5 ms·

The firewall is there so that Facebook and similar companies made it possible to Russia and other states to interfere with election in the US cannot do the same

The firewall is there so that Facebook and similar companies made it possible to Russia and other states to interfere with election in the US cannot do the same in China. Yes, China has elections. I think most western people believe that propaganda that the firewall is a tool for oppression.

ardy42 8y ago
> The firewall is there so that Facebook and similar companies made it possible to Russia and other states to interfere with election in the US cannot do the same in China. No. The great firewall is mainly there to prevent the Chinese people from organizing and disseminating information in ways that challenge the government [1]. They want to prevent something like the Arab Spring or the color revolutions [2]. Since you bring up Russian election interference: some Chinese government actions on the internet actually resemble Russian troll armies more than anything else [3]. [1] https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-allows-government-criticism-silences-collective-expression https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring [3] https://gking.harvard.edu/50c https://gking.harvard.edu/50c > Yes, China has elections. So have the Soviet Union and all kinds of dictatorships [4]. There's a big difference between having party-controlled "elections" and free and fair elections. The PRC most certainly does not have the latter. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election#Sham_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election#Sham_election
- ethbro 8y ago
  As a Bahraini friend told me, "Iran has democratic elections." To which I replied, "What about the weeding out and approval process required for candidates?" To which he replied, "Well, you can't have a sheep herder run for President and win." On that basis, I believe America has proven the supremacy of its democracy, for better or worse.
  - sidlls 8y ago
    Some would argue the process we (Americans) use to select candidates is different only by appearance, for offices that actually have any power anyway.
    - adventured 8y ago
      The some that would argue that, are easily refuted by the facts. Bill Clinton came from poverty, had no father, was a nobody governor for Arkansas with a mixed record of success in politics. He defeated a very powerful patriarch of the Bush dynasty - former CIA head, former Vice President, WW2 hero, former member of Congress - who was backed by Ronald Reagan (an extraordinarily popular President). He also defeated one of the richest and most famous people in the country at the time in Ross Perot (of course some would say Perot actually defeated Bush, which is interesting as well as Perot was a political outsider). Barack Obama had no father in a similar manner as Bill Clinton. Grew up in a still difficult time to be half white and half black, raised by a white family. He didn't come from a dynasty or impressive wealth. He admitted doing drugs, admitted being interested in alternative culture and Marxist ideas in his youth. He got soundly elected by knocking the more conservative Clinton dynasty out of the way, despite the enormity of the money and support behind Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump, a billionaire, was opposed by nearly every layer of power in the US, including nearly all of the media, nearly all celebrities, nearly all journalists, and including nearly the entire Republican Party and most of its big money backers. He's the first political outsider to win the Presidency in more than a century and is still openly opposed at every step by the same forces that opposed his candidacy. Bernie Sanders - openly a Socialist in a nation that has historically aggressively rejected most variations of Socialism - came one step away from competing with Trump for the Presidency. He had to be thwarted by his own party, sabotaged in numerous ways, to prevent that outcome. That is a case where the more powerful group prevailed using under-handed tactics. However it's non-the-less impressive how far Sanders got, when most of the system clearly opposed him and his policies. It's blatantly clear the US system isn't only different by appearances. It still enables outcomes that would be impossible if it were truly only an oligarchy style pre-selected system (this is where I acknowledge that the US does have aspects of pre-selection and some oligarchy-like power structures, it's obvious). All the power structures in the US opposed Trump and still do, including essentially all of its wealthiest persons; he flat-out was not supposed to win. Hillary Clinton, as the more powerful dynastic insider candidate, would have won against either Obama or Trump if the US primarily operated by pre-selection (Trump would have never gotten beyond Jeb Bush in that case).
- StreamBright 8y ago
  I see. This is why they needed to hack into Google/Gmail in 2011 because nobody has the brainpower in China to circumvent it. Also, are seriously suggesting that you can only only do organizing on platforms that are blocked by the firewall? It still amazes me how ignorant people are in the west. And there is the cultural difference. In China people use Wechat in a similar fashion as we use Facebook, they share pictures etc. Finally, almost non of my Chinese friends who live in the west use FB even though they have the liberty to do so. Similar story in Vietnam and many other countries. Again, somebody has to be quite ignorant not to see FB as a national security treat. Even the US recognised that, you might have seen the congressional hearing of Zuckaberg, which was quite a shit show for many reasons. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-hacking-idUSTRE7506U320110602 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-hacking-idUSTRE750...
  - owens99 8y ago
    > Also, are seriously suggesting that you can only only do organizing on platforms that are blocked by the firewall? This seems reasonably accurate. The gov has complete access to Wechat's data and can create, edit, or destroy any content they choose. They regularly run ML algorithms across the whole network to identify whatever they want. They can't do this with Facebook or WhatsApp.
  - ardy42 8y ago
