China Fakes 488M Social Media Posts a Year: Study(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
China Fakes 488M Social Media Posts a Year: Study
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-19/china-seen-faking-488-million-internet-posts-to-divert-criticism
32 comments
As I know, Japan government also pays for posts in China. Maybe US does so.
488M? Is that all?
How many have been in Weibo hmmm
I wonder if it's actually effective, or just makes the people calling for it to be done, feel better.
All of the above? Totalitarian regimes always try to control the public narrative. It matters.
Yes, but totalitarian regimes also tend to torture people, and that doesn't work in the long run. Being totalitarian doesn't make you competent, but it probably makes you less likely to carefully study your methods for efficacy.
So I wonder, is there any evidence that this works, or is it just a sop to angry old men in the politburo who don't like what they see online?
So I wonder, is there any evidence that this works, or is it just a sop to angry old men in the politburo who don't like what they see online?
This is anecdotal, but from the time I spent working in Shanghai & Beijing with the current younger middle class, they're pretty aware of this and just don't really care that much.
In the U.S. we're very vigilant about our first amendment rights and feel violated if they're even slightly tampered with, but for some of the Chinese at least, they don't see it interfering with their lives as long as "things are going okay" for them.
In the U.S. we're very vigilant about our first amendment rights and feel violated if they're even slightly tampered with, but for some of the Chinese at least, they don't see it interfering with their lives as long as "things are going okay" for them.
As a counterpoint, my Chinese teacher said the other day that she is worried about the days of the Cultural Revolution returning.
She sees her relatives sharing propaganda pieces on WeChat and showed us a video of her aunt unironically performing the "Loyalty Dance" (as in loyalty to Mao) with her coworkers. They will also get angry at her when she tries to talk about China's worse points.
This might be an age thing though, maybe the younger generations have a different outlook on these things.
She sees her relatives sharing propaganda pieces on WeChat and showed us a video of her aunt unironically performing the "Loyalty Dance" (as in loyalty to Mao) with her coworkers. They will also get angry at her when she tries to talk about China's worse points.
This might be an age thing though, maybe the younger generations have a different outlook on these things.
[deleted]
All regimes try to control the public narrative.
Yes but the difference is in totalitarian regimes, theirs is the only narrative. No one or nothing else's story is permitted, while theirs is made to flourish.
On the positive side, when you have an undivided narrative like that you can get a lot done (sometimes bad, sometimes good) without impeding distractions.
On the positive side, when you have an undivided narrative like that you can get a lot done (sometimes bad, sometimes good) without impeding distractions.
In non-totalitarian regimes, you only get your career threatened[1], in totalitarian regimes, you could be imprisoned.
[1] http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-cover...
[1] http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-cover...
The CCP isn't unified in their narrative, and there is definitely infighting from time to time out of public view (though you can sense hints of it via editorials talking about bizarre ideological topics).
The story they are trying to control/guide is much more reactive, like preventing social unrest, rioting, exploding financial scams, etc...often very local.
The story they are trying to control/guide is much more reactive, like preventing social unrest, rioting, exploding financial scams, etc...often very local.
You can get books in the Shanghai library with a lot of narratives of world history different than the CCP's.
Totalitarian is probably not the most fitting word to describe the current state of Chinese society, insofar as it connotates an environment of constant fear of unwarranted state intrustion into everyday life. The only environment I've been in that could be said to be "totalitarian" in that sense would be the south side of Chicago.
Totalitarian is probably not the most fitting word to describe the current state of Chinese society, insofar as it connotates an environment of constant fear of unwarranted state intrustion into everyday life. The only environment I've been in that could be said to be "totalitarian" in that sense would be the south side of Chicago.
DPRK and Eritrea are pretty darn close to totalitarian. Even at its worst in the 60s/70s, China was just barely there, it is just too big to control likes that.
It is difficulty it to describe China's political system using existing terms. Maybe authoritarian, but that doesn't feel right either. It isn't transparent in how the power flows, could even be an oligarchy or aristocracy.
It is difficulty it to describe China's political system using existing terms. Maybe authoritarian, but that doesn't feel right either. It isn't transparent in how the power flows, could even be an oligarchy or aristocracy.
In practice, and in name, China is a republic. The leadership of the CCP are elected by it's 80+ million members. [1] Power resides in elected individuals representing the party members. Party membership is not easy, but not too difficult either. [2] One could make the analogy, joining the party is the PRC's version of enrolling to vote, which happens to be a much more complicated process than in the U.S. Not everyone is allowed to become a party member, but that is also true in the U.S and other countries, where some or all prisoners have no right to vote.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People%27s_Re...
[2] https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-join-the-Chinese-Communist-Pa...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People%27s_Re...
[2] https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-join-the-Chinese-Communist-Pa...
>You can get books in the Shanghai library with a lot of narratives of world history different than the CCP's.
Yeah, get too many of those and see what happens.
Yeah, get too many of those and see what happens.
I think you're parsing things a bit. We could all say there are at least as many narratives as there are people...
The point is only one narrative is allowed success any usurper with too much notice would get suppressed.
Sure, you can find, if you look hard enough, you can find like minded people, just don't make it obvious, don't appear as if you could pose an ideological threat incompatible with the goals of the CCP or PLA.
The point is only one narrative is allowed success any usurper with too much notice would get suppressed.
Sure, you can find, if you look hard enough, you can find like minded people, just don't make it obvious, don't appear as if you could pose an ideological threat incompatible with the goals of the CCP or PLA.
Some try a little bit harder than others.
With China you're never sure. Look at what happened with the OPM hack they did on the US government database of federal workers
Just because the hack originated in China doesn't mean the Chinese government was behind it.
Are you trying to imply that for profit commercial hackers would care about draining the OPM?
There's really only one type of organisation that could use that data: a government.
There's really only one type of organisation that could use that data: a government.
Pretty much my point.
I wasn't referring to the Chinese govt per se. But just the many entities of cyber criminals that these hackers originate from also
> Although those who post comments are often rumored to be ordinary citizens, the researchers were surprised to find that nearly all the posts were written by workers at government agencies including tax and human resource departments, and at courts. The researchers said they found no evidence that people were paid for the posts, adding the work was probably part of the employees’ job responsibilities.
No I think this is more like someone working for some new startup talking it up, or talking up the product. It may not be in the job description, but one might be inclined to say good things.
Do recall these jobs are ones one gets by studying hard for a rote test/civil service exam. So one might feel obliged when working for the state (where it's prestigious to work, as seen by fam) to defend the state.
Do recall these jobs are ones one gets by studying hard for a rote test/civil service exam. So one might feel obliged when working for the state (where it's prestigious to work, as seen by fam) to defend the state.
Wait. Trump will soon pull the plug on China. Let's see how they can survive this.
(gives them three years to balance trade with the US)
(gives them three years to balance trade with the US)
The first, and probably only important result of this will be a massive increase in the cost of most products in the USA.
Let's see how they can survive this...
Let's see how they can survive this...
Hm. Maybe.
