Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Vietnam Deploys Cyber Warriors to Fight ‘Wrongful Views'
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-27/vietnam-deploys-10-000-cyber-warriors-to-fight-wrongful-views
11 comments
Somewhere along the line, they realised that deploying a bunch of KGB-style bots on Facebook was a hell of a lot more effective at controlling people than simply banning it. When dissent results in a crushing flood of mean-spirited trolls, who needs censorship?
You cannot remove ideas from the mind but you can flood it with so much misinformation that the ideas are basically destroyed.
Effectively, people will "block Facebook" from themselves through self-censorship or completely writing off Facebook as a "poisoned well."
Effectively, people will "block Facebook" from themselves through self-censorship or completely writing off Facebook as a "poisoned well."
Are you implying this would be a bad thing?
While I think the internet provides amazing and revolutionary communications options to the human race, Facebook is quite clearly not among them.
While I think the internet provides amazing and revolutionary communications options to the human race, Facebook is quite clearly not among them.
Yes. It's the bad thing. Who is to decide whether FB is bad? If you want to fight disinformation on FB, then fight it. But discriminate against using FB is the not the way.
Each individual would choose for themselves whether FB is bad... That's why he said self-censorship. Is there a better alternative when fighting disinformation isn't an option that an individual can (or would) realistically choose?
Hey, if you can't beat them, join them (for values of join that include paying their startlingly effective mercenary army more money to switch sides and work for you instead).
The US has gotten a lot closer to Vietnam in terms of trade relations over the last 5 to 10 years. The US now regards Vietnam as a strategic interest to be aggressively developed.
The US will import about $50 billion worth of goods from Vietnam in 2017. That's up from $10 billion a decade ago.
That's equal to 25% of Vietnam's entire GDP.
It's also almost entirely one way, it's about as pure of a trade deficit as they get, so Vietnam is being doused with USD capital the same way China was in the early days of its growth boom. That's going to get a lot more dramatic yet, as the US wants some other large partners to work with in the region. For Vietnam's part, they seem perfectly happy to take the trade & capital inflow and put it to use rapidly expanding their economy.
The US will import about $50 billion worth of goods from Vietnam in 2017. That's up from $10 billion a decade ago.
That's equal to 25% of Vietnam's entire GDP.
It's also almost entirely one way, it's about as pure of a trade deficit as they get, so Vietnam is being doused with USD capital the same way China was in the early days of its growth boom. That's going to get a lot more dramatic yet, as the US wants some other large partners to work with in the region. For Vietnam's part, they seem perfectly happy to take the trade & capital inflow and put it to use rapidly expanding their economy.
Vietnam is a fairly large country (90 million people) that has a lot of potential. They are also next in line for decelopkent, and China antagonizes them enough to put them in the USA’s sphere of influence. Besides, China isn’t interesting in importing the goods Vietnam manufactures.
Japan, China, and Korea are all heavily investing in Vietnam as well. In HCMC, Japan is building the first of nine rapid transit metro lines in the city, and in Hanoi China is doing the same.
This is BS. I lived in Vietnam for years, there are plenty of language schools where foreigners can go to learn Vietnamese. I've never heard of anyone needing a license to teach Vietnamese. There are even volunteer groups in HCMC for teaching foreigners Vietnamese, all done in the open with no teaching certifications.
My brother (we are from the US) has lived in vietnam for a long time. Taking Vietnamese language classes is easy and common-place for foreigners.
Why would they want to block a service that will do a ton of intelligence gathering for them, for free?
There are universities in Saigon that offer Vietnamese language classes for foreigners so it's definitely not forbidden. As is usually the case in Vietnam, the law depends a lot on when it's interpreted and who is doing the interpreting.
It's true that it's not forbidden in Saigon, but it is essentially forbidden in Dalat. I don't know about other towns in Vietnam as I can only speak to my experience.
Is it possible this could be more about controlling dialects and ensuring only the prestige one gets taught to foreigners? Thus (in theory, though unlikely having an effect in practice) forcing people to speak the prestige dialect to do business even with foreigners willing to learn the language.
Facebook just became better at marketing their "engagement/consensus/echochamber as a service" to governments.
So is this really fundamentally different from the plans in EU and Germany?
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/call-appl...
It's a dangerous illusion of modernity that you can just pick up a "high quality" newspaper or watch the news and understand what is happening in the world. Or even in your own region.
One possible advantage of the total chaos of internet news is that the noise becomes so strong that we can't even receive the signal of traditional news sources with their "expert opinion" anymore.
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/call-appl...
It's a dangerous illusion of modernity that you can just pick up a "high quality" newspaper or watch the news and understand what is happening in the world. Or even in your own region.
One possible advantage of the total chaos of internet news is that the noise becomes so strong that we can't even receive the signal of traditional news sources with their "expert opinion" anymore.
It seems to be at first glance. The EU initiative you linked to at least seems to try to "[balance] fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, media pluralism, and the right of citizens to diverse and reliable information" in its wording. It also seems to be a committee linked to a EU cabinet, and thus is not directly sponsored by a national military force.
The Vietnamese "cyber-army" in contrast seems to be a direct arm of the military, and the language in the articles appeared to be more military / aggressive oriented ("fight", "combating", etc.) with no mention in the articles regarding "freedom of expression" or other balancing factors.
At first glance, there doesn't appear to be a direct link to the policy initiative from the Vietnamese government, unlike the EU initiative. Though language barrier may be an issue here; I tried Googling lực 47 and didn't get much beyond other news articles and a Wiki entry, but perhaps there are better terms to use. Still, military policy tends to be more opaque in most nations overall, so it didn't surprise me to find no published government information about this initiative.
