are the means by which totalitarians rule? Please allow me to quote a paragraph: "Don't let them have judgment. Just give them cars, motorcycles, stars, stimulating music, fashionable clothes, and a sense of competitiveness. Deprive them of their thinking and root them in obedience to the orders of their leaders. Let them think that any idea that is different from the groups is the enemy of the public." It was not Cao Guowei or Chen Tong who said this, it was Hitler.
Of course, Sina Weibo is also advancing with the times, and its ruling method is rich in Chinese characteristics. Sina CEO Cao Guowei once honestly confessed: "When a sensitive topic crops up, Sina can creatively limit the content of conversations instead of deleting it entirely." This is like a rapist saying that when he encounters a stunner, he can creatively go down on them instead of sticking it right in.
I am going to further expose this "creatively restricting the content of conversations." It is nothing more than these four: 1, deleting posts 2, masking posts 3, banning speech 4, deleting accounts.
As for deleting posts there isn't much to say - its the same everywhere. The treacherous thing about Sina is that they rarely use the method of directly deleting posts, but use masks and bans.
Masking is a creative invention of Sina, with both hard and soft masking. Hard masking is when only you can see on your own posts, and they won't appear on your followers' TL (timeline). Even if they click on your Weibo page, they can't see it; soft masking is when the post won't appear in your followers' TL, but if they click on your Weibo page, they can see it. Masking posts is a crafty, bloodless murder, a monumental restriction on the spread of posts of which the parties remain completely oblivious.
Banning speech is yet another creative invention of Sina. Getting banned is also called "getting locked up in the small black house." Every Weibo sent by the banned person will be reviewed and then released or delayed. Even if it is released, it has almost zero chance of spreading because it tends to fall out of the TL of the followers within a few hours of publication. It is worth mentioning that it is not only the posts of the banned person that will be delayed, but also their responses and replies.
From Sina's perspective banning speech carries with it two main benefits: 1. It saves labor costs. Sina has thousands of Weibo network administrators, but in the face of the vast ocean of public wars there will always be unstoppable forces. 2. It forces users to self-censor. This is particularly despicable. In order to avoid being banned, users often self-censor their speech. Those who have been banned are even more inclined to develop fear and depression. When they are once again able to post Weibo, they will inevitably have a "grateful heart" and a "nervous heart."
Banning speech may seem to be part of the national condition, when it fact it is actually a lynching. It is like the next big move in the central government's game, after it has quietly raising the stakes in this little corner it will eventually easily wipe the board of those who fail to fall in line. One can more or less understand why Sina Weibo deletes and masks posts, because they have to protect themselves. It is also understandable that businessmen would be willing to arbitrarily delete and mask, because the little bureaucrats must protect their rice bowls. But banning speech crosses the line and is incomprehensible and unacceptable. Because banning speech is a great insult to people, and it is an arbitrary violation of people's fundamental rights. There is no essential difference between this kind deprivation of personal liberty and something like reeducation through labor.
Today, Sina Weibo can ban me from speaking because I posted "sensitive Xinhua News" it can ban him because he criticized Sina and ban her because she had a conflict of interest with Sina. It may ban you tomorrow for any reason whatsoever. An oligopoly that hides behind "following orders from Internet Control" can abuse its power and control all netizens without any reason, without having to follow any rules or accept any punishment.
Therefore, on Sina Weibo, netizens who have been banned for a long time or had their IDs directly deleted have formed a unique phenomenon called the “reincarnation party” (registering a new ID, adding the words "II, III" after their original user name). Xiao Yu, who has been reincarnated 40 or 50 times, is one of the representative figures. However, Xiao Yu finally couldn't bear it anymore. At the end of last month, he spent nearly 8 hours, and deleted all of his 8,539 microblogs (perhaps nearly 18,000 mouse clicks) and left Sina. Xiao Yu is a well-known person, and his reincarnation or departure could draw some attention every time. But there are still a large number of unknown reincarnates who can only die silently, live silently, and be filled with perseverance throughout.
. . . .
Let it be known that we must fight. "An orderly society cannot rely solely on a reign of silence built on people's fear of punishment to maintain it." The same is true of Weibo.
[N.B. This is a direct translation. However, it appears to be referring to the concurrence of Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California - "[O]rder cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction."]
Let it be known that we must choose, "There are only two choices for people, either to recognize that existence must be prioritized over freedom, or to recognize that freedom must be prioritized over existence." My choice is the latter.
Let it be known that we must unite, "No man is an island." If Sina silences you, it silences everyone, because freedom is indivisible, as long as a single person is enslaved, there is no freedom.
As mentioned above, my friend Jia Jia and I left Sina Weibo today. Sina thinks that everyone can surrender their dignity and put up with their arbitrary torture for a tiny and  pathetic opportunity to have their voice heard. But I am sorry, we can't.
 So I am leaving, for those friends who remain on Sina Weibo, you don't have to be regretful or sentimental. I believe that in the near future, there will be more people like me. And like me they will go online like those who don't have Sina. 

