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

321–330 of 555 posts

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#321

Post by bosswipe »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #196
kibwen wrote: post #189

Earlier 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…

> but also looking-up the phone number’s SS7 info

Does that really work? I'd like a service like that for my personal phone.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#322

Post by lolc »

balola wrote: post #294
dwaltrip wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would consider it a grotesque violation of my freedom if some powerful organization prevented me from privately saying what I wanted to my friends and other acquaintances. Yes, there is some of this in the U.S. due to chilling effects from mass surveillance. I find it abhorrent. However, actively filtering and blocking messages is even worse.

This coronavirus has made the people believe the gov is the best on the planet, since every other country is struggling with their freedom and rights, or as they are being told.

Yes protection of the subjected is a common justification for censorship. The reasoning is not completely wrong, just incomplete. How incomplete? One can't know under active censorship.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#323

Post by throwaway391003 »

88840-8855 wrote: post #275
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.

Propaganda is propaganda. It does not surprise me and it is very obvious - even more obvious then the "USA SO HERO" and "WESTERN STUFF IS SO COOL" propaganda in movies.

Here's a really interesting article I read a while back that gave me some reconsideration for Western culture... I still don't know if I agree but it still gave me food for thought

https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2020/04/what-i-learned-in-peace-...

A little excerpt:

"As a twenty-one-year-old starting out in the Peace Corps, I loved Senegal. In fact, I was euphoric. I quickly made friends and had an adopted family. I relished the feeling of the brotherhood of man. People were open, willing to share their lives and, after they knew you, their innermost thoughts. The longer I lived there, the more I understood: it became blindingly obvious that the Senegalese are not the same as us. The truths we hold to be self-evident are not evident to the Senegalese. How could they be? Their reality is totally different. You can't understand anything in Senegal using American terms."

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#324

Post by midasz »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #98

It’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.

Meh I can kind of understand why the site is deemed questionable. It's paid for by a Republican political consulting firm. It may not be orchestrated by the Trump campaign but they definitely condone it. According to Snopes some parts of it can also be deemed as misinformation (like the picture framed as Biden groping Stephanie Carter).

So to me it's in the grey area bordering on black, but I'm also not a fan of this type of campaigning (playing on the man).The fact that they try to present it as an actual Biden website is also questionable.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#325

Post by OwlsParlay »

midasz wrote: post #309
idra wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Have no choice" is false. Fortunately, email still works. As does any messenger through a VPN. Using Wechat is simply being complicit with censorship out of laziness.

How is "have no choice" false when you have to pretend to be from another country to be able to use messaging services? If the choice is bordering on illegal (I'm not familiar with the intricacies of Chinese law but I'd assume it's atleast frowned upon to bypass their barriers) then is it really a choice? To me a choice would be that you could use the state sanctioned communication apps OR another one in the same way…

My understanding is that VPNs are not hard to get and are silently tolerated. Obviously, using them to then do something illegal like plan your own protests might get you in trouble, but using it to access YouTube or chat to someone overseas via WhatsApp is allowed.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#326

Post by erik_seaberg »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #302
AlchemistCamp wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s a B2B service (“B2SB”?) - not targeting people/consumers - so it’s reasonable to assume they have a real phone number.

Which mobile carriers do you support, if not Google Fi (which is mine)? Or only landlines (which barely exist at my day job)?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#327

Post by jstanley »

kube-system wrote: post #155
TechBro8615 wrote: post #98

It’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.

Very very few messaging platforms operate without any kind of censorship. Censorship, by itself, is not particularly worrisome, especially when done by first or second parties to the conversation. The problems arise when the censorship is compelled by third parties who are using it for their own benefit, rather than the benefit of others.

I'd argue that the problems arise whenever the censorship is compelled by third parties, even if they're doing it for the benefit of others.

> Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#328

Post by philliphaydon »

lvturner wrote: post #176
philliphaydon wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As does any messenger through a VPN Except VPNs are illegal in china. If a site is banned in china. Using a VPN to circumvent the law is breaking the law. Email is not secure.

This isn't strictly true - https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3023081/c... It's also worth noting that a cellular connection that is roaming is not generally subject to the restrictions the firewall imposes.

It is strictly true. The law states: "illegal to access foreign internet without government permission first."

The government opening up businesses to connect to services such as facebook or twitter to promote china businesses and so on is just the government giving permissions.

But for the every-day citizen, the use of a VPN is technically illegal as it circumvents the law.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#329

Post by itsmeamario »

throwaway391003 wrote: post #323
88840-8855 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Propaganda is propaganda. It does not surprise me and it is very obvious - even more obvious then the "USA SO HERO" and "WESTERN STUFF IS SO COOL" propaganda in movies.

Here's a really interesting article I read a while back that gave me some reconsideration for Western culture... I still don't know if I agree but it still gave me food for thought https://www.eurocanadian.ca/2020/04/what-i-learned-in-peace-... A little excerpt: "As a twenty-one-year-old starting out in the Peace Corps, I loved Senegal. In fact, I was euphoric. I quickly made friends and had an adopted family. I reli…

The article was interesting but boy, did it take an unexpected turn at the end. I may agree with the article and the life in Senegal, but I definitely DON'T with the conclusion.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#330

Post by JCharante »

ascorbic wrote: post #269
JCharante wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really useful for note taking. I'm logged in on my phone and main computer, and as I watch lectures I can screenshot useful slides and send it to the file transfer contact. I can also send a text message, and later its search feature lets me go to the context where my query appeared. The messages are stored locally on your devices so the query is lightning fast (unlike if I were using slack). I'll use it to evic…

But why WeChat? Any other chat app will do the same, without being monitored by the Chnese government.

Really? Messenger can't. Whatsapp can't. Snapchat can't. Zalo can't. GroupMe can't (maybe I could create a solo group chatin it?. I don't remember telegram having it. At some point app fatigue sets in and you don't want to install even more apps.

I'm not setting up a second account just to have something to send it to. Additionally the messages won't be available on my computer.

Post reply on HN