The Vietnamese "cyber-army" in contrast seems to be a direct arm of the military, and the language in the articles appeared to be more military / aggressive oriented ("fight", "combating", etc.) with no mention in the articles regarding "freedom of expression" or other balancing factors.
At first glance, there doesn't appear to be a direct link to the policy initiative from the Vietnamese government, unlike the EU initiative. Though language barrier may be an issue here; I tried Googling lực 47 and didn't get much beyond other news articles and a Wiki entry, but perhaps there are better terms to use. Still, military policy tends to be more opaque in most nations overall, so it didn't surprise me to find no published government information about this initiative.
"[balance] fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, media pluralism, and the right of citizens to diverse and reliable information"
Typical EU-style communication. The word "balance" conjures up images of health, reason, yoga classes and whole grain breakfasts.
But in the end, it still represents a worldview of enlightened apparatchiks vs idiotic plebes. Why does there need to be a "balancing act" between freedom of information and anything else? When is something reliable or diverse or pluralistic?
Typical EU-style communication. The word "balance" conjures up images of health, reason, yoga classes and whole grain breakfasts.
But in the end, it still represents a worldview of enlightened apparatchiks vs idiotic plebes. Why does there need to be a "balancing act" between freedom of information and anything else? When is something reliable or diverse or pluralistic?
It's more, I suppose, the idea that multiple sources of information should be supported ("pluralism"). There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, so it is best in the long run for multiple sources of news to exist, each with their own viewpoint. It is easier to obtain a more informed opinion if one makes the effort to escape single-viewpoint media. Furthermore, by highlighting "freedom of information", there is at least a signal of intent to try and keep a degree of openness in the process, in that review of what they would call "fake news" does not infringe on that right as much as possible.
Whether you think the EU will actually accomplish what they say, that's another story. My guess is, it is very likely that the process will be more transparent and allow more leeway, versus what is going on in Vietnam -- a single political party controlling opinion through opaque military concerns. All nations / parties / political philosophies produce propaganda and advocacy pieces, that is not news. Vietnam, however, has never been known for generous press freedom. In fact, it recently has been cracking down heavily on all opinion points that do not reflect the ruling party (https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21731192-american-indiff...).
I don't see an equivalent in the EU right now, to be honest. Once Western governments start arresting bloggers and journalists for having an opinion differing from the government like Vietnam is doing, let me know.
Whether you think the EU will actually accomplish what they say, that's another story. My guess is, it is very likely that the process will be more transparent and allow more leeway, versus what is going on in Vietnam -- a single political party controlling opinion through opaque military concerns. All nations / parties / political philosophies produce propaganda and advocacy pieces, that is not news. Vietnam, however, has never been known for generous press freedom. In fact, it recently has been cracking down heavily on all opinion points that do not reflect the ruling party (https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21731192-american-indiff...).
I don't see an equivalent in the EU right now, to be honest. Once Western governments start arresting bloggers and journalists for having an opinion differing from the government like Vietnam is doing, let me know.
Well, it'll be hard to let you know when that happens.
I can tell you this. We have multiple sources of news. Much more than ever existed before the internet came to our homes. I don't see how the EC can improve on this situation.
"a signal of intent to keep a degree of openness". How about a simple statement "the EC is not well-suited to determine whether fake news is a problem and, if so, how to deal with it". But I guess you'd need an ancient and strong tradition of popular democracy and hard-won constitutionalism to make such statements.
I can tell you this. We have multiple sources of news. Much more than ever existed before the internet came to our homes. I don't see how the EC can improve on this situation.
"a signal of intent to keep a degree of openness". How about a simple statement "the EC is not well-suited to determine whether fake news is a problem and, if so, how to deal with it". But I guess you'd need an ancient and strong tradition of popular democracy and hard-won constitutionalism to make such statements.
I wanted to clarify. Are you saying that drowning out reliable journalism with intentional disinformation on social media is a GOOD thing?
If so... why?
If so... why?
No, it's worse: I doubt the existence of reliable journalism :)
Reading 20-year old "quality" news magazines makes me think so. Numerous personal experiences make me think so. Ads in quality newspapers and their subtle or not so subtle political affiliations make me think so.
Reality is extremely complex. Journalists, even when they are honest, neutral, capable and of good will, struggle with it. Especially when they try to come up with a polished story. I know this is the case for unimportant events happening nearby, so I assume it's especially true for complex, confusing situations in very different parts of the world.
Getting confused by reading totally different accounts of the same event, is what makes me smarter. Because this confusion accurately reflects reality. Getting confused happens to me way more often while reading the internet (or when talking to real people) than when reading The Economist.
For the record: I'm not condoning intentional disinformation. And I do want to know about important events.
Reading 20-year old "quality" news magazines makes me think so. Numerous personal experiences make me think so. Ads in quality newspapers and their subtle or not so subtle political affiliations make me think so.
Reality is extremely complex. Journalists, even when they are honest, neutral, capable and of good will, struggle with it. Especially when they try to come up with a polished story. I know this is the case for unimportant events happening nearby, so I assume it's especially true for complex, confusing situations in very different parts of the world.
Getting confused by reading totally different accounts of the same event, is what makes me smarter. Because this confusion accurately reflects reality. Getting confused happens to me way more often while reading the internet (or when talking to real people) than when reading The Economist.
For the record: I'm not condoning intentional disinformation. And I do want to know about important events.
He’s saying there is to reliable journalism, and that shattering the illusion that there is is a good thing.