    > Also, are seriously suggesting that you can only only do organizing on platforms that are blocked by the firewall? It still amazes me how ignorant people are in the west. The domestic Chinese social networks are fully staffed with censors [1] and likely police surveillance, so it would obviously be more difficult and dangerous for Chinese people to organize on them. The great firewall blocks the foreign that aren't willing to fully participate in that censorship and surveillance regime and that are large enough to be a threat, and the Communist Party likely judges the foreign operators to be less reliable partners in any case. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/business/china-internet-censor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/business/china-internet-c... Another factor that makes domestic Chinese websites a poor choice for political organizing and activism is the PRC government's efforts to make all web activity traceable to a national ID number. Why do you think it's now difficult to impossible to buy a activated SIM card at a corner shop, and why WIFI access points and most websites require an access code be sent by text message before you can get online or create an account? > Finally, almost non of my Chinese friends who live in the west use FB even though they have the liberty to do so. I don't use FB even though I have the liberty to do so. > Again, somebody has to be quite ignorant not to see FB as a national security treat. There are some very important distinctions that you're missing. The free exchange of ideas among citizens is not a national security threat unless you're a regime that is opposed to human rights [2] [3]. The issue with Facebook is really one of state-sponsored impersonation. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...
mistermann 8y ago
Can you or anyone else point out any evidence (rather than a claim) of this election tampering? The only "proof" I've managed to find is Russian IP addresses.
- asciibinary 8y ago
  The indictment of Concord Management: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/downl... - Discusses the efforts conducted to sow election disinformation, suppress voter turnout The indictment of the accountant of Concord Management: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1102316/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1102316/downl... - additional details provided relating to above case The indictment of 12 GRU Hackers, who were named and identified by their specific address. https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download - Discusses GRU social engineering to access election machines and state officials There has also been election fraud/tampering that has occurred by domestic forces in NC: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/investigation-n-c-election-fraud-focused-unreturned-absentee-ballots-n948241 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/investigation-n-c...
  - mistermann 8y ago
    Let's just pick one: > The indictment of Concord Management: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/downl.. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/downl.... - Discusses the efforts conducted to sow election disinformation, suppress voter turnout Can you tell me on which page the proof is stated?
    - asciibinary 8y ago
      this document describes the conspiracy of Concord Management. Before we begin, I'd like to quote the first line of the document: "The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia charges: " https://www.popehat.com/2017/08/07/lawsplainer-how-federal-grand-juries-work-part-one/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/08/07/lawsplainer-how-federal-g... From former Assistant United States Attorney of the Central District of California, Ken White: "A grand jury is a group of citizens brought together to determine whether to bring criminal charges against someone suspected of a crime. ... The Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury . . . ." So, the Constitution requires that the federal government get an indictment from a federal grand jury before charging you with a federal felony." Page 16-19 have particularly relevant evidence, beginning with the title 'Actions Targeting the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election'. I encourage you to read the whole document as it provides context about who the Defendants are alleged Page 18 has a relevant section I'd like to highlight regarding suppressing voter turnout. "In or around the latter half of 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through their ORGANIZATION-controlled personas, began to encourage U.S. minority groups not to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or to vote for a third-party U.S. presidential candidate. a. On or about October 16, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the ORGANIZATION-controlled Instagram account "Woke Blacks" to post the following message: "[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary. We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we'd surely be better off without voting AT ALL." b. On or about November 3, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators purchased an advertisement to promote a post on the ORGANIZATION-controlled Instagram account "Blacktivist" that read in part: "Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me, it's not a wasted vote." c. By in or around early November 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the ORGANIZATION-controlled "United Muslims of America" social media accounts to post anti-vote messages such as: "American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today, most of the American Muslim voters refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton because she wants to continue the war on Muslims in the middle east and voted yes for invading Iraq." The tail end of Page 18 but mostly Page 19 has relevant evidence to sowing election disinformation: "Starting in or around the summer of 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators also began to promote allegations of voter fraud by the Democratic Party through their fictitious U.S. personas and groups on social media. Defendants and their co-conspirators purchased advertisements on Facebook to further promote the allegations. a. On or about August 4, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators began purchasing advertisements that promoted a post on the ORGANIZATION-controlled Facebook account "Stop A.I." The post alleged that "Hillary Clinton has already committed voter fraud during the Democrat Iowa Caucus." b. On or about August 11, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators posted that allegations of voter fraud were being investigated in North Carolina on the ORGANIZATION-controlled Twitter account@TEN_GOP. c. On or about November 2, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the same account to post allegations of "#VoterFraud by counting tens of thousands of ineligible mail in Hillary votes being reported in Broward County, Florida."

