I'm using my VPN much less these days.

For downloading movies from torrents I've noticed it's faster without.

Other websites I use are also faster without.

What I don't understand is the seemingly random nature of what's blocked.

I can get the anti-China news site CNN without, but need VPN to get the reasonably balanced Toronto Sun.

Toronto is in Canada, it might be retaliatory blocking.

Or practical. She's better off under house arrest there than most free citizens in China. Wouldn't want them to read too much about that.

Local media in Canada would keep covering it to bigger detail than international media, so I think blocking of Canadian media serves China's domestic circumstances more than as retaliation against Canada.

I agree, JanJal. In fact I don't see blocking of foreign media as a matter of retaliation at all.

@Jan When/if she's jailed in the USA will she still be better off?

@Ish It is simply a fact that media blocking is retaliatory. See e.g. the cases of the NYTimes and Bloomberg.

@cloudtrapezer: Yes, you're clearly right about that, don't know what I was thinking, I was perhaps too focused on the effort to keep foreign 'inaccuracies' about the world and about China from corrupting the minds of the domestic audience. The latter, of course, is also done elsewhere, in a variety of effective ways that are less obvious in that they don't necessarily involve firewalls - indeed, a relatively 'good' thing about the Great Firewall - and I can't think of much - is that everybody knows that it's there, whereas when things are mostly left up to market forces, which are supposed to be democratic, the subtleties (to the nearly blinded) can become almost invisible. The Internet was, and perhaps still is, supposed to be available to correct this, but then there are all the distracting empowered tweets from famous empowered twits, sometimes referred to as experts. And there are their employees and other associates.

One can only dig with the shovels at hand, but it's a lot of work.

Then too, the Firewall discourages Chinese writers from contributing to a number of foreign websites that may be 'inappropriate' or 'unpatriotic' or something.

Right, folks - carry on...

Then too, the Firewall discourages Chinese writers from contributing to a number of foreign websites that may be 'inappropriate' or 'unpatriotic' or something."
I don't think that has anything to do with the GFW. That is to do with the separate policy of people being encouraged to self censor.

@tiger: self-censor, yeah, but I don't think it's only that. At any rate, I've found that I can't seem to make a comment from here on certain news etc. items on foreign websites that I can read online - possible this is my own lack of ability, though.

@Cloudtrapezer: "When/if she's jailed in the USA will she still be better off?"

I don't know how that is relevant to the issue I brought up - which is, that as long as she is better off (and now she is), it is in best interest of Chinese government to block that kind of stories.

Even if her wellbeing would have nothing to do with western legal system, images of her wealth alone contributing to that wellbeing would be against interests of the rulers here.

If/when she will be put to prison in USA, I don't know how much information we will be getting of her conditions therein. I'm sure that it will still be better than most prisoners in China anyway, if not average citizens.

That alone may be sufficient for Chinese government to increase blocking of US media, like now they are blocking more Canadian media (than they would without this case).

I maintain that I don't see it as retaliatory practise, only reactionary.

Prisoners in US better off than average Chinese citizens? I'm sorry, but that is absurd. And it's relevant because among a lot of good sense you occasionally say things that, well, make me wonder.

And surely things can be both retaliatory and reactionary. There is no doubt that particular news sites have been blocked for publishing particular stories. That's an established fact.