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

China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 280 posts

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#241

Post by stareatgoats »

fdsak wrote: post #209
dandare wrote: post #201

Without pointing a finger, I will say I would be really surprised if this discussion - and HN in general - was not subject to a discourse control by paid state agents (sophisticated trolls) from China and elsewhere. Assuming that it is, what can we learn or do to miting such influences? Asking for independent source to all claims is obviously the first step.

That is the real problem with the liberty now. And I think liberty is dead under the pile of fake news generated by various parties interested in any issue. From war on terror to democracy and nuclear weapons the "agents" as you called, generates such a perception that we cannot escape, let alone our psychological biases and national, political and religious affiliations -- Welcome to the age of disinformation

Whoa, that was a depressing stance. Whereas you point to several serious problems I would hope the absolutism is there for rhetoric reasons! Personally I think it may still be argued that the information age holds the potential for greater knowledge than ever before, and factual liberty (as opposed to seeming) is very much a part of that. It just may not come quite as easy and automatically as perhaps once perceived.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#242

Post by tombh »

jonathanstrange wrote: post #231
fdsak wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Chinese are not that smart to use some fancy words like "freedom of speech" "democracy" "individual liberty" but still doing same things as all other is doing. The problem here is how some country builds narrative and justification around her actions. Digital age is double edge sword and everyone is going to bleed under the pretext of security.

China is a one-party system in which the country is run by a single cadre of 'politicians'. There is corruption everywhere and there are Draconian laws which are applied selectively and sometimes enforced and sometimes not (e.g. half of all food stands in cities are illegal, riding motorbikes is illegal in many cities, etc.). Internet and phone calls are constantly monitored and filtered based on certain words to the…

Whilst I agree, such conviction of argument does raise my alarm bells. I feel just a little too comfortable in the knowledge that China is of a distinctly "worse" political category. Actually, if I'm honest, this sort of arguing reminds me of fighting with my brother, I so needed to be right because I didn't want to face the fact that he was basically just a superficially different version of me. Ultimately what helps, is facing with the intention of understanding, the brutal reality of what it is to be a human with unchecked power, regardless of their nationality.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#243

Post by pertymcpert »

smallnamespace wrote: post #130
kashprime wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The question is not whether China will eventually devolve more political power to the populace——that is almost a given This idea was popular in 2013 when this article was written, but Xi's regime has indeed shown that greater prosperity can be had with increased repression. Turmoil in America only underlines this.

The idea that lack of direct political participation must entail repression is very much a modern Western mindset. As a Chinese-American, I see both sides of this issue, but China's own long political development sees the role of the state explicitly as a paternal protector. The state represents and protects the people's interests, without their explicit participation. This is obviously alien to a modern Western mind…

To frame democracy as a "Western mindset" is naive, democracy is a global value devoid of geographical distinctions. This kind of thinking is also used as a defensive tool against real debate about the morality of what China does.

What Britain or the US did in the 18th or 19th century is not relevant to the discussion, what matters is today.

It is not a Western mindset to think that lack of participation in the political process leads to repression. Lack of participation, or the inability to participate, is in itself a form of repression.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#244

Post by pertymcpert »

thinkpad20 wrote: post #73
testvox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably referring to the hatred many in the United States have towards urban development. In pretty much every city in the United States development has been slowed to a crawl due to zoning restrictions, despite increasing huge demand. People love to use SF as a prime example but I will point to my city, Somerville MA where rents have been soaring, yet there are only 22 lots that meet the residential zoning requirem…

That is weird, and saddening. As a lifelong city dweller (primarily Chicago) I love the character, chaos, and depth of dense cities. Visiting some of the big cities in China, I was really taken with their bustling nature, the crowded street markets, the densely packed housing, and the diverse architecture. They seem to me so much more "alive" than the sprawling, strip-mall-filled anonymity of many American cities. I…