It's not a good thing. You risk committing a false equivalence. Saying there is no 100% reliable journalism is technically accurate, as all news organizations make mistakes and are subject to biases. But some news is more reliable than others: Reuters is not Breitbart.
True, a news agency like Reuters aims to be a neutral observer whereas a polemical site like Breitbart wants to influence politics. Reuters succeeds to the extent that it sticks to transmitting basic facts to newsrooms around the world. Which is already very hard to get right.
But a lot of what also passes for quality journalism involves not news agencies but newspapers and magazines. I consider a lot of these to be just more sneaky versions of Breitbart. They are more subtle, use more sophisticated language, have specific formatting and typesetting, have a longer history and they mix up their activism with a broad spectrum of neutral news. (I'm mostly familiar with the press in my own country so it's hard to give widely recognizable examples.)
And of course, then there's publications like The Economist. In my very personal opinion, even though they may be "honest" in their intentions, they still end up giving their readers an illusion of understanding. You don't really know what happens in Iraq or Syria or China from reading the Economist. But it's so well written that you might end up believing you do.
Anyhow, I see enough reasons not to trust anyone who wants to use this fake news scare to punish their competition or to herd the population to the "proper" sources of information.
The untamed internet, when used properly as a source of information, will just give a snapshot of bewilderingly diverse points of view. Which is still not much, but so much better than the best polished story written by the best journalists.
But a lot of what also passes for quality journalism involves not news agencies but newspapers and magazines. I consider a lot of these to be just more sneaky versions of Breitbart. They are more subtle, use more sophisticated language, have specific formatting and typesetting, have a longer history and they mix up their activism with a broad spectrum of neutral news. (I'm mostly familiar with the press in my own country so it's hard to give widely recognizable examples.)
And of course, then there's publications like The Economist. In my very personal opinion, even though they may be "honest" in their intentions, they still end up giving their readers an illusion of understanding. You don't really know what happens in Iraq or Syria or China from reading the Economist. But it's so well written that you might end up believing you do.
Anyhow, I see enough reasons not to trust anyone who wants to use this fake news scare to punish their competition or to herd the population to the "proper" sources of information.
The untamed internet, when used properly as a source of information, will just give a snapshot of bewilderingly diverse points of view. Which is still not much, but so much better than the best polished story written by the best journalists.
Exactly. There are news outlets that will hold themselves to a standard and issue corrections and there are news outlets that care more about clicks than truth. These are not equivalent.
Who determines reliable journalism? I'm liberal but CNN's had issued a massive amount of retractions for their Russia stories, still has the fake fish feeding article up, the Guardian had to retract their 'unarmed' front page story about the drug dealer with the gun in his car. Making shit up is commonplace, yet media censors inevitably only want to target Breitbart and right sources. It's a plain as day transparent power grab by the hard left.
Journalists are just people. Reliable journalism occurs when those people try their best to provide accurate information, and when they make a mistake they correct it. That's it. You can't expect perfection from people.
I don't think anyone is looking for perfection, simply not creating a narrative one knows to be false.
The CNN fish feeding story was deliberately created by zooming film at the point the Japanese leader dumped their fish food, then zooming out again to show Trump dumping his, then writing text to support the fake narrative.
The Mark Duggan 'unarmed' headline was immediately followed by a story which revealed the suspect was armed.
The retracted CNN Russia stuff might have simply have been gross incompetence though so your point does apply there.
The CNN fish feeding story was deliberately created by zooming film at the point the Japanese leader dumped their fish food, then zooming out again to show Trump dumping his, then writing text to support the fake narrative.
The Mark Duggan 'unarmed' headline was immediately followed by a story which revealed the suspect was armed.
The retracted CNN Russia stuff might have simply have been gross incompetence though so your point does apply there.
> when those people try their best to provide accurate information
It is not enough to trust them to do their best. Journalists should be in a structure that strongly incentivizes telling the truth and strongly punishes false information. It is very unclear that US media outlets, almost all of which are highly politicized, have this property.
It is not enough to trust them to do their best. Journalists should be in a structure that strongly incentivizes telling the truth and strongly punishes false information. It is very unclear that US media outlets, almost all of which are highly politicized, have this property.
> Journalists should be in a structure that strongly incentivizes telling the truth and strongly punishes false information. It is very unclear that US media outlets, almost all of which are highly politicized, have this property.
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather#Killian_documents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Williams#Iraq_War_helico...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_M._Thompson#Reporting_sca...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair#Plagiarism_and_fa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Logan#Benghazi_report_apo...
https://www.timeout.com/chicago/tv/how-a-horrible-decision-c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Finkel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass#The_New_Republic
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Rather#Killian_documents
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Williams#Iraq_War_helico...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_M._Thompson#Reporting_sca...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayson_Blair#Plagiarism_and_fa...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Logan#Benghazi_report_apo...
https://www.timeout.com/chicago/tv/how-a-horrible-decision-c...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Finkel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass#The_New_Republic
The Guardian isn't perfect, but you can't seriously compare it to Breitbart, which intentionally distorts facts on a regular basis, and goes out of it's way to sensationalize and offend.
Would the guardian be caught dead printing these? https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-...
Or have they peddled lies as big as these ones? https://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/ https://www.snopes.com/immigrants-california-wildfires/ https://www.snopes.com/planned-parenthood-satanists/
Look, maybe the media has a left bias. And it's plausible that right-leaning sources face more skepticism. That's not fair. But the reason Breitbart gets flack is because they really are that terrible.
Would the guardian be caught dead printing these? https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-...
