How a fake network pushes pro-China propaganda

I follow the subject closely. The "no intent to kill" pertains to scope of Chinese influence operations, in terms of harm they're minimal relative to other actors. IRC the dailybeast link was about PRC trolls mocking lockdown skepticism, listening to them would have helped not harmed. These events do not occuring in void, PRC/US responds to each other's disinformation efforts. And will continue to, that's expected, what's unexpected IMO is PRC isn't pushing propaganda nearly that hard according to recent analysis.

>bridge the gap becomes

No one's figured out a solution to tribalism. Much of the "blame CCP but not Chinese people '' narrative out there does not feel genuine, doubting western criticisms is not misplaced. Which overlooks the point that the propaganda environment with competing antithetical claims is designed to fracture. The more absurd narrative west feeds their populus, which diaspora sees through, the more the gap continues to widen.

>should not speak for natives in this regard

...

>VPN's are becoming more and more unreliable

Why not? I follow developments in PRC cyber policy and deal with it myself back and forth. I didn't claim it was safe to conduct anti-state activities, even nationalists get punished for using VPN occasionally. Overall it's fine, like torrenting. Sometimes copyright letters get sent out to unsuspecting victims, but most people slide by. VPN more unreliable, especially leading up to CCP centennial, but seems like there's more Chinese nationalists trolling abroad than ever, and since current analysis suggest CCP coordinated disinfo is not large, it's fair to presume whatever VPN and cyber policies changes, it hasn't substantially impeded PRC ability to interact with abroad.

To circle back on topic, the condition is such that lots of genuine PRC voices are making it’s way over the GFC, but not vice versa. That’s just unfortunate asymmetry between open and close internet, and it’s a problem west needs to deal with, so far strategy seems to be maligning PRC voices as inauthentic shills / 50c with the aim of discrediting pro-China or anti-west opinions. Narrative has been manufactured to the point where PRC discussions in many spaces online are saturated with useful idiots calling for bans of pro-China opinions because it must be state funded 50c activity. Like why even highlight the two anti-BBC replies above, lots of people, especially diaspora from the global south, do not trust the FVEY media machine, it's staple compaint in variety of reporting on IR news.

You keep interchanging the Russian and Chinese trials, perhaps on purpose. The only study you quoted was a Russian government funded study, with incomplete data and heavily criticized conditions.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccin...

> Are you accusing the various institutes

You aren't following. Without raw patient data, you can only study:

1. The data given to you by a government 2. The affects of the vaccine in real life trails, which has so many variables that it cannot alone tell you anything concrete about vaccine effectiveness.

The ONLY set of data that matter is the initial patient data the developers of a vaccine measured. Western vaccines released this data openly, Russian and China refused. And it's obvious why.

> A vaccine that reduces chance of hospitalization or death

50-60% is better than nothing, which is a separate argument that I agree with. Getting Chinese and Russian vaccine to the third world now is better than western vaccines a year from now. But that's not what is being discussed here.

> We do. It's right there in the Chilean study

Again, measuring a vaccine's effectiveness by giving it out and measuring outcome has so many variables it's almost useless. The only standard that would apply is a study controlling for variables, done by its manufacturers. Which, for the millionth time, authoritarian countries won't share.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/26/data-needed-know-if-sput...

> That's not the world we live in, unfortunately.

"Of course western vaccines have higher efficacy". There's moving the goalposts, then there's whatever you just did there. Weird for you to argue for 3-4 posts that Chinese vaccines are just as effective then just flat out say they aren't.

> The US is battling a horrifying surge in cases and deaths. I don't expect to see a NY Times article titled, "They Relied on American Vaccines. Now They're Battling Outbreaks."

This is officially a bad faith interaction. You don't seem like an idiot. You surely must know that the surge in the US is due to UNVACCINATED individuals, which has absolutely fuck all to do with the discussion we are having about vaccines. Yet you bring it up with the smugness of having uncovered some Trump card.

We're done here.

> You still haven't answered my question

So why do you spend you days defending authoritarian governments on western news sites? I think I guessed correctly the first time, but i'm curious if you'll come clean.

The only citation you ever provided was to a Russia study, paid for by the Russia government.

> Many countries carefully monitor real-world effectiveness of vaccines. This is incredibly informative data

Yes they do, it's a very helpful supplement to clinical data. What it isn't meant to do is stand by itself, and in the case of Russian and Chinese vaccines third parties are left to scramble to determine efficacy because, again, raw patient data isn't released and gov-run studies are not to be trusted, ever.

You managed to not respond to a single thing I said and not give anything of substance in response. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to figure out why you are arguing against open and transparent vaccine development and in favor of dictatorships hiding/obscuring and lying about their products.

My guess is you sold your soul for a job and now you have to convince others (and yourself) that it was worth it, that the authoritarians really aren't that bad. Maybe this is all ideological and you never got over your Uni communist phase. Maybe you married in, idk.

In any case, good luck with that.

I also linked to phase-III studies carried out for Sinovac and Sinopharm (both conducted by institutions outside China), as well as a real-world study on the effectiveness of the Sinovac vaccine carried out by the Chilean Health Ministry.

> What it isn't meant to do is stand by itself, and in the case of Russian and Chinese vaccines third parties are left to scramble to determine efficacy because, again, raw patient data isn't released and gov-run studies are not to be trusted, ever.

I'm really puzzled. I've pointed out over and over again that the phase-III trials of the various Chinese vaccines were carried out outside of China, by institutions that have nothing to do with the Chinese government. Yet you keep saying that the Chinese government ran these studies and refuses to release the data. Am I not writing English?

> I'm not going to spend any more time trying to figure out why you are arguing against open and transparent vaccine development and in favor of dictatorships hiding/obscuring and lying about their products.

I'm pointing out that you don't understand how the trials were conducted. I haven't argued against transparent vaccine development. I've tried to explain to you that your belief that the vaccines we're discussing were not transparently developed is provably wrong. Just open up the papers I've linked and take note of which institutes carried out the Sinovac and Sinopharm studies, and where those institutes are located. That's already enough to show that your claims that the Chinese government won't release trial data make no sense.