It's shit. It might be fine if you're living in a luxury flat but otherwise a lot of Chinese cities are shit. Maybe not in 30 years when they develop further but I don't understand how anyone could want to live there. I'm excluding the wealthy areas of Shanghai in these, I'm talking more of the tier 2/3 places.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#245

Post by westiseast »

akvadrako wrote: post #236
westiseast wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I've been in trouble on HN (probably rightly so) once before for pointing the finger. With that in mind... The problem is that 'their' only objective is to undermine 'our' goal of having a balanced, honest discussion that arrives at some kind of valid, valuable truth. If a troll or discourse control agent can undermine that process, then they've 'won'. And it's pretty easy to do. Actually, demanding sources is a g…

I wish we had troll armies going around demanding sources everywhere. That would greatly elevate the level of discussion on most forums. If you don't have unbiased scientific sources to backup your claim, I don't see how you will convince me your ideas have merit.

In an ideal world, sources are great, but there’s a bunch of practical problems with the idea that everything, anyone says online should have some sort of attribution:

* How do I attach sources for my opinions or logical/moral arguments?

* I could spend an hour collating sources and writing a solid, reference based comment. A troll could destroy me in seconds with zero effort by claiming my sources are CIA funded or inherently biased.

* The internet has sources for anything you want to believe. I could easily google a bunch of authoritative looking sources confirming Flat Earth Theory, and then how will you refute them? Spend another hour discrediting those sources? And then what? I write a quick comment about how you’re obviously biased because of your media bubble.

Remember a troll doesn’t need to win the argument - he just needs to (a) cast enough shade so that an observer feels like maybe it’s subjective and neither viewpoint is correct, and (b) make you feel like it’s not worth the effort and hassle to argue with these morons.

If I (a troll) can write two x 1 minute comments that cause you to waste 2 hours of your time proving nothing, I’ve won.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#246

Post by fdsak »

stareatgoats wrote: post #241
fdsak wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the real problem with the liberty now. And I think liberty is dead under the pile of fake news generated by various parties interested in any issue. From war on terror to democracy and nuclear weapons the "agents" as you called, generates such a perception that we cannot escape, let alone our psychological biases and national, political and religious affiliations -- Welcome to the age of disinformation

Whoa, that was a depressing stance. Whereas you point to several serious problems I would hope the absolutism is there for rhetoric reasons! Personally I think it may still be argued that the information age holds the potential for greater knowledge than ever before, and factual liberty (as opposed to seeming) is very much a part of that. It just may not come quite as easy and automatically as perhaps once perceived.

Yes its depressing to see lot of dead people under the rug of so-called liberal journalism and we are siting on that rug and talking about democracy and how to remove a dictator because we dont like him etc etc. I do like the "literary" ideas (don't know if that right word) which does not work practically. I am more concerned about the livelihood of people (alive), democracy is not for dead people.

I don't deny the benefits of information age, that is huge blessings for everyone. Probably it will take some time to reap the real benefits but I am afraid the cost is getting higher, as too much information/disinformation to filter out facts from fictions. And in most of the cases states and media agencies are part of that fiction and friction created in the society, take it China or US.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#247

Post by coldtea »

narag wrote: post #237
coldtea wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems to me there is a large public relations push to normalize their authoritarianism in the view of Westerners. So, bigger than the push to make it appear worse than it is? Because that has been a tactic with any competing nation/enemy du jour of the west for over a century... Not to mention that everything is judged with US-norms and interpreted through US-preferences in all those articles (aside and above the i…

Human rights are not US-norms, there are many pitfalls that have been detected in last couple of centuries in the US and in representative democracies all over the world. Supressing freedom of speach, basic economic freedoms, due process... lead invariably to disaster, being it dictatorships, coups, generalized corruption, etc. There is nothing special with Chinese people that makes dictatorship good for them while i…

>Human rights are not US-norms

In the main, they are not. But they are general platitudes, whose interpretation is left to the individual countries, and is subject to the power relations between them.