Or have they peddled lies as big as these ones? https://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/ https://www.snopes.com/immigrants-california-wildfires/ https://www.snopes.com/planned-parenthood-satanists/
Look, maybe the media has a left bias. And it's plausible that right-leaning sources face more skepticism. That's not fair. But the reason Breitbart gets flack is because they really are that terrible.
Well yes, the cited Mark Duggan example is pretty damning, but there's Olivia Solon'a recent White Helmet article (which simply presents other secondary sources as if it was primary evidence) and the bizarre 'no such thing as false rape allegations' editorial, which as we've seen is false twice in merely the last two weeks.
[deleted]
That's an existing problem, and not an easy one to solve. It will have to rely on independent review.
But relying on social networks for news drops both careful research AND independent review, which is a step backward, not forward.
But relying on social networks for news drops both careful research AND independent review, which is a step backward, not forward.
I really love VICE news on HBO even though it definitely comes from the Hard Left perspective. Basically all news should be taken skeptically, but as much as possible they just go with first person video interviews of the people involved.
I don't trust what CNN says about Steve Bannon or Roy Moore, but just hearing what they say about themselves in their own words is enough for me to know I don't belong in their camp.
I don't trust what CNN says about Steve Bannon or Roy Moore, but just hearing what they say about themselves in their own words is enough for me to know I don't belong in their camp.
[deleted]
London Metropolitan Police already has an Online Hate Speech Hub with varying reports of staff (5-20?).
This is in spite of admissions they do not have enough resources to respond to property offenses.
This is in spite of admissions they do not have enough resources to respond to property offenses.
This might be of interest: The UK Crown Prosecution Service uses " definitions agreed with the National Police Chiefs' Council to identify racist or religious incidents/crimes and to monitor the decisions and outcomes:
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race"
or
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion."
Very difficult to read when you indent like that. Here is it without the formatting:
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race"
or
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion."
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race"
or
"Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice based on a person's religion or perceived religion."
The Orwellian implications of these definitions are hair-raising. This turns crime into something that is in the eye of the beholder and lies the burden of proof upon the accused.
Eh, not really. To be prosecuted you still have to prove intent - that the person intended to cause harm or distress by their words. For example you could say "black people are smelly" in conversation, even to someone of colour, and it would be pretty rude and bigotted but not an offense. But to say to someone of colour in an aggressive manner "you are smelly because you are black!" it would be.
Seems pretty sensible to me. From my perspective the UK laws and police are very pragmatic, it's probably illegal to say "death to the queen" but nobody would prosecute you for just those words. Now, if you where burning effegies of her and planning something then that's another matter.
Seems pretty sensible to me. From my perspective the UK laws and police are very pragmatic, it's probably illegal to say "death to the queen" but nobody would prosecute you for just those words. Now, if you where burning effegies of her and planning something then that's another matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/19/paul-gascoig... is the concrete case to look at here. A tasteless, mean-spirited thing to say it may have been, but it should not have been a crime.
The charge seems ok to me, and he was not charged with hate speech.
At the end of the day, 12 ordinary people came to the same conclusion, and so he is guilty. It's hardly the "big evil government cracking down on this nice man's (non existent) right to be racist".
Perhaps in a one on one situation it wouldn't be a crime, but doing infront of a thousand people is clearly very bad and distressing. Perhaps it's down to poor judgement, but that's not an excuse.
At the end of the day, 12 ordinary people came to the same conclusion, and so he is guilty. It's hardly the "big evil government cracking down on this nice man's (non existent) right to be racist".
Perhaps in a one on one situation it wouldn't be a crime, but doing infront of a thousand people is clearly very bad and distressing. Perhaps it's down to poor judgement, but that's not an excuse.
> 12 ordinary people came to the same conclusion
I'm also not in any way outraged by the outcome, but actually this was heard in a magistrates' court so there would be no jury involved.
> big evil government
Nah, it's kind of down to the whims of the individual judge. The wording of the statutes is pretty broad and vague, and in practice I think you inevitably have to rely on the individuals who comprise the legal system to not be terrible.
Right now I'd say that if people want to be outraged about the UK's legal system, they'd do better to direct their ire towards cuts in legal aid rather than "hate speech" laws (which have always existed in some form).
I'm also not in any way outraged by the outcome, but actually this was heard in a magistrates' court so there would be no jury involved.
> big evil government
Nah, it's kind of down to the whims of the individual judge. The wording of the statutes is pretty broad and vague, and in practice I think you inevitably have to rely on the individuals who comprise the legal system to not be terrible.
Right now I'd say that if people want to be outraged about the UK's legal system, they'd do better to direct their ire towards cuts in legal aid rather than "hate speech" laws (which have always existed in some form).
Oh right, my bad, it was indeed a magistrates court. That's not great I agree, and lends a bit too much to an individual's opinion.
Isn't racism judging someone's character by the colour of their skin? The joke is poor, but pointing out that pale skinned people are pale or dark skinned people are dark doesn't seem to be making any judgement on their character.
I'm unclear about lawful differentiation between both sentences that makes one hate speech and other not. Or is it the manner of delivery?
It's all about the manner of delivery: "Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden"[1]
Notice the and condition, it has to be threatening and intended to harass for example. Just causing someone distress without the intend to harass or threaten is not illegal, so someone feeling upset about what you said is perfectly fine. But if you said it to threaten them, and that's clear from your delivery or manner, then yeah it's not OK.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_Unit...
Notice the and condition, it has to be threatening and intended to harass for example. Just causing someone distress without the intend to harass or threaten is not illegal, so someone feeling upset about what you said is perfectly fine. But if you said it to threaten them, and that's clear from your delivery or manner, then yeah it's not OK.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_Unit...
