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

461–470 of 555 posts

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#461

Post by 101404 »

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 if TMobile or Verizon would drop your call, because you mentioned some political candidate's name, that would be completely okay with you?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#462

Post by midasz »

kart23 wrote: post #348
midasz wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you're fine with the fact that they are purposefully spreading misinformation? Then just say that you're OK with that (if it suits your agenda, of course) instead of downvoting.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#463

Post by midasz »

101404 wrote: post #461
midasz wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 if TMobile or Verizon would drop your call, because you mentioned some political candidate's name, that would be completely okay with you?

Are you comparing facebook to a utility company? But honestly, misinformation in this day and age is such a huge problem. If a source is willfully spreading misinformation (that can be fact checked) then yeah, why should they be allowed to do that? They have absolutely no value, except for the people trying to deceive in order to further their agendas.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#464

Post by nyolfen »

TallGuyShort wrote: post #151
nyolfen wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

putting minorities in concentration camps and state sanctioned ip theft are probably worth considering

So like, the way America did with the Japanese? And I support enforcement of borders, but the conditions for detention of illegal immigrants has drawn recent comparisons. Not as bad as communist countries, of course, but not much of a moral high ground either.

...yes? do you think bad things should be ignored if your side did them also or something?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#465

Post by pmachinery »

orestarod wrote: post #421
pmachinery wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NBA losing money and the Chinese government being totalitarian and thin skinned doesn't give free rein to any old racist shit, mate. And they own media companies to push their agenda is flat out, textbook conspiracy theory racism, unless you have more evidence than something completely unrelated.

How is criticizing a government racist towards the people it happens to rule over, again? In that logic, criticizing someone is racism towards each and every group that human happens to be part of. That's plain silly.

"They own stakes in many american media companies and movie production houses. They use this influence to also change our Media and push pro-Jewish propaganda to the American public."

Just criticism of the Israeli government?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#466

Post by mellow2020 »

pmachinery wrote: post #342
mrcodedude wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Imagine Germany successfully putting pressure on American movie makers to make Jewish figures in their stories be no longer Jewish, because in it's official German policy that Jews do not exist, they've always been just Germans or something else.

You can split hairs and say that's technically not pro-German, but anti-Jewish or whatever, and put "they" in quotes all you want; nobody who cares about the actual individual people and not just sophistry in a vacuum will be moved by it.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#467

Post by hwillis »

midasz wrote: post #462
kart23 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you're fine with the fact that they are purposefully spreading misinformation? Then just say that you're OK with that (if it suits your agenda, of course) instead of downvoting.

> According to Snopes some parts of it can also be deemed as misinformation (like the picture framed as Biden groping Stephanie Carter).

It has the full, unedited video segment, and you can't even send that site in a direct message to a facebook friend. You're making a motte and bailey to try to defend one of the largest companies on earth directly interfering in what I can say to a single other person. Maintaining a community is one thing. This is quite another.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#468

Post by mellow2020 »

duxup wrote: post #99
dylan604 wrote: post #96

Regardless of what nationality an app is created under, in today's day and age, why is not just assumed that any website/app is not slurping in all of your data (usage, messages, location, wifi name, etc)? To me, all apps are guilty until proven innocent.

What is the incentive for any app to do the right thing then? It seems to me that coloring all apps the same regardless means that all apps may as well just do exactly as you describe... Anyone who doesn't isn't thought of as any better...

> Anyone who doesn't isn't thought of as any better...

Not until proven innocent, no. We need hardware and software we can inspect, that's not an unattainable goal.

It may seem far away, but any other direction is even worse... so I'd rather head towards a goal that is far away than into a wilderness that is just as far away, but boring and empty at best, terrible at worst.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#469

Post by lazyasciiart »

101404 wrote: post #368
lazyasciiart wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You are wrong. There is a big difference between countries with independent judicial systems, and China where judges are below the local party secretary. Chinese laws are decoration. What actually counts is what the party decides.

Did you know that 95% of people convicted of a crime in the US were not convicted by that independent judicial system? https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-bec...

Just because there isn't "the party" making decisions in the US doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of flexibility in when and how the law is applied. It just gets left up to the local sheriff or prosecutors.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#470

Post by duxup »

mellow2020 wrote: post #468
duxup wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the incentive for any app to do the right thing then? It seems to me that coloring all apps the same regardless means that all apps may as well just do exactly as you describe... Anyone who doesn't isn't thought of as any better...

> Anyone who doesn't isn't thought of as any better... Not until proven innocent, no. We need hardware and software we can inspect, that's not an unattainable goal. It may seem far away, but any other direction is even worse... so I'd rather head towards a goal that is far away than into a wilderness that is just as far away, but boring and empty at best, terrible at worst.

I feel like the assumption that everyone is guilty just puts everyone on par with the guilty so before proven innocent ... why bother?

It seems like the net effect would be to just provide cover for all actual offenders making them equal with everyone.

Post reply on HN