A country, then, might be seen accusing or even bombing another (supposedly) in defense of those rights, when itself doesn't follow them.

>There is nothing special with Chinese people that makes dictatorship good for them while it's bad for us.

If only it was so simple. First, there are different concepts of what's OK and what's not. A crude example: US people don't like kings. English people are OK with their (but they don't have much power there). Thailand people love them.

Then, there's selective judgement. E.g. the US can have the largest prison population (25% of the world for 5% of it's population), and the most death sentences, mass surveillance programs, arbitrary cop killings, or even torture camps off-site, but it's OK because it has "free elections" (where two parties alternate in power for 50+ years and vote for more of the same -- never mind gerrymandering). Whereas another country is portrayed as some nightmare regime for not having elections, whereas life there might be better in those other terms. Sure, there are people that complaint for all of the above, but they still happen (and have happened for decades), and few judge the government/country in whole for that or say that it must be overthrown/invaded whatever (whereas for other countries, they do).

There's also selective enforcement, e.g. in how Saudi Arabia can be a worse regime for its citizens in all of those aspects, but as an ally it's not scolded for that, nor does it face sanctions/retribution that non-favorable (i.e. competing) countries that face.

Then there's people who have no idea of world history, little understanding of diplomacy, and how fragile states can be, and what local antagonisms and powers are held back even by some "bad" at first analysis regime, that play god, intervene (to bring "democracy") and, even assuming they do that in earnest, they end up causing civil war and chaos (see Libya, Iraq, and so on). So while "There is nothing special with Chinese people that makes dictatorship good for them while it's bad for us", there could very well something special with China as a country, and it's constitution of people's, history, antagonisms, etc, that a change would unleash hell.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#248

Post by pertymcpert »

zachguo wrote: post #224
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace "when I was little" with "1930s Germany" and "Uyghurs" with "Jews". A seed of distrust and paranoia was sown and was allowed to grow. That does not mean it has any basis in fact. You should also look at how the Chinese government has oppressed the Uyghurs (and Tibetans and Taiwanese, to name a few).

I know biased stereotype is bad, and I totally agree not all Uyghurs are bad. I went to Uyghurs restaurant regularly and had Uyghurs classmates in college too.

Yep, me too. How could I be racist, one of my best friends is black? I just mean the other kinds.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#249

Post by [deleted] »

fdsak wrote: post #240
jonathanstrange wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're offering nothing but lame excuses. You have not provided a single reason why China could not be a more democratic country with more than one party, less corruption, and more reasonable laws that are applied with due process and not selectively. The idea that more freedom and less corruptions inevitably leads to unrest is a non-sequitur. It has worked out quite well for those former East Bloc countries that are…

Give me example of one single country that is not waging any war or complicit of it ? The other point is why the world should go by force for democracy? Democracy is freedom, I don't like that democracy I am happy with dictatorship why someone should cry ? ( not pointing at you). Lets say whole population is happy with their dictator and living a decent life,unless someone is arming rebels and inciting political turm…

[deleted]

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#250

Post by garmaine »

tombh wrote: post #242
jonathanstrange wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is a one-party system in which the country is run by a single cadre of 'politicians'. There is corruption everywhere and there are Draconian laws which are applied selectively and sometimes enforced and sometimes not (e.g. half of all food stands in cities are illegal, riding motorbikes is illegal in many cities, etc.). Internet and phone calls are constantly monitored and filtered based on certain words to the…

Whilst I agree, such conviction of argument does raise my alarm bells. I feel just a little too comfortable in the knowledge that China is of a distinctly "worse" political category. Actually, if I'm honest, this sort of arguing reminds me of fighting with my brother, I so needed to be right because I didn't want to face the fact that he was basically just a superficially different version of me. Ultimately what help…

> Whilst I agree, such conviction of argument does raise my alarm bells.

Believing something that is true shouldn't be counted against oneself.

Post reply on HN