71–80 of 200 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That article says that Taiwan didn't have democratic elections in 1990. How is that responsive to a claim that Nationalist China was undemocratic?
I'm under the impression that Taiwan is Nationalist China.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US congress recently funded a mild version of Ministry of Truth. So they aren't the only one. > Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-24/obama-signs-counter.…
The Voice of America has been operating since 1942: http://www.insidevoa.com/p/5831.html
H.R. 5181 establishes a Global Engagement Center, funds it, creates an official in charge of it who works for the Board of Broadcasting Governors and makes them immune to civil law.
With the passage of the resolution, the Executive Branch is empowered to reinterpret prior domestic propaganda protections so that American citizens that do not believe official US narrative can be engaged/targeted by influence operations.
Looks like the Chinese government would like to ensure that its citizens do not fall victim to 'fake news' and has thus taken on the responsibility of 'fact checking'.
In the US, we are dealing with the problem of fake news and in China, they are dealing with the problem of real news.
So is China.
Looks like the Chinese government would like to ensure that its citizens do not fall victim to 'fake news' and has thus taken on the responsibility of 'fact checking'.
If you're trying to make fun of fact checking fake news, that is a totally facetious comparison. The whole point of fact checking is that the fact check / rebuttal is put side by side or preceding the original claim, with evidence and its own citations. You're not prevented from seeing the original claim, even if statistically fewer people see the original claim. If the Communist party decided to replace all online c…
And of course, the original source's surrebuttal to the rebuttal is put side by side with that. Truth is so strong, it can let error have the last word...
Oh wait, that's not how it works at all. In fact I've hardly ever seen this "side-by-side" thing. Usually what I see is the original source paraphrased, then reduced to its most mockable possible strawman. Could you provide some examples of what you see as fact-checking done right?
> I would consider that progress in China
I would consider it progress in America. It would certainly be progress on Twitter. (I recall one tweet saying "So Twitter has gone from a sewer, to a sewer with unexplained disappearances.")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet started in 1969 and the Chinese Communist Party forced the legitimate government to retreat to Taipei in 1949. So China has been fact checking for twenty years longer than the internet has existed.
What precisely makes Maoist China less legitimate than Nationalist China? I don't recall either of them winning any kind of fair and free elections.
Thats the only difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What precisely makes Maoist China less legitimate than Nationalist China? I don't recall either of them winning any kind of fair and free elections.
Everyone that left or escaped Maoist China has an opinion of the mainland that is fixed in time, and is used to shape perception and policy towards the mainland that is completely incongruent with the sentiment on the mainland. Thats the only difference.
Something that might be comparably shocking is the extent to which Chinese investors and government representatives influence the content of Hollywood movies that depict or refer to China. There were some news reports about this in the last couple of years; I sat next to a Hollywood studio executive on a flight last month and (rather than arguing about copyright policy) commiserated about this issue. He confirmed tha…
Something that might be comparably shocking is the extent to which Chinese investors and government representatives influence the content of Hollywood movies that depict or refer to China. There were some news reports about this in the last couple of years; I sat next to a Hollywood studio executive on a flight last month and (rather than arguing about copyright policy) commiserated about this issue. He confirmed tha…
Something that might be comparably shocking is the extent to which Chinese investors and government representatives influence the content of Hollywood movies that depict or refer to China. There were some news reports about this in the last couple of years; I sat next to a Hollywood studio executive on a flight last month and (rather than arguing about copyright policy) commiserated about this issue. He confirmed tha…
Red Dawn, a remake of a 1980s action movie about a Soviet invasion of the United States, was originally shot featuring China as the antagonist invading the United States. According to Mr. Shiao, however, the Chinese are “not interested in their country being perceived as a violent military threat to the lives of average Americans.”
and
A 'Captain Phillips' executive identified the tone of the film as a source of discomfort for censors, particularly “the big Military machine of the U.S. saving one U.S. citizen. China would never do the same and in no way would want to promote this idea.”
While I think censorship an unwise and ultimately self-defeating policy, and also agree with the basic premise that a good many of the rules are just dressed up protectionism, I can't really blame China for declining to import overt propaganda. China makes lots of propagandistic films, but the propaganda is mainly about what China should be like. It'll be some time before they produce an overtly anti-American film like Brother 2 or Valley of the Wolves (as opposed to striaght-up propaganda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_8lSjcoSW8) and I doubt whether it would be well-received here if they did.
Something that might be comparably shocking is the extent to which Chinese investors and government representatives influence the content of Hollywood movies that depict or refer to China. There were some news reports about this in the last couple of years; I sat next to a Hollywood studio executive on a flight last month and (rather than arguing about copyright policy) commiserated about this issue. He confirmed tha…
American investors and government influence the content of Hollywood movies that depict the US or US activity, so I'm not sure why that should be particularly shocking. This is what happens in a globalized economy.
Now try doing that in China. Make the PLA the enemy or portray a corrupt out of control official in Chongqing like Bo Xilai. Not allowed, because it is way too close to the truth for comfort, maybe.