Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 127 posts

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#81

Post by taoistextremist »

santoriv wrote: post #25
cageface wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are universities in Saigon that offer Vietnamese language classes for foreigners so it's definitely not forbidden. As is usually the case in Vietnam, the law depends a lot on when it's interpreted and who is doing the interpreting.

It's true that it's not forbidden in Saigon, but it is essentially forbidden in Dalat. I don't know about other towns in Vietnam as I can only speak to my experience.

Is it possible this could be more about controlling dialects and ensuring only the prestige one gets taught to foreigners? Thus (in theory, though unlikely having an effect in practice) forcing people to speak the prestige dialect to do business even with foreigners willing to learn the language.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#82

Post by [deleted] »

addicted wrote: post #69
unknown_apostle wrote: post #66

So is this really fundamentally different from the plans in EU and Germany? https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/call-appl... It's a dangerous illusion of modernity that you can just pick up a "high quality" newspaper or watch the news and understand what is happening in the world. Or even in your own region. One possible advantage of the total chaos of internet news is that the noise becomes so strong…

It depends on the kind of oversight policies the EU group develops.

[deleted]

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#83

Post by taoistextremist »

secret_island wrote: post #3

I'm sure they are getting their playbook from their Chinese friends. Even Japan is getting more heavy handed than they were, and in Asia, they are the most liberal of all governments in comparison. Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, all heavy handed as regards the Internet. Russia, China, most of the former Balkan states, Turkey... Brazil, even.

>Even Japan is getting more heavy handed than they were, and in Asia, they are the most liberal of all governments in comparison.

I feel like this isn't really true; Taiwan, and arguably South Korea have more liberal societies and governments.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#84

Post by bovermyer »

nailer wrote: post #77
bovermyer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wanted to clarify. Are you saying that drowning out reliable journalism with intentional disinformation on social media is a GOOD thing? If so... why?

Who determines reliable journalism? I'm liberal but CNN's had issued a massive amount of retractions for their Russia stories, still has the fake fish feeding article up, the Guardian had to retract their 'unarmed' front page story about the drug dealer with the gun in his car. Making shit up is commonplace, yet media censors inevitably only want to target Breitbart and right sources. It's a plain as day transparent…

That's an existing problem, and not an easy one to solve. It will have to rely on independent review.

But relying on social networks for news drops both careful research AND independent review, which is a step backward, not forward.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#85

Post by jryle70 »

zipwitch wrote: post #76
ihsw2 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cannot remove ideas from the mind but you can flood it with so much misinformation that the ideas are basically destroyed. Effectively, people will "block Facebook" from themselves through self-censorship or completely writing off Facebook as a "poisoned well."

Are you implying this would be a bad thing? While I think the internet provides amazing and revolutionary communications options to the human race, Facebook is quite clearly not among them.

Yes. It's the bad thing. Who is to decide whether FB is bad? If you want to fight disinformation on FB, then fight it. But discriminate against using FB is the not the way.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#86

Post by ghostbrainalpha »

nailer wrote: post #77
bovermyer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wanted to clarify. Are you saying that drowning out reliable journalism with intentional disinformation on social media is a GOOD thing? If so... why?

Who determines reliable journalism? I'm liberal but CNN's had issued a massive amount of retractions for their Russia stories, still has the fake fish feeding article up, the Guardian had to retract their 'unarmed' front page story about the drug dealer with the gun in his car. Making shit up is commonplace, yet media censors inevitably only want to target Breitbart and right sources. It's a plain as day transparent…

I really love VICE news on HBO even though it definitely comes from the Hard Left perspective. Basically all news should be taken skeptically, but as much as possible they just go with first person video interviews of the people involved.

I don't trust what CNN says about Steve Bannon or Roy Moore, but just hearing what they say about themselves in their own words is enough for me to know I don't belong in their camp.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#87

Post by otakucode »

bergoid wrote: post #43
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very difficult to read when you indent like that. Here is it without the formatting: "Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race" or "Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion."

The Orwellian implications of these definitions are hair-raising. This turns crime into something that is in the eye of the beholder and lies the burden of proof upon the accused.

Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's bigotry or perceived bigotry is A-OK.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#88

Post by amgin3 »

santoriv wrote: post #17

It's an interesting progression - 5 years ago the Vietnamese government was trying to block Facebook (it was pretty easy to get around). Then they gave up on that and allowed everyone on Facebook, and now they are more concerned with dissent so I guess they are going to patrol social media. It's interesting that they have not decided to return to their previous policy of blocking Facebook. They have some pretty stran…

This is BS. I lived in Vietnam for years, there are plenty of language schools where foreigners can go to learn Vietnamese. I've never heard of anyone needing a license to teach Vietnamese. There are even volunteer groups in HCMC for teaching foreigners Vietnamese, all done in the open with no teaching certifications.

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#89

Post by Joeboy »

orf wrote: post #57
lmm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/19/paul-gascoig... is the concrete case to look at here. A tasteless, mean-spirited thing to say it may have been, but it should not have been a crime.

The charge seems ok to me, and he was not charged with hate speech. At the end of the day, 12 ordinary people came to the same conclusion, and so he is guilty. It's hardly the "big evil government cracking down on this nice man's (non existent) right to be racist". Perhaps in a one on one situation it wouldn't be a crime, but doing infront of a thousand people is clearly very bad and distressing. Perhaps it's down to…

> 12 ordinary people came to the same conclusion

I'm also not in any way outraged by the outcome, but actually this was heard in a magistrates' court so there would be no jury involved.

> big evil government

Nah, it's kind of down to the whims of the individual judge. The wording of the statutes is pretty broad and vague, and in practice I think you inevitably have to rely on the individuals who comprise the legal system to not be terrible.

Right now I'd say that if people want to be outraged about the UK's legal system, they'd do better to direct their ire towards cuts in legal aid rather than "hate speech" laws (which have always existed in some form).

Re: Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

#90

Post by hailk »

bergoid wrote: post #68
orf wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all about the manner of delivery: "Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden"[1] Notice the and condition, it has to be threatening and intended to harass for example. Just causing someone distress without the intend to harass or threaten is not illegal, so someone feeling upset about what you said is perfectly fine. But if you said it t…

> "Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden" Prohibitions like this one are overly broad and smother a lot of legitimate discussion. Exceptions to free speech used to be limited to things like: * Don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater. * Don't call for violence. If we broaden the scope to any speech someone, somewhere might take offense to,…

It isn't as broad apparently. If you go through the wikipedia link it also states :-

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Subjective descriptions of a person's actions or behaviour, however abhorrent, crass or objectionable, may not be considered an attempt to spread hate unless the motive is clearly defined as such."

Certainly there are still going to be "grey incidents".

Post reply on HN