3 ms·

Airlines only remove Taiwanese paraphernalia when flights operates in China - you know complying to domestic Chinese laws. That's completely reasonable stuff th

Airlines only remove Taiwanese paraphernalia when flights operates in China - you know complying to domestic Chinese laws. That's completely reasonable stuff that doesn't extend beyond Chinese borders. That's factually incorrect making your whataboutism in this comment and one where you replied directly to my comment seem like a deliberate attempt to rationalize the Chinese censorship apparatus. https://www.newsweek.com/american-airlines-bows-china-deletes-all-references-taiwan-its-website-1041150 https://www.newsweek.com/american-airlines-bows-china-delete...

dirtyid 7y ago
I was referring to the Emirates Taiwanese flag incident, and other cockpit paraphernalia drama from a couple years ago. Airlines already had existing protocol of scrubbing physical Taiwanese references when operating in China. I wasn't aware of the website change, but China compelling airline operators to adopt UN recognized countries... is somehow unreasonable or even bullying is more than a little stupid characterization and almost a unique airline situation since most do not operate regional sites. The original point still stands, what Chinese filtering in western companies have generalized abroad? > rationalize the Chinese censorship apparatus. This is easy to rationalize, though I don't endorse how far China went - China started internet censorship apparatus in response to calls of ethnic violence after the XinJiang riots a decade ago. Facebook and Twitter was blocked post incident primarily because they refused to censor/filter these calls for violence (from both sides). Domestic terrorism doesn't fly in the west anymore, you can say China was prescient in this regards and many western companies lost out due to misplaced naivety. Now Google wants to crawl back when winds in the west is shifting.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  > China started internet censorship apparatus in response to calls of ethnic violence after the XinJiang riots a decade ago Who fucking cares? The PATRIOT Act was in response to the worst terrorist attack on US soil in US history. Three thousand people. I have friends who were in New York then. The Japanese internment camps were in response to Pearl Harbor. If an action is wrong, the impetus doesn't fucking matter, the action is still wrong. 6-4 (Tiananmen) was not ethnic violence, do we agree on that? And the Chinese government does use internet censorship to suppress discussion of it, are you going to deny that?
  - dirtyid 7y ago
    Where did I deny Chinese censorship was used to suppress discussion? I specifically said I don't endorse how far the Chinese system went. The point was censorship for prevent violence has it's place, and the west now recognizes that. As far as information control in terms of individual freedom, folks in PRC can just grab and VPN and shitpost or find competing narratives abroad. Access is possible and not even inconvenient. People in the west believes the effects of censorship is so overwhelming that it cannot possibly be circumvented to reach the "truth" that only they can attain. But most PRC folks are complacent with being ignorant. Similar to the plurality of low information readers in the west, who has access to diverse sources but somehow converges to western propaganda talking points comparable to the effects of censorship. Someone posted a western brand awareness and usage article yesterday, where 17% of Chinese internet users regularly use facebook and are aware of western perspectives. Do you think 17% of the west would go out of their way to learn the Chinese perspectives? Potential to be informed =/= informed citizenry.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      > The point was censorship for prevent violence has it's place, and the west now recognizes that. ??? The West recognizes what? The West now endorses Chinese Internet censorship? Western governments now also enforce Internet censorship? Did the White House start calling to Build The Firewall? What are you talking about? > Access is possible and not even inconvenient. The Chinese government spends billions of dollars on a system that doesn't work? > Someone posted a western brand awareness and usage article yesterday, where 17% of Chinese internet users regularly use facebook and are aware of western perspectives. Who cares about Chinese internet users' fucking Western brand awareness? I care about Chinese people knowing our own history, warts and all.
      - dirtyid 7y ago
        Western social media companies are increasingly censorial, following Chinese censorship in spirit not structure. If you're ignorant about how trivial it is to access vpn and outside info in China then I'm not sure to say. The firewall and grey legislation around vpns is calibrated that low information audience gravitates towards party line while those seeking information has access. Usage not brand awareness. The numbers suggests more Chinese people are aware of western and Chinese perspectives than vice versa. Leading me to ask, in general, who is actually more informed? Being immersed in both media landscapes allows better critical appraisal of what is actually happening then to pretend that just being in a free media environment somehow makes one more informed.
- inferiorhuman 7y ago
  China compelling airline operators to adopt UN recognized countries... is somehow unreasonable or even bullying is more than a little stupid characterization Taiwan lost their seat at the United Nations in an attempt to appease mainland China. So, no, the United Nation isn't an objective source of naming conventions for Taiwan. And, yes, that is absolutely bullying.

