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

501–510 of 555 posts

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#501

Post by hutzlibu »

rorykoehler wrote: post #347
benliong78 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"compare it to the dystopia China has become."

Just out of curiosity, what times are you referring to, when china became dystopian?

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#502

Post by aendruk »

andreilys wrote: post #418
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.

This is the first time I've heard of this. Are there other links that Messenger blocks? Honestly I'm really curious what went into this decision, I can't really understand why they thought this was a good idea.

No experience with Messenger but I recall Facebook blocking posts that link to F.B. Purity.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#504

Post by ascorbic »

JCharante wrote: post #330
ascorbic wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Messenger can. Telegram can. Slack can. Signal can. Whatsapp can.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#505

Post by 4bpp »

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).

> 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).

Who is that being charitable to? The Chinese government also censors to stymie deliberate propaganda; it's just that in their case we typical HN posters happen to be on the side the propaganda that is being censored is for, whereas in our case we are on an opposing one.

I'm not convinced by the usual counterargument that "China blocks true information whereas we block fake news". There doesn't to seem to be anything qualitatively different between a cartoon of Liu Xiaobo ascending to heaven from a Chinese prison and most of the examples on https://www.cbsnews.com/media/russian-ads-on-facebook-a-gall... (which I assume is meant to be a sample of deliberate propaganda that we want FB to block); both tend to contain some kernel of factual statements that are probably not contentious (you can probably get official documentation that Liu was jailed and died in China, too), but the point is not in this content but in an exhortation that the reader should feel about them in a particular way and translate this feeling into support for a particular political movement.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#507

Post by seppin »

viridian wrote: post #443
seppin wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's the only way to communicate with 1/5 of the world's population?

About 1/6th these days. Pedantic I know, but it's super common for people to not realize that China's population growth is nearly zero. India will likely have more people than China by 2025.

My rule for pointing out small inconsistencies is: "does it change the point of the argument?" My point was it's the only tool to communicate with a large part of the world, 1/5 or 1/6 is immaterial.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#508

Post by random314 »

101404 wrote: post #378
coldtea wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> India will eventually show them eventually up as having an inferior political model but on balance I doubt it. If anything India's system is less effective, equally or more corrupt, and downright barbarous in some social aspects (e.g. castes). Plus the rampant inequality which is much worse than China.

Democracy and rule of law usually start to have an advantage over authoritarianism when you surpass an annual GDP per capita of about 5000 USD. So, on the long term, I am optimistic that India will catch up. Especially now that the USA is moving away from China as "work bench". I hope we here in Europe will follow that policy, too. It just makes much more sense to support an emerging democracy than to support a facis…

> Democracy and rule of law usually start to have an advantage over authoritarianism when you surpass an annual GDP per capita of about 5000 USD.

Singapore disagrees.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#509

Post by Eizieizz »

devit wrote: post #406
rorykoehler wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, is there any information on why the Chinese government feels like they need the censorship? As far as I can tell they are the most successful government at least in modern history in terms of increasing living standards (huge GDP growth and even things like being the only country to successfully almost eradicate SARS-CoV-2), so it seems they would keep power even in a fully functioning democracy with no censors…

Bullshit! Taiwan started in the same state as the PRC communist dictatorship and they have progressed much more economically than China, their GDP is much higher.

Also culturally and from a human rights perspective Taiwan blows the chicoms out of the water.

Taiwan shows what China could have been if they would not have been taken hostage by the communist chinazis.

Re: We Chat, They Watch

#510

Post by Eizieizz »

lazyasciiart wrote: post #469
101404 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Typical Wumao whataboutism! Even the best legal system is flawed because it is handled by humans.

But that doesn't mean that the legal system in the facist dicatorship of China is comparable in any way to a proper democratic judiciary.

Chinas system is an unconstitutional state by definition.

Post reply on HN