4 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 sa

by 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).
    - onemoresoop 8y ago
      Bernie Sanders is a self described Social Democrat.
  - StreamBright 8y ago
    Well I am not sure how different your presidents are, if you only looking at the foreign policy the picture is kind of blurry. https://www.ranker.com/list/the-twelve-worst-us-presidents-based-on-body-counts/dralcarroll https://www.ranker.com/list/the-twelve-worst-us-presidents-b...
- mistermann 8y ago
  > Well, you can't have a sheep herder run for President and win. Or a progressive Democrat like Bernie Sanders.
  - tivert 8y ago
    >> To which I replied, "What about the weeding out and approval process required for candidates?" >> Well, you can't have a sheep herder run for President and win. > Or a progressive Democrat like Bernie Sanders. No one was stopping Sanders from running as an independent.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      This is true, but it is also true that there were several individuals and organizations involved in ensuring that his run as a Democrat would be unsuccessful.
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...

by ardy42 8y ago

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).
  - onemoresoop 8y ago
    Bernie Sanders is a self described Social Democrat.
- StreamBright 8y ago
  Well I am not sure how different your presidents are, if you only looking at the foreign policy the picture is kind of blurry. https://www.ranker.com/list/the-twelve-worst-us-presidents-based-on-body-counts/dralcarroll https://www.ranker.com/list/the-twelve-worst-us-presidents-b...
mistermann 8y ago
> Well, you can't have a sheep herder run for President and win. Or a progressive Democrat like Bernie Sanders.
- tivert 8y ago
  >> To which I replied, "What about the weeding out and approval process required for candidates?" >> Well, you can't have a sheep herder run for President and win. > Or a progressive Democrat like Bernie Sanders. No one was stopping Sanders from running as an independent.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    This is true, but it is also true that there were several individuals and organizations involved in ensuring that his run as a Democrat would be unsuccessful.

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...