But
1. Lets see how much robots can replace of the labour
2. China one accumulated most of the world silver reserves. Buying nothing and selling silk and porcelain. This was one of the reasons for the Opium war. Today China produces nothing that not somebody else could produce. Shoes, Clothes, toys, electronics. They tried to get a monopoly with rare earth metals but this seem to have failed.
I challenge your statement. I doubt the outcome.
But
1. Lets see how much robots can replace of the labour
2. China one accumulated most of the world silver reserves. Buying nothing and selling silk and porcelain. This was one of the reasons for the Opium war. Today China produces nothing that not somebody else could produce. Shoes, Clothes, toys, electronics. They tried to get a monopoly with rare earth metals but this seem to have failed.
I challenge your statement. I doubt the outcome.
Spamming 400M posts is just casual business for any for-profit astroturfing companies.
I am not surprised if you can find another 800M posts is for soft advertising.
I am not surprised if you can find another 800M posts is for soft advertising.
Turns out it's a Brave New World instead of 1984. And I am not surprised. A semi-totalitarian government based around ideology. If China's idealistic goal is set to be achieving communism through socialism, then what's better than vox populi?
I'm not even sure if they still have any communist goal, it looks just like any other authoritarian government now, it's probably only communist by name.
It's a totalitarian government with massive state ownership of businesses. That's pretty much the definition of communism. The fact that they got less extreme on their economic policies whilst remaining extreme on their social/control policies doesn't make it not communism.
The definition of communism is a classless society where workers have direct control over the means of production.
No, that's the fake claim that nobody believes these days. Which is why no nations are rushing out to become Communistic: as an ideology it didn't just lose, it got completely demolished. The ideology espoused was never actually sincere in any regard, it was merely a fraudulent cover for a power grab by the party elite, which is why the claims of Communism have always contradicted the reality perfectly.
There has never been a single implementation of Socialism - including Communism and Fascism - that has delegated any power to the workers. It has always and will always be held by the party dictatorship. No property, including the means of production, is ever held by the workers, it is always controlled by the elite of the party dictatorship for the purpose of plundering profit and enslaving the workers. Which simultaneously explains the extreme poverty Socialism has produced every time it has been attempted.
There has never been a single implementation of Socialism - including Communism and Fascism - that has delegated any power to the workers. It has always and will always be held by the party dictatorship. No property, including the means of production, is ever held by the workers, it is always controlled by the elite of the party dictatorship for the purpose of plundering profit and enslaving the workers. Which simultaneously explains the extreme poverty Socialism has produced every time it has been attempted.
You're conflating Marxist-Leninism (and Stalinism, Maoism, etc. they tend to get named after their dictator) with communism. You've just demonstrated that most of the countries that call themselves communist or socialist... weren't. That doesn't change the word or its definition.
The Free Territory and Catalonia were libertarian socialist communities. They were betrayed by Bolsheviks and Stalinists respectively.
> Which simultaneously explains the extreme poverty Socialism has produced every time it has been attempted.
Britain forcibly deindustrialized India, reducing it from the most productive region of the world to one of the poorest. This, somehow, is not an indictment of capitalism, but all the dictatorships that call themselves communist are an indictment of communism. I don't care at all to defend the likes of the USSR or their satellite puppet governments, but you're drunk on propaganda if you think any of these criticisms you've leveled cannot be made against the so-called "free world".
The Free Territory and Catalonia were libertarian socialist communities. They were betrayed by Bolsheviks and Stalinists respectively.
> Which simultaneously explains the extreme poverty Socialism has produced every time it has been attempted.
Britain forcibly deindustrialized India, reducing it from the most productive region of the world to one of the poorest. This, somehow, is not an indictment of capitalism, but all the dictatorships that call themselves communist are an indictment of communism. I don't care at all to defend the likes of the USSR or their satellite puppet governments, but you're drunk on propaganda if you think any of these criticisms you've leveled cannot be made against the so-called "free world".
http://highexistence.com/amusing-ourselves-to-death-huxley-v...
(source: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours... )
(source: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours... )
What I always wonder about Brave New World is if Huxley was right when he portrayed the people in charge of the BNW's system as being convinced they were doing the right thing, as opposite to the 1984's "evil" party.
Soma carried the brunt of that load, not unlike modern pain killers
Oh, I think a little bit of both, don't you?
[deleted]
honest question that seems more pointed than it is: how many anti-CCP/China posts did the CIA sponsor last year?
If you mean the Chinese Intelligence Agency, they aren't anti-CCP. If you mean the Central Intelligence Agency, then we have no evidence that they are, and it is highly likely that they wouldn't bother. What is in it for the USA to destabilize China and/or overthrow the CPP? A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache.
> A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache.
Here's one of the most interesting deceptive phenomenon that almost all the modern human failed to detect. That's why the states have so many headaches and will continue to have more headaches.
A rational politician should control his/her own strong desire from ideology(i.e. eager to spread the value of democracy/universal human rights all over the world) to avoid the "huge headache". But the reality is irrational politicians driven by their strong belief pretend to be rational so others think their decision is based on reasoning.
A famous example as I mentioned in another post is Mr.Obama blamed G.W.Bush, who created headache of Iraq with a naive view that he was doing good thing to Iraqis, but Obama created Libya headache by himself. What he criticized Bush in words is just a way of showing he had a better judgement and more reasonable than Bush so he can win in election. His behavior shows there's little difference.
Another example is Politicians like to talk "US interests". Most people might not think of the WORD is just a way to show other people they are rational. Their behavior not always really align with US interest.
Next time when you hear a politician saying "A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache and against US interest", don't be so confident they are the same as you. Politicians are special specie extremely good at creating wrong impression to other people.
Here's one of the most interesting deceptive phenomenon that almost all the modern human failed to detect. That's why the states have so many headaches and will continue to have more headaches.
A rational politician should control his/her own strong desire from ideology(i.e. eager to spread the value of democracy/universal human rights all over the world) to avoid the "huge headache". But the reality is irrational politicians driven by their strong belief pretend to be rational so others think their decision is based on reasoning.
A famous example as I mentioned in another post is Mr.Obama blamed G.W.Bush, who created headache of Iraq with a naive view that he was doing good thing to Iraqis, but Obama created Libya headache by himself. What he criticized Bush in words is just a way of showing he had a better judgement and more reasonable than Bush so he can win in election. His behavior shows there's little difference.
Another example is Politicians like to talk "US interests". Most people might not think of the WORD is just a way to show other people they are rational. Their behavior not always really align with US interest.
Next time when you hear a politician saying "A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache and against US interest", don't be so confident they are the same as you. Politicians are special specie extremely good at creating wrong impression to other people.
I don't think Obama created the Lybia headache, they were already breaking up (failing) with the Arab Spring way before the USA intervened. The USA also didn't kill Gaddafi, there was no oil to procure, and it was a NATO action anyways. Contrast to Iraq, that was all on the USA. The people weren't revolting, no civil war, there was just no reason for us to go there.
Obama is very different from GW Bush.
Obama is very different from GW Bush.
The push to do something in Libya was from Europe, it does have plenty of oil though.
Your overall point is accurate, but the example is bad. Obama did not deliberately intervene in multiple middle eastern countries to "spread democracy". Remember the Iran demonstrations and there were calls for US intervention and we got silence from Obama. Or when Mubarak was facing the heat, still no intervention. Same for Syria or Sudan or Somalia or any of the other countries that were failing.
