Live data from Hacker News

Australian spy agency disrupts foreign election interference

mainichi.jp

51–54 of 54 posts

Re: Australian spy agency disrupts foreign election interference

#51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>this article from the main left-wing news site in Australia Honestly, I read the ABC all the time and the editorial position is very clearly anti-CCP. Stan Grant in particular is one of the most ardent and consistent critics of Xi Jinping, posting articles about their military expansion and increasing concentration of power even when nothing in particular has happened that week to prompt it. Stating that one particu…

Ok maybe I was being overly hyperbolic before, but the facts here are clear: The CCP used people in Australia to get close to, and pay off, politicians who they thought would be inclined to favor their cause. Every single one of them belonged to the Labor party. I don't think anyone can call this spin, and I don't think any honest person would doubt that the media would be going absolutely bananas right now if all th…

> Every single one of them belonged to the Labor party.

Except for Gladys Liu. :P

I will concede the point generally here, though - Labor's far left faction (and left-wingers in general) do have a weirdly distorted view of China and are more susceptible to Chinese influence and propaganda, and the whole Sam Dastyari incident doesn't help.

Again, though, I don't think that means the party as a whole is corrupt to the core. Labor supported pretty much all of the anti-CCP legislation that has gone through in the last few years, including AUKUS, and I can't see that radically changing any time soon.

>As for Stan Grant I didn't know all that about him. Interesting. I just saw his aboriginal activism work and assumed he was left-leaning. Thinking about it for one second, I'm not surprised to find out that he simply cares about his community and wants to see them succeed.

>As for the ABC and Guardian, they are constantly pushing their audience to believe that democracy is deeply flawed.

I read both publications regularly, and don't get that idea. They report that democracy is under attack, yes, but they're not cheering for its destruction. The Guardian tends to lead somewhat anti-capitalist (hilarious considering how middle-class their average reader is, literally sucking at the teat of the system), but again they're not proposing China's even-more-unequal system any more than the rest of the world does (which, as you noted, basically stopped happening once they fucked with Hong Kong).

Re: Australian spy agency disrupts foreign election interference

#52
post #32
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And those accusations were true. And, quite possibly, these Australian accusations are also true. It may or may not be a convenient truth, or a truth withheld until a convenient time, or a similar truth about the other party might also be known to be true but not released. Or maybe Labour really is the more corrupt party and ASIO are earnestly working to protect Australian interests. All of these hypothesis are…

>> Didn't this happen during Obama's presidency, when Hillary and Trump were running? > Yes. And those accusations were true. What's the rundown on this scandal? A link or TL;DR is fine -- not trying to derail.

Maybe you have reply notifications: this seemed like the closest thing (not close at all, I'm afraid) you'd get to both a complete list, and not having to dig through multiple rants.

https://themillenniumreport.com/2016/10/the-top-100-most-dam...

Re: Australian spy agency disrupts foreign election interference

#53
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really only a matter of time before an app called Bribr "democratises lobbying" by allowing users to make microtransactions directly to their elected representatives for influence.

And why not? Lobbying is legal if it follows the rules. If something similar could be made legal yet crowdsourced, I would see that as progress for democracy, a "lobbying as a service" open to all: if 50M people are ready to put $1 to lobby for something they care about, it's a shame we don't currently let them be properly heard.

almost like voting but with money… because voting with votes does not really lead to representation. Right?

Re: Australian spy agency disrupts foreign election interference

#54
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why not? Lobbying is legal if it follows the rules. If something similar could be made legal yet crowdsourced, I would see that as progress for democracy, a "lobbying as a service" open to all: if 50M people are ready to put $1 to lobby for something they care about, it's a shame we don't currently let them be properly heard.

almost like voting but with money… because voting with votes does not really lead to representation. Right?

> because voting with votes does not really lead to representation. Right?

Indeed, it doesn't: this is because voting is susceptible to Sybil attacks, say by running ad campaigns that'll result in the less fortunate voters voting against their own interest after having been convinced to do so. This is also how a bunch of dictators get bootstrapped in democracies.

The core problem with voting is that every vote carries the same weight: lobbying corrects for that, by letting group of people organize so that their voices may not be drowned out, which inverts the power relationship (ads to convince voters => group of voters organizing to make their voice heard)

Post reply on HN