5 ms·

The other article[0] linked in this one is well worth a read. I had never heard about Uyghurs or China's treatment of them before I read the reddit thread yeste

The other article[0] linked in this one is well worth a read. I had never heard about Uyghurs or China's treatment of them before I read the reddit thread yesterday about phone spyware. It's pretty appalling and what more how the western tech community idolizes China and their tech scene while looking right past atrocities like this. 0: https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/05/31/china-has-turned-xinjiang-into-a-police-state-like-no-other https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/05/31/china-has-turn...

rgrieselhuber 8y ago
Also take a look at the assaults on free speech in the UK.
- DanBC 8y ago
  Most (although not all) of the examples are bullshit that include people making credible threats of violence. Which particular example are you thinking of?
  - bilbo0s 8y ago
    Why is this excuse always used? I actually agree with it a lot by the way. I don't want to be hypocritical about the whole thing. But it seems that the fact that a lot of Uighurs make credible threats of violence, (indeed, are actively involved in ACTUAL mass violence), is often used as an excuse by the Chinese for everything they do. Similarly in the UK, some people make credible threats of violence, and the surveillance state kicks into high gear on everyone. And I'm not just picking on the UK and China, many nations use this excuse. Look, I'm a "tough on terrorism" kind of guy too. Uighurs blowing things up, fine, crush them. With prejudice. You can't negotiate with terrorists. Period. I get that. Why a dragnet on your entire population though? The issue is scope creep. It starts out with the UK wanting to find people making terroristic threats, and in 20 years the family court accessible text messages between you and your lover are being entered as evidence in your divorce hearing.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      I've seen a bunch of people talking about restrictions on freedom of speech in the UK, but when you look at the case we almost always see someone who hasn't just voiced an opinion, but has made a clear threat of violence.
      - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
        If someone is planning on killing you, wouldn't you like to be informed beforehand, so as to defend? It would seem silencing such voices is like putting your head in the sand.
  - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
    Rotherham is a great example. There are many.
    - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
      Why the downvote? Not complaining but curious. This seems pretty cut and dry.
      - DanBC 8y ago
        Because there is no suppression of speech happneing about rotherham.
        rgrieselhuber 8y ago
        That's clearly not true, unless you don't consider a cover-up and harassment of victims and independent investigators suppression of speech.
        DanBC 8y ago
        You still haven't given any examples of what you're actualy talking about, which is making it impossible to rebut your overly vague comments. But the perpetrators of Rotherham went to prison; there have been several rigorous investigations into the child protection and police lack of action in the case; people resigned. Most importantly: no-one has been arrested for trying to investigate Rotherham. Please give an actual name of someone who faced police action for investigating rotherham.
        DanBC 8y ago
        Hang on, are you talking about Tommy Robinson? He interfered with an ongoing criminal trial (putting that trial at risk of collapse) by threatening witnesses and calling the accused, before they had been convicted "muslim paedophiles". He was filming inside the courtroom and intimidating witnesses. He was asked to stop. He didn't stop, and he told police he was going to go to the homes of witnesses. He was arrested and sentenced for that contempt of court. He was given a suspended sentence and clear instruction not to do it again. He did it again. Notice that Yaxley-Lennon has said nothing at all about his EDL colleague who was convicted of sexual offences against children. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/edl-english-defence-league-leigh-mcmillan-jailed-paedophile-old-bailey-a8231231.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/edl-english-defe... You seem to think that Yaxley-Lennon would be free to speak in the US, but he's been forbidden to travel to the US by the US -- that's why in 2013 he tried to used a false passport to travel. https://news.sky.com/story/edl-leader-lennon-jailed-for-passport-offence-10458706 https://news.sky.com/story/edl-leader-lennon-jailed-for-pass... Here's a barrister's views: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/ https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-... Here's the sentencing remarks for the first convction (please read all of it. It's short and clear): https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/committal-for-contempt-of-court-in-open-court-at-the-crown-court-at-canterbury-yaxley-lennon/ https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/committal-for-contempt... Here's the warning the judge gave to him: ---begin Would you stand up, please. I take, as I hope has been made very clear by the comments that I have made, a very dim view indeed of your conduct which was in the face of repeated warnings that you should not do that which you did do. I accept what Mr. Kovalevsky tells me about the dangers that you might face were you to be sent into immediate custody. I have to say it is on a knife edge so far as I am concerned because a very large part of me thinks so what? you could be put into protective custody. But, my concern is to make sure that this trial keeps on track, and my concern is also to make sure that other courts with other trials in similar situations are kept on track without any danger of repetition of the kind of conduct that we have had visited upon us here. The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  I thought that was just because the UK had a different culture or historical tradition on free speech.
emodendroket 8y ago
The phone spyware is the least of it.
allthenews 8y ago
>how the western tech community idolizes China Could you elaborate? Most of the people I know in tech are actually on the paranoid side.
- yardie 8y ago
  For tech from Shenzen for example. You could order as much or as little you want at anytime and day of the week and pay the rock bottom price. Rarely is it asked, "How is this possible?" Factory labor? Prison labor? Environmental concerns? Those things are glossed over. We order a single prototype board, pay $10 including shipping, and are pleasantly surprised when it arrives in the mail. Ignoring the human and environmental impact of the material and chemicals that went into it.
  - krageon 8y ago
    Really most of us ignore that for all tech, at any price. It has nothing to do with Shenzen or the chips they produce. For that matter, there are similar moral issues with most clothing you will buy and the effects of a lot of the food you are eating. The cosmetic products you use are almost certainly funding (or have funded) a company that perpetrates animal cruelty. The world is built with sadistic bricks. I don't think it is active malice that most people ignore them, I think they just cannot exist properly if they think about each and every one. So most people think about a few, if any. Maybe sometimes they eat a biological egg from a chicken that has twice the floor space of a regular chicken. Or they drink some fair trade coffee that was ostensibly not produced with modern slave labour.
xkcd-sucks 8y ago
Yeah Tibet at least had lots of good PR because Buddhism is a better brand than Islam in Western countries. Not that it saved them from the inevitable
- louprado 8y ago
  On Chinese tour bus hired by our U.S. MBA class, our Chinese guide made several disparaging/dehumanizing off-hand comments about people from Tibet to the entire group. I still wonder if the Chinese government privately tells this guide to say this so that Westerners lose sympathy and interest in supporting a free Tibet.