Strategic anticipation of long-term conflict over control of the pacific -- presumably they wouldn't want a failed state, they would want a parliamentary democracy ruled by a "liberal" party subservient to American hegemony.
The narrative that America wants to democratize the world only really exists in places like Russia, Middle East, some of leftist Europe. But really, if you think about it just a little bit, there is nothing in it for us. A democratic China would be even more difficult for the US to deal with, given that the politicians would be subject to populist whims. It might be good for China as it creates some additional pressure valves, but we don't care about that, we are pretty happy to let China plod along wherever its going (just please stop pushing up housing prices on the west coast).
There aren't any huge ideological battles going on these days, the cold war is over, and the big baddies for us to face are failed states and terrorism, both of which would thrive in a more unstable China. Heck, our worst nightmare is Russia imploding. I bet they lift up on sanctions soon just because of that.
There aren't any huge ideological battles going on these days, the cold war is over, and the big baddies for us to face are failed states and terrorism, both of which would thrive in a more unstable China. Heck, our worst nightmare is Russia imploding. I bet they lift up on sanctions soon just because of that.
Modern Russia has rotten core anyway. Too many questions that are left without answers but just pushed away and piled on and on.
So sanctions don't help but also don't hurt. When Putin ends or nukes the fridge is when all the fun will start.
So sanctions don't help but also don't hurt. When Putin ends or nukes the fridge is when all the fun will start.
I can't remember where I read it, but I think the CIA is prohibited from generating propaganda that could influence people in the US, e.g. English-language internet posts.
I'm pretty sure the CIA / FBI / DIA / NSA / DHS / other alphabet-soup agencies do whatever-the-fuck they want, regardless of what they are "prohibited" from doing.
None?
The history of the American Intelligence State from the cold war onward suggests that "none" is an unlikely possibility.
While it might sounds bad and it sure is, how is it that different than the 100's of millions of "sponsored content" add's, "news articles" and blog spam that 1000's of companies spread through the internet each year?
Yes, an authoritarian state that murders and disappears people and then undermines resistance by subtly adjusting the dialogue of its citizens is just like a marketing agency.
Exactly the same, now I consider it more.
Forgive the hyperbole, but I think it does the suffering caused by their regime a great disservice to compare it to sponsored ads.
Exactly the same, now I consider it more.
Forgive the hyperbole, but I think it does the suffering caused by their regime a great disservice to compare it to sponsored ads.
Because the same marketing agencies also publish content for politicians and political parties, lobbyists and interest groups?
It's not like it's only used to sell you car insurance and diet pills.
Yes but we don't kill anyone :-)
Are you sure about that? It is just marketed a little differently.
And US political factions don't use advertising to manipulate public opinion and don't own controlling stakes in huge media conglomerates.
And the US government would certainly never cause suffering, at home or abroad!
And the US government would certainly never cause suffering, at home or abroad!
You fell into a very common logic hole on that one. The parent comment never said anything about the US, and never attempted to draw a comparison between the US and China. The auto-reflex to assume they were making a comparison, is the logic failure. Criticizing X does not inherently mean one is defending Z; pointing out Z's flaws, does not negate the flaws of X.
How is it different?
Companies that waste all their money on blog spam tend to get washed out of the system pretty fast by bankruptcy (unless they're spamming because they have no alternative e.g. generic viagra spammers). You do need some sort of actual valuable product to survive. And there are large, well organised efforts to combat spam on the internet. As for fake news, well, I'm unaware of any popular news sources that routinely mix real editorial content with fake articles. Sometimes you do get sponsored articles but they are labelled.
Whereas here, the Chinese government cannot go bankrupt - it will continue forever. The injected opinions are not labelled. And the goal is not to sell you some happy pills, it's to confuse and distract the population away from their own corruption and ineptitude.
Companies that waste all their money on blog spam tend to get washed out of the system pretty fast by bankruptcy (unless they're spamming because they have no alternative e.g. generic viagra spammers). You do need some sort of actual valuable product to survive. And there are large, well organised efforts to combat spam on the internet. As for fake news, well, I'm unaware of any popular news sources that routinely mix real editorial content with fake articles. Sometimes you do get sponsored articles but they are labelled.
Whereas here, the Chinese government cannot go bankrupt - it will continue forever. The injected opinions are not labelled. And the goal is not to sell you some happy pills, it's to confuse and distract the population away from their own corruption and ineptitude.
[deleted]
Bad reviews on Amazon lead to faked good ones.
Bad reviews on Glassdoor lead to faked good ones.
Bad reviews on Yelp lead to faked good ones.
Sometimes bad reviews are not fair or heavily exaggerated, sometimes bad reviews are from competitors. Bad reviews cannot be removed. Sometimes, faked good reviews is the only way to bring back a balanced view.
So, this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a self-regulating market. Means that we should be careful with user generated content in general, also users might have an hidden agenda.
Edit: Why the downvote? I am not saying that I like this, I just tried to find an explanation for a market behavior.
Bad reviews on Glassdoor lead to faked good ones.
Bad reviews on Yelp lead to faked good ones.
Sometimes bad reviews are not fair or heavily exaggerated, sometimes bad reviews are from competitors. Bad reviews cannot be removed. Sometimes, faked good reviews is the only way to bring back a balanced view.
So, this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a self-regulating market. Means that we should be careful with user generated content in general, also users might have an hidden agenda.
Edit: Why the downvote? I am not saying that I like this, I just tried to find an explanation for a market behavior.
> Bad reviews on Amazon lead to faked good ones.
>
> Bad reviews on Glassdoor lead to faked good ones.
>
> Bad reviews on Yelp lead to faked good ones.
This is how books work: The authors or publishers get other authors to give them good reviews that appear on the book jacket. Nobody waits around for a bad review before lining up good reviews.
> Sometimes bad reviews are not fair or heavily exaggerated, sometimes bad reviews
> are from competitors. Bad reviews cannot be removed. Sometimes, faked good reviews
> is the only way to bring back a balanced view.
> So, this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a
> self-regulating market. Means that we should be careful with user generated
> content in general, also users might have an hidden agenda.
> Edit: Why the downvote? I am not saying that I like this, I just tried to find an
> explanation for a market behavior.
Try reframing your explanation as problems that need solving for these markets to thrive.
Reputation based markets do well enough with little to no defined regulation. It's anonymity allowing bad actors to be overly represented that's the problem in most Internet markets.
Take charities for example, they outperform welfare programs in terms of overhead efficiency because they have a name and a face in a market that cares more about reputation than profit.
Take charities for example, they outperform welfare programs in terms of overhead efficiency because they have a name and a face in a market that cares more about reputation than profit.
You have provided zero evidence for either of these statements. The second is particularly problematic, as without regulation charities trend toward spending all of their revenues on overhead.
Another study also states that Chinese people don't trust what they read; they trust their friends', relatives', etc. opinion. This is why you don't see wandering Asian tourists - they tend to visit what they know it's going to worth is, based on, well, gossip.