ardy42 8y ago

> The firewall is there so that Facebook and similar companies made it possible to Russia and other states to interfere with election in the US cannot do the same in China. No. The great firewall is mainly there to prevent the Chinese people from organizing and disseminating information in ways that challenge the government [1]. They want to prevent something like the Arab Spring or the color revolutions [2]. Since you bring up Russian election interference: some Chinese government actions on the internet actually resemble Russian troll armies more than anything else [3]. [1] https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-allows-government-criticism-silences-collective-expression https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring [3] https://gking.harvard.edu/50c https://gking.harvard.edu/50c > Yes, China has elections. So have the Soviet Union and all kinds of dictatorships [4]. There's a big difference between having party-controlled "elections" and free and fair elections. The PRC most certainly does not have the latter. [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election#Sham_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election#Sham_election

ethbro 8y ago
As a Bahraini friend told me, "Iran has democratic elections." To which I replied, "What about the weeding out and approval process required for candidates?" To which he replied, "Well, you can't have a sheep herder run for President and win." On that basis, I believe America has proven the supremacy of its democracy, for better or worse.
- sidlls 8y ago
  Some would argue the process we (Americans) use to select candidates is different only by appearance, for offices that actually have any power anyway.
  - adventured 8y ago
    The some that would argue that, are easily refuted by the facts. Bill Clinton came from poverty, had no father, was a nobody governor for Arkansas with a mixed record of success in politics. He defeated a very powerful patriarch of the Bush dynasty - former CIA head, former Vice President, WW2 hero, former member of Congress - who was backed by Ronald Reagan (an extraordinarily popular President). He also defeated one of the richest and most famous people in the country at the time in Ross Perot (of course some would say Perot actually defeated Bush, which is interesting as well as Perot was a political outsider). Barack Obama had no father in a similar manner as Bill Clinton. Grew up in a still difficult time to be half white and half black, raised by a white family. He didn't come from a dynasty or impressive wealth. He admitted doing drugs, admitted being interested in alternative culture and Marxist ideas in his youth. He got soundly elected by knocking the more conservative Clinton dynasty out of the way, despite the enormity of the money and support behind Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump, a billionaire, was opposed by nearly every layer of power in the US, including nearly all of the media, nearly all celebrities, nearly all journalists, and including nearly the entire Republican Party and most of its big money backers. He's the first political outsider to win the Presidency in more than a century and is still openly opposed at every step by the same forces that opposed his candidacy. Bernie Sanders - openly a Socialist in a nation that has historically aggressively rejected most variations of Socialism - came one step away from competing with Trump for the Presidency. He had to be thwarted by his own party, sabotaged in numerous ways, to prevent that outcome. That is a case where the more powerful group prevailed using under-handed tactics. However it's non-the-less impressive how far Sanders got, when most of the system clearly opposed him and his policies. It's blatantly clear the US system isn't only different by appearances. It still enables outcomes that would be impossible if it were truly only an oligarchy style pre-selected system (this is where I acknowledge that the US does have aspects of pre-selection and some oligarchy-like power structures, it's obvious). All the power structures in the US opposed Trump and still do, including essentially all of its wealthiest persons; he flat-out was not supposed to win. Hillary Clinton, as the more powerful dynastic insider candidate, would have won against either Obama or Trump if the US primarily operated by pre-selection (Trump would have never gotten beyond Jeb Bush in that case).
StreamBright 8y ago
I see. This is why they needed to hack into Google/Gmail in 2011 because nobody has the brainpower in China to circumvent it. Also, are seriously suggesting that you can only only do organizing on platforms that are blocked by the firewall? It still amazes me how ignorant people are in the west. And there is the cultural difference. In China people use Wechat in a similar fashion as we use Facebook, they share pictures etc. Finally, almost non of my Chinese friends who live in the west use FB even though they have the liberty to do so. Similar story in Vietnam and many other countries. Again, somebody has to be quite ignorant not to see FB as a national security treat. Even the US recognised that, you might have seen the congressional hearing of Zuckaberg, which was quite a shit show for many reasons. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-hacking-idUSTRE7506U320110602 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-hacking-idUSTRE750...
- owens99 8y ago
  > Also, are seriously suggesting that you can only only do organizing on platforms that are blocked by the firewall? This seems reasonably accurate. The gov has complete access to Wechat's data and can create, edit, or destroy any content they choose. They regularly run ML algorithms across the whole network to identify whatever they want. They can't do this with Facebook or WhatsApp.
- ardy42 8y ago
  > Also, are seriously suggesting that you can only only do organizing on platforms that are blocked by the firewall? It still amazes me how ignorant people are in the west. The domestic Chinese social networks are fully staffed with censors [1] and likely police surveillance, so it would obviously be more difficult and dangerous for Chinese people to organize on them. The great firewall blocks the foreign that aren't willing to fully participate in that censorship and surveillance regime and that are large enough to be a threat, and the Communist Party likely judges the foreign operators to be less reliable partners in any case. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/business/china-internet-censor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/business/china-internet-c... Another factor that makes domestic Chinese websites a poor choice for political organizing and activism is the PRC government's efforts to make all web activity traceable to a national ID number. Why do you think it's now difficult to impossible to buy a activated SIM card at a corner shop, and why WIFI access points and most websites require an access code be sent by text message before you can get online or create an account? > Finally, almost non of my Chinese friends who live in the west use FB even though they have the liberty to do so. I don't use FB even though I have the liberty to do so. > Again, somebody has to be quite ignorant not to see FB as a national security treat. There are some very important distinctions that you're missing. The free exchange of ideas among citizens is not a national security threat unless you're a regime that is opposed to human rights [2] [3]. The issue with Facebook is really one of state-sponsored impersonation. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_Number_Nine [3] https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lea...