rgrieselhuber 8y ago

Also take a look at the assaults on free speech in the UK.

DanBC 8y ago
Most (although not all) of the examples are bullshit that include people making credible threats of violence. Which particular example are you thinking of?
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  Why is this excuse always used? I actually agree with it a lot by the way. I don't want to be hypocritical about the whole thing. But it seems that the fact that a lot of Uighurs make credible threats of violence, (indeed, are actively involved in ACTUAL mass violence), is often used as an excuse by the Chinese for everything they do. Similarly in the UK, some people make credible threats of violence, and the surveillance state kicks into high gear on everyone. And I'm not just picking on the UK and China, many nations use this excuse. Look, I'm a "tough on terrorism" kind of guy too. Uighurs blowing things up, fine, crush them. With prejudice. You can't negotiate with terrorists. Period. I get that. Why a dragnet on your entire population though? The issue is scope creep. It starts out with the UK wanting to find people making terroristic threats, and in 20 years the family court accessible text messages between you and your lover are being entered as evidence in your divorce hearing.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    I've seen a bunch of people talking about restrictions on freedom of speech in the UK, but when you look at the case we almost always see someone who hasn't just voiced an opinion, but has made a clear threat of violence.
    - wu-ikkyu 8y ago
      If someone is planning on killing you, wouldn't you like to be informed beforehand, so as to defend? It would seem silencing such voices is like putting your head in the sand.
- rgrieselhuber 8y ago
  Rotherham is a great example. There are many.
  - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
    Why the downvote? Not complaining but curious. This seems pretty cut and dry.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      Because there is no suppression of speech happneing about rotherham.
      - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
        That's clearly not true, unless you don't consider a cover-up and harassment of victims and independent investigators suppression of speech.
        DanBC 8y ago
        You still haven't given any examples of what you're actualy talking about, which is making it impossible to rebut your overly vague comments. But the perpetrators of Rotherham went to prison; there have been several rigorous investigations into the child protection and police lack of action in the case; people resigned. Most importantly: no-one has been arrested for trying to investigate Rotherham. Please give an actual name of someone who faced police action for investigating rotherham.
        DanBC 8y ago
        Hang on, are you talking about Tommy Robinson? He interfered with an ongoing criminal trial (putting that trial at risk of collapse) by threatening witnesses and calling the accused, before they had been convicted "muslim paedophiles". He was filming inside the courtroom and intimidating witnesses. He was asked to stop. He didn't stop, and he told police he was going to go to the homes of witnesses. He was arrested and sentenced for that contempt of court. He was given a suspended sentence and clear instruction not to do it again. He did it again. Notice that Yaxley-Lennon has said nothing at all about his EDL colleague who was convicted of sexual offences against children. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/edl-english-defence-league-leigh-mcmillan-jailed-paedophile-old-bailey-a8231231.