And sadly, I'm leaning towards this myself, finding the amazon 5* reviews more and more useless - although the same goes for most 1* reviews as well, those are mostly angry costumers with a bad luck.
And sadly, I'm leaning towards this myself, finding the amazon 5* reviews more and more useless - although the same goes for most 1* reviews as well, those are mostly angry costumers with a bad luck.
I find 3* and 4* reviews most useful generally, especially when comparing two products, if the review describes the pros/cons that go into their rating. These reviews tend to come after a little consideration instead of being a gushing "honeymoon period" reaction or a "maybe if I trash them they'll give me a full refund to try get me to take the review down" thing.
Agree. One thing Amazon improved on: the rating is now based on the reviews only from verified buys. Latter ones are a bit harder to fake since you need to buy the product before your review. Not the perfect solution but already miles better than most other review systems.
I've noticed that Amazon ratings/reviews are totally useless: I've seen fake items with staggering reviews and really good ones with 2-3 star rating. I tend to google reviews on other sites/blogs before buying from Amazon.
The issue with general reviews is that they're not tailored to our tastes, and possibly more important, our momentary whims.
Better to have an option for a likeness score applied to reviewers as a filter.
Better to have an option for a likeness score applied to reviewers as a filter.
> this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a self-regulating market
Massive government subversion of communication channels through the injection of fake opinions is not natural and has nothing to do with markets.
Massive government subversion of communication channels through the injection of fake opinions is not natural and has nothing to do with markets.
Propaganda isn't a "market behavior."
Yes, it certainly is. Another word for propaganda is advertising.
Why wait for a bad review before you write a fake, good one?
Political scientist Danie Stockmann, who studies the role of media in authoritarian regimes, has this to say about the Chinese situation:
> New and market-based media require a certain degree of liberalization, because market-based media need to cater towards audiences in order to make a profit and new communication technologies are faster than propaganda officials in spreading information. But this expanded social space places pressure on the authoritarian state. As a result, China is also constantly building up its capacity to control media, mostly through institutional infrastructures, in order to maintain a roughly uniform flow of political information. Therefore, China responds to the challenges posed by market-based and new media by both opening up social spaces in media while maintaining control through institutional mechanisms.
More: http://www.politicalcommunication.org/newsletter_25_1_stockm...
> New and market-based media require a certain degree of liberalization, because market-based media need to cater towards audiences in order to make a profit and new communication technologies are faster than propaganda officials in spreading information. But this expanded social space places pressure on the authoritarian state. As a result, China is also constantly building up its capacity to control media, mostly through institutional infrastructures, in order to maintain a roughly uniform flow of political information. Therefore, China responds to the challenges posed by market-based and new media by both opening up social spaces in media while maintaining control through institutional mechanisms.
More: http://www.politicalcommunication.org/newsletter_25_1_stockm...
"Media does not spread free opinion; it generates opinion." --Oswald Spengler, 1918
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Democr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Democr...
[deleted]
How silly I was, thinking that there will be no jobs in the future due to automation. :-)
Interesting. This makes me wonder about how many blog/forum posts in the Western world that are written by PR agencies. Not working for governments, of course, but for corporations and NGOs.
It depends on how much you are willing to pay. Russians buys whole TV channels.
>Not working for governments, of course,
Why not for governments?
Why not for governments?
In the Western world, there seem to be this prevalent ideal that the people should control the government and not the other way around. If a Western government hired people to influence politics like this, wouldn't there be a backlash?
Where's the backlash against this: https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
There was a huge backlash caused by the Snowden revelations and JTRIG certainly got massive attention at the time.
Unfortunately there's no obvious way to stop it because politicians appear to believe spy agencies should be unaccountable and above the law.
Unfortunately there's no obvious way to stop it because politicians appear to believe spy agencies should be unaccountable and above the law.
> Where's the backlash against this: https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
So, some people at the GCHQ have discussed doing these things. However, is there any evidence that they've actually done a whole lot?
> Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
I don't really consider Isreal a Western country, but in any case, that is interesting.
So, some people at the GCHQ have discussed doing these things. However, is there any evidence that they've actually done a whole lot?
> Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara
I don't really consider Isreal a Western country, but in any case, that is interesting.
>Not working for governments, of course
Why? That's pretty naive.
Why? That's pretty naive.
Do you have any examples of Western governments doing this?
US government as the CIA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_mockingbird
There does appear to be a couple US examples within the Wikipedia article for astroturfing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing#Politics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing#Politics
So it´s like content ads in the western world? buy this, buy that? nice.
About time they learned from Western governments.
Just to give you a bit of local perspective: talking to the locals here in China (and actually a Chinese Malaysian guy I met too .. so it's not just confined to the people agrarian paradise), they ofcourse know that this is happening, but they don't envy our free for all either.
The article says "a massive effort to distract its citizens from bad news and sensitive political debates" but of course that's just one angle. The local perspective is seeing it mostly as an effort by the government to try to moderate sensationalism, things getting spun out of proportion and down right fabrications (ie. US-TV news, Buzzfeed et al)
They see our CNN having some 24hr coverage of a kitten stuck in a tree - which they will not stop till either half the nation is foaming at the mouth with rage at the government's incompetence or it just becomes too absurd to keep up - and they are understandably horrified
The article says "a massive effort to distract its citizens from bad news and sensitive political debates" but of course that's just one angle. The local perspective is seeing it mostly as an effort by the government to try to moderate sensationalism, things getting spun out of proportion and down right fabrications (ie. US-TV news, Buzzfeed et al)
They see our CNN having some 24hr coverage of a kitten stuck in a tree - which they will not stop till either half the nation is foaming at the mouth with rage at the government's incompetence or it just becomes too absurd to keep up - and they are understandably horrified
> they don't envy our free for all either
The Chinese are constantly brainwashed to believe that yes, it's true, China is a dictatorship and other countries aren't (this fact cannot be totally hidden no matter how much their firewall tries to block keywords like 'democracy') ... but that's not really a problem and democracy vs dictatorship are just two different styles with neither being better than the other. China has dictatorship and America has democracy but that's fine because China's needs are different, etc.
Any student of international history knows full well that this viewpoint is complete crap. The track record of totalitarian dictatorships is awful. But don't underestimate the power of total information control to warp and distort people's minds. I've encountered a Chinese person who believed they are well educated and understood the West well, and then came out with ridiculous statements like "people in the west have to wait a week for emergency medical care" as justification for why a "paternal" government is not so bad really.
The local perspective of Chinese people is essentially worthless for judging what's actually going on in China. They are fed a constant diet of lies, and unlike in other parts of the world their access to organised debunking of those lies is severely restricted. They can't even judge what's going on by measuring the opinion of those around them because the government subtly distorts that too (as seen by this article).
The Chinese are constantly brainwashed to believe that yes, it's true, China is a dictatorship and other countries aren't (this fact cannot be totally hidden no matter how much their firewall tries to block keywords like 'democracy') ... but that's not really a problem and democracy vs dictatorship are just two different styles with neither being better than the other. China has dictatorship and America has democracy but that's fine because China's needs are different, etc.