mistermann 8y ago

Can you or anyone else point out any evidence (rather than a claim) of this election tampering? The only "proof" I've managed to find is Russian IP addresses.

asciibinary 8y ago
The indictment of Concord Management: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/downl... - Discusses the efforts conducted to sow election disinformation, suppress voter turnout The indictment of the accountant of Concord Management: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1102316/download https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1102316/downl... - additional details provided relating to above case The indictment of 12 GRU Hackers, who were named and identified by their specific address. https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download - Discusses GRU social engineering to access election machines and state officials There has also been election fraud/tampering that has occurred by domestic forces in NC: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/investigation-n-c-election-fraud-focused-unreturned-absentee-ballots-n948241 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/investigation-n-c...
- mistermann 8y ago
  Let's just pick one: > The indictment of Concord Management: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/downl.. https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/downl.... - Discusses the efforts conducted to sow election disinformation, suppress voter turnout Can you tell me on which page the proof is stated?
  - asciibinary 8y ago
    this document describes the conspiracy of Concord Management. Before we begin, I'd like to quote the first line of the document: "The Grand Jury for the District of Columbia charges: " https://www.popehat.com/2017/08/07/lawsplainer-how-federal-grand-juries-work-part-one/ https://www.popehat.com/2017/08/07/lawsplainer-how-federal-g... From former Assistant United States Attorney of the Central District of California, Ken White: "A grand jury is a group of citizens brought together to determine whether to bring criminal charges against someone suspected of a crime. ... The Fifth Amendment says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury . . . ." So, the Constitution requires that the federal government get an indictment from a federal grand jury before charging you with a federal felony." Page 16-19 have particularly relevant evidence, beginning with the title 'Actions Targeting the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election'. I encourage you to read the whole document as it provides context about who the Defendants are alleged Page 18 has a relevant section I'd like to highlight regarding suppressing voter turnout. "In or around the latter half of 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators, through their ORGANIZATION-controlled personas, began to encourage U.S. minority groups not to vote in the 2016 U.S. presidential election or to vote for a third-party U.S. presidential candidate. a. On or about October 16, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the ORGANIZATION-controlled Instagram account "Woke Blacks" to post the following message: "[A] particular hype and hatred for Trump is misleading the people and forcing Blacks to vote Killary. We cannot resort to the lesser of two devils. Then we'd surely be better off without voting AT ALL." b. On or about November 3, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators purchased an advertisement to promote a post on the ORGANIZATION-controlled Instagram account "Blacktivist" that read in part: "Choose peace and vote for Jill Stein. Trust me, it's not a wasted vote." c. By in or around early November 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the ORGANIZATION-controlled "United Muslims of America" social media accounts to post anti-vote messages such as: "American Muslims [are] boycotting elections today, most of the American Muslim voters refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton because she wants to continue the war on Muslims in the middle east and voted yes for invading Iraq." The tail end of Page 18 but mostly Page 19 has relevant evidence to sowing election disinformation: "Starting in or around the summer of 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators also began to promote allegations of voter fraud by the Democratic Party through their fictitious U.S. personas and groups on social media. Defendants and their co-conspirators purchased advertisements on Facebook to further promote the allegations. a. On or about August 4, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators began purchasing advertisements that promoted a post on the ORGANIZATION-controlled Facebook account "Stop A.I." The post alleged that "Hillary Clinton has already committed voter fraud during the Democrat Iowa Caucus." b. On or about August 11, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators posted that allegations of voter fraud were being investigated in North Carolina on the ORGANIZATION-controlled Twitter account@TEN_GOP. c. On or about November 2, 2016, Defendants and their co-conspirators used the same account to post allegations of "#VoterFraud by counting tens of thousands of ineligible mail in Hillary votes being reported in Broward County, Florida."