> "Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden"
Prohibitions like this one are overly broad and smother a lot of legitimate discussion. Exceptions to free speech used to be limited to things like:
* Don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
* Don't call for violence.
If we broaden the scope to any speech someone, somewhere might take offense to, then we can no longer have much diversity of thought in public debates.
If these kind of "hate speech" laws existed in England in the 19th century, Charles Darwin would possibly never have published the book "Descent of Man", because saying "You and I both descend from animals" was a very demeaning thing to say to most people at the time, and therefore could have landed him in court. The very idea of biological evolution is still offensive to a lot of people today, BTW.
A stark warning that this concern is not a sterile theoretical exercise came in August this year, when James Damore was fired from Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
So a company that champions and celebrates science to the outside world (like in their many doodles about scientists) and that has control over much of today's human communication, believes at the same time that it is a thoughtcrime to cite the scientific consensus about something as basic as biological differences between men and women.
Prohibitions like this one are overly broad and smother a lot of legitimate discussion. Exceptions to free speech used to be limited to things like:
* Don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
* Don't call for violence.
If we broaden the scope to any speech someone, somewhere might take offense to, then we can no longer have much diversity of thought in public debates.
If these kind of "hate speech" laws existed in England in the 19th century, Charles Darwin would possibly never have published the book "Descent of Man", because saying "You and I both descend from animals" was a very demeaning thing to say to most people at the time, and therefore could have landed him in court. The very idea of biological evolution is still offensive to a lot of people today, BTW.
A stark warning that this concern is not a sterile theoretical exercise came in August this year, when James Damore was fired from Google: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Ch...
So a company that champions and celebrates science to the outside world (like in their many doodles about scientists) and that has control over much of today's human communication, believes at the same time that it is a thoughtcrime to cite the scientific consensus about something as basic as biological differences between men and women.
> If these kind of "hate speech" laws existed in England in the 19th century
These laws not only existed, they where far more stringent, prosecution far easier and the punishment far more severe. Try going back then and discussing the king/queen in a negative way.
And yet, his book was still published.
And in any case, he didn't say it to be threatening or abusive, so that's moot.
> A stark warning that this concern is not a sterile theoretical exercise
The HR policies of an American company (a country where in a lot of states you can be fired for any/no reason at all) is neither here nor there in a discussion about the UK's definition of hate crime, where that definition needs to be proven in a court of law to a jury of your peers at a trial.
Not every country adheres to such a fanatical stance on free speech as the USA, and yet seem to be doing just fine. Especially the UK, where there are restrictions on free speech. Sensible restrictions supported by the sensible population, who are not oddly terrified of their government.
These laws not only existed, they where far more stringent, prosecution far easier and the punishment far more severe. Try going back then and discussing the king/queen in a negative way.
And yet, his book was still published.
And in any case, he didn't say it to be threatening or abusive, so that's moot.
> A stark warning that this concern is not a sterile theoretical exercise
The HR policies of an American company (a country where in a lot of states you can be fired for any/no reason at all) is neither here nor there in a discussion about the UK's definition of hate crime, where that definition needs to be proven in a court of law to a jury of your peers at a trial.
Not every country adheres to such a fanatical stance on free speech as the USA, and yet seem to be doing just fine. Especially the UK, where there are restrictions on free speech. Sensible restrictions supported by the sensible population, who are not oddly terrified of their government.
> These laws not only existed, they where far more stringent, prosecution far easier and the punishment far more severe. Try going back then and discussing the king/queen in a negative way.
True.
> And yet, his book was still published.
Because the subject of his book wasn't covered by these laws.
> And in any case, he didn't say it to be threatening or abusive, so that's moot.
Neither did Damore. He still got fired.
> The HR policies of an American company (a country where in a lot of states you can be fired for any/no reason at all) is neither here nor there in a discussion about the UK's definition of hate crime, where that definition needs to be proven in a court of law to a jury of your peers at a trial.
These HR policies are a sign of the times. The fashion of suppressing rational speech & thought in a misguided attempt to "protect" the minority-du-jour will eventually creep upwards into the laws of countries, as has already happened in Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103
True.
> And yet, his book was still published.
Because the subject of his book wasn't covered by these laws.
> And in any case, he didn't say it to be threatening or abusive, so that's moot.
Neither did Damore. He still got fired.
> The HR policies of an American company (a country where in a lot of states you can be fired for any/no reason at all) is neither here nor there in a discussion about the UK's definition of hate crime, where that definition needs to be proven in a court of law to a jury of your peers at a trial.
These HR policies are a sign of the times. The fashion of suppressing rational speech & thought in a misguided attempt to "protect" the minority-du-jour will eventually creep upwards into the laws of countries, as has already happened in Canada:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_to_amend_the_Canadian_H...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_103
It isn't as broad apparently. If you go through the wikipedia link it also states :-
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Subjective descriptions of a person's actions or behaviour, however abhorrent, crass or objectionable, may not be considered an attempt to spread hate unless the motive is clearly defined as such."
Certainly there are still going to be "grey incidents".
"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. Subjective descriptions of a person's actions or behaviour, however abhorrent, crass or objectionable, may not be considered an attempt to spread hate unless the motive is clearly defined as such."
Certainly there are still going to be "grey incidents".
> Don't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
As far as I know, this is a really bad example. I don't think it even supports what you want to say, there is too much to this particular example and its history: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
As far as I know, this is a really bad example. I don't think it even supports what you want to say, there is too much to this particular example and its history: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha...
