5 ms·

Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home? Who is going to talk abou

by throw2016 9y ago

Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home? Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. Why is Snowden still in Russia? Are we to pretend all this is not happening? All this is left to the EFF. This is a kind of denial and posturing - oh look how bad they are while looking the other way at the growing authoritarianism at home. Not even talking about the current censorship of alternative voices by Google, Facebook and others in support of mainstream media like the nyt with completely opaque and non transparent standards and lending credence to shadowy groups like propornot.

ctack 9y ago
Maybe it's related to why you felt the need to use a throwaway account to post your comment.
- turk184 9y ago
  Because HN is actively policing "dangerous viewpoints" as well? Things are further down the rabbit hole than you may perceive you know.
  - dang 9y ago
    If you mean the moderators of HN, I'm one and all I consciously care about is saving this site from sucking with tedium. So if anybody is "actively policing" HN, they have figured out how to hack my unconscious and I wish they'd post how they did it. That would actually be interesting. The problem with tedium is that it's human nature for us all to care most about the sound of our own voice and the sweet sweet beauty of our own words on the screen. We don't notice when we're repeating things that have been said millions of times because those lacked the flagship merit of it being me who was saying them. This little me is the arch-enemy of intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It is the same in everyone and has nothing to do with pro- or anti-China, or pro- or anti-anything.
pmarreck 9y ago
OBJECTION: Whataboutist Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism In addition, making a claim from a fresh anonymous account conveys the message that you do not actually stand behind it, giving it zero credence.
- arethuza 9y ago
  throw2016's account is 474 days old and has a karma of 663 - that doesn't look like a "fresh anonymous account".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- sjcsjc 9y ago
  I think I disagree that this is Whataboutism. I did not get the impression that the commenter was trying to "discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy" (from the wiki link), but rather that he/she was pointing out an instance of apparent double standards. I could be wrong. He/she might be attempting to defend China's policies. It just didn't come across that way to me.
- another_one2 9y ago
  This is not a fallacy at all. It is only a fallacy if there is a conclusion like "therefore $BAD_THING is not so bad after all". The usual conclusion, however, is that both sides are bad (to a varying degree) and that the currently better side should be aware of slippery slopes.
- throw999890 9y ago
  Because your government now wants all our social media accounts. They will decide whether I should be a tourist or a criminal when I land. Just wow !
- throw2016 9y ago
  What does an anonymous account have to do with anything? Whataboutism cannot be used to coverup hypocrisy and perpetuate denial. China is using a hammer, we do it much more slyly, harassing journalists at airports, creating lists, hounding whistle-blowers, de-legitimizing alternate voices and idea, have in-effect erected a total surveillance state and empowered government agents to ruffle through our personal stuff. What more needs to be done? These are huge transgressions against the democratic ideal that the NYT and mainstream media don't lose sleep over but apparently we need to distract ourselves with China. This is a kind of denial, there is no moral high ground to pull this kind of thing off. The chinese have no illusion about their government, but we are happy to defend ours while they trample our rights. A totalitarian would prefer our way.
Sangermaine 9y ago
>Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home? But the NYT reports on those issues all the time. You likely know about them precisely because of their articles. >Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. Why is Snowden still in Russia? Are we to pretend all this is not happening? The NYT also reports on these all the time. In fact, it was the NYT that broke the story on surveillance programs like Stellar Wind in the mid-Bush era that laid the groundwork for Snowden's later revelations about the details of these programs. This is hysterical nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in the slightest.
parenthephobia 9y ago
> Why is Nytimes so concerned about China It isn't. It's an article called "68 Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet", out of many thousands of articles on the site. Naturally, that article will be about China: it is typical for an article to cover a specific topic. One should not expect all articles a newspaper publishes to cover all criticisms of the government of the country in which that newspaper is incorporated. That's unreasonable. > Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. A great many people. The New York Times, for example. https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/surveillance-of-citizens-by-government https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/surveillance-of-citize... https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act-fisa https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/foreign-intelligence-s... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/technology/aclu-border-patrol-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/technology/aclu-border-pa... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforcement-airport-phones.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforceme...
- paradite 9y ago
  https://hn.algolia.com/?query=border%20us%20nytimes&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=border%20us%20nytimes&sort=byD... https://hn.algolia.com/?query=border%20enforcement%20nytimes&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=border%20enforcement%20nytimes... https://hn.algolia.com/?query=china%20nytimes&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=china%20nytimes&sort=byDate&pr...
CptMauli 9y ago
Even if you were right, wouldn't it be a great example of where the general direction of internet regulation in the West is headed?

