4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      > Western social media companies are increasingly censorial, following Chinese censorship in spirit not structure. The structure is what matters. Kings and despots throughout history have frequently ruled fairly and justly. Out of all the decisions they made in that role, they probably made many more fair ones than unjust ones. But their making the right call in any particular case is not a reason they should have had that much power in the first place. Western social media is stepping up moderation of harassment and calls for violence, but they're making an effort to do so in an accountable and transparent way while doing so. And I don't think even they are accountable enough; I hope that Instagram and WhatsApp really do get split off from Facebook. > The firewall and grey legislation around vpns is calibrated that low information audience gravitates towards party line while those seeking information has access. Am I understanding correctly that your position is that this is a good thing, or at least fine? Because this placates the masses which tend more towards violence or other destabilizing actions, while allowing elites to continue to have a robust debate? Is that an accurate characterization of your position? > 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? I'm not worried about American awareness of Chinese perspectives. I'm worried about Americans' missing or inaccurate understanding of American history, e.g. the Lost Cause. I'm not worried about Chinese awareness of American perspectives. I'm worried about Chinese suppressed or sanitized understanding of Chinese modern history, e.g. June 4th. I don't give a fuck about Chinese people being able to read Americans' sanctimonious takes on Tiananmen. I want Chinese people to be able to read Liu Xiaobo's take on June 4th, on Charter 08, on 996.

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.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    > Western social media companies are increasingly censorial, following Chinese censorship in spirit not structure. The structure is what matters. Kings and despots throughout history have frequently ruled fairly and justly. Out of all the decisions they made in that role, they probably made many more fair ones than unjust ones. But their making the right call in any particular case is not a reason they should have had that much power in the first place. Western social media is stepping up moderation of harassment and calls for violence, but they're making an effort to do so in an accountable and transparent way while doing so. And I don't think even they are accountable enough; I hope that Instagram and WhatsApp really do get split off from Facebook. > The firewall and grey legislation around vpns is calibrated that low information audience gravitates towards party line while those seeking information has access. Am I understanding correctly that your position is that this is a good thing, or at least fine? Because this placates the masses which tend more towards violence or other destabilizing actions, while allowing elites to continue to have a robust debate? Is that an accurate characterization of your position? > 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? I'm not worried about American awareness of Chinese perspectives. I'm worried about Americans' missing or inaccurate understanding of American history, e.g. the Lost Cause. I'm not worried about Chinese awareness of American perspectives. I'm worried about Chinese suppressed or sanitized understanding of Chinese modern history, e.g. June 4th. I don't give a fuck about Chinese people being able to read Americans' sanctimonious takes on Tiananmen. I want Chinese people to be able to read Liu Xiaobo's take on June 4th, on Charter 08, on 996.