Don't you worry, the US pays in kind.
This sort of comment is so tiring to see. There is an obvious difference.
I am talking about propaganda. There is no difference here. Either country is trying to promote itself.
We Chat, They Watch
201–210 of 555 posts
Re: We Chat, They Watch
#202Don't you worry, the US pays in kind.
It's absurd to compare the US to China because: 1: It's not the topic 2: it's a blatant falacy 3: it distracts from the main point adding unneeded emotionalism and 4: Even with it's current slide toward Eastern European style strongman state, it's not remotely as bad to it's people.
I did not say anything about treatment of it's own people. I was talking about propaganda.
Re: We Chat, They Watch
#203It’s worth noting that Facebook Messenger also intercepts and filters messages. For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link “joebiden.info”. On the mobile app, it will simply say “failed to send.” On desktop, it will tell you the link violates its “community standards” and cannot be shared.
>For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link “joebiden.info” This is the first I've heard about this. Had a look at the site and the content loaded doesn't seem to be malicious (technically), just content on some questionable areas about Biden. What's going on here?
It's run by a person on Trump's campaign team: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/politics/fake-joe-bide...
At the bottom it claims: "It is not paid for by any candidate, committee, organization, or PAC." While that may be technically true (it would be hard to verify), it's certainly misleading. I'm assuming because of that claim it runs afoul of FB's community standards.
Re: We Chat, They Watch
#204Re: We Chat, They Watch
#205It’s worth noting that Facebook Messenger also intercepts and filters messages. For example, it’s impossible to send a message containing the link “joebiden.info”. On the mobile app, it will simply say “failed to send.” On desktop, it will tell you the link violates its “community standards” and cannot be shared.
The differences are: (1) with Facebook it's a private company doing the censoring and there's no issue with that, no First Amendment issues at all, unlike WeChat where the censoring is heavily linked to the government; (2) Facebook at least tells you when a message can't be sent but WeChat fails silently.
Tencent is a Chinese company so there's no First Amendment issue there either
Re: We Chat, They Watch
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To talk to friends or family that are in China. I'm assuming you mean of not-Chinese origin, basically expats. Yes? Are there no other options? Are no non-Chinese messengers allowed in China?
Yeah WhatsApp, Facebook, Reddit, Google Hangouts all banned in China. Pretty much anything not owned by a Chinese company, or anything that didn't go through all sorts of hoops to meet Chinese censorship criteria (and even then it's not a guarantee), is banned. Even github was banned until Chinese developers complained that it made their jobs impossible
I was aware basically every expat used a VPN/roaming cell service. Your home internet is unusable if you don't.
Re: We Chat, They Watch
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
In aggregate, the systems of governance and human rights that we endorse for the world will have a direct impact on our lives in the long run. If you think you're marginally more likely to be arrested and prosecuted for littering because of super secret iMessage collection... why not consider the marginal effects of turning a blind eye to (and contributing to the economic expansion of) an illiberal, anti-democratic p…
I'm not endorsing, nor turning a blind eye to China's government. I was responding to a comment which was only critising China, while arguing that the US has all of these protections and thus was effectively endorsing the US government (to the point of saying that they prefer US government surveillance). I on the other hand, do not endorse the vast majority of the US government's actions, hence the criticism. It's a…
Why can the governor general replace a prime minister who has a majority?
Why did the citizens reward and vote in the party who pulled those election tricks.
Why would you blame the US but not bother to change the laws? This can happen again.
Re: We Chat, They Watch
#208"non-China-registered accounts are subject to pervasive content surveillance that was previously thought to be exclusively reserved for China-registered accounts."
This is perhaps the least surprising discovery I've heard this entire year.
Re: We Chat, They Watch
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's not a single social network that has begun to require phone verification because of the risk of "toxicity or hate speech". It's all to fight spam and to better track user activity (and, if we're being charitable to them, perhaps to stymie deliberate propaganda/fake news).
This. A service I built+run started getting overrun with bot users. The signup CAPTCHA didn’t help because they’d sign-up for accounts using humans - then after that’s done they’d copy their access tokens to the bot users. We couldn’t use a CAPTCHA for every operation on the platform. But by requiring a real phone number that we verify (by placing a TTS phone call - not an SMS - as processing received TTS calls is mu…
I don't know what your service is but I simply wouldn't be able to use it as my only phone number is Google Voice.
It's highly likely that prospective users just leave when encountering your restrictions and having their phone numbers rejected.
Re: We Chat, They Watch
#210It's a feature not a bug. It was designed this way because it makes business sense. Why are Americans using WeChat I'm not sure.
I use it to talk to my friends based in China