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

201–210 of 216 posts

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#201

Post by veidr »

jacquesm wrote: post #72
ajross wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is just censorship. The government showed up and told her to stop saying stuff, so she did. The problem is that the word has been diluted in contemporary usage. Almost everything that people call "censorship" in the discourse mostly amounts to "People disagree with me and I don't liek that", or occasionally "I got banned on so I'm yelling about it on ". This is what actual censorship looks like.

"I got my wings clipped and they weren't gentle about it" "I can leave but Kaidi can't" "In fact, one of the latest turns is the Beijing LGBT Center's closure by the Chinese government in May of this year. " And many other useful bits of information in the article. Censorship is when you send a message from jail and someone elides stuff they don't want you to talk about. It doesn't involve goons visiting you, travel…

Rethink your take. Censorship is when the government prevents you from saying or publishing what you want. The government's ability to do that ultimately stems from the threat of force/violence.

China's ways of doing this might seem crude to somebody in the US or EU, but boil down to the same thing.

If you continue to disobey either of those government's orders to stop doing something, they will send men with guns to pick you up and lock you in a cage, literally preventing you from traveling anywhere.

That's why censorship is a terrible thing in a purportedly free society, and discussions like this are why mis-application of the word "censorship" to mean things like "waaaah walmart.com refused to broadcast my tweet about how trans people should be beaten up" is also bad.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#202

Post by jacquesm »

veidr wrote: post #201
jacquesm wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I got my wings clipped and they weren't gentle about it" "I can leave but Kaidi can't" "In fact, one of the latest turns is the Beijing LGBT Center's closure by the Chinese government in May of this year. " And many other useful bits of information in the article. Censorship is when you send a message from jail and someone elides stuff they don't want you to talk about. It doesn't involve goons visiting you, travel…

Rethink your take. Censorship is when the government prevents you from saying or publishing what you want. The government's ability to do that ultimately stems from the threat of force/violence. China's ways of doing this might seem crude to somebody in the US or EU, but boil down to the same thing. If you continue to disobey either of those government's orders to stop doing something, they will send men with guns to…

Agreed that private entities not posting your tweets is not censorship.

But I will stick to my guns that there is much more at stake for people in China that don't behave in the way the government wants them to than just being censored. 'to stop doing something' is doing the heavy lifting in your comment and what the 'something' is can be limited to media expressions and then I would agree it is censorship. But this goes much further than that: it is not just what you write. It is also how you behave, and about what your ancestry is, which activities you are allowed to engage in (and which activities you have to engage in).

Censorship is just about expression. This is full-on coercion, anti-LGBT policy and racism. To make it explicit.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#203

Post by veidr »

jacquesm wrote: post #202
veidr wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rethink your take. Censorship is when the government prevents you from saying or publishing what you want. The government's ability to do that ultimately stems from the threat of force/violence. China's ways of doing this might seem crude to somebody in the US or EU, but boil down to the same thing. If you continue to disobey either of those government's orders to stop doing something, they will send men with guns to…

Agreed that private entities not posting your tweets is not censorship. But I will stick to my guns that there is much more at stake for people in China that don't behave in the way the government wants them to than just being censored. 'to stop doing something' is doing the heavy lifting in your comment and what the 'something' is can be limited to media expressions and then I would agree it is censorship. But this…

OK, I see what you are saying, and agree.

The set of injustices perpetrated by the Chinese government includes far more than just censorship.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#204

Post by nextaccountic »

Zanneth wrote: post #197
nextaccountic wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hate did she spread?

Naomi has taken to an extreme view on COVID, claiming that policies that are any less authoritarian than the (now provably failed) “zero COVID” policy are attempts by the state to purposefully kill elderly and sick people so that survivors can apparently enjoy greater tax revenue. https://x.com/realsexycyborg/status/1647827136416464896?s=46 This is only one of many examples where she used her platform to stoke the in…

I don't know, in the context of my own country (Brazil) there seems to be some (probably small) amount of intentionality [0] of government officials in measures that are obviously malicious, like rejecting vaccines [1] and other actions that aided the spread of the virus. We shouldn't live in a world where the incentives of government officials coincide with excess deaths of elderly or any other population group.