我曾有过断言，说新浪微博的结构与中国社会的结构高度重合。现在我觉得只说了一半。应该这么说才更全：新浪微博的用户结构与中国社会的结构高度重合而新浪微博的统治手段与极权者的统治手段高度雷同。
极权者的统治手段是什么？请允许我引用一段话：“不要让他们有判断力。只要给他们汽车、摩托车、明星、刺激的音乐、流行的服饰，以及竞争意识就行了。剥夺他们的思考力，根植他们服从指导者命令的服从心。让他们认为想法和大家不同的就是公敌。”说这话的不是曹国伟也不是陈彤，是希特勒。
当然，新浪微博也与时俱进，它的统治手段富含中国特色的狡黠。新浪CEO曹国伟曾老实巴交地坦白：“出现敏感话题时，新浪可创造性地限制谈话内容，而不是将其全部删除”。这就好比一个强奸犯说，当遇到一个尤物时，他可创造性地口交，而不是直接用几把插入。
我来进一步揭穿这种“创造性地限制谈话内容”的手法。无非四种：1、删帖 2、屏蔽贴 3、禁言 4、删ID。
删帖不用多说。哪里都差不多。新浪的奸诈之处在于，他们现在很少使用直接删帖的手法，而多用屏蔽贴和禁言。
屏蔽是新浪一项创造性发明，有硬屏蔽与软屏蔽之分。硬屏蔽就是帖子只有你自己看得到，你的关注者的TL（时间线）上不会出现，他即使点你的微博页面，也看不到；软屏蔽就是帖子在你的关注者的TL上不会出现，但他若点你的微博页面，可以看到。屏蔽贴是杀人不见血的下流伎俩，极大地限制了帖子的传播，却让当事者浑然不觉。
禁言是新浪又一项创造性发明。禁言又叫关小黑屋。被禁言者发出的每一条微博，都会被审核，之后或者延时放出，或者被吞掉。即使放出，由于往往在发表的几小时之后，显然会跌出关注者的TL，几乎是零传播。值得一提的是，被禁言者不但发帖会被审核延迟，回复或跟帖也一样。
禁言对新浪的好处主要有二：1、节约人力成本。新浪有上千名微博网管，但面对群众战争的汪洋大海，仍有力不能逮的时候。2、逼迫用户自我审核。这是最可恶的。用户为避免被禁言，常会对言论进行自我审核。被禁言过的人，更是会形成恐惧和阴影，再能发微博时不免怀揣着一颗“感恩的心”和“紧张的心”。
禁言看上去是国情，其实是私刑。就好比中央在下一盘很大的棋，然后地方暗自加码，将平日不好动的人顺手收拾了。新浪微博删帖、屏蔽贴勉强可以理解，因站方要自保。业务水平低乱删乱屏蔽也可以理解，因小管要保饭碗。但禁言击穿底线，无法理解也无法接受。因为禁言是对人的极大侮辱，也是对人基本权利的极蛮横侵犯，跟劳教一类的剥夺人身自由没有本质区别。
今天新浪微博可以因为我发“敏感的新华社消息”禁言我，因为他批评新浪而禁言他，因为她与新浪有利益冲突而禁言她，明天也可能因任何理由禁言你。一个躲在“奉旨网络管制”下的寡头垄断企业，尽可以滥用权力、私自加码去管制所有网友，而无需给出任何理由，无需遵循任何规则，也无需接受任何惩罚。
于是，在新浪微博，被长期禁言或直接删除ID的网友，就形成了“转世党”这一独特的现象（注册新ID，在原用户名后加上二世、三世等字样）。“转世”多达4、50次的萧瀚，当是代表人物之一。但萧瀚也终于无法再忍受，就在上月底，他花了近8个小时，将自己的8539条微博全部删完（可能点击鼠标近18000次），离开新浪。萧瀚算知名人士，他的转世或离开，每次都能引起一些关注。但还有大量无名的转世者，只能默默地死，默默地生，在时光中注满坚忍。
. . . .
要知道，我们必须抗争，“一个有序的社会，不能仅仅依靠人们对惩罚的恐惧和鸦雀无声来维系”，微博同样如此。
要知道，我们必须选择，“人的选择只有两种，要么承认存在高于自由，要么承认自由高于存在。”我的选择是后者。
要知道，我们必须联合，“每个人都不是一个孤岛”。新浪禁言你，它就是禁言所有人，因为自由不可分割，只要一人受奴役，那就不存在全体的自由。
因上所述，我和我的朋友贾葭在今日离开新浪微博。新浪以为所有人都可以为了一点可怜的传播力，而放弃尊严，为他们任意揉搓，但是对不起，我们不行。
走就走了，还在新浪微博的朋友，你们不必遗憾也不必感伤，相信不久的将来会有更多人像我一样，像我一样，就像世界上没有新浪那样上网。