ctack 9y ago

Maybe it's related to why you felt the need to use a throwaway account to post your comment.

turk184 9y ago
Because HN is actively policing "dangerous viewpoints" as well? Things are further down the rabbit hole than you may perceive you know.
- dang 9y ago
  If you mean the moderators of HN, I'm one and all I consciously care about is saving this site from sucking with tedium. So if anybody is "actively policing" HN, they have figured out how to hack my unconscious and I wish they'd post how they did it. That would actually be interesting. The problem with tedium is that it's human nature for us all to care most about the sound of our own voice and the sweet sweet beauty of our own words on the screen. We don't notice when we're repeating things that have been said millions of times because those lacked the flagship merit of it being me who was saying them. This little me is the arch-enemy of intellectual curiosity (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). It is the same in everyone and has nothing to do with pro- or anti-China, or pro- or anti-anything.

pmarreck 9y ago

OBJECTION: Whataboutist Fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism In addition, making a claim from a fresh anonymous account conveys the message that you do not actually stand behind it, giving it zero credence.

arethuza 9y ago
throw2016's account is 474 days old and has a karma of 663 - that doesn't look like a "fresh anonymous account".
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
sjcsjc 9y ago
I think I disagree that this is Whataboutism. I did not get the impression that the commenter was trying to "discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy" (from the wiki link), but rather that he/she was pointing out an instance of apparent double standards. I could be wrong. He/she might be attempting to defend China's policies. It just didn't come across that way to me.
another_one2 9y ago
This is not a fallacy at all. It is only a fallacy if there is a conclusion like "therefore $BAD_THING is not so bad after all". The usual conclusion, however, is that both sides are bad (to a varying degree) and that the currently better side should be aware of slippery slopes.
throw999890 9y ago
Because your government now wants all our social media accounts. They will decide whether I should be a tourist or a criminal when I land. Just wow !
throw2016 9y ago
What does an anonymous account have to do with anything? Whataboutism cannot be used to coverup hypocrisy and perpetuate denial. China is using a hammer, we do it much more slyly, harassing journalists at airports, creating lists, hounding whistle-blowers, de-legitimizing alternate voices and idea, have in-effect erected a total surveillance state and empowered government agents to ruffle through our personal stuff. What more needs to be done? These are huge transgressions against the democratic ideal that the NYT and mainstream media don't lose sleep over but apparently we need to distract ourselves with China. This is a kind of denial, there is no moral high ground to pull this kind of thing off. The chinese have no illusion about their government, but we are happy to defend ours while they trample our rights. A totalitarian would prefer our way.

Sangermaine 9y ago

>Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home? But the NYT reports on those issues all the time. You likely know about them precisely because of their articles. >Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. Why is Snowden still in Russia? Are we to pretend all this is not happening? The NYT also reports on these all the time. In fact, it was the NYT that broke the story on surveillance programs like Stellar Wind in the mid-Bush era that laid the groundwork for Snowden's later revelations about the details of these programs. This is hysterical nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in the slightest.

parenthephobia 9y ago

> Why is Nytimes so concerned about China It isn't. It's an article called "68 Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet", out of many thousands of articles on the site. Naturally, that article will be about China: it is typical for an article to cover a specific topic. One should not expect all articles a newspaper publishes to cover all criticisms of the government of the country in which that newspaper is incorporated. That's unreasonable. > Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. A great many people. The New York Times, for example. https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/surveillance-of-citizens-by-government https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/surveillance-of-citize... https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act-fisa https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/foreign-intelligence-s... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/technology/aclu-border-patrol-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/technology/aclu-border-pa... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforcement-airport-phones.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/business/border-enforceme...

paradite 9y ago
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=border%20us%20nytimes&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=border%20us%20nytimes&sort=byD... https://hn.algolia.com/?query=border%20enforcement%20nytimes&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=border%20enforcement%20nytimes... https://hn.algolia.com/?query=china%20nytimes&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?query=china%20nytimes&sort=byDate&pr...

CptMauli 9y ago

Even if you were right, wouldn't it be a great example of where the general direction of internet regulation in the West is headed?