@incollection{StockmannLuo, author = {Stockmann, Daniela and Luo, Ting}, title = {Authoritarian Deliberation 2.0: Lurking and Discussing Politics in Chinese Social Media}, series = {Digital Media and Democratic Futures}, booktitle = {Digital Media and Democratic Futures}, editor = {Delli Carpini, Michael X.}, publisher = {University of Pennsylvania Press}, address = {Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA}, isbn = {9780812295894}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {169 -- 195}, language = {en} } @article{StockmannLuoShen, author = {Stockmann, Daniela and Luo, Ting and Shen, Mingming}, title = {Designing authoritarian deliberation: how social media platforms influence political talk in China}, series = {Democratization}, volume = {27}, journal = {Democratization}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1080/13510347.2019.1679771}, pages = {243 -- 264}, abstract = {Discussion is often celebrated as a critical element of public opinion and political participation. Recently, scholars have suggested that the design and features of specific online platforms shape what is politically expressed online and how. Building on these findings and drawing on 112 semi-structured qualitative interviews with information technology experts and internet users, we explain how major Chinese social media platforms differ in structure and motivation. Drawing upon a nationwide representative survey and an online experiment, we find that platforms aiming to make users a source of information through public, information-centred communication, such as the Twitter-like Weibo, are more conducive to political expression; while platforms built to optimize building social connections through private, user-centred communication, such as WhatsApp and Facebook-like WeChat, tend to inhibit political expression. These technological design effects are stronger when users believe the authoritarian state tolerates discussion, but less important when political talk is sensitive. The findings contribute to the debate on the political consequences of the internet by specifying technological and political conditions.}, language = {en} } @article{StockmannHartmanLuo, author = {Stockmann, Daniela and Hartman, Keri and Luo, Ting}, title = {The political position generator - A new instrument for measuring political ties in China}, series = {Social Networks}, volume = {63}, journal = {Social Networks}, issn = {0378-8733}, doi = {10.1016/j.socnet.2020.05.004}, pages = {70 -- 79}, abstract = {This paper proposes a novel instrument - the political position generator - for measuring individuals' political ties, or personal, affective connections to state officials and other political actors. It adopts and adapts the more general position generator framework in social capital research to capture three key dimensions of political ties - upper reachability, network diversity, and tie strength. The measure is validated with data from a representative survey of the Chinese population and three scales representing the three political ties dimensions are created. In correlational and multivariate regression analyses, we find initial evidence of the instrument's criterion-related (discriminant and concurrent) validity.}, language = {en} } @article{StockmannGartenLuo, author = {Stockmann, Daniela and Garten, Felix and Luo, Ting}, title = {Who is a PRC user? Comparing Chinese social media user agreements}, series = {First Monday}, volume = {25}, journal = {First Monday}, number = {8}, issn = {1396-0466}, doi = {10.5210/fm.v25i8.10319}, abstract = {Social media companies rely on user agreements as one means to manage content produced by users. While much has been written on user agreements and community standards of U.S.-based social media, surprisingly little is known about Chinese user agreements and their implications. We compare terms of services as well as privacy policies of WeChat and Weibo between 2014 and 2019 using their U.S. counterparts WhatsApp and Twitter as a benchmark. We find that Chinese user agreements reveal a territorial-based understanding of content management differentiating between PRC and non-PRC users based on language, IP address and country of citizenship. Second, Chinese social media companies are surprisingly transparent about what content can be published, which has implications for self-censorship among users. Third, changes in PRC user agreements reflect Xi Jinping's tightening control of the Internet. Finally, U.S.-based platforms have moved towards content management that differs by region, thus becoming more similar to the Chinese approach over time.}, language = {en} } @article{StockmannLuo, author = {Stockmann, Daniela and Luo, Ting}, title = {Surveying Internet Users in China: Comparing Representative Survey Data with Official Statistics}, series = {The China Quarterly}, journal = {The China Quarterly}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press (CUP)}, doi = {10.1017/S0305741025000177}, pages = {1 -- 17}, abstract = {China is well known for providing official data, but how to treat these data is a longstanding debate among China scholars. This paper advances understandings of how to interpret Chinese official statistics about the internet. Using standards for evaluating surveys in the social sciences, we systematically compare official data from the China Network Information Center (CNNIC), which is under the supervision of China's main regulator of internet policy, with the China Internet Survey 2018 (CIS), which is, to our knowledge, the first nationally representative survey on internet use in China. Using three examples, we illustrate how methodological differences in sampling design and measurement can lead to vastly different conclusions about key indicators of internet use in mainland China, including the percentage of internet users, their regional and urban-rural digital divide, and the percentage of specific social media platforms. We discuss the challenges of survey work on internet use in China and offer recommendations on how to interpret official statistics, especially in light of the limitations researchers face when conducting face-to-face surveys in China.}, language = {en} } @article{StockmannLuo, author = {Stockmann, Daniela and Luo, Ting}, title = {Online Political Discussion Under Authoritarianism: What Do Citizens Make of Censored Political Discussion?}, series = {Regulation \& Governance}, journal = {Regulation \& Governance}, doi = {10.1111/rego.70036}, abstract = {There is a continuing debate on whether the internet serves as a public sphere for meaningful political discussion and increases political engagement. Yet, we know little about how internet users in authoritarian regimes perceive and experience online political discussion beyond the dominant frame of censorship and surveillance. Based on the first nationally representative survey on internet use in China, this paper examines how citizens view the space for political discussion online and offline and how three types of concerns—repercussions, social desirability, and privacy—shape these perceptions. Results show that Chinese citizens tend to perceive online discussion as more diverse. Those concerned about political repercussions report higher perceived diversity in online discussions, while social desirability concerns correlate with greater perceived diversity in both online and offline settings. Only those concerned for exposure of personal information perceive online political discussion as more uniform. These findings advance understandings of citizen views on political discussion in authoritarian contexts and contribute to broader debates about the role of the internet in political engagement.}, language = {en} } @incollection{StockmannLuo, author = {Stockmann, Daniela and Luo, Ting}, title = {Xi Jinping's Partnership with Technology Companies and Social Media Platforms}, series = {Chinese Politics: The Xi Jinping Difference}, booktitle = {Chinese Politics: The Xi Jinping Difference}, editor = {Lynch, Daniel and Rosen, Stanley}, edition = {2}, publisher = {Routledge}, address = {London}, isbn = {9781032191522}, doi = {10.4324/9781003257943-5}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {22}, abstract = {Contrary to conventional wisdom, even Xi Jinping, who is often depicted in the media and pundit world as having centralized control over nearly every dimension of Chinese governance, still must rely on powerful technology corporations to carry out his will in the increasingly important Internet sector. This suggests a model of political control significantly more nuanced than most observers realize. This chapter argues that Xi Jinping does not rule the Internet and more specifically social media via a tight command-and-control structure, which implies that he is the ultimate decision-maker and companies simply implement his policy decisions. Instead, the chapter demonstrates based on process-tracing that China's governance of the Internet is best understood as a corporate management model, whereby the Chinese state engages in a partnership with technology companies. Xi Jinping assumes a leadership role enforced by state instruments of control and cooptation strategies. At the same time, the state remains dependent on companies due to their informational, organizational, and institutional resources.}, language = {en} }