[deleted]
Any incident/crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's bigotry or perceived bigotry is A-OK.
[deleted]
[deleted]
They almost certainly get a lot of reports of hate speech, and it is actually an offence, so having some level of specialist response is probably justified. What's wrong is ignoring any category of crime where there are victims, property or otherwise.
London it a multi-ethnic city and in order to stay peacefully that way the more extreme provocateurs of racial and religious hatred need to be silenced.
Some background: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmha... (caution, includes a couple of example offensive images)
Specifically one of London's black MPs, Dianne Abbott, recieves something like 40% of all online abuse directed at MPs. After the murder of Jo Cox by a far right extremist this stuff has to be taken seriously.
More context from the report: "The Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) was set up in 2010 to remove unlawful terrorist material from the internet, with a focus on UK- based material. Twitter, which has been a magnet for jihadist propaganda, said that it had a close relationship with the CTIRU. 38 Google described CTIRU as a ‘trusted flagger’ with “an accuracy rate of around 80%”
London it a multi-ethnic city and in order to stay peacefully that way the more extreme provocateurs of racial and religious hatred need to be silenced.
Some background: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmha... (caution, includes a couple of example offensive images)
Specifically one of London's black MPs, Dianne Abbott, recieves something like 40% of all online abuse directed at MPs. After the murder of Jo Cox by a far right extremist this stuff has to be taken seriously.
More context from the report: "The Metropolitan Police’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU) was set up in 2010 to remove unlawful terrorist material from the internet, with a focus on UK- based material. Twitter, which has been a magnet for jihadist propaganda, said that it had a close relationship with the CTIRU. 38 Google described CTIRU as a ‘trusted flagger’ with “an accuracy rate of around 80%”
Have you considered Diane Abbot may attract abuse (non racial, simply 'people being mean' abuse) due to being repeatedly revealed as being massively incompetent and believing she's a capable alternative for Home Secretary?
I couldn't upvote this enough. It's such a gross diversionary leftist tactic to discard legitimate criticism as prejudicial bigotry.
So, Ms Abbott receives 40% of all online abuse directed at MPs. How many instances of abuse is that? Is it 300,000? Or is it 80 million?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-i...
So, Ms Abbott receives 40% of all online abuse directed at MPs. How many instances of abuse is that? Is it 300,000? Or is it 80 million?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diane-abbott-i...
I haven't read it but the methodology of the study involved is available here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3bg_SJKE9GOenpaekZ4eXRBWk0...
Seems to be based on sentiment analysis of about 900k tweets. From skimming:
> Five percent of all tweets mentioning Diane Abbott, @HackneyAbbott, are classified as abusive (8121 out of 140057).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3bg_SJKE9GOenpaekZ4eXRBWk0...
Seems to be based on sentiment analysis of about 900k tweets. From skimming:
> Five percent of all tweets mentioning Diane Abbott, @HackneyAbbott, are classified as abusive (8121 out of 140057).
as opposed to the current Front Bench
And I would suspect that the data Is mined and fed into Contra Terrorism as well as going into the MET's Registry for serious cases eg death threats against MP's
Actually, a better article is here: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-security-cyber/vi...
I think more and more countries realize that the Russian subversion warfare is the cheapest and most effective one.
Looks more like this is modeled after CTR (Correct the Record).
IMO, here's a site that gives some pretty good analysis for countries around the world, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-...
Edit: Sorry. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2017
Edit: Sorry. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2017
Let me guess... Facebook and YouTube are going to fold, yet again.
If they want to operate somewhere they're going to have to comply with local laws.
What is your comprehensive alternate?
What is your comprehensive alternate?
I heard someone mention once that Richard Stallman’s extremism is valuable (in part) because, by setting one end of the spectrum so far out, he moves the middle in his direction.
By cowing to oppressive government demands, rather than support the side of the spectrum they were born on, Facebook and YouTube allow the middle to move towards oppression.
In the same way that you do not reward a child’s tantrum with their desired outcome, you do not demonstrate to the world that they can have both YouTube and oppressive governments; unless, of course, you’re more interested in brief-but-immediate comfort than extended-but-delayed happiness.
By cowing to oppressive government demands, rather than support the side of the spectrum they were born on, Facebook and YouTube allow the middle to move towards oppression.
In the same way that you do not reward a child’s tantrum with their desired outcome, you do not demonstrate to the world that they can have both YouTube and oppressive governments; unless, of course, you’re more interested in brief-but-immediate comfort than extended-but-delayed happiness.
Stallman and Facebook/YouTube have very different goals. Stallman wants free software, Facebook and YouTube want to make money.
Facebook and YouTube are happy to push their political views, so long as the consequences don't interfere too much with cash flow. As a secondary effect, they're happy to let you believe they're nonprofit-minded with profitable products -- and that's also good for business, as demonstrated in the negative by late-90s era Microsoft.
Facebook and YouTube are happy to push their political views, so long as the consequences don't interfere too much with cash flow. As a secondary effect, they're happy to let you believe they're nonprofit-minded with profitable products -- and that's also good for business, as demonstrated in the negative by late-90s era Microsoft.
... or you're more interested in organizing the world's information and making it universally accessible and useful (information is more accessible if one works within a government's censorship framework and delivers what is allowed to be delivered than if one deprives an entire nation of access to basic information because a subset of information is controversial).
Yea, totally agree with you. I hope Facebook helps the Vietnamese agents track down these people and dispose of them. The law is the law, you know.
Dispose of them? Neither the article nor the report it's based on, say anything at all about arresting people, they are pretty much only shutting down YouTube and Facebook accounts.