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/edl-english-defe... You seem to think that Yaxley-Lennon would be free to speak in the US, but he's been forbidden to travel to the US by the US -- that's why in 2013 he tried to used a false passport to travel. https://news.sky.com/story/edl-leader-lennon-jailed-for-passport-offence-10458706 https://news.sky.com/story/edl-leader-lennon-jailed-for-pass... Here's a barrister's views: https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-to-poor-tommy-robinson/ https://thesecretbarrister.com/2018/05/25/what-has-happened-... Here's the sentencing remarks for the first convction (please read all of it. It's short and clear): https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/committal-for-contempt-of-court-in-open-court-at-the-crown-court-at-canterbury-yaxley-lennon/ https://www.judiciary.uk/publications/committal-for-contempt... Here's the warning the judge gave to him: ---begin Would you stand up, please. I take, as I hope has been made very clear by the comments that I have made, a very dim view indeed of your conduct which was in the face of repeated warnings that you should not do that which you did do. I accept what Mr. Kovalevsky tells me about the dangers that you might face were you to be sent into immediate custody. I have to say it is on a knife edge so far as I am concerned because a very large part of me thinks so what? you could be put into protective custody. But, my concern is to make sure that this trial keeps on track, and my concern is also to make sure that other courts with other trials in similar situations are kept on track without any danger of repetition of the kind of conduct that we have had visited upon us here. The sentence, therefore, that I pass upon you, taking into account all of those matters that have been placed before me and your admissions entered via Mr. Kovalevsky, is one of three months' imprisonment which will be suspended for a period of 18 months. That will be suspended. There will be no conditions that need to be attached to that suspended sentence, but you should be under no illusions that if you commit any further offence of any kind, and that would include, I would have thought a further contempt of court by similar actions, then that sentence of three months would be activated, and that would be on top of anything else that you were given by any other court. In short, Mr. Yaxley-Lennon, turn up at another court, refer to people as "Muslim paedophiles, Muslim rapists" and so on and so forth while trials are ongoing and before there has been a finding by a jury that that is what they are, and you will find yourself inside. Do you understand? Thank you very much.
threatofrain 8y ago
I thought that was just because the UK had a different culture or historical tradition on free speech.

emodendroket 8y ago

The phone spyware is the least of it.

allthenews 8y ago

>how the western tech community idolizes China Could you elaborate? Most of the people I know in tech are actually on the paranoid side.

yardie 8y ago
For tech from Shenzen for example. You could order as much or as little you want at anytime and day of the week and pay the rock bottom price. Rarely is it asked, "How is this possible?" Factory labor? Prison labor? Environmental concerns? Those things are glossed over. We order a single prototype board, pay $10 including shipping, and are pleasantly surprised when it arrives in the mail. Ignoring the human and environmental impact of the material and chemicals that went into it.
- krageon 8y ago
  Really most of us ignore that for all tech, at any price. It has nothing to do with Shenzen or the chips they produce. For that matter, there are similar moral issues with most clothing you will buy and the effects of a lot of the food you are eating. The cosmetic products you use are almost certainly funding (or have funded) a company that perpetrates animal cruelty. The world is built with sadistic bricks. I don't think it is active malice that most people ignore them, I think they just cannot exist properly if they think about each and every one. So most people think about a few, if any. Maybe sometimes they eat a biological egg from a chicken that has twice the floor space of a regular chicken. Or they drink some fair trade coffee that was ostensibly not produced with modern slave labour.

xkcd-sucks 8y ago

Yeah Tibet at least had lots of good PR because Buddhism is a better brand than Islam in Western countries. Not that it saved them from the inevitable

louprado 8y ago
On Chinese tour bus hired by our U.S. MBA class, our Chinese guide made several disparaging/dehumanizing off-hand comments about people from Tibet to the entire group. I still wonder if the Chinese government privately tells this guide to say this so that Westerners lose sympathy and interest in supporting a free Tibet.