Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

protocol.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 130 posts

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#121

Post by throwaway8581 »

int_19h wrote: post #112
throwaway8581 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t agree. You are suggesting that liberalism was just a mirage for a different underlying ideology. But I don’t think that’s what was happening. People really believed in liberalism. Live and let live is not a very profound philosophy—nor a very self-preserving one, which is why it fell so quickly—but it was real.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that the "golden age of liberalism" was not as golden as is often portrayed, especially in comparison with the current state of affairs. You could, and people were, effectively persecuted for stating their opinions - not in the court of law, but with very real consequences nonetheless. That people believed it was more real than it actually was, is another matter. But this invites t…

I think one useful metric is what percent of the population falls inside of the overton window that makes you unemployable in any upper middle class job (ie jobs that make it possible for you to acquire power). Jared Taylor, for example, was a translator for law firms for a long time after publicly and prominently saying that immigration should be curtailed for the sake of keeping the white percentage of the population higher. It was a quite unpopular view even then but it didn’t matter because whatever, it’s just his personal political views.

Nowadays, even believing something that half or more of the population believes is far outside of the Overton window and will ruin your career.

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#122

Post by anigbrowl »

yorwba wrote: post #120
anigbrowl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone signed up to make this pro-CCP comment, which was then flagged within minutes - rather ironic given the context in which it was posted. Although I disagreed with several of the premises and the logic of the comment, I vouched for it as an interesting and valid contribution. However, the lack of transparency around flags and vouching on HN makes this meaningless, and I have never seen a flagged comment vouched…

> Someone signed up to make this pro-CCP comment, which was then flagged within minutes - rather ironic given the context in which it was posted. First of all, it's not a pro-CCP comment: it doesn't mention the CCP even once. Secondly, it was [dead] but not [flagged]. Many new accounts start out [dead] as a result of HN's automatic anti-spam measures, no human flagging involved.

Insofar as the government in China and the CCP are synonymous and have been for a long time, most people would regard approval of the government there as implicit approval of the CCP. It did show up as flagged for me.

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#123

Post by themacguffinman »

chrischen wrote: post #117
themacguffinman wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when was it not possible or legal to write that American elections were falsified on social media? This joke itself seems to be based on the recent wave of loud & public accusations that the American elections are falsified. I guess Twitter/Facebook independently banned some of it, are those companies now considered to be the whole of social media?

That’s like asking if the Republican and Democratic parties now considered to be the whole of US government? The answer is in practice yes, and neither of those two private organizations operate democratically (they operate based on seniority, and can create arbitrary rules like super delegate voting).

Well no, in practice Facebook/Twitter constitute a majority of the social media market (~75% IIRC) but it isn't a mutually exclusive share like the two parties that occupy fixed seats in the US government. Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech; Unlike the governments in China & Russia, Facebook & Twitter can't do anything to stop your speech from reaching even their users if their users choose to listen to your speech because users aren't locked into using one social media platform.

Aside about the two parties: yes the two parties don't operate democratically, but they don't need to for the system to be democratic. Ultimately the voters choose and parties are held accountable for whatever actions they take. If a party subverts the will of voters, it will lose votes, or worse case scenario the parties die (eg. the Whig party, which was a major party).

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#124

Post by yorwba »

anigbrowl wrote: post #122
yorwba wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone signed up to make this pro-CCP comment, which was then flagged within minutes - rather ironic given the context in which it was posted. First of all, it's not a pro-CCP comment: it doesn't mention the CCP even once. Secondly, it was [dead] but not [flagged]. Many new accounts start out [dead] as a result of HN's automatic anti-spam measures, no human flagging involved.

Insofar as the government in China and the CCP are synonymous and have been for a long time, most people would regard approval of the government there as implicit approval of the CCP. It did show up as flagged for me.

The CCP is much bigger than the government and most CCP members don't have any government power, while at the same time there are influential posts in parts of the party that exist outside the government hierarchy (e. g. the Communist Youth League.)

So it's entirely possible to think that the CCP is full of parasites trying to mooch off the government while the people actually working in government are at least trying to grow the pie instead of just fighting for a bigger slice, or alternatively that the government is full of power-hungry people and the CCP's internal control mechanisms are at least limiting the worst excesses. So the two are not entirely synonymous.

Regarding the flagging status: this is what you copied:

> ---- nglengjai 10 minutes ago [dead] | parent | unvouch | favorite | on: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

If it had been flagged, it would have said so. Compare

frequentnapper 23 hours ago [flagged] [dead] | parent | flag | vouch | favorite | on: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26244625

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#125

Post by anigbrowl »

yorwba wrote: post #124
anigbrowl wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insofar as the government in China and the CCP are synonymous and have been for a long time, most people would regard approval of the government there as implicit approval of the CCP. It did show up as flagged for me.

