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

China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 280 posts

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#91

Post by elefanten »

smallnamespace wrote: post #67
ghostcluster wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they actually have a very tense, tenuous relationship with their citeznry and its propensity for public demonstrations that keep the government in line. there is a breaking point they know they have to avoid. > The number of annual protests has grown steadily since the early 1990s, from approximately 8700 “mass group incidents” in 1993[1] to over 87,000 in 2005.[2] In 2006, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences esti…

At least a few years ago, de Toqueville's 'On the Old Regime and the Revolution' was on the Communist Party's reading list [1]. The Chinese Civil War of '49 and then the Cultural Revolution (where most of the then-current Party leadership suffered) is still within living memory of the ruling class. Of course they understand that there is an implicit contract between themselves and the rest of society, even if it the…

Let's truly genuinely hope this perspective is correct. This argument, or something like it, have been conventional wisdom to some for decades.

And it would be so good -- for the people of China more than for anyone else. But it would be good for us all.

Yet, it's difficult to watch Xi's tenure unfold and not have worrisome questions about the inevitability of this result, especially given new technologies available to potentially aspiring totalitarians.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#92

Post by seanmcdirmid »

adventured wrote: post #90
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America's and Europe's urbanization rates have basically stabilized. I'm not sure where growth would come from, except via immigration and from other less prosperous cities (e.g. moving from Detroit to Seattle).

> America's and Europe's urbanization rates have basically stabilized. That's a lot more true in parts of Western Europe than the US. The US has seen a burst of further urbanization, after a few decades of flatlining. Cities like Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Austin, San Jose, San Diego, Charlotte, Denver, El Paso, Orlando, etc. are still 'young' in their most recent expansions. Charlotte NC, for example, ha…

But these are generally happening between cities, and near-city suburbs, not from rural areas or exurbs. Basically, people are trading some form of urbanization for another, leading to huge imbalances in our infrastructure while our urbanization rate stays basically the same (maybe inching up 1% every ten years as it has done for the last 30).

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#93

Post by egd »

akira2501 wrote: post #45
otoburb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent's comment was taken directly from the OP article.

Which is sourced from a New York Times _opinion_ piece without any documentation or second sourcing to back it up. I'm comfortable putting this in the "dubious" and/or "overblown anecdote" bin unless evidence shows otherwise.

Typically pieces written directly by experts - instead of by journalists interviewing experts - are placed in the opinion section. The author of that piece is a historian from Georgetown who wrote a book about the region.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#94

Post by adventured »

testvox wrote: post #60
thinkpad20 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile over here it's taken as assumed that cities cannot and/or should not grow ever again. How do you mean?

Probably referring to the hatred many in the United States have towards urban development. In pretty much every city in the United States development has been slowed to a crawl due to zoning restrictions, despite increasing huge demand. People love to use SF as a prime example but I will point to my city, Somerville MA where rents have been soaring, yet there are only 22 lots that meet the residential zoning requirem…

> In pretty much every city in the United States development has been slowed to a crawl

You don't think that's far too much of a generalization?

Houston has added a city the size of San Francisco since 1980. Austin and Charlotte doubled in size since 1990, and are both now comparable to SF in size. Las Vegas grew by 140% or so since 1990. Seattle's population curve goes vertical the last decade, they added about 16% to their population in seven years, and 50% expansion since 1990.

New York has added a million people in 20 years, after five decades of stagnation. There's plenty of development going on there.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#95

Post by adventured »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #92
adventured wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> America's and Europe's urbanization rates have basically stabilized. That's a lot more true in parts of Western Europe than the US. The US has seen a burst of further urbanization, after a few decades of flatlining. Cities like Las Vegas, Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Austin, San Jose, San Diego, Charlotte, Denver, El Paso, Orlando, etc. are still 'young' in their most recent expansions. Charlotte NC, for example, ha…

But these are generally happening between cities, and near-city suburbs, not from rural areas or exurbs. Basically, people are trading some form of urbanization for another, leading to huge imbalances in our infrastructure while our urbanization rate stays basically the same (maybe inching up 1% every ten years as it has done for the last 30).

That's refuted by the data I included showing the increase in urbanization since 1980. From 73% to roughly 82% in 2018. As I noted, that's equivalent to three New Yorks.

The urbanization shift is equivalent to 27 million people (versus if it had stayed at 73.x%). Or 30 San Franciscos.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#96

Post by trothamel »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #52
stevenjohns wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently traveled to China and went to a fairly remote area dominated by Uyghurs and didn't see anything that would indicate that level of oppression. They seemed quite free to do what they wanted to between themselves (such as buying a knife) although I imagine their political rights wouldn't be very strong.

On a meta-note, this seems to apply to every aspect of Chinese surveillance/repression. Every time someone here reports that a website is blocked in China, someone else will reply that it works for them.

It's almost like repressive regimes have departments of the government responsible for monitoring and changing the discussions of open websites.

Or maybe that's just twitter, facebook, reddit...

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#97

Post by ordinaryradical »

gurkendoktor wrote: post #52
stevenjohns wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently traveled to China and went to a fairly remote area dominated by Uyghurs and didn't see anything that would indicate that level of oppression. They seemed quite free to do what they wanted to between themselves (such as buying a knife) although I imagine their political rights wouldn't be very strong.

On a meta-note, this seems to apply to every aspect of Chinese surveillance/repression. Every time someone here reports that a website is blocked in China, someone else will reply that it works for them.

Seems to me there is a large public relations push to normalize their authoritarianism in the view of Westerners.

Then you hear about bloggers being imprisoned for pointing out corruption according to the government’s own definitions.

China’s authoritarianism looks attractive when it’s about infrastructure and efficiency, but the underside of it, the collective silencing and destruction of debate, the “blank spots” it introduces into its citizens understanding of history and the world, are truly disturbing.

China’s existential threat is an opportunity or technology which enhances its ability to control citizens but leads, in the long term, to destabilization of the regime. Could be AI, could be something else. But at some point one of these forbidden fruits will poison and what appears to be a manageable, technical problem will become a societal one that no one can control or censor.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#98

Post by gugudollz »

Barrin92 wrote: post #81
gugudollz wrote: post #68

There has never been internet shutdown in Kenya. TV stations were switched off but never internet. If China establishes autocratic regimes in the global South it will seize those governments and leverage that to gain power over the West. It's myopic to think their goal is anything less than absolute domination of the world.

It's probably safe to assume that China wants to increase its influence, but accusing any country of plans of 'absolute domination' based on domestic surveillance probably says more about the psyche of the accuser than anyone else

The article talks about exporting the tech to the global South, not me. The goal not being in the export itself but in the subjugation of those people under a central point of capture. From there, it's obvious who remains: the West.

Re: China's Xinjiang surveillance is the dystopian future nobody wants

#100

Post by SN76477 »

keiferski wrote: post #77
toephu2 wrote: post #71

On the plus side, I just visited China last month and never felt safer. Before you would wear your backpack on the front of your chest when taking public transportation for fear of thieves. Now, with surveillance everywhere (and random ID checks at subways), you can freely wear your backpack on your back where it belongs without fear of theft.

There are plenty of western “free countries” with little-to-no street crime. It’s not an either-or situation.

I have been thinking lately about the purpose of crime. Obviously people get robbed and bad things happen, but what would happen in a society without crime? is it possible that crime has a larger purpose?
Post reply on HN