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

341–350 of 555 posts

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#341

Post by lazyasciiart »

idra wrote: post #175
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.

There is no such thing as "the law" in China. You may be imprisoned or disappeared if you didn't do anything to circumvent "the law", there are always undisclosed "relevant rules and regulations" ready to be unleashed. You can also carry out brazen illegal activities as long as you are well-connected (until you start stepping on toes of someone more well-connected than you). So what if email is insecure, neither is W…

It's easy to point to examples of all those things in the US. Both countries still have laws.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#342

Post by pmachinery »

mrcodedude wrote: post #300
pmachinery wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go on then, explain how the last few Transformer movies were about pushing pro-Chinese propaganda.

That's not what I said. China is using its position to propagate and censor media both domestically and globally. Not liking the actions of a government doesn't mean you're racist against that population. https://screenrant.com/movies-changed-for-china/ > Decisions to cast Tilda Swinton as a 'celtic' incarnation of the Ancient One, typically a Tibetan character, alongside the choice to move Stephen Strange's place of…

> That's not what I said.

Then what you said has nothing to do with what I was commenting on, which was not a claim that Hollywood will do what it has to do to access the Chinese market, but a claim that "they" own stakes in media companies to push pro-Chinese propaganda to the American public.

Do you have some examples of that?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#343

Post by woutr_be »

balola wrote: post #291
woutr_be wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think censorship is a big deal? That's exactly the reason why their government gets away with it, because people see it as no big deal.

If what the gov is doing (ostensibly) makes them rich, e.g. they can afford cars and condo prices double every few years, them yes, the majority of people doesn't care.

Look, I've spoken to this to my friends in China about this before, and I can understand that to them it's okay, they've seen their lives improve over the past 10 years. And I understand why they feel that way, they've never known anything else.

But anyone coming from the Western world, and agreeing with what their government is doing in terms of censorship, that I can't understand.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#344

Post by benliong78 »

rorykoehler wrote: post #297
balola wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what the gov is doing (ostensibly) makes them rich, e.g. they can afford cars and condo prices double every few years, them yes, the majority of people doesn't care.

You can have those things without the oppression. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

You're right that correlation does not equal causation, but it doesn't have to be for those folks to not care.

Having lived in Singapore, Hong Kong (current) and China, I can tell you that in Singapore's case, folks are aware that they live under a semi-dictatorship, that their government controls all media (radio, tv, everything is state-owned). But they always say "but I guess the government is doing a good job".

One has nothing to do with the other. The government can do a good job without the dictatorship, but it's the way folks rationalize their helplessness, their sense of lack of control over their fate.

This is also why we in Hong Kong ARE fighting against these kind of controls, probably in vein, but I for one do NOT want to resign in rationalizing for the government's over-control without a fight.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#345

Post by fnordian_slip »

itsmeamario wrote: post #329
throwaway391003 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How was that turn unexpected?

Didn't the part that said

"Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that a few decades later, liberals would be pushing the lie that Western civilization is no better than a third-world country. Or would teach two generations of our kids that loving your own culture and wanting to preserve it are racism."

at the beginning clue you in?

The author certainly doesn't try very hard to be subtle.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#346

Post by Talanes »

arcticbull wrote: post #236
throwawayosiu1 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m a Canadian and I find that absolutely the opposite. 1. > 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 Slipper slope don’t you say? Quite a lot of guns on that list were not even available in Canada or would be available. Furthermore, we have some of the strictest gun laws around. What you said above to me sounds…

Re 1: If McDonalds were handing out firearms I'd agree with ya ;) The difference is of course that the burger only kills the person ingesting it where a gun kills someone other than the owner. This makes the former a personal responsibility issue and the latter a public safety issue. And of course, you can eat McDonalds safely in moderation without developing obesity, but you can't really get shot safely or in modera…

I agree with you on almost all points, but regarding:

> but you can't really get shot safely or in moderation without developing death.

I think 50 Cent offers a counterpoint.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#347

Post by rorykoehler »

benliong78 wrote: post #344
rorykoehler wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have those things without the oppression. Correlation doesn't equal causation.

You're right that correlation does not equal causation, but it doesn't have to be for those folks to not care. Having lived in Singapore, Hong Kong (current) and China, I can tell you that in Singapore's case, folks are aware that they live under a semi-dictatorship, that their government controls all media (radio, tv, everything is state-owned). But they always say "but I guess the government is doing a good job". O…

I've lived in Singapore too. Its mighty oppressive in that I found myself self-censoring on occasion but you can't compare it to the dystopia China has become.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#348

Post by kart23 »

midasz wrote: post #324
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…

So?

Are we really at the point where we can defend censorship of a website that doesn't have any illegal content, no links to illegal content, and the purpose of which is not to do anything illegal, but whose only purpose make ones political opinions known.

On Facebook messenger, one of the biggest messaging apps in the world. This is honestly disgusting, and I think they are going to face backlash for it.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#349

Post by kart23 »

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.

I'm not sure how you discovered this, but I think you just started the biggest steisand effect of the year.
Post reply on HN