The same has been happening in the US and plenty of other non-Communist countries, over here we just prefer calling it "War against terror" or "You broke the ToS!".
The same has been happening in the US and plenty of other non-Communist countries, over here we just prefer calling it "War against terror" or "You broke the ToS!".
Of course, dispose is hyperbole. Still, comparing Vietnam to US or other western countries is utterly disingenuous.
Try to go there and live for a few months, see for yourself.
Try to go there and live for a few months, see for yourself.
It seems pretty obvious that they could just back out of the country.
I'm sure they are getting their playbook from their Chinese friends. Even Japan is getting more heavy handed than they were, and in Asia, they are the most liberal of all governments in comparison.
Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, all heavy handed as regards the Internet. Russia, China, most of the former Balkan states, Turkey... Brazil, even.
Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, all heavy handed as regards the Internet. Russia, China, most of the former Balkan states, Turkey... Brazil, even.
Careful with that high horse buddy! Progressive western countries aren’t exactly new to internet censorship either: https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/21/15847262/german-facebook-...
To view the issue through the lens of extremes: blocking easy search-engine access to child pornography is a form of censorship, and nearly nobody thinks it's a bad idea.
All large companies execute some level of censorship and all countries have standards of decorum. The question is really how much censorship one tolerates, not whether any at all is tolerable.
All large companies execute some level of censorship and all countries have standards of decorum. The question is really how much censorship one tolerates, not whether any at all is tolerable.
Vietnam and China aren't exactly friends. They fought a war in 1979 and have ongoing territorial disputes.
more like "special administrative region" of china.
thought not many people want to believe that, China has very strong political influence in Vietnam
thought not many people want to believe that, China has very strong political influence in Vietnam
That’s a breathtaking over simplification of their relationship.
It’s a very complex and mildly antagonistic relationship while, yes, also having strong cultural and political influence.
Your characterization is incredibly broad however and - taken as written - quite inaccurate
It’s a very complex and mildly antagonistic relationship while, yes, also having strong cultural and political influence.
Your characterization is incredibly broad however and - taken as written - quite inaccurate
I've been living in Vietnam for over seven years now and spoken to countless locals about this and it's way more than mildly antagonistic.
Agreed. The general sentiment that I've gotten from talking to people is that they are worried that either China will invade Vietnam (and hope that the US will protect them) or that the Vietnamese government has already "sold out" their country to China.
> or that the Vietnamese government has already "sold out" their country to China.
That's what im' trying to say as well
That's what im' trying to say as well
Two thousand years of a cycle of occupation, rebellion and invasion will tend towards the antagonistic, yes.
Hah, yes well I guess it’s all about perspective. They’re not threatening war or pretending they will so - for a country - it’s mild.
But yeah, culturally speaking there’s a great animosity that’s true (while having strong ties as well, it’s a dichotomy)
But yeah, culturally speaking there’s a great animosity that’s true (while having strong ties as well, it’s a dichotomy)
[deleted]
Democracy is an import to (East) Asian society. The Confucian authoritarian philosophy had been the norm for almost 2000 years. By default, more power are delegated to the government, and people are oblivious or reluctant to question it.
Internet is just one channel where you can express opinions.
Many journalists are jailed even today based on their opinions, and I feel it's on us tech people to enable them the free speech they deserve.
"Us tech people" are the ones enabling them to censor though. From the article: "Facebook this year removed 159 accounts at Vietnam’s behest, while YouTube took down 4,500 videos, or 90 percent of what the government requested".
On that same thread, Cisco built the Chinese Golden Shield which is what now is refer to the great chinese firewall iirc.
That's nonsense. Countries are responsible for making up their own laws, not foreign techies.
I think it behooves all techies to reread and really think about the Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace every now and then:
https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
I am deeply against censorship, consider myself a libertarian and wouldn't personally work for Facebook. I deeply sympathise with this manifesto. But I'm also a consequentialist and I believe the Vietnamese are overall better served with a censored Facebook/Youtube than no Facebook/Youtube at all. I also don't believe that getting 100% of techies on our side is a realistic strategy.
It definitely isn't. There's also the "something you build can be used for evil or for good" aspect, too.
When I say enable, I am talking about stateless nonprofits creating platforms where people can communicate freely, express themselves freely, and if they need to - organize protests to protect their freedoms. Things like Signal are great steps toward it, but we need more.
When I say enable, I am talking about stateless nonprofits creating platforms where people can communicate freely, express themselves freely, and if they need to - organize protests to protect their freedoms. Things like Signal are great steps toward it, but we need more.
If you are from the US, be aware that even United States spies on its citizens, and recently-activated social media screening is just another step towards it.
sorry to break it to you some citizens can be traitors relaying on the "I know his people" and he's a good chap belongs to the right club does't work as a vetting procedure as we found in the UK with the cambridge 5 and others
I agree, but this is a slippery slope, and be mindful that warrantless surveillance is technically illegal (or not, i don't know what patriot act brought these days). It's a slippery slope because there is no end to it. It starts with surveillance - which evades privacy, then comes your freedom of speech, then your freedom to choose.
Oh I agree on warrantless wire tapping the one of problems with the states is they don't separate the Police role of the FBI from is Security / Contra Espionage.
Just following orders huh?
Most of the time, these companies are actually stronger than the government, even if they are not, there are a lot of ways they can choose to resist the orders.
>I feel it's on us tech people to enable them the free speech they deserve.
It's clearly not a technical problem, so it's foolish to try to find a technical solution. This kind of silicon valley elitist Tellerism is doing more harm than good in cases like these.
