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

Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

citizenlab.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#71

Post by wolverine876 »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #63
wolverine876 wrote: post #62

The Internet is an absolute disaster; disinformation campaigns are everywhere, drowning people, with endless horrible consequences. Freedom, peace, prosperity, democracy, human rights, health, etc. are all at risk. Why are we putting up with it? We really need a solution. At this point, I'd love a walled garden where I know I'd get quality information. It doesn't have to be perfect, but not misinformation or disinfor…

Who do you trust to provide that solution who is above using it to control narratives for their own benefit? And do you think they will forever be trustworthy and/or agree with your world view?

It's a theoretical problem, but it's a commonplace practical function. Everything you read was chosen and written by other people. There's no getting around it unless you are doing primary research. I'll have to choose carefully.

For example, if DuckDuckGo offered a 'quality sources' search, I'd pay for it. I don't want to search the entire Internet - that's madness if you think about it. Why are we doing that?

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#72

Post by wolverine876 »

Dig1t wrote: post #69
wolverine876 wrote: post #62

The Internet is an absolute disaster; disinformation campaigns are everywhere, drowning people, with endless horrible consequences. Freedom, peace, prosperity, democracy, human rights, health, etc. are all at risk. Why are we putting up with it? We really need a solution. At this point, I'd love a walled garden where I know I'd get quality information. It doesn't have to be perfect, but not misinformation or disinfor…

misinformation is "false or inaccurate information" Isn't this the same as asking for a source of information that is always correct? Has that ever actually existed in any form? What about lying by omission? It seems like we're all freaking out about something that has always been true: people lie, say half-truths, distort facts. It's pretty hard to convey only information that is 100% provably true and also tells a…

> misinformation is "false or inaccurate information" / Isn't this the same as asking for a source of information that is always correct? Has that ever actually existed in any form?

That's really taking that definition (if that's the precise definition) to a theoretical extreme! And then you say your extreme is impossible. Yes, I agree!

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#73

Post by mistrial9 »

netsharc wrote: post #22

Seeing the screenshot of the headlines, "mimic" (HN title) is a different to "posing as" (article title). If I can extrapolate from 3 headlines screenshot there, the sites have generic boring looks (maybe they're Wordpress sites), but they pose to be a news site for Sevilla, Rome, or Milan. Whereas when "mimicking", I would expect them to be copying the design of well-known news sites (I've seen fake CNN-looking site…

meanwhile, a woman from Japan came to visit the David Brower Center in Berkeley soon after the meltdown, because someone there had been recording TEPCO and National Radiation Levels info since the Fukishima events. Those recordings were in dispute, they did not match. There was intense national interest, international science poking in, and in fact the public records were in dispute.

The anecdote here only says "I thought the website was this, and it turned out to be that" .. so many ways that small bit can fail. Very significant world event with actual conflicting information..

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#74

Post by signatoremo »

pessimizer wrote: post #40
andsoitis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their Reuters is linked to China rather than the West. Reuters is a company in a regulatory and political framework with high degree is freedom of the press and expression, rather than an instrument controlled by a government for the purpose of propaganda.

Reuters is an outlet completely captured by its owners, for whatever purposes that benefit its owners, exactly like whatever this is. UPI is owned by the Moonies. The Falun Gong have multiple OTA television stations in the US that give no indication that they are owned by the Falun Gong. edit: I forgot that the Epoch Times is also owned by the Falun Gong, an outlet that plays a significant part in US politics. If you…

> Reuters is an outlet completely captured by its owners, for whatever purposes that benefit its owners, exactly like whatever this is

Such a vague statement. You can say that about anything. Who are the owners? What are their interests? How did Reuters serve those interest? Reuters changed ownership in 2008. Did their content also change after?

Everyone who follows Chinese news knows Epoch Times is affiliated with Falun Gong — [0]. China media make sure of that. Was anyone aware of this fake network of China affiliated websites if not for the investigation of citilab?

[0] -https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#75

Post by signatoremo »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #24

So Chinese people are running some of the low quality spam content farms that have been plaguing the internet for years, seemingly primarily for financial reasons like the rest of them. The only real difference is their Reuters is linked to China rather than the West.

By Chinese people, for financial reasons? How can you be so sure it isn’t part of China’s effort to influence the public in those countries?

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#76

Post by boomboomsubban »

signatoremo wrote: post #75
boomboomsubban wrote: post #24

So Chinese people are running some of the low quality spam content farms that have been plaguing the internet for years, seemingly primarily for financial reasons like the rest of them. The only real difference is their Reuters is linked to China rather than the West.

