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

Skype banned from China

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Skype banned from China

#31

Post by est »

gregcmartin wrote: post #19

Most people forget or don't know that Skype was created by the founders of Kazaa and they are hackers (like us) at heart and they built strong encryption into it protecting (actually) the privacy of their users' audio conversations. Skype's encryption has been a heated issue to governments who cannot wiretap Skype for various reasons law enforcement or otherwise. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Skype_s…

> Skype's encryption has been a heated issue to governments who cannot wiretap Skype for various reasons law enforcement or otherwise.

China has a customize Skype build called TOM-Skype. It has a built-in "sensitive words" filter and backdoor keylogger.

Re: Skype banned from China

#32

Post by dschobel »

awt wrote: post #15

I hate making generalizations about huge entities like states, but I can't resist on this one. I think this kind of thing will ultimately trip China up, and prevent China from ever gaining a significant technological lead. The more closed their internet is, the less ideas people will be exposed to, and thus there will continue to be less innovation.

When you have an economy on the scale of China's you can afford to lag the cutting edge. A captive market of 1.3B people makes up for a lot of inefficiencies.

Re: Skype banned from China

#33

Post by sdkslzdfk »

mike4u2 wrote: post #30
garply wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an American expat in China and I've lived here for several years. I completely agree with the Chinese guy's statement and have thought the same thing myself many times, though I've never heard anyone else openly express it. Living in an extremely alien culture allows you to see things about your own culture that are hard to notice when you're immersed. I can be a little more specific about how the propaganda syst…

Your post is interesting but it misses a key point: Selection bias is everywhere, but in the US and most other countries you do not get run over by a truck if you watch Fox News, run your own blog or decide to make fun of politicians.

Yes. It's a long, well thought out post that's entirely non-sequitur. The poster doesn't understand the difference between true propaganda and spin.

The NYTimes has its own opinion, but it is definitely not an instrument of the US Government.

He also implies that because China has clunky methods which are obvious they don't have any subtle ones. Having clunky methods doesn't rule out having subtle ones. I don't speak Chinese, but I find it exceedingly hard to believe that China doesn't employ both clunky and subtle forms of propaganda.

Having clunky and detectable methods isn't better, either, as you claim, it's worse, because they're more invasive. That's the whole point. That's why we don't want censorship, or the great firewall, or our non-violent dissenters rotting in jail.

Anyway, maybe you live in a relativistic world where everybody's country is only as good as they're told, but I'm smart enough to discount my own bias, and I know that the US is a freer place to live than China.

Re: Skype banned from China

#34

Post by stcredzero »

jerf wrote: post #24
stcredzero wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also a reminder that the market will efficiently execute pretty much anything, regardless of the desirability of efficient execution. A couple of things here: 1) Many trained economists would say this is a woeful oversimplification or flat-out disagree. 2) Exactly what is meant by "efficient" and "pretty much"?

"Many trained economists would say this is a woeful oversimplification or flat-out disagree." Many trained economists would also have to blow out the HN comment limit to fully explain what they meant. Accusing someone's economics of being "simplified" is a bit of a cheap shot, a PhD thesis is also "simplified". I don't think very many trained economists would have a hard time expanding my sentence into a reasonable c…

I don't think very many trained economists would have a hard time expanding my sentence into a reasonable claim.

Not if you're espousing the woo-woo of market infallibility. markets are very good at lots of things. They aren't great at everything any more than Bayesian filters or genetic algorithms are infallible oracles.

Some exceptions for truly ideological-only propaganda, sure, but those are the exceptions.

Market infallibility woo-woo is ideological propaganda.

Re: Skype banned from China

#36

Post by jgwynn2901 »

sdkslzdfk wrote: post #33
mike4u2 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post is interesting but it misses a key point: Selection bias is everywhere, but in the US and most other countries you do not get run over by a truck if you watch Fox News, run your own blog or decide to make fun of politicians.

