An easy first step would be to not hold a sci-fi conference in a totalitarian dictatorship. Why couldn't they have just held it in Japan or South Korea or Taiwan instead?
Because the site of Worldcon is selected by members (i.e, sci-fi fans) of which China has _many_.
In fact, this whole debacle has hurt them the most since it seems many/most Chinese authors were excluded by default since the amateur self-appointed censors couldn't actually be bothered to figure out what disqualification criteria would be, just that it could be "sensitive to China."
My impression is that’s how it works. There’s never a clear definition from the government, so whoever’s doing the self-censoring has to guess (and err on the safe side).
The only standing committee is the Mark Protection Committee which has the power to enforce trademarks and nothing else. They couldn't do anything to change the location.
Surely they could refuse to endorse the event, retracting any right to the "Hugo Awards" brand. The event would have to use another name, which would highlight the schism. Obviously a dangerous game, as the committee would attract more scrutiny on its composition and role as ultimate owner of the brand, but probably worth considering as a nuclear option in case, say, "fans" vote for Saudi Arabia next year (yes, "fans" - I'm sure any semi-competent state actor can easily stuff ballots in polls like these...).
That's the equivalent of the "Mike Pence can make Donald Trump president" theory. They administer the trademark according to the rules laid out in the WSFS constitution; they don't decide who is allowed to use the trademark.
The Chengdu bid won the vote legitimately. They would have been massively overstepping their authority to try to prevent it. It's unlikely they could have even won a court case if they tried to prevent it.
> Because the site of Worldcon is selected by members (i.e, sci-fi fans) of which China has _many_.
One could argue that when parties involved have so different population numbers, probably using the percentage of votes relative to a country population, instead of just number of votes would be a better solution.
China also has many CCP members, some of them are told to vote for China everywhere possible. It ends exactly like this every time. Remember the NBA scandal?
Good point.
Besides, there is no detailed guidebook on censorship in China.
Every organization (media, social media) has to guess what the gov wants to censor.
As a result, every organization tends to overdo it. Because 1). you never know if you miss one target that should be censored and 2). What is OK today might not be OK tomorrow.
Censorship in China is an art (or joke).
That is more than can be said for the US, NATO, African nations and Middle Easterners. It is nice having a region of the world where the major powers in the area believe in peace.
Then even in the "Wars" section they have a limited showing give their relative economic power. I see them getting involved against Boko Haram and an the Ethiopia civil conflict as an arms supplier.
China has a long tradition of being self-centered and not really caring what is happening beyond the borders of the Celestial Kingdom. Barbarians live there, who cares about the barbarians.
It is striking to me how the current development in Xi's realm mirrors previous closing-offs of China. The Belt and Road initiative is being abandoned (and who knows what happened to the Party eunuchs most involved), the government doesn't even try to reassure foreign investors and may be silently happy about the resulting outflow of foreign investments. During the Covid pandemics, foreigners were randomly bullied (anal tests on arrival etc.) to make them stay away.
Isolationism of this sort tends to result in a relatively benign foreign policy, stemming from disinterest. That doesn't say you much about the government itself, though. The government may well be disappearing its critics into gulags by the thousands, and you will never know.
None of those things are as bad as a war though. If I had a choice of being in Hong Kong or the Gaza strip; I'd rather take Hong Kong. It is a bit fucked up, but it could be a lot worse.
At each WorldCon, host committees of science fiction groups from cities put up bids to host the WorldCon to be held two years hence. In 2021, Chengdu and Manitoba had committees on the roster. WorldCon voters chose Chengdu.
The problem is one of effective power: do you tell people who live in these regimes, "sorry, you cannot participate in this culture because your government is bad." How much pull do they have to change things, especially this sort of thing? Or do you say "you can participate, but only at a lower tier." Either way is going to put some people into an out-group. Maybe that's the right thing to do--paradox of tolerance, for instance--for the rest of the people in the group or culture. Maybe it isn't.
I know it would hurt pretty badly to be a science fiction enthusiast in China, perhaps even someone who really does not like what their government does, and not be able to participate. On the other hand, it hurts to be potentially on the list for your work's most prestigious honor, only to be "disqualified" because you "might" have written about something that isn't permitted in the host country you couldn't have predicted.
> Do you tell people who live in these regimes, "sorry, you cannot participate in this culture because your government is bad?"
Yes. Sorry, that's how it goes.
If I'm running a dance competition, I should not hold the award ceremony in a country which outlaws certain types of dance, lest they arrest some of my attendees.
Similarly, if I'm running a literature competition, I shouldn't hold it in a country that outlaws certain types of literature.
This isn't about trying to change anything per se, it's just practical.
You can buy the books in PRC. They're not outlawed. The issue is when authors politics are obvious source of controversy relative to local politics. Hugo is not stranger to such drama. Except fallout from ideological drama is extra bad for business in PRC. 8B RMB / 1B USD of deals was made at Chengdu convention, everyone tends to self censor / avoid blowback when that kind of money is involved.
People in China are neither wholly responsible for the actions of their state nor are they wholly separate and apart from it. The state and its people in any society that isn't tearing itself apart reflect one another and share many values. If you don't want your association to be infected by the spirit of self censorship and propriety shared by a 1.4 billion people you can't simultaneously allow them to vote on where to hold the conference or how. You need to settle on a set of rules that isn't up for vote like not holding it in dictatorships or countries without meaningful freedom of speech and press.
What if Gaza was selected or the Ukraine? Most orgs would have a policy. Excluding hosts that can't meet standards is what the Olympics does when selecting a host city.
Why mention the Olympics? I don't think anybody's concern was that the Worldcon isn't corrupt enough, or that it's not doing enough to leverage its prestige to entrench corporate greed?
The Olympic Committee aren't quite as awful as FIFA, I don't sense plans to hold a winter games in Qatar for a fat bribe for example, but they're pretty bad.