Any student of international history knows full well that this viewpoint is complete crap. The track record of totalitarian dictatorships is awful. But don't underestimate the power of total information control to warp and distort people's minds. I've encountered a Chinese person who believed they are well educated and understood the West well, and then came out with ridiculous statements like "people in the west have to wait a week for emergency medical care" as justification for why a "paternal" government is not so bad really.
The local perspective of Chinese people is essentially worthless for judging what's actually going on in China. They are fed a constant diet of lies, and unlike in other parts of the world their access to organised debunking of those lies is severely restricted. They can't even judge what's going on by measuring the opinion of those around them because the government subtly distorts that too (as seen by this article).
I think it's also useful to keep in mind that it's not just propaganda, China's government is overall doing a decent job especially if you compare to how things were before. China basically spent a century being kicked around by outside powers, culminating in the Japanese rampaging around the place for a decade. Since the Communist Party took over, China rose to become a world power, with a strong economy, strong military, and no trouble with invaders.
Clearly, the Communist government is not without its own problems, e.g. the Cultural Revolution, which I'm not trying to diminish in any way. Some of those (like the Cultural Revolution) are seen as a failure of government which the current government tries very hard not to repeat. Some (censorship, general political repression) are accepted, either as necessary or unfortunate but tolerable.
Clearly, you can make the argument that China would be doing even better under a good democratic government. I'd be pretty receptive to that argument personally. But it's pretty hard to convince people that they should undergo a radical change in government, when the terrible effects of political upheaval are still fresh in people's memories, and the current regime has overseen such improvements. Throw in the ridiculous shit coming out of Western democracies at the moment (e.g. Trump) and that job gets even harder.
Edit: regarding the downvote, let me ask: if you had to be transplanted into the body of a Chinese person at some point in time, would you rather it be 1900, 1940, 1970, 2000, or today? From everything I know, I'd vote 2000 or "today" without hesitation, and not just because of computers and smartphones.
Clearly, the Communist government is not without its own problems, e.g. the Cultural Revolution, which I'm not trying to diminish in any way. Some of those (like the Cultural Revolution) are seen as a failure of government which the current government tries very hard not to repeat. Some (censorship, general political repression) are accepted, either as necessary or unfortunate but tolerable.
Clearly, you can make the argument that China would be doing even better under a good democratic government. I'd be pretty receptive to that argument personally. But it's pretty hard to convince people that they should undergo a radical change in government, when the terrible effects of political upheaval are still fresh in people's memories, and the current regime has overseen such improvements. Throw in the ridiculous shit coming out of Western democracies at the moment (e.g. Trump) and that job gets even harder.
Edit: regarding the downvote, let me ask: if you had to be transplanted into the body of a Chinese person at some point in time, would you rather it be 1900, 1940, 1970, 2000, or today? From everything I know, I'd vote 2000 or "today" without hesitation, and not just because of computers and smartphones.
> I think it's also useful to keep in mind that it's not just propaganda, China's government is overall doing a decent job especially if you compare to how things were before
This post is about how government workers in China produce fake social media. It is not about the quality of China's economy.
This post is about how government workers in China produce fake social media. It is not about the quality of China's economy.
What do you mean not just propaganda?
The Chinese nationalism you talk about has strong roots in propaganda. Its the very purpose of propaganda.
Its also the same communist party which caused the great famine that are in power now. Different people, same party.
The amount of doublespeak in your writing makes me question if you really believe what you write. why are you defending propaganda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
The Chinese nationalism you talk about has strong roots in propaganda. Its the very purpose of propaganda.
Its also the same communist party which caused the great famine that are in power now. Different people, same party.
The amount of doublespeak in your writing makes me question if you really believe what you write. why are you defending propaganda?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
The average Chinese person's life, and China's position in the world, has improved tremendously under the Communist government. This is basic fact, not propaganda.
All I'm saying is that part of the acceptance or even favor the typical Chinese person feels towards their government is because of this actual factual improvement.
I'm not sure what you find problematic here. Do you disagree with the existence of this vast improvement in people's lives? Do you agree with it, but think it somehow plays no part in people's opinions of the government?
All I'm saying is that part of the acceptance or even favor the typical Chinese person feels towards their government is because of this actual factual improvement.
I'm not sure what you find problematic here. Do you disagree with the existence of this vast improvement in people's lives? Do you agree with it, but think it somehow plays no part in people's opinions of the government?
Well, which came first, the government or peoples views on it.
When people can't openly express dissatisfaction and are censored and are subject to organised propaganda, then it's very hard to say.
Under the communist government peoples lives haven't improved: look at the great famine. So yes I disagree peoples lives have not improved because of communism in China.
You ask me to pick which era of government I would like to be under. But its all the same government using propaganda the same way.
So what if it is now improving the vast amount of peoples lives. What about the minority being tortued by it?
My conversations with Chinese people don't show a favour with the current government. But that's not much of an indicator, under the great famine, their was probably even more vast support for the Government. That's the nature of propaganda.
You say China has improved under communism. Think what it could have achieved without it. Or look back even further at what it achieved as an empire.
The average Chinese persons life has improved from an absolutely horrific existence under communism to a slightly better one - might be more like what your saying.
As I said before, it's the same party as always. Until propaganda is removed and freedom of speech installed, public opinion is far from fact and the average Chinese persons quality of life is as much fiction as it is belief.
When people can't openly express dissatisfaction and are censored and are subject to organised propaganda, then it's very hard to say.
Under the communist government peoples lives haven't improved: look at the great famine. So yes I disagree peoples lives have not improved because of communism in China.
You ask me to pick which era of government I would like to be under. But its all the same government using propaganda the same way.
So what if it is now improving the vast amount of peoples lives. What about the minority being tortued by it?
My conversations with Chinese people don't show a favour with the current government. But that's not much of an indicator, under the great famine, their was probably even more vast support for the Government. That's the nature of propaganda.
You say China has improved under communism. Think what it could have achieved without it. Or look back even further at what it achieved as an empire.
The average Chinese persons life has improved from an absolutely horrific existence under communism to a slightly better one - might be more like what your saying.
As I said before, it's the same party as always. Until propaganda is removed and freedom of speech installed, public opinion is far from fact and the average Chinese persons quality of life is as much fiction as it is belief.
Mike is a respected member of both HN and the Cocoa community. Are you implying that he's a shill?
No, I'm not implying that.
I'm implying that I don't understand how his arguments flow - they seem self defeating. For the reasons outlined above. I don't mean it personally, and I don't really care if he is respected or not. I just wanna get to the bottom of why, how and what he is getting at. And from his writing style it seem I am led to doubt he doesn't really believe what he is implying. Of course, I might and probqly an wrong so would appreciate clarification.
The argument of: its not just propaganda, its also a reflection of development - doesn't wash with me.
I'm implying that I don't understand how his arguments flow - they seem self defeating. For the reasons outlined above. I don't mean it personally, and I don't really care if he is respected or not. I just wanna get to the bottom of why, how and what he is getting at. And from his writing style it seem I am led to doubt he doesn't really believe what he is implying. Of course, I might and probqly an wrong so would appreciate clarification.
The argument of: its not just propaganda, its also a reflection of development - doesn't wash with me.
