5 ms·

Exactly same thing can be said about US [1]. It really fascinates me how much focus there is on China when exact same things like suppression of political opini

Exactly same thing can be said about US [1]. It really fascinates me how much focus there is on China when exact same things like suppression of political opinion and mass surveilance are happening in the West. I think it would be far more productive to focus on fixing shit here than to obsess about China as if everything was fine in the West. Meanwhile the West is still fueling the genocide in Yemen by the Saudis making it clear that all the outrage about human rights is just cynical posturing. [1] https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...

throwaway2048 7y ago
Censorship and avoidance of discussion of serious topics certainly is a thing in the american media, however it operates mostly on the basis of backscratching, co-opting and voluntary pushing of viewpoints by private media establishments. Its not difficult to find dissenting voices on pretty much any topics you care to name, and calls for collective action too, and nobody does much (or in reality, can do much) to stop them, the real trick of American censorship and propaganda is these views are never seen in the major media sources the vast majority consume. This is a vastly different model than how censorship in China operates, with different consequences, and different ways to oppose it.
- yogthos 7y ago
  Of course, the style of control is different, but the effect is the same. In the West we have an illusion of freedom and choice. We get to say whatever we like, we get to go an vote for any approved candidate, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is what the oligarchy wants. The biggest issue is that the media is owned by the oligarchy, and so as you note any opinions that fall outside the accepted norm are ignored. This completely perverts democracy as unbiased media is crucial to having informed public that can vote meaningfully. It's simply not realistic to expect individuals to do their own research and become experts on many different subjects in order to vote because any individual subject can take years of study to grasp properly. The job of the journalists is to do this research for the benefit of the public and then present it in a way that's meaningful to the layman. When the media stops doing its job democracy dies.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    The effect is most certainly not the same, the fact that we are able to carry on this conversation on an American news site is evidence of that. If the only thing that mattered was what the oligarchy wanted, Trump would have never been elected, because from all accounts he was widely loathed by those in power, even within his own party, not that it makes him a good president, but its compelling evidence that they have less power than you are assuming.
    - yogthos 7y ago
      That's the whole point of the American system. You can say anything you like, and people confuse that with having actual freedoms. What we're really able to do is just scream into the void as the paper I linked in the parent comment clearly shows. Trump is precisely what the oligarchy wanted, his biggest achievement in the office was to drastically cut taxes on the rich and gut regulation and oversight over business. Trump helps the oligarchy and you have to be brain dead not to see that.
    - gitrog 7y ago
      > The effect is most certainly not the same, the fact that we are able to carry on this conversation on an American news site is evidence of that. I believe this study is stating exactly that we could carry on this conversation, up to the point where we all agree on something in enough numbers and possibly decide to take action about it.
- entropea 7y ago
  How many people never see the small news website telling the unabated truth but are only getting 65 patreons every month and a few tens of thousands of hits, if that? Now compare that to the viewership of USA's political propaganda network, Fox, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