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

291–300 of 379 posts

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#291

Post by cbnotfromthere »

juanjmanfredi wrote: post #200
LocalH wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. So much this. Deplatforming is deplatforming. If one supported the deplatforming of Alex Jones, and doesn't also support China on this, then they are a hypocrite engaging in severe cognitive dissonance. Freedom of speech is not some "loophole" that allows people to say nasty things. It's a bulwark against authoritarianism. The ones who forget that need to study world history when it comes to freedom of speech a…

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.

"Twitter, Facebook, and any other entity that deplatformed Alex Jones are private companies and can deplatform whoever they want"

Would you feel the same way if the deplatforming was done by, say, AT&T, Verizon, or T-Mobile? Because Twitter and Facebook specifically get the same protection as if they are communication pipes (as opposed to being publishers).

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#292

Post by aianus »

stebann wrote: post #288
curiousgal wrote: post #38

Adobe recently blocked all Venzuelans because of an executive order. Foreign companies are sanctionned by the US for dealing with Iranian entities even if their countries have no issue with Iran. (Huawei's executive was even arrested in Canada on behalf of the US for that). My point is, why should we hold companies accountable for enforcing a certain national policy when A, companies have always done awful things in…

You forget the part where now all South-American economies are in crisis thanks to US forcing pet leaders to replace "corrupt" ones. Now 50 % of population in Argentina is poor (counting homeless too) thanks to US Foreign Policy, but for them is OK to maintain the 10 % becoming nastily rich while others pay the price.

Argentina is poor because they elect populist leaders who spend more money on social programs than they collect in taxes and eventually default. Same as Greece. It is entirely self-inflicted.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#293

Post by UIZealot »

throwaway_bad wrote: post #269
UIZealot wrote: post #130

It helps to know a little bit about what's been going on in Hong Kong, before you all line up and take your daily dump on China. It all started a few months ago when someone committed a crime in Taiwan and fled to Hong Kong. To prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for criminals, the Chief Executive of HK proposed a new law to facilitate extradition of these crime suspects from HK to various jurisdictions in the regi…

This is unintentionally the clearest demonstration of the clash of cultural values in the whole thread. Between harmony and human rights, it's absolutely clear to a westerner which one is more important. From your tone, it is also absolutely clear which one you would choose. > If anything I said is untrue, please correct me It's possible to only say true things and still be biased. This is probably the most common wa…

> Between harmony and human rights, it's absolutely clear to a westerner which one is more important.

What have been the human rights violations from the government, aside from responses to protester violence?

Labeling yourself "human rights" does not automatically make you right.

> It's possible to only say true things and still be biased. This is probably the most common way of spinning a story for "fake news".

Certainly. And you are immune to biases and spinning "fake news" ... how?

> Escalation of force, hiring triads to attack citizens, blinding journalist with rubber bullets, shooting live ammo at students in the chest,

"triads"? "fake news" much?

What else from this list is anything but a response to protester violence? Or do you think the policy should just stand still and take the beating?

> To an individualist,

Keep throwing labels around all you want, it doesn't make you right.

Your freedom to shine your laser light ends where another person's eyes begin.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#294

Post by TeMPOraL »

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...

Faster isn't always better. Think of a control system with a delay element in it. Removing it may make the control system better. Or it may turn out that delay was dampening a positive feedback loop, and now the whole thing blows sky high.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#295

Post by Faark »

gurumeditations wrote: post #258
Merrill wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US certainly has little interest on a strong united EU. But there are a lot more factors at play. Like having military bases there. And generally a lot more soft power / cultural influence. Still, do you remember the US announcing tariffs on car imports?

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#296

Post by boomboomsubban »

gurumeditations wrote: post #258
Merrill wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The US has used groups like NATO and the G7 to ensure that no European power would challenge US hegemony.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#297

Post by dade_ »

stebann wrote: post #288
curiousgal wrote: post #38

Adobe recently blocked all Venzuelans because of an executive order. Foreign companies are sanctionned by the US for dealing with Iranian entities even if their countries have no issue with Iran. (Huawei's executive was even arrested in Canada on behalf of the US for that). My point is, why should we hold companies accountable for enforcing a certain national policy when A, companies have always done awful things in…

You forget the part where now all South-American economies are in crisis thanks to US forcing pet leaders to replace "corrupt" ones. Now 50 % of population in Argentina is poor (counting homeless too) thanks to US Foreign Policy, but for them is OK to maintain the 10 % becoming nastily rich while others pay the price.

Yes, but the circumstance that caused the collapse of most fragile democracies in South America and Africa was the 70s oil crisis and subsequent governments (dictators, old elite, crazy bastards) that ran up massive debts.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#298

Post by m-p-3 »

whateveracct wrote: post #225
LocalH wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. So much this. Deplatforming is deplatforming. If one supported the deplatforming of Alex Jones, and doesn't also support China on this, then they are a hypocrite engaging in severe cognitive dissonance. Freedom of speech is not some "loophole" that allows people to say nasty things. It's a bulwark against authoritarianism. The ones who forget that need to study world history when it comes to freedom of speech a…

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

With companies out there that makes more in capital than some countries in a single year, the line between private entities and government is harder to discern.

How do you get a platform when it is the defacto platform?

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#299

Post by hesk »

Merrill wrote: post #45

Since diversity is a strength, it would seem that the ideal situation globally is to have a diversity of economic, political and legal systems. If instead, these systems around the globe tend towards similarity and strong coupling, the result is likely to be fragility and instability. By having weakly coupled diverse systems with well defined interfaces, the overall global system becomes more robust and disturbances…

There are no well-defined interfaces in human interactions. Human interactions are messy. The closest we get to well-defined interfaces is the law and even that needs regular human intervention in the courts.

Re: The China Cultural Clash

#300

Post by m-p-3 »

drcode wrote: post #255
Merrill wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Freedom is subjective to one's past experiences.
Post reply on HN