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

491–500 of 555 posts

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#491

Post by [deleted] »

101404 wrote: post #449
brandall10 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it misleading? It's completely true. And, is Fb now a judge in the US who should decide these things? I don't think it's good to trying to justify what Fb is doing.

[deleted]

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#492

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#493

Post by hiram112 »

woutr_be wrote: post #274
88840-8855 wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, this is nothing new and nothing special. There are some words that just dont go through and messages dont arrive. I lived there and tried it with friends. You literally stand next to each other, some messages arrive, some dont. For me it is not a big deal - for most Chinese it is not a big deal. Somehow most people who never touched Wechat it seems to be a big deal.

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.

But muh private companies...

WeChat is owned by the 'private company' Tencent. And most here think it's perfectly valid when Facebook or Google censor things they don't like. I'm sure you think that Google is a real private company, while Tencent is not. But the difference isn't really all that valid anymore; the US government has backdoors and special access to our tech behemoths, just like the Chinese do for their tech companies.

Maybe it's not such a good idea to cheer for Google, Facebook, and the other companies when they censor whatever it is you currently dislike politically. Do you naively believe they'll not someday censor you, too?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#494

Post by brandall10 »

101404 wrote: post #449
brandall10 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it misleading? It's completely true. And, is Fb now a judge in the US who should decide these things? I don't think it's good to trying to justify what Fb is doing.

It's misleading because by the way it's phrased, it sounds like the person who created it has no affiliations with a political group - while he does in fact work for the Trump campaign.

Regardless, I don't understand how you can definitely say it's true, there's no way you can know that. More likely than not, this person is being compensated in at least some way indirectly.

As to what Facebook is doing, this is designed to deceptively mislead voters, not just on content, but on source. We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#495

Post by hank_z »

fiblye wrote: post #121
yingliu4203 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Chinese-Americans have no choice when they need to communicate with family and friend living in China. No outside communication tools allowed in China.

Outside of China, we're pretty lucky that we can just register for random sites like HN with nothing more than a username and password and start talking. Every Chinese site I've ever used requires phone number or ID verification. Most of them only allow Chinese-registered phones, meaning it's absolutely impossible to communicate with Chinese people from the outside world, aside from a very small number of carefully v…

Only 9% of Chinese population have a bachelor degree. Only 10% of Chinese population have been abroad. 1 billion Chinese never take a flight.

Most of the profitable industries in China are state-owned where most of their staff are part of or have some connections with communist party. It is not easy for the unprivileged people to make a living in China. These unprivileged people have a high likelihood to become scammers. Therefore, ID verification is a way to prevent scammers.

Despite of the security reason, there is not way to find out how companies handle personal data. Chinese legal system has no respect to personal data.

Additionally, Chinese education system encourages obedience and penalises people who distrust/challenge the authority. Simply because the authority can easily find another to replace you given the fact that there are 1.3 billion Chinese people. Therefore, people live in China have no choice but to accept whatever is given by the authority.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#496

Post by brandonmenc »

goatlover wrote: post #480
SkyBelow wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's no reason to possess these weapons any more than there's a reason to possess nuclear warheads. I've yet to see any valid reasons to possess drugs or alcohol. With guns, there is at least the justification of self defense. >and pray the crime away. Is that not what is being done with all crimes (drunk driving, but also many assaults) associated with alcohol? There are two ways government can work. You can eit…

> I've yet to see any valid reasons to possess drugs or alcohol. For recreation, therapy, socialization, experimentation, mysticism, or just because it's my own damn body. > With guns, there is at least the justification of self defense. That would be fine if gun violence wasn't a thing.

Alcohol use sends a person with impaired judgement and often times a short fuse into the public space to wreak havoc. By the millions.

How many fist fights, rapes, harassment, spouse and child beatings, car crashes, on the job accidents, chronic illness, and early deaths must society be forced to accept just so people with disposable income can enjoy a nice red wine with their meal?

Seems pretty selfish.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#497

Post by goatlover »

brandonmenc wrote: post #496
goatlover wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've yet to see any valid reasons to possess drugs or alcohol. For recreation, therapy, socialization, experimentation, mysticism, or just because it's my own damn body. > With guns, there is at least the justification of self defense. That would be fine if gun violence wasn't a thing.

Alcohol use sends a person with impaired judgement and often times a short fuse into the public space to wreak havoc. By the millions. How many fist fights, rapes, harassment, spouse and child beatings, car crashes, on the job accidents, chronic illness, and early deaths must society be forced to accept just so people with disposable income can enjoy a nice red wine with their meal? Seems pretty selfish.

Society already has been down the road of banning alcohol, and it went over just as poorly as the war on drugs, with tons of social and economic costs.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#499

Post by commoner »

tedk-42 wrote: post #384
dannyw wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Implying that dissent isn’t done by well meaning people.

World isn't binary like you frame it to be.

Ironically, by implying that all "dissent against the government" is not done by well-meaning people, you're the one portraying the world as binary.

Political dissent, including protests, demonstrations, boycotts, sit-ins, and marches, have contributed to the advancement of society on many occasions.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0yvPaXt3lyoC

The dissenters who galvanized these reforms were certainly well-meaning.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#500

Post by subsubsub »

88840-8855 wrote: post #273
woutr_be wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use WeChat to talk to friends in China, (I live in HK) and I noticed that last year, especially when the protests were intense, many of my posts just didn't show up. These were mostly pictures unrelated to the protests. I had the sense that anything coming out of Hong Kong was just hidden by default.

lol, this is nothing new and nothing special. There are some words that just dont go through and messages dont arrive. I lived there and tried it with friends. You literally stand next to each other, some messages arrive, some dont. For me it is not a big deal - for most Chinese it is not a big deal. Somehow most people who never touched Wechat it seems to be a big deal.

Promoting the idea that no one is complaining because of apathy is an interesting strategy.

"We didn't censor, people jusy don't care".

Post reply on HN