{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02094972067039106, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008100558659217877, 'mean_word_length': 5.417562724014337, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Shifting Dynamics of Contention in the Digital Age: Mobile Communication and Politics in China.

As smart phones and access to the internet have become easily available and affordable to many people, observers have noticed the prevalent use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in social and political mobilisation. Many see ICTs as an active force for democratisation and liberation. However, from the scandalous involvement of Cambridge Analytica in the 2016 US presidential election to the social credit system in China, a series of events and developments have forced observers to re-calibrate their optimism regarding ICT. Jun Liu’s research on mobile communication in collective contentions is a timely intervention. Liu rejects technological determinism. The technological potential of ICTs does not determine how they could be used or what they mean to specific users in a straightforward manner. In line with the general consensus among scholars in social studies of science and technology (which he does not engage), Liu suggests that the use of ICTs is socially embedded. While ICTs are widely used in protests and other kinds of social movements, communication mediated through ICTs often interacts with other forms of communication for mobilisation and organisation. The ways in which ICTs are used also vary from one social group to another. The role of ICTs in contentious politics is contingent, as ICTs are just one of the many factors that shape communication practices, which in turn configure collective contentions. Liu thus calls for a shift of attention from ICTs per se to communication “as an intermediary between ICTs and contentious collective action” (4). By communication Liu refers not only to the contents of communication but also the specific ways in which various actors communicate with one another and make sense of the information under specific social and political contexts. With cases of collective contentions in China, he explores how communication practices shape political opportunities, mobilise structure, and frame processes that structure collective contentions. More specifically, Liu suggests that while the propaganda machine of the party-state has maintained strict control of mass media, such state communicative practice also breeds resistance. Citizens would read official reports on controversial issues – such as the different opinions regarding the environmental impacts of petrochemical factories near residential neighbourhoods that later led to demonstrations to protest the building of these factories – as the government’s tacit approval of citizens voicing their objections. In this sense, the statecontrolled media has served as the foundation for citizens’ “rightful resistance” – a concept developed by O’Brien and Li (2006), opening political opportunities for contentious action (Chapters 3 and 4). Against the backdrop of the state-controlled mass media, ordinary citizens have embraced mobile phones and the internet as alternative channels to search for and distribute information. Different groups have their preferred ways of communicating. For taxi drivers, sending or reading text messages is unrealistic when they are driving. Voice calls were their means of mobilisation as they sought to stage protests in 2010. Information for mobilisation travelled along existing social networks that had been maintained through everyday face-to-face interactions among taxi drivers (Chapter 3). Moreover, drawing on scholars’ discussion of JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ASIA 2022, VOL. 52, NO. 5, 858–860