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

The China Cultural Clash

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 379 posts

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#251

Post by plandis »

tomp wrote: post #229
juanjmanfredi wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter, Facebook, and any other entity that deplatformed Alex Jones are private companies and can deplatform whoever they want. In fact that is part of their freedom of speech. This is different from government-enforced silencing of speech, which is what is happening in China right now. I feel no cognitive dissonance, but maybe you can explain more why I should.

NBA are not legally controlled by Chinese laws. They're censoring speech because they want to (a.k.a. it's profitable), not because they're being forced to.

What speech is the NBA censoring? The commissioner came out in favor of free speech. The GM has not been fired.

On the other hand, the Chinese government has stepped in to block the NBA because of the NBAs stance on free speech of players, staff, etc.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#252

Post by nnq »

scrumper wrote: post #27

> The internet is an amoral force that reduces friction, not an inevitable force for good. This is well said and something everyone in tech should remember. Unintended consequence is a law with teeth.

Why would you care about "good", a relative notion that means different things to different people, over reduction of friction, a clearly beneficial thing that accelerates technical and scientific progress?

If we could only "dissolve" all those parts of society and culture that are mostly pure friction, and spin the wheels 100x faster to the future...

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#253

Post by luckylion »

madiathomas wrote: post #181

Anti-China propaganda machinery is in full force today. So many anti-China propaganda articles in a technical news site. This isn't what I was expecting when I joined Hacker News. I was expecting to see Hacker news, not this rubbish that has littered the front page today. I am even ready to be removed from this site today. I am not even Chinese. I have never visited China but I am able to see anti-China bullshit that…

I don't believe that it's actual propaganda, it looks more like a) people being honestly upset about behavior, b) self-marketing folks jumping on the opportunity to strongly condemn whatever is en vogue to condemn c) that becoming a bit of a self-propelling force.

I agree that the tenths article on the same topic that doesn't really add new information and produces largely identical comments isn't too interesting, but I don't believe that it's coordinated in any way. People like outrage, and they like to signal to each other that they are part of the same group, so they upvote and comment "I too am outraged".

And then there's just the randomness of the NBA, South Park and Blizzard happening yesterday/today, had those happened a week apart, it would have looked differently.

StackOverflow's PR disaster that unfolded over the last two weeks or so was similar in amount, but it was stretched over 10 days so there would only be one or two posts on the front page (granted: they did get flagged down and/or were removed by mods more quickly than the topics about China, possibly because there's more flame-war-potential in StackOverflow's actions than in "The West's" reaction to Chinese outrage).

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#254

Post by plandis »

LocalH wrote: post #247
whateveracct wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you equating private entities deplatformimg vs government-controlled ones? They are fundamentally different things.

There is no effective difference between private and public deplatforming. Freedom of expression is harmed by both.

Perhaps but the harm is vastly different in scale.

Private banning of speech doesn’t prevent the individual from stating those claims elsewhere. Government mandated banning of speech does prevent that speech from being used elsewhere.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#255

Post by drcode »

Merrill wrote: post #240
foogoloo wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Chinese Communist Party places a high priority on social harmony because that’s what benefits them. Having freedom as long as no one notices you isn’t freedom.

In the US there is a faction that is extremely strong on "privacy rights". This seem motivated by the idea that you are free to do as you please so long as you can prevent others from knowing about it, rather than depending on having strong rights to do as you please whether others know or not. Strong privacy is the "security by obscurity" solution to being free.

So you're arguing China has strong privacy rights? How do "privacy rights" matter if you don't have the freedom to have privacy?

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#256

Post by dragonwriter »

nnq wrote: post #252
scrumper wrote: post #27

> The internet is an amoral force that reduces friction, not an inevitable force for good. This is well said and something everyone in tech should remember. Unintended consequence is a law with teeth.

Why would you care about "good", a relative notion that means different things to different people, over reduction of friction , a clearly beneficial thing that accelerates technical and scientific progress? If we could only "dissolve" all those parts of society and culture that are mostly pure friction, and spin the wheels 100x faster to the future...

> reduction of friction, a clearly beneficial thing

Reduction of friction accelerates harms as well as benefits, it's not “clearly beneficial” without further knowledge of context.

Sure, it makes scientific progress faster, but it also makes genocide faster.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#257

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ben_jones wrote: post #139
jcranmer wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're arguing is that, since China was previously a victim, China is incapable of being imperial. That's no comfort to countries which are staring down a gauntlet of Western imperialism being replaced with Chinese imperialism.

An enemy (eastern imperialism) of your enemy (western imperialism) is your friend. China was a victim in the Opium wars and then again to Japan in the 1930s and 1940s. This is all important context that needs to be considered. To be clear I don't support China or Eastern imperialism in (significantly) Africa, the ME, or the US. But if you want to fight it you have to be informed, history repeats itself.

No. As the web comic Schlock Mercenary says in one of its maxims, "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more; no less."

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#258

Post by gurumeditations »

Merrill wrote: post #211
nostromo wrote: post #26

It's frustrating to see people say that we shouldn't fight Chinese economic imperialism, mercantilism, and protectionism because we should support free trade. Free trade is a two way street. If a trading partner is engaging in unfair practices then it's reasonable to support sanctions and tariffs and other means to get them to stop, even if you're a free trade supporter. In fact this is the whole premise of the WTO,…

Free trade works so long as you are the economic hegemon. After the Napoleonic Wars, Britain was the strongest economic power and championed free trade until the 1870s. Then German and French manufacturing, US and Argentinian agriculture competed favorably with British manufacturers and landowners and free trade was not so popular in the run up to WW I. Similarly, after WW II, the US was dominant and free trade serve…

If that were true, the US would treat Europe as even bigger an enemy than China.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#259

Post by skmurphy »

I supported Clinton's invitation of China into a more liberal trade arrangement,but it has not worked out as anyone in the US had hoped. Thompson's conclusion is an important insight: "Money, like tech, is amoral. If we insist it matters most our own morals will inevitably disappear."

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#260

Post by whateveracct »

LocalH wrote: post #247
whateveracct wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you equating private entities deplatformimg vs government-controlled ones? They are fundamentally different things.

There is no effective difference between private and public deplatforming. Freedom of expression is harmed by both.

Not exactly.

If I don't want someone to speak at my event and ban them, that's not the end of the world. There are probably others who would allow them to speak.

If the government bans someone from speaking, there is no recourse.

This is the state of the world in the USA and one of our cornerstone negative freedoms.

Post reply on HN