The CCP is much bigger than the government and most CCP members don't have any government power, while at the same time there are influential posts in parts of the party that exist outside the government hierarchy (e. g. the Communist Youth League.) So it's entirely possible to think that the CCP is full of parasites trying to mooch off the government while the people actually working in government are at least tryin…

If it had been flagged, it would have said so. Compare

frequentnapper 23 hours ago [flagged] [dead] | parent | flag | vouch | favorite | on: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

Good catch, I guess I mixed it up with a different post.

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#126

Post by chrischen »

themacguffinman wrote: post #123
chrischen wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s like asking if the Republican and Democratic parties now considered to be the whole of US government? The answer is in practice yes, and neither of those two private organizations operate democratically (they operate based on seniority, and can create arbitrary rules like super delegate voting).

Well no, in practice Facebook/Twitter constitute a majority of the social media market (~75% IIRC) but it isn't a mutually exclusive share like the two parties that occupy fixed seats in the US government. Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech; Unlike the governments in China & Russia, Facebook & Twitter can't do anything to stop your speech from reaching even their users if their users…

> Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech

You talking about Parlor or something else? I mean, when people can't use their non-majority social media of choice (whatever the reason stopping them may be), are they really free?

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#127

Post by themacguffinman »

chrischen wrote: post #126
themacguffinman wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well no, in practice Facebook/Twitter constitute a majority of the social media market (~75% IIRC) but it isn't a mutually exclusive share like the two parties that occupy fixed seats in the US government. Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech; Unlike the governments in China & Russia, Facebook & Twitter can't do anything to stop your speech from reaching even their users if their users…

> Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech You talking about Parlor or something else? I mean, when people can't use their non-majority social media of choice (whatever the reason stopping them may be), are they really free?

Yes they are really free, freedom is not entitlement to your social media of choice. Americans are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them. They are also free to invent their own social media that doesn't have the same restrictions as the popular ones. The government doesn't interfere with this choice, but platform operators also have the freedom to not associate with certain customers.

Parlor is one option, there's also Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, the *chans, etc. There are decentralized networks like Mastodon. Neither the government or social media companies can stop you from choosing any number of social media platforms (or other communication platforms) to speak on. That is simply not the case in China.

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#128

Post by chrischen »

themacguffinman wrote: post #127
chrischen wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech You talking about Parlor or something else? I mean, when people can't use their non-majority social media of choice (whatever the reason stopping them may be), are they really free?

Yes they are really free, freedom is not entitlement to your social media of choice. Americans are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them. They are also free to invent their own social media that doesn't have the same restrictions as the popular ones. The government doesn't interfere with this choice, but platform operators also have the freedom to not associate with certain customer…

> Americans are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them

You can swap out "Americans" with "Chinese" and you end up with the exact same thing.

"Chinese are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them." So are they now free too?

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#129

Post by themacguffinman »

chrischen wrote: post #128
themacguffinman wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they are really free, freedom is not entitlement to your social media of choice. Americans are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them. They are also free to invent their own social media that doesn't have the same restrictions as the popular ones. The government doesn't interfere with this choice, but platform operators also have the freedom to not associate with certain customer…

> Americans are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them You can swap out "Americans" with "Chinese" and you end up with the exact same thing. "Chinese are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them." So are they now free too?

No, that statement would simply be false. China's social media & communication services are monitored and the government forces all platforms to apply censorship or identify dissent, they are certainly not free to say whatever they want. Services that don't adhere to these restrictions are not permitted in the country (like Google).

China also pursues dissent beyond its borders. Zoom, a company primarily develops their product in China, actually shutdown meetings with foreign participants because they were related to the Tiananmen massacre. The US FBI has revealed a covert CCP program called Operation Fox Hunt to coerce foreign dissidents into either committing suicide or returning to China's jurisdiction by threatening their family in China.

Frankly the difference between the US & China in degree of freedom of speech, both practical and theoretical, is astronomical. The two could not be further apart and even the most glib comparisons don't track.

Re: I helped build ByteDance's censorship machine

#130

Post by int_19h »

throwaway8581 wrote: post #121
int_19h wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that the "golden age of liberalism" was not as golden as is often portrayed, especially in comparison with the current state of affairs. You could, and people were, effectively persecuted for stating their opinions - not in the court of law, but with very real consequences nonetheless. That people believed it was more real than it actually was, is another matter. But this invites t…

I think one useful metric is what percent of the population falls inside of the overton window that makes you unemployable in any upper middle class job (ie jobs that make it possible for you to acquire power). Jared Taylor, for example, was a translator for law firms for a long time after publicly and prominently saying that immigration should be curtailed for the sake of keeping the white percentage of the populati…

That example demonstrates that one particular view became less tolerated; what about others? E.g. if one went around openly espousing Maoism around that time, how would that affect employment prospects in law firms?
Post reply on HN