dirtyid 7y ago

I was referring to the Emirates Taiwanese flag incident, and other cockpit paraphernalia drama from a couple years ago. Airlines already had existing protocol of scrubbing physical Taiwanese references when operating in China. I wasn't aware of the website change, but China compelling airline operators to adopt UN recognized countries... is somehow unreasonable or even bullying is more than a little stupid characterization and almost a unique airline situation since most do not operate regional sites. The original point still stands, what Chinese filtering in western companies have generalized abroad? > rationalize the Chinese censorship apparatus. This is easy to rationalize, though I don't endorse how far China went - China started internet censorship apparatus in response to calls of ethnic violence after the XinJiang riots a decade ago. Facebook and Twitter was blocked post incident primarily because they refused to censor/filter these calls for violence (from both sides). Domestic terrorism doesn't fly in the west anymore, you can say China was prescient in this regards and many western companies lost out due to misplaced naivety. Now Google wants to crawl back when winds in the west is shifting.

laughinghan 7y ago
> China started internet censorship apparatus in response to calls of ethnic violence after the XinJiang riots a decade ago Who fucking cares? The PATRIOT Act was in response to the worst terrorist attack on US soil in US history. Three thousand people. I have friends who were in New York then. The Japanese internment camps were in response to Pearl Harbor. If an action is wrong, the impetus doesn't fucking matter, the action is still wrong. 6-4 (Tiananmen) was not ethnic violence, do we agree on that? And the Chinese government does use internet censorship to suppress discussion of it, are you going to deny that?
- dirtyid 7y ago
  Where did I deny Chinese censorship was used to suppress discussion? I specifically said I don't endorse how far the Chinese system went. The point was censorship for prevent violence has it's place, and the west now recognizes that. As far as information control in terms of individual freedom, folks in PRC can just grab and VPN and shitpost or find competing narratives abroad. Access is possible and not even inconvenient. People in the west believes the effects of censorship is so overwhelming that it cannot possibly be circumvented to reach the "truth" that only they can attain. But most PRC folks are complacent with being ignorant. Similar to the plurality of low information readers in the west, who has access to diverse sources but somehow converges to western propaganda talking points comparable to the effects of censorship. Someone posted a western brand awareness and usage article yesterday, where 17% of Chinese internet users regularly use facebook and are aware of western perspectives. Do you think 17% of the west would go out of their way to learn the Chinese perspectives? Potential to be informed =/= informed citizenry.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    > The point was censorship for prevent violence has it's place, and the west now recognizes that. ??? The West recognizes what? The West now endorses Chinese Internet censorship? Western governments now also enforce Internet censorship? Did the White House start calling to Build The Firewall? What are you talking about? > Access is possible and not even inconvenient. The Chinese government spends billions of dollars on a system that doesn't work? > Someone posted a western brand awareness and usage article yesterday, where 17% of Chinese internet users regularly use facebook and are aware of western perspectives. Who cares about Chinese internet users' fucking Western brand awareness? I care about Chinese people knowing our own history, warts and all.
    - dirtyid 7y ago
      Western social media companies are increasingly censorial, following Chinese censorship in spirit not structure. If you're ignorant about how trivial it is to access vpn and outside info in China then I'm not sure to say. The firewall and grey legislation around vpns is calibrated that low information audience gravitates towards party line while those seeking information has access. Usage not brand awareness. The numbers suggests more Chinese people are aware of western and Chinese perspectives than vice versa. Leading me to ask, in general, who is actually more informed? Being immersed in both media landscapes allows better critical appraisal of what is actually happening then to pretend that just being in a free media environment somehow makes one more informed.
inferiorhuman 7y ago
China compelling airline operators to adopt UN recognized countries... is somehow unreasonable or even bullying is more than a little stupid characterization Taiwan lost their seat at the United Nations in an attempt to appease mainland China. So, no, the United Nation isn't an objective source of naming conventions for Taiwan. And, yes, that is absolutely bullying.