I still don't think so, but can I ask you a question. Do you think there are some strange posts on these threads, written with an underlying tinge of propaganda (not everyone). This morning I woke up to find my original post no further replied to, but down voted from 8 to 2. I also seem to be having a conversation with someone who registers a new name each time they post (I presume).
And the whole thread is about controlling social media - particularly through controlling perception of public opinion.
Honest question, what do you think? Irony, conspiracy, time zone differences.
And the whole thread is about controlling social media - particularly through controlling perception of public opinion.
Honest question, what do you think? Irony, conspiracy, time zone differences.
> Do you think there are some strange posts on these threads, written with an underlying tinge of propaganda (not everyone).
You mean like yourself here [1] where you are touting government propaganda?
The thing about propaganda is, the more one-sided a conversation becomes, the less interesting it is. There's no single viewpoint that can pretend to take two opposing sides of an argument. Good internet comments are succinct, point out flaws in other comments' arguments, and are on the minds of other readers. If a comment thread doesn't make me think, I lose interest.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744448
You mean like yourself here [1] where you are touting government propaganda?
The thing about propaganda is, the more one-sided a conversation becomes, the less interesting it is. There's no single viewpoint that can pretend to take two opposing sides of an argument. Good internet comments are succinct, point out flaws in other comments' arguments, and are on the minds of other readers. If a comment thread doesn't make me think, I lose interest.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744448
I think you've completely missed the point. I wasn't talking about politics at all, nor was I condoning censorship and saying it's some moral good.
I'm just illustrating its perceived benefits. While we as a country have a national freak-out and foam at the mouth because we saw a nipple during the super bowl - some people might see that are media manipulation of mass psychology
When it comes to politics they're obviously using it for their own benefit, keeping their people in the dark and trying to rob the country as much as possible without being too obnoxious about it. These things are completely obvious to any outside observer and it's not interesting to just repeat them ad nauseum. I find it much more interesting to think that the censorship lets them say... contain hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang, or stop the whole place from turning into a crazy anti Japanese riot when some PM decides to go visit Yasukuni.
Then you can stop and think "Oh okay.. I can see how they can end up thinking it's a good thing..." B/c at face-value it makes no sense for them to put with it
I'm just illustrating its perceived benefits. While we as a country have a national freak-out and foam at the mouth because we saw a nipple during the super bowl - some people might see that are media manipulation of mass psychology
When it comes to politics they're obviously using it for their own benefit, keeping their people in the dark and trying to rob the country as much as possible without being too obnoxious about it. These things are completely obvious to any outside observer and it's not interesting to just repeat them ad nauseum. I find it much more interesting to think that the censorship lets them say... contain hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang, or stop the whole place from turning into a crazy anti Japanese riot when some PM decides to go visit Yasukuni.
Then you can stop and think "Oh okay.. I can see how they can end up thinking it's a good thing..." B/c at face-value it makes no sense for them to put with it
Perceived benefits, or conditioned response?
One of this most insidious things about totalitarian states is people self censer to the degree it's hard to know what they actually feel.
One example I think most people on HN may see is how people talk about work. It's really rare for people with white collar jobs to admit they hate their job. Sometimes it's years after they quit before someone will say they hated a job.
One of this most insidious things about totalitarian states is people self censer to the degree it's hard to know what they actually feel.
One example I think most people on HN may see is how people talk about work. It's really rare for people with white collar jobs to admit they hate their job. Sometimes it's years after they quit before someone will say they hated a job.
Are the two are mutually exclusive?
I'd argue both are true to a degree - though "conditioned response" evokes the kind of simplistic "mindless puppet" view of the Chinese perspective I'm trying to avoid. It has its own self contained logic that should be appreciated regardless if it's something from their culture and traditions, or something instilled subversively by the government. All I've tried to do is illustrate that logic as best as I understand it - without passing judgments or condoning it
I don't mean people are getting brain washed, just that they may not be expressing their views freely. Being willing to complain to strangers has huge cultural significance.
regardless of what you mean, can I just put phrases like: "hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang" into context:
"Rather than embrace lawyers, writers, and whistleblowers as allies in an effort to deal effectively with rising social unrest, the government remains hostile to criticism. The government targets activists and their family members for harassment, arbitrary detention, legally baseless imprisonment, torture, and denial of access to adequate medical treatment. It has also significantly narrowed space for the press and the Internet, further limiting opportunities for citizens to press for much-needed reforms."
Specifically on Xinjiang:
"Following the Urumqi attack, the Chinese government announced a year-long anti-terrorism crackdown in Xinjiang. Within the first month, police arrested 380 suspects and tried more than 300 for terror-related offenses. Authorities also convened thousands of people for the public sentencing of dozens of those tried. In August, authorities executed three Uighurs who were convicted of orchestrating an attack in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in October 2013. Fair trial rights remain a grave concern given the lack of independent information about the cases, the government’s insistence on expedited procedures, the fact that terror suspects can be held without legal counsel for months under Chinese law, and China’s record of police torture.
While there is reason for the government’s concern with violence, discriminatory and repressive minority policies only exacerbate the problem. In January, police took into custody Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur professor at Beijing’s Minzu University critical of the Chinese government’s Xinjiang policy. Tohti remains detained and is charged with “separatism,” which can result in life imprisonment. In August, Uighur linguist Abduweli Ayup was given an 18-month sentence for “illegal fundraising” after trying to raise money for Uighur-language schools."
Sources: Human rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china...
and again: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/china...
It appears these sources are blocked in China. Source: http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/
"Rather than embrace lawyers, writers, and whistleblowers as allies in an effort to deal effectively with rising social unrest, the government remains hostile to criticism. The government targets activists and their family members for harassment, arbitrary detention, legally baseless imprisonment, torture, and denial of access to adequate medical treatment. It has also significantly narrowed space for the press and the Internet, further limiting opportunities for citizens to press for much-needed reforms."
Specifically on Xinjiang:
"Following the Urumqi attack, the Chinese government announced a year-long anti-terrorism crackdown in Xinjiang. Within the first month, police arrested 380 suspects and tried more than 300 for terror-related offenses. Authorities also convened thousands of people for the public sentencing of dozens of those tried. In August, authorities executed three Uighurs who were convicted of orchestrating an attack in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in October 2013. Fair trial rights remain a grave concern given the lack of independent information about the cases, the government’s insistence on expedited procedures, the fact that terror suspects can be held without legal counsel for months under Chinese law, and China’s record of police torture.
While there is reason for the government’s concern with violence, discriminatory and repressive minority policies only exacerbate the problem. In January, police took into custody Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur professor at Beijing’s Minzu University critical of the Chinese government’s Xinjiang policy. Tohti remains detained and is charged with “separatism,” which can result in life imprisonment. In August, Uighur linguist Abduweli Ayup was given an 18-month sentence for “illegal fundraising” after trying to raise money for Uighur-language schools."
Sources: Human rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china...
and again: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/china...
It appears these sources are blocked in China. Source: http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/
There are terrorism bases in Xinjiang. They raise fund for terrorism. Some of Xinjiang musilims have the same belief as ISIS. They killed civilians at railway station. But western people don't believe it. Xinjiang terrorist brought a lot of troubles to many Chinese cities even including Shanghai.
