Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'

Post by abritinthebay » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 5:47 PM UTC

cageface wrote: post #16

abritinthebay wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a breathtaking over simplification of their relationship. It’s a very complex and mildly antagonistic relationship while, yes, also having strong cultural and political influence. Your characterization is incredibly broad however and - taken as written - quite inaccurate

I've been living in Vietnam for over seven years now and spoken to countless locals about this and it's way more than mildly antagonistic.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 5:55 PM UTC

IIIr3228 wrote: post #100

nailer wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The Guardian isn't perfect, but you can't seriously compare it to Breitbart, which intentionally distorts facts on a regular basis, and goes out of it's way to sensationalize and offend. Would the guardian be caught dead printing these? https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-... Or have they peddled lies as big as these ones? https://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/ https://www.sn…

Post by IronKettle » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 6:01 PM UTC

laretluval wrote: post #99

rgbrenner wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journalists are just people. Reliable journalism occurs when those people try their best to provide accurate information, and when they make a mistake they correct it. That's it. You can't expect perfection from people.

> when those people try their best to provide accurate information It is not enough to trust them to do their best. Journalists should be in a structure that strongly incentivizes telling the truth and strongly punishes false information. It is very unclear that US media outlets, almost all of which are highly politicized, have this property.

Post by walshemj » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 6:13 PM UTC

nailer wrote: post #78

pjc50 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They almost certainly get a lot of reports of hate speech, and it is actually an offence, so having some level of specialist response is probably justified. What's wrong is ignoring any category of crime where there are victims, property or otherwise. London it a multi-ethnic city and in order to stay peacefully that way the more extreme provocateurs of racial and religious hatred need to be silenced. Some background…

Have you considered Diane Abbot may attract abuse (non racial, simply 'people being mean' abuse) due to being repeatedly revealed as being massively incompetent and believing she's a capable alternative for Home Secretary?

Post by walshemj » Wed, Dec 27, 2017, 6:17 PM UTC

tehlike wrote: post #38

walshemj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

sorry to break it to you some citizens can be traitors relaying on the "I know his people" and he's a good chap belongs to the right club does't work as a vetting procedure as we found in the UK with the cambridge 5 and others

I agree, but this is a slippery slope, and be mindful that warrantless surveillance is technically illegal (or not, i don't know what patriot act brought these days). It's a slippery slope because there is no end to it. It starts with surveillance - which evades privacy, then comes your freedom of speech, then your freedom to choose.