Live data from Hacker News

Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

nytimes.com

71–74 of 74 posts

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#71

This is a quintessential example of not basing policy on evidence of harm. Any decision that affects others (such as policy) should be empirically-based, or risks being simply wrong/bad (as I would surmise it is, in this case).

I agree with the spirit of what you say, but I think those requirements are too stringent. It's very difficult to get evidence before-the-fact for a lot of public policy type issues. I think it would be better to be seek out and take heed of evidence, but not block things because of lack of prior evidence. What you need to be able to do is experiment -- try out policies -- and gather evidence from that. This will lea…

The problem with operating laws-as-experiments are that laws are extremely difficult to change, while actual experiments are not.

> It's very difficult to get evidence before-the-fact for a lot of public policy type issues.

Yeah, and this is exactly where I constantly see mistakes made and where I'd want some data or at least secular ethical rationality first, indicating at least a direction to take with policy. For example, treatment of sexual issues was terrible decades ago (and depending on where you are in the world, still is) due to lack of basing it on secular ethics ("who is actually harmed by this behavior? and in what capacity? and how much, by some objective measurement? and for how long?") or evidence ("wow, sure seems like a lot of animals are reproducing just fine despite having a percentage of gay members, maybe it's not so bad after all"). Or look at drug laws or prostitution laws- all based on big old dusty religious books or Victorian-era repressed sensibilities instead of rigorous data or secular ethical discussion.

You might argue that prostitution/oral sex (remember sodomy laws?) are an "affront to nature" instead of perhaps a "necessary evil," but without evidence as to actual objective harm (physical/emotional pain, long-term negatives, societal negatives at an institutional level, etc.), you should only be able to act in accordance with that by yourself and without being able to impose it on others.

In court, you cannot convict someone ("act against them and their interests") unless you prove harm has been done. Creating laws that curtail anyone's freedom should be treated equally.

I am 100% certain that China has absolutely NO good empirical basis to support their banning of 68 things off the Internet other than a flawed perception of reality.

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#72
post #67
post #2

The thing with obedience (which is disgustingly praised by quite some HN commenters, maybe even not just astroturfers) is that it leaves zero territory to live your actual life. Which then will create people living completely double lives, the obedient shell one and the other one .

Please don't post generic ideological tangents to HN. Much as we might wish otherwise, a public internet forum isn't able to have meaningful discussion about things like this. It just turns into boring slop.

Why have HN at all then? Let's close comments.

You can't discuss specific things if you never figured generic things out. We will have pointless discussions like "was is a good thing to murder this particular person, or you say it wasn't?"

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#73
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please don't post generic ideological tangents to HN. Much as we might wish otherwise, a public internet forum isn't able to have meaningful discussion about things like this. It just turns into boring slop.

Why have HN at all then? Let's close comments. You can't discuss specific things if you never figured generic things out. We will have pointless discussions like "was is a good thing to murder this particular person, or you say it wasn't?"

We don't close comments because some comments are good. But some are boring, particularly the generic ones and the indignant ones. To make HN discussions better we need to make them less boring, i.e. less predictable.

Nobody figures generic things out. They're too generic for that. The true things you can say are trivial and the non-trivial things are untrue.

The grander and more general a topic, the fewer interesting things there are to say about it—especially in internet threads. Those few things get said over and over, making the threads predictable and boring. The solution is to avoid such tangents. To avoid a black hole, don't go near it.

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Re: Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet

#74
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why have HN at all then? Let's close comments. You can't discuss specific things if you never figured generic things out. We will have pointless discussions like "was is a good thing to murder this particular person, or you say it wasn't?"

We don't close comments because some comments are good. But some are boring, particularly the generic ones and the indignant ones. To make HN discussions better we need to make them less boring, i.e. less predictable. Nobody figures generic things out. They're too generic for that. The true things you can say are trivial and the non-trivial things are untrue. The grander and more general a topic, the fewer interestin…

> But some are boring

That's what you are thinking.

But you know what HN users think? They think +24.

Post reply on HN