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

We Chat, They Watch

citizenlab.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 555 posts

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#241

Post by Reelin »

Aperocky wrote: post #225
sacks2k wrote: post #83

It's not just WeChat. They own stakes in many american media companies and movie production houses. They use this influence to also change our Media and push pro-Chinese propaganda to the American public.

Can you show an example of blatant Chinese propaganda from those production houses? One that are clearly separated from opinion? Or are we using propaganda and opinions interchangeably here

China exerts significant influence over the production process if you want access. (https://fortune.com/2019/10/22/hollywood-china-coproduction-...)

It's not a matter of "separated from opinion", but rather the cutting of certain scenes or modification of certain lines of dialog. They also effectively engage in various forms of product placement on a more nationalistic level.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#242

Post by xf1cf »

sacks2k wrote: post #83

It's not just WeChat. They own stakes in many american media companies and movie production houses. They use this influence to also change our Media and push pro-Chinese propaganda to the American public.

You can see the pro-chinese propaganda on this site alone.

The number of people supporting Zoom, WHO, WeChat, etc is enough to conclude with near certainty this site as well is owned by the Chinese.

Unfortunately this comment and mine will be downvoted to oblivion. But the truth is the Chinese war doctrine is to purchase land and acquire covenants. Look at Africa, Indonesia, and India. They are bought wholesale by China because they've been unable to pay their debt to the country.

What you're speaking is truth. It's a shame this site will censor you.

EDIT: Keep the downvotes coming. You're making my point. Tech is owned by the Chinese government. You either wake up now or you're fall asleep forever. I encourage everyone to look into Chinese business along the sea borders of India, Indonesia, and Africa. Their war doctrine is not obvious. It's critical people become aware of the sphere of influence. It is no coincidence so much information suppression has gone on the last 3 months...

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#243

Post by [deleted] »

gervu wrote: post #185
wolco wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Superhero movies and blockbusters movies (and tv shows like Picard) always feature a part asian young character. I guess it helps their worldwide sales. Makes it easier to see the influence.

Wow, one character from a region that makes up 60% of the world's population? How radical. Next you'll be telling me that I should be worried because they included a black character and a female character. If anything, the fact that anyone considers this at all notable should be a sign of just how racially biased casting is in most Western media. The world isn't nearly as white as it looks on your TV.

[deleted]

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#244

Post by mrcodedude »

pmachinery wrote: post #220
softwarejosh wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah i literally dont get why the guy brought up race, they should be bringing up shit like video game companies making their black characters white to sell to china. or how about the basic example of blizzards fumbling of the pro hong kong competition winner last year

> i literally don't get why the guy brought up race They brought up race because they were replying to a racist conspiracy theory amounting to them running Hollywood and pushing their agenda. Hacker News is one of the few sites - others being Stormfront, Daily Stormer, 8chan - where that kind of shit still flies.

It's a racist conspiracy that China is using its financial leverage to influence creative decisions by American-based companies?

Why do you think the last few Transformer movies were made?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#245

Post by JCharante »

shasheene wrote: post #215
hyperion2010 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Don't insinuate shilling ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). If you read that comment again with more care you'll see it's not at all whataboutism (the "What about America doing xyz" type comment that tries to suggest criticism is invalid because behavior elsewhere).

I took it as a reference to the famous quote/question "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#246

Post by hyperion2010 »

shasheene wrote: post #215
hyperion2010 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Don't insinuate shilling ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). If you read that comment again with more care you'll see it's not at all whataboutism (the "What about America doing xyz" type comment that tries to suggest criticism is invalid because behavior elsewhere).

As JCharante mentions, this statement was offered as a modernization of historical reaction to similar events, not a commentary on the parent comment. In that context the interpretation my statement basically turns on whether you believe the McCarthy was right or not and whether a similar person would be right or not today.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#247

Post by LeonB »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #85
freepor wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot "I personally built it from source using a compiler I personally built from source with a micro-compiler that I handcoded in assembly on a computer that I assembled from transistors myself."

But what if the transistors contain microchips that are phoning home? Clearly the only solution is to forage your own silicon for artisanal fabrication of your own chips.

All of which you did inside a simulated world built for spying on you. There’s no theoretical ability to verify the whole stack.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#248

Post by eitland »

kibwen wrote: post #189
devtul wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will give our freedoms away in name of preventing toxicity and hate speech. Won't you feel good you are helping squash bigots by giving your PII away

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).

Well: newspapers use Facebook for comments and used toxicity and hate speech as explanation for why they went away from their old systems.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#249

Post by shasheene »

hyperion2010 wrote: post #246
shasheene wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't insinuate shilling ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ). If you read that comment again with more care you'll see it's not at all whataboutism (the "What about America doing xyz" type comment that tries to suggest criticism is invalid because behavior elsewhere).

As JCharante mentions, this statement was offered as a modernization of historical reaction to similar events, not a commentary on the parent comment. In that context the interpretation my statement basically turns on whether you believe the McCarthy was right or not and whether a similar person would be right or not today.

Oh, I hadn't realized your question was paraphrasing a quote made famous during the 1950s

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#250

Post by Reelin »

arcticbull wrote: post #188
cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Won't you feel good you are helping squash bigots by giving your PII away That doesn't enter the equation for what I would imagine is 99.99% of users. It's the erosion of privacy in the name of a) "Safety" and b) convenience The average person of the world has shown that they will trade virtually anything for the perception of convenience, or "safety". Look at the most recent gun ban in Canada for an obvious example…

Yes, the ban may not be perfect, but as a Canadian, I can say unequivocally: I don't need perfect to be the enemy of good. There's no reason to possess these weapons any more than there's a reason to possess nuclear warheads. The next bill can ban more, fix the bugs, etc, but the flag has been planted: there's no room for those weapons in Canada. A huge number of people have wanted to ban weapons like these since Eco…

I'd suggest that you ought to be more concerned about rights and privileges that you don't necessarily value personally (or even see as causing a problem).

If you extrapolate what's been happening in China regarding the internet to electronics in general and the rest of the world, the logical extreme is total surveillance, internet censorship, and eventually loss of direct control over the devices that you own. (Only a terrorist or dissident would want to install their own OS!) (Sideloading? What's wrong with the app store?) (Who needs admin anyway?) (Tor? Isn't that the network run by all the sexual predators?)

Only a cultural norm of protecting all possible personal rights at nearly any cost, even those you don't personally value or agree with, is likely to successfully stand against such an outcome. The reason is that any particular person isn't likely to make use of (or even feel strongly about) most of the rights and privileges available to them. Put another way, it's your job to protect your neighbor's rights and your neighbor's job to protect yours.

Post reply on HN