When attacks happend in Western World, Chinese never said, 'They are not terrorist. They are just part of muslims who fight for their rights while western people persecutes them.' All the world should have sympathy for each other agasint terrorism.
When attacks happend in Western World, Chinese never said, 'They are not terrorist. They are just part of muslims who fight for their rights while western people persecutes them.' All the world should have sympathy for each other agasint terrorism.
What a totally irrelevant post.
I was posting about the Chinese government response. The way they handled the problem. At no point is anyone denying the attack.
>All the world should have sympathy for each other agasint terrorism.
Really? I find that naive - if terrorism has taught us anything, it is that all the world should be deeply critical oh how any country responds to terrorism.
I was posting about the Chinese government response. The way they handled the problem. At no point is anyone denying the attack.
>All the world should have sympathy for each other agasint terrorism.
Really? I find that naive - if terrorism has taught us anything, it is that all the world should be deeply critical oh how any country responds to terrorism.
> they ofcourse know that this is happening, but they don't envy our free for all either
Try talking to some Falun Gong, anyone in Tibet, family of those killed in accidents such as the Tianjin chemical explosion, or family of victims of police violence.
These people have no voice and no peace. They can only look forward to dark prisons if they speak up.
Try talking to some Falun Gong, anyone in Tibet, family of those killed in accidents such as the Tianjin chemical explosion, or family of victims of police violence.
These people have no voice and no peace. They can only look forward to dark prisons if they speak up.
The history of the United States is littered with equal tragedies. Less censorship, yes, but plenty of abuse and corruption. Try talking to members of the Black Lives Matter movement and get their take about freedom and justice in America.
We need to be careful about the stones we throw.
We need to be careful about the stones we throw.
> Try talking to members of the Black Lives Matter movement and get their take about freedom and justice in America.
Many American politicians have been quite receptive to the BLM movement.
China, on the other hand, regularly imprisons protesters indefinitely.
Many American politicians have been quite receptive to the BLM movement.
China, on the other hand, regularly imprisons protesters indefinitely.
> Many American politicians have been quite receptive to the BLM movement.
Oh, so I guess institutionalized racism has been eliminated from the country. I never got the memo.
Oh, so I guess institutionalized racism has been eliminated from the country. I never got the memo.
Free speech and democracy do not tell people what to believe. These give people a voice at higher levels of government. It is a way to avoid conflict and enable everyone to contribute to the progress of society.
Government officials in China are not chosen by the people. The "People's" republic is a farce. Those who disagree with policy are expelled or imprisoned. BLM may be ignored and discounted by some, but they have a voice and can effect change. Tibetans, people of Xianjiang, Falun Gong, and countless other would-be activists have no such path in China.
Government officials in China are not chosen by the people. The "People's" republic is a farce. Those who disagree with policy are expelled or imprisoned. BLM may be ignored and discounted by some, but they have a voice and can effect change. Tibetans, people of Xianjiang, Falun Gong, and countless other would-be activists have no such path in China.
The question is how much are the local views influenced by the government and also how much people are willing to disagree with the government view.
The local perspective you present, is a good example of a perspective which sounds like it endorses government activity but also identifies it as a case of government suppression. It says noting as a personal opinion.
I'm not sure that Chinese people are "understandably" horrified at CNN. I actually think theres a big cultural gap in understanding between both countries, perpetuated part by both governments.
Either way, its government propaganda of news set against a backdrop of fear and conformity. That means that the very idea of presenting a 'local perspective' is one intimately linked to government control. Its nothing to do with kittens on CNN.
You don't outright say it, but the way you wrote this seems to be saying that government controlled news ain't that bad compared with CNNs 24hr coverage of kittens. What do you think, personally?
The local perspective you present, is a good example of a perspective which sounds like it endorses government activity but also identifies it as a case of government suppression. It says noting as a personal opinion.
I'm not sure that Chinese people are "understandably" horrified at CNN. I actually think theres a big cultural gap in understanding between both countries, perpetuated part by both governments.
Either way, its government propaganda of news set against a backdrop of fear and conformity. That means that the very idea of presenting a 'local perspective' is one intimately linked to government control. Its nothing to do with kittens on CNN.
You don't outright say it, but the way you wrote this seems to be saying that government controlled news ain't that bad compared with CNNs 24hr coverage of kittens. What do you think, personally?
Ideally newspapers would control themselves and would not be tight to the number of eyeballs generated by a given piece of news. If the government or the law making process can be considered as an emanation of the citizen, it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration to some extent. For example racism (hatred for a race) is banned from public expression in many European countries. For China it's difficult to understand, but cpc has had a strong popular legitimation in the past, and priorities are different in the mind if Chinese people, public expression is secondary too many other topics, like corruption, inflation, food safety, etc.
How about the article we are discussing?
would that be censored? how about if the facts underlying a case are seen to provoke something like racism - is it then legitimate to change the facts or censor them to the public.
"If the government or the law making process can be considered as an emanation of the citizen, it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration to some extent"
Unbelievable paradoxical statement: Starts with an If.. Ends with a vague to some extent.. and sticks the massive assumption of "it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration" - Why? Why is that legitimate?.
Perhaps in a democracy you might very carefully start to make such conclusions, but the Chinese people don't pick their government. There only chance of change is rebellion. Perhaps thats why news is suppressed?
Please, elaborate your statement - in laymans terms if possible, as I find the semantics in your statements quite difficult to follow.
would that be censored? how about if the facts underlying a case are seen to provoke something like racism - is it then legitimate to change the facts or censor them to the public.
"If the government or the law making process can be considered as an emanation of the citizen, it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration to some extent"
Unbelievable paradoxical statement: Starts with an If.. Ends with a vague to some extent.. and sticks the massive assumption of "it becomes legitimate for them to control the public expiration" - Why? Why is that legitimate?.
Perhaps in a democracy you might very carefully start to make such conclusions, but the Chinese people don't pick their government. There only chance of change is rebellion. Perhaps thats why news is suppressed?
Please, elaborate your statement - in laymans terms if possible, as I find the semantics in your statements quite difficult to follow.
A nation gives its government the mission to drive it trough hard times toward the future. One part on this mission can include some limitation on public speech, why not?
I personally think it is dangerous and often useless, but some other people may have different priorities. Then the problem is the legitimacy of the government. This is obvious in China for the cpc but I would not say they are completely illegitimate. And our western governments are not always legit either.
I personally think it is dangerous and often useless, but some other people may have different priorities. Then the problem is the legitimacy of the government. This is obvious in China for the cpc but I would not say they are completely illegitimate. And our western governments are not always legit either.
Why not?
So you really want me to explain why people should have free speech, at this level of debate, it is unbelievable you could ask - why not?
Let me give you the big why not: because your opinion right now is free speech on a forum of free speech.
Please don't back pedal and say your just talking about dangerous hate inducing free speech. Because we both know that isn't the case. The context is a government which has always tortured dissenters. A government which drove tanks over peaceful protesters.