But the trouble with conspiracies is that they ascribe a level of competency that's unrealistic. So it's unlikely there is a government program specifically targeted to kill the elderly, not because governments are above this, but just because this kind of thing can't be made secret for too long (just like this specific remark from some specific government official in Brazil quickly became public).

Anyway I didn't find this specific tweet hateful.

[0] "Covid deaths improve the bottom line of social security", in Portuguese https://www.estadao.com.br/economia/morte-de-idosos-por-covi...

Google translation: https://www-estadao-com-br.translate.goog/economia/morte-de-...

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#205

Post by rokkitmensch »

em-bee wrote: post #42
FreshStart wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ExTwitter

i keep getting that urge to click the X to close the window.

I have to stop myself from thumbing or clicking the X. My brain sees it as something that got past the ad filter and needs closing. A hilarious experience in self-observation loops.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#206

Post by SusanW1 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #190
monksy wrote: post #136

I always take this individual with a grain of salt. I originally supported her as that she was an enthusiast and talking about making things. However, she has a strong tendency to dramatize things and it's very easy to get caught up in her net. Context: She started raking a maker site (I think it was instructables) about quietly dropping Chinese character support. She went a huge tirade that it was racism and it was…

Nearly everything she produced tried to focus it on getting attention Like very other influencer/e-celeb. If you don't have capital and you want to make lots of money then fame is the most expedient route.

"Early to bed, early to rise, work like hell, and advertise!"

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#207

Post by porkbeer »

flangola7 wrote: post #186
mcpackieh wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 proof is in the pudding, the American system of political tolerance has an excellent track record and leads to better outcomes in the long run.

Given recent events in the US, this is clearly not the reality.

With all that has gone on, I think it is another example of how it works so well. Strife happens, what is key is dealing with it. And the us seems to be doing fine.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#208

Post by opportune »

tbrownaw wrote: post #129
opportune wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 with…

> almost always comes either from an outsider (...) or an insider (...) Are there examples of people who are neither or both?

I don’t know about neither, but I think there are people who are “both” like expats or people who emigrated from China at an age (say 20+) at which they could have credibly fully understood what it’s like to live there. You could also include people like ABCs with strong familial ties to China although I think those are more firmly outsiders.

In any case it’s rare for either of these groups to be fully candid with non-Chinese, or at least bold enough about it to broadcast is via eg news media, anyway because of the cultural taboo on discussing politics and risk of negatively affecting relatives back in China.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#209

Post by anon7331 »

Shawnj2 wrote: post #145
anon7331 wrote: post #34

She speaks the truth often, but I never really got how she portrays herself. Not a huge fan... regardless, she should be able to say whatever she wants and use the platform she built.

It honestly shouldn’t matter in 2023.

What does the year have to do with it? Aesthetics and appearance have a lot to do with our decisions every day. The people you date, news you read, shoes you buy, etc.

There's nothing wrong with having a preference and/or being put off by something. I'm not bringing her down, her appearance and vibe just isn't for me.

I do like some things she has built and said, but I don't go out of my way to follow her or keep up with her.

Re: Naomi Wu and the Silence That Speaks Volumes

#210

Post by cosmojg »

MiguelX413 wrote: post #184
aaron695 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wu refused to go along with China's huge policy shift She was also heavily attacked by people in the West as she also refused to go along with the Wests 'masks don't matter policy' She created Google Docs early on with evidence masks would work contravening the Western governments and the 'trust the science' crowd. Lets not pretend it's just China here, it maybe offtopic to this incident, but at the time you could…

The “trust the science” crowd were the ones advocating for masks, no?

Not at the beginning. There is evidence to suggest that some institutions intentionally lied about the effectiveness of masks at the beginning of the pandemic in an attempt to prevent a mask shortage, and the "trust the science" crowd ate it up. Hilariously/despairingly enough, many of those masking at the beginning of the pandemic when it was "unscientific" to do so would later become anti-maskers. Likewise, those "trust the science" folks were quick to put on masks when "the science" changed.

Throughout the pandemic, political preferences were a far more reliable predictor of human behavior than anything else.

Post reply on HN