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

Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

hackingbutlegal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 216 posts

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#111

Post by stale2002 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #108
stale2002 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Were any of us really ignorant of that? Apparently a lot of people in this thread are, yes. Because a bunch of people are all talking about "nuance" and how it is good to hear from a real perspective of someone living in China. It's not a real perspective, and never was. It is instead one only optimized for saying what needs to be said to not get arrested. It colors everything that she has said or not said, and mak…

Most people are out there to consume rather mundane material on pop culture, whatever dance is popular on TikTok, or perhaps someone who is hacking hardware in a bikini. These are pretty entertaining subjects that don't intersect with politics very well, and probably don't need to. And ya, any content that we consume from China is going to be the variety that doesn't touch politics due to selection bias (the pro Chin…

> or perhaps someone who is hacking hardware in a bikini. These are pretty entertaining subjects that don't intersect with politics very well

Oh indeed they don't interact well with politics.

Which is why it is surprising that she engaged in so many online fights about politics all the time.

If she was just some hacker doing sexy hardware stuff then this would be nothing but a tragic story.

But Naomi wasn't that. Instead, she was one of the most viral Chinese influencers (in western audiences at least) who talked about international politics constantly.

She was the supposedly "nuanced" and "breath of fresh air" mainland influencer who was supposedly telling everyone in the west how things really were in China, from the 1st hand perspective of a someone living there.

Thats wasn't true at all though.

She supposedly had credibility to talk about these things. Or at least her fans thought she did.

But, in retrospect, no such credibility or nuance ever existed given the context of her situation.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#113

Post by altairprime »

consumer451 wrote: post #7
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

I'm appalled that I'm only finding out about this now.

Am I being paranoid in thinking that Musk’s exposure in China & disdain for the LGBTQ community could lead him to lower the reach of tweets related to this issue?

Not paranoid, but other non-exclusive factors are also in play and much more certain; e.g. “American influencers and press won’t talk about her plight because she’s an intelligent, non-white woman with large breasts and without shame about her body”.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#114

Post by flangola7 »

mcpackieh wrote: post #68
flangola7 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. Because bad actors use speech and claims om they are "defending free speech!" in bad faith as a weapon to further their ends, and once they're in a position of power will shameless drop the pretenses and restrict any speech that doesn't entrench their position.

> If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the into…

Government policy ideals from a small handful of European men in the 18th century may be noble but I value more the documented modern observable effects of policies than their inspiration and goals.

The 20th century alone is not short on case studies. Again and again the empirical outcome of tolerating bad faith weaponized speech is the sharp reduction in the diversity of ideas and perspectives actually present in speech, by violently silencing or eliminating those who hold other perspectives.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#116

Post by jakelazaroff »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #108
stale2002 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Were any of us really ignorant of that? Apparently a lot of people in this thread are, yes. Because a bunch of people are all talking about "nuance" and how it is good to hear from a real perspective of someone living in China. It's not a real perspective, and never was. It is instead one only optimized for saying what needs to be said to not get arrested. It colors everything that she has said or not said, and mak…

Most people are out there to consume rather mundane material on pop culture, whatever dance is popular on TikTok, or perhaps someone who is hacking hardware in a bikini. These are pretty entertaining subjects that don't intersect with politics very well, and probably don't need to. And ya, any content that we consume from China is going to be the variety that doesn't touch politics due to selection bias (the pro Chin…

On the other hand, consider that if you’re in the US your own information most likely comes from sources that are antagonistic to China? Why are you so sure that other people are just mindlessly consuming while you’re getting the real truth?

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#118

Post by opportune »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #21

It's depressing how many Americans and Europeans seem utterly allergic to any kind of nuanced discussion or deeper understanding of China. I think the same applies to the former USSR. I'm not sure why this is.

The problem is that the pro-China position almost always comes either from an outsider (who isn’t really credible) or an insider (who is scared of giving even meek criticism or caveated opinions).

There are not really insiders willing to offer those nuanced opinions. Instead it’s up to the rest of the world to figure out what’s true and what’s not, what’s omitted, how to reconcile the two differing opinions, but without the context.

And I don’t agree that the same applies to the USSR in the modern era. I thought it was common knowledge that in post-soviet countries a lot of especially older folks held mixed opinions on the USSR (liking the safety net and sense of personal security, hating the shortages and queues, liking the international prominence, hating the corruption, etc).

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#119

Post by tbrownaw »

mcpackieh wrote: post #68
flangola7 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. Because bad actors use speech and claims om they are "defending free speech!" in bad faith as a weapon to further their ends, and once they're in a position of power will shameless drop the pretenses and restrict any speech that doesn't entrench their position.

> If I can find it again there's a really great video explaining how, to have free speech, you must restrict some speech. It's nonsense. Constitutional governments with checks and balances can and do hold up to criticisms against them, even speech advocating against free speech. The paradox doesn't exist because the premise of the paradox, that tolerance of the intolerant inevitably results in the victory of the into…

A version that might be harder to misunderstand would be that if the other side resorts to violence first there's not much reason to continue using only rhetoric.

Which even still isn't a hard rule, there's a few well known examples of remaining tolerant (not trying to prevent your opponents from speaking) in the face of intolerance (your opponents do try to prevent you from speaking) and succeeding rather well.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#120

Post by generalizations »

tiffanyg wrote: post #52
consumer451 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am I being paranoid in thinking that Musk’s exposure in China & disdain for the LGBTQ community could lead him to lower the reach of tweets related to this issue?

Plausible. However, I would say that a related, more general, and more disturbing hypothesis (in the "big picture") is more plausible: Musk is all-in with China, Saudi Arabia, etc. For various reasons - access to markets, financing, etc. Some of those who left Twitter shortly after the bad deal he made was force-consummated, suggested that it might be far less safe for, say, Saudi dissidents to use the platform than…

Gotta say, this would sound like a conspiracy theory if there were different players involved. That being said, it sounds plausible.
Post reply on HN