Yes. It's a long, well thought out post that's entirely non-sequitur. The poster doesn't understand the difference between true propaganda and spin. The NYTimes has its own opinion, but it is definitely not an instrument of the US Government. He also implies that because China has clunky methods which are obvious they don't have any subtle ones. Having clunky methods doesn't rule out having subtle ones. I don't speak…

Q.E.D.

Re: Skype banned from China

#37

Post by jerf »

stcredzero wrote: post #34
jerf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many trained economists would say this is a woeful oversimplification or flat-out disagree." Many trained economists would also have to blow out the HN comment limit to fully explain what they meant. Accusing someone's economics of being "simplified" is a bit of a cheap shot, a PhD thesis is also "simplified". I don't think very many trained economists would have a hard time expanding my sentence into a reasonable c…

I don't think very many trained economists would have a hard time expanding my sentence into a reasonable claim. Not if you're espousing the woo-woo of market infallibility. markets are very good at lots of things. They aren't great at everything any more than Bayesian filters or genetic algorithms are infallible oracles. Some exceptions for truly ideological-only propaganda, sure, but those are the exceptions. Marke…

I didn't say infallible. I said efficient. Many of the problems with markets are that they are efficient in ways that people don't want them to be; they will ruthlessly pollute the environment or squeeze people right out of the system if that is what brings the maximum reward. Or, to the point at hand, ruthlessly optimize propaganda without much thought about the consequences. Many people make the mistake of conflating "efficient" with "desirable", but they are only related, not identical. (Actually damn near everybody makes that mistake, even economists, to be honest.)

I'm a big proponent of understanding why it works that way and trying to ensure the market works for us, not against us, and therefore I don't think letting it run unfettered is a good idea. I also don't think deliberately misunderstanding and demonizing it, then applying foolish and poorly-thought-out first-order-thinking-based controls are a good idea either, which is by far the most common alternative. It's like demonizing gravity and trying to legislate antigravity into existence.

Re: Skype banned from China

#38

Post by tubecat »

StavrosK wrote: post #2

This is entirely unrelated, but it reminds me of a comment I saw on reddit that was very telling. Someone was talking about a colleague of his who was Chinese and had come to the US, and who, over dinner with some other colleagues, said: "I can't believe how smooth your propaganda is here in the US. In China it is crude and everyone can see through it, but here you almost miss it." To which all of the other colleague…

That's exactly my experience. The average middle class person knows for a fact that he is lied to and information is withheld from him. They know what youtube is and they know their government is blocking it.

In spite of even wikileaks, no one can believe the exact same thing goes on here.

Re: Skype banned from China

#39

Post by tubecat »

maeon3 wrote: post #6
jedsmith wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that anecdote is more telling of the alleged climate in the United States, depending on how you read it.

I had a Chinese girl lecture me on how I was taken in by propaganda by believing that the Yuan/RMB was not pegged to gold. I had proof that it was pegged to the US dollar from 3 independent reliable sources but she wouldn't believe any of it. Banning skype is simply an ineffective attempt to protect the propaganda misinformation machines in the people's republic of China.

Many still believe the USD is backed by gold.

Re: Skype banned from China

#40

Post by stcredzero »

jerf wrote: post #37
stcredzero wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think very many trained economists would have a hard time expanding my sentence into a reasonable claim. Not if you're espousing the woo-woo of market infallibility. markets are very good at lots of things. They aren't great at everything any more than Bayesian filters or genetic algorithms are infallible oracles. Some exceptions for truly ideological-only propaganda, sure, but those are the exceptions. Marke…

I didn't say infallible. I said efficient. Many of the problems with markets are that they are efficient in ways that people don't want them to be; they will ruthlessly pollute the environment or squeeze people right out of the system if that is what brings the maximum reward. Or, to the point at hand, ruthlessly optimize propaganda without much thought about the consequences. Many people make the mistake of conflati…

I didn't say infallible. I said efficient.

There are certain things markets are not efficient or even particularly good at.

I also don't think deliberately misunderstanding and demonizing it, then applying foolish and poorly-thought-out first-order-thinking-based controls are a good idea either

Agreed. We probably need a better understanding of meta-markets.

Post reply on HN