It's clearly not a technical problem, so it's foolish to try to find a technical solution. This kind of silicon valley elitist Tellerism is doing more harm than good in cases like these.
Actually, it is. It is very much a technical problem. Technology has not yet provided a super-fast, truly decentralized, perfectly uncensorable “Internet for All” solution. If we had that, a lot of this discussion would be moot.
Someone in Dalat could teach Vietnamese to any number of foreigners, without any adversary being the wiser. Anyone in China could read up on Tiannenmen Square or the “Free Tibet” movement without fear of arrest. People in Indonesia could watch any film they wish.
“Laws” in any country on this planet are not immutable, immaculate/divine, absolute, or axiomatic. They can and should be changed — regardless of the concerns of those in power. And the only reliable way to ensure change is education, information and discussion — all unfettered, uncensored and unbridled.
Until technology guarantees that, we as ‘techies’ have not delivered. And please, don’t tell me about Tor and “teh darkwubs” — that is not a realistic solution for 99% of the online population — too slow and still not bulletproof.
Technology needs to do better.
Someone in Dalat could teach Vietnamese to any number of foreigners, without any adversary being the wiser. Anyone in China could read up on Tiannenmen Square or the “Free Tibet” movement without fear of arrest. People in Indonesia could watch any film they wish.
“Laws” in any country on this planet are not immutable, immaculate/divine, absolute, or axiomatic. They can and should be changed — regardless of the concerns of those in power. And the only reliable way to ensure change is education, information and discussion — all unfettered, uncensored and unbridled.
Until technology guarantees that, we as ‘techies’ have not delivered. And please, don’t tell me about Tor and “teh darkwubs” — that is not a realistic solution for 99% of the online population — too slow and still not bulletproof.
Technology needs to do better.
Very well said, thank you.
As for tor and the dark web, more important than being fast & solid is ease of use. If we design platforms, protocols, etc by default to be censorship free, then many projects to fill gaps will follow. Tor was an attempt, but failed at widespread adoption, maybe we need something smaller to begin with. E2E encrypted chat apps was a good first step, we need more.
We take many things here in the US for granted. When I go back to my home country, I feel odd sense of insecurity, now imagine people living there for their whole lives - they take censorship as normal and go with it. With censorship comes with censored imaginations, research and so on.
As for tor and the dark web, more important than being fast & solid is ease of use. If we design platforms, protocols, etc by default to be censorship free, then many projects to fill gaps will follow. Tor was an attempt, but failed at widespread adoption, maybe we need something smaller to begin with. E2E encrypted chat apps was a good first step, we need more.
We take many things here in the US for granted. When I go back to my home country, I feel odd sense of insecurity, now imagine people living there for their whole lives - they take censorship as normal and go with it. With censorship comes with censored imaginations, research and so on.
The scenario you're describing is unlikely to be deliverable.
Any system sufficiently user-friendly to be accessible to the bulk of the global populace is also user-friendly to government authority. Because inevitably, passwords get misplaced and authentication / authorization tokens get forgotten or stolen, and then the average user needs an authority to turn to to re-establish their connection to the network.
Any system sufficiently user-friendly to be accessible to the bulk of the global populace is also user-friendly to government authority. Because inevitably, passwords get misplaced and authentication / authorization tokens get forgotten or stolen, and then the average user needs an authority to turn to to re-establish their connection to the network.
Don't get it. I have been giving example of a "chat app" that's e2e encrypted. If it's easy to use, but solid to do proper e2e, government cannot do anything. Especially if messages also can "disappear" after a day. Government stops you, inspect your phone, cannot find anything. At least there is some reasonable doubt. Granted, if oppressive government has a reasonable doubt about you, you might have hard time otherwise, but that won't scale to large populations.
Similarly, if internet was designed with privacy in mind, things would have been different. If your favorite news site were available through tor, and you were using nontracking browser, you'd probably be fine.
Similarly, if internet was designed with privacy in mind, things would have been different. If your favorite news site were available through tor, and you were using nontracking browser, you'd probably be fine.
Giving them a platform to freely communicate is not nothing. I think you were looking for an excuse to blame sv people.
With the pervasive surveillance, paid troll campaigns from all parties, operations to influence media from agencies, millions of fake anti-net-neutrality messages, etc, the US is not some paragon of internet freedom either...
What you said is exactly the signs of internet freedom.
If the government had the monopoly of the media they wouldn't have to have "operations to influence media from agencies".
If anti-net-neutrality of the media there wouldn't be "millions of fake anti-net-neutrality messages".
Do you want to try to set up an anti-corruption FB account in Vietnam and see what happen?
If the government had the monopoly of the media they wouldn't have to have "operations to influence media from agencies".
If anti-net-neutrality of the media there wouldn't be "millions of fake anti-net-neutrality messages".
Do you want to try to set up an anti-corruption FB account in Vietnam and see what happen?
aka your classical Russian troll farm
Yeah, aka what the media point as the threat du jour.
any country with online capabilities have been doing this for a long time now. governments also like brand-defence... don't understand why people need to point at specific ones (*usualy not country of media origin) instead of trying to speak about the moar broad and global issue of this internet policing / trying to discredit/track/stop people with differing views.
They have some pretty strange policies here. I lived in Dalat, Vietnam for two years and went to an "illegal" Vietnamese language class. A teacher needs to have a license from Hanoi to teach Vietnamese to foreigners. And since it's apparently impossible to get a license, we were studying Vietnamese illegally. Eventually, the local police got wind of it and broke the class up. So all of the foreigners living here are essentially forbidden from learning how to communicate with the locals effectively. It's very bizarre.