A government based on the notion of rebellion not reform, which is doing everything humanly possible to stop rebellion ever happening again. That's the communist paradox. That's the ultimate source of propaganda.
So you really want me to explain why people should have free speech, at this level of debate, it is unbelievable you could ask - why not?
Let me give you the big why not: because your opinion right now is free speech on a forum of free speech.
Please don't back pedal and say your just talking about dangerous hate inducing free speech. Because we both know that isn't the case. The context is a government which has always tortured dissenters. A government which drove tanks over peaceful protesters.
A government based on the notion of rebellion not reform, which is doing everything humanly possible to stop rebellion ever happening again. That's the communist paradox. That's the ultimate source of propaganda.
So the solution to a combination of human nature and an unfortunate profit motive in the Western news is... Lying?
I mean, we already know that China is both governmentally AND culturally OK with pervasive deceit:
http://shanghaiist.com/2015/11/19/study_says_china_least_hon...
https://thelinguafranca.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/do-the-chin...
http://fortune.com/2015/12/14/china-fake-economic-data/
Lying is, and should be, universally reviled.
I mean, we already know that China is both governmentally AND culturally OK with pervasive deceit:
http://shanghaiist.com/2015/11/19/study_says_china_least_hon...
https://thelinguafranca.wordpress.com/2008/03/25/do-the-chin...
http://fortune.com/2015/12/14/china-fake-economic-data/
Lying is, and should be, universally reviled.
I think they'd characterize click-bait sensationalism as effectively lying and their censorship as a means to dampen it
I'm not condoning their censorship. Yeah, obviously it leads to the government twisting the truth to toot it's own horn. On the political side of things its terrible
I'm not condoning their censorship. Yeah, obviously it leads to the government twisting the truth to toot it's own horn. On the political side of things its terrible
This is also what they're telling a foreigner. Even a Chinese Malaysian may identify himself as Chinese and automatically react defensively against criticism of the regime, or (like you seem to) might have been intrigued by the idea of this argument to the point of believing it.
"My neighbor likes to yell, so I yell louder so I don't have to hear what they're saying. One day, there was a fire in my house, they were yelling for me to get out, but... I just yelled back and almost died."
Answer is not to fight noise with noise, or to hide from reality because it's not Disney Land. There is no easy answer, but propaganda is the wrong answer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Answer is not to fight noise with noise, or to hide from reality because it's not Disney Land. There is no easy answer, but propaganda is the wrong answer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Why don't we study our own social media habits with as much scrutiny? I mean, if our version of the Chinese state is free market capitalism, how much of our own social media ecosystem is clogged with "fake" posts, otherwise known as content marketing? I bet we produce way more than 488M of that kind of crap each year.
I think the key difference is the government not cooperations are behind it. I think if the American government were mass employing graduates to make fake posts, then it would be scrutinised massively. (graduates, because social control is an academic discipline)
Comparatively, between the two nations, I don't think the role of the Chinese state in controlling the thoughts of its citizens can be easily compared with American free market capitalism. In reality, China also has similar model of capitalism which operates in a similar way.
The government creating fake posts, the Chinese fire wall.. Tiananmen Square.. people with anti-goverment views at local level - regularly going missing.. official and unofficial snithches on nearly every street.. I could go on.
The unique role of the Chinese government (unlike America) make their social media habits interesting.
Now of course American social media habits are interesting, but not for the same reasons, and I would argue: American social media habits aren't as important in areas like human rights.
To put it in another context: if I was making this post from china or was Chinese - I would be looking over my shoulder and perhaps writing more ambiguously.
Comparatively, between the two nations, I don't think the role of the Chinese state in controlling the thoughts of its citizens can be easily compared with American free market capitalism. In reality, China also has similar model of capitalism which operates in a similar way.
The government creating fake posts, the Chinese fire wall.. Tiananmen Square.. people with anti-goverment views at local level - regularly going missing.. official and unofficial snithches on nearly every street.. I could go on.
The unique role of the Chinese government (unlike America) make their social media habits interesting.
Now of course American social media habits are interesting, but not for the same reasons, and I would argue: American social media habits aren't as important in areas like human rights.
To put it in another context: if I was making this post from china or was Chinese - I would be looking over my shoulder and perhaps writing more ambiguously.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2470594/endpoint-securi...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/fe...
This is old news. It was first revealed in 2004.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-op...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/fe...
This is old news. It was first revealed in 2004.
The existence of the US government's looking into such a program or even having a small version of it isn't surprising.
What would be interesting in a bad way would be if the US government was using it at anywhere near the scale of the Chinese government.
What would be interesting in a bad way would be if the US government was using it at anywhere near the scale of the Chinese government.
Agreed, with both of you. I like this hackernews forum, as false arguments tend to be articulately called out and discussed.
The irony of the thread is that the fundamental debate is about if such a forum should be allowed to exist without government mediation and control.
The irony of the thread is that the fundamental debate is about if such a forum should be allowed to exist without government mediation and control.
> The researchers said they found no evidence that people were paid for the posts, adding the work was probably part of the employees’ job responsibilities.
Probably? How on earth do they reach this conclusion? Is this science?
> Although those who post comments are often rumored to be ordinary citizens, the researchers were surprised to find that nearly all the posts were written by workers at government agencies including tax and human resource departments, and at courts.
I'm surprised that the article paints a picture of factories where masses of chinese slave workers are producing cheap comments.
It's also very unlikely that they will have these kinds of sweatshops located at tax departments and courts.
Another simple explanation: As of 2009, 10 million people were civil servants within the Chinese government, and maybe, just maybe they are also sometimes bored at work and post cat pictures on the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_of_the_People%27...
Probably? How on earth do they reach this conclusion? Is this science?
> Although those who post comments are often rumored to be ordinary citizens, the researchers were surprised to find that nearly all the posts were written by workers at government agencies including tax and human resource departments, and at courts.
I'm surprised that the article paints a picture of factories where masses of chinese slave workers are producing cheap comments.
It's also very unlikely that they will have these kinds of sweatshops located at tax departments and courts.
Another simple explanation: As of 2009, 10 million people were civil servants within the Chinese government, and maybe, just maybe they are also sometimes bored at work and post cat pictures on the internet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_of_the_People%27...
This isn't any different than Facebook (or government programs) "curating"/filtering news/media.
Do we have any data for USA, something I care more about?
ex: http://tinyurl.com/hbsanfr
ex: http://tinyurl.com/hbsanfr
The US government doesn't need to do this. It has press conferences and gullible journalists: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/20/pentagon-official-once-t...
I wonder how many of those are in this thread. There are quite a few posts in here written in good but not quite natural english, espousing various degrees of conciliatory attitudes towards the propaganda state.
They may or may not be in this thread, but pg mentioned years back that there are often a lot of suspect new accounts pushing official lines on stories involving China.
Look over there at China! Nothing to see here, right?
What about all the Flash games out there?
Interesting - how many social media posts a year are faked by US?
This entire thread seems to be overflowing with pro-authoritarian, emotionally reactive posts that are attempting to defend via diversion the actions in question. I count a couple dozen variations of intentionally trying to divert away from the actual topic. I'm surprised this thread isn't killed yet given the quality of the postings occurring here.