By Chinese people, for financial reasons? How can you be so sure it isn’t part of China’s effort to influence the public in those countries?

The article itself says it serves financial interests, and the internet is full of non-Chinese groups doing the same thing primarily for financial reasons.

I find it hard to believe the Chinese state would mix in so many crypto scams, but that makes perfect sense for a private group.

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#77

Post by lbwtaylor »

pessimizer wrote: post #40
andsoitis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their Reuters is linked to China rather than the West. Reuters is a company in a regulatory and political framework with high degree is freedom of the press and expression, rather than an instrument controlled by a government for the purpose of propaganda.

Reuters is an outlet completely captured by its owners, for whatever purposes that benefit its owners, exactly like whatever this is. UPI is owned by the Moonies. The Falun Gong have multiple OTA television stations in the US that give no indication that they are owned by the Falun Gong. edit: I forgot that the Epoch Times is also owned by the Falun Gong, an outlet that plays a significant part in US politics. If you…

>Epoch Times is also owned by the Falun Gong, an outlet that plays a significant part in US politics

I was aware that Epoch was owned by Falun Gong, I was unaware they play a significant part in US politics. What does that mean? I honestly never see it referenced anywhere. I have seen them in free giveaway newspaper containers pre-pandemic, but I would not view that as a sign of influence (the opposite really).

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#78

Post by pests »

wolverine876 wrote: post #59
psunavy03 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is no different from the majority of US history. Partisan/slanted news outlets have been a thing in the US going back to the Revolution, on both sides of the aisle. It's often a reason why larger cities had multiple papers. One for each side.

> This is no different from the majority of US history. It is very different. I and many reading have been here for the time when it didn't happen this way, when the world was not drowning in disinformation. Turning it into a binary question: 0) It doesn't exist at all, or 1) It exists, makes the question meaningless (and ironically is a common form of misinformation, and technique of disinformation). By binary reaso…

Why now? If it's no different, why is it now a concern when it hasn't been?

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#79

Post by wolverine876 »

pests wrote: post #78
wolverine876 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is no different from the majority of US history. It is very different. I and many reading have been here for the time when it didn't happen this way, when the world was not drowning in disinformation. Turning it into a binary question: 0) It doesn't exist at all, or 1) It exists, makes the question meaningless (and ironically is a common form of misinformation, and technique of disinformation). By binary reaso…

Why now? If it's no different, why is it now a concern when it hasn't been?

I don't quite follow what that means in context, so I'll answer as if it's asked in isolation:

It's not the same at all. At least, IMHO: The volume of disinformation and misinformation is orders of magnitude greater than ever before, as is capability and quality:

1) Volume: The Internet reduces mass communication costs by orders of magnitude, of course, and similarly reduce wide-area communication costs, so people in Russia and China or anywhere can send disinfo to people in the US or UK or West Africa, etc. Also, computers greatly reduce the cost of producing disinfo, by automating it (and now GPTs reduce that mcuh further).

2) Capability: Before, mass communication required going through narrow gate with a gatekeeper. You had to get it on the evening news broadcast or in the newspaper. The gatekeepers were experts who exercised judgement - not always perfect judgment, but they are less easily fooled than non-experts. Now disinfo can go straight to the consumer (disintermediation). The Soviets, dedicated to decades of expert propaganda to reach westerners, I bet would have thought it was an impossible fantasy to communicate directly to individuals!

3) Quality: Through corporate mass surveillance, collecting data on individuals, tracking responses in detail, A/B testing, etc., the effectiveness of the disinfo can be greatly improved - just like advertising. (I'd be interested to know how much it can be improved.)

Re: Paperwall: Chinese websites posing as local news outlets target global audiences

#80

Post by pests »

wolverine876 wrote: post #79
pests wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why now? If it's no different, why is it now a concern when it hasn't been?

I don't quite follow what that means in context, so I'll answer as if it's asked in isolation: It's not the same at all. At least, IMHO: The volume of disinformation and misinformation is orders of magnitude greater than ever before, as is capability and quality: 1) Volume: The Internet reduces mass communication costs by orders of magnitude, of course, and similarly reduce wide-area communication costs, so people in…

So I first initially posted just trying to answer the "But what is the point of saying it's no different" question posted upthead.

I do agree with you myself and think that your answer is a great answer to how it is in fact different in the first place.

Post reply on HN