{
  "version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1.1",
  "title": "Palimpsest China Censorship Analysis",
  "home_page_url": "https://palimpsest.info/news/china/analysis/",
  "feed_url": "https://palimpsest.info/news/china/analysis/feed.json",
  "description": "Current cross-instrument analysis of China's information controls with sentence-level evidence receipts.",
  "items": [
    {
      "id": "chinaarticlev-0cbed1cdfcb48d3eca72259d",
      "url": "https://palimpsest.info/news/china/analysis/",
      "title": "[Palimpsest analysis] China censorship today: the board synthesis is unavailable",
      "summary": "Palimpsest cross-instrument analysis. 7 of 10 selected censorship instruments are current. The evidence spans attention, silence, network interference, erasure, and app distribution, but their denominators remain separate.",
      "content_text": "ITEM TYPE: PALIMPSEST CROSS-INSTRUMENT ANALYSIS\n\nChina's information controls must be read as separate content, network, erasure, and distribution measurements rather than one seductive national score.\n\nThe board detects movement, not motive\n\nNo current finding is published for Board alarm because the source status is stale. The board statistic tests whether named signals moved beyond their own histories; it does not identify one cause for the movement. No current finding is published for Coverage guard because the source status is stale.\n\nAttention, silence, and erasure answer different questions\n\nThe current deletion-directive index ranks 218 terms with documented censorship provenance. No current finding is published for Silence index because the source status is stale. The current cross-layer erasure index is 41.6. The directive index counts provenance-bound terms, the silence index tests a predeclared blackout rule, and the erasure index summarizes heterogeneous layers; placing them together does not create one censorship rate.\n\nNetwork measurements agree on scope, not on one denominator\n\nThe current coverage-weighted fusion of reporting vantages is 28.6%. The current OONI aggregate reports a 58.3% anomaly index across 272,935 completed China measurements. The current controlled panel reports 100% blocked responses across 5 tested domains. The fused index, volunteer-probe aggregate, and fixed inside-China panel use different samples and protocols, so none can be substituted for a national share of traffic or users.\n\nApp availability needs both a fixed panel and a broad corpus\n\nThe current panel finds 60% of 10 tracked apps unavailable in the China storefront. The current AppleCensorship corpus reports 28.13% unavailable among 110,432 tested apps for mainland China. The fixed panel supports controlled same-round comparison, while the broad corpus improves catalogue coverage; neither percentage identifies why an individual app is absent.\n\nWhat today's reading can support\n\nAt the edition clock, 7 of 10 selected instruments publish current claims and 3 publish availability warnings instead. The defensible conclusion is a layered description of current observations, not a single estimate of censorship prevalence or intent.",
      "date_published": "2026-08-24T10:34:36Z",
      "date_modified": "2026-08-24T10:34:36Z",
      "authors": [
        {
          "name": "Palimpsest China Desk",
          "url": "https://palimpsest.info/news/china/analysis/"
        }
      ],
      "tags": [
        "China",
        "censorship",
        "internet filtering",
        "information controls"
      ],
      "_palimpsest": {
        "kind": "china_censorship_analysis",
        "article_id": "chinaarticle-730514403773f939e5ed",
        "revision_id": "chinaarticlev-0cbed1cdfcb48d3eca72259d",
        "finding_state": "instrument-warning",
        "citation_coverage": 1.0,
        "verification_status": "palimpsest_bounded_analysis"
      }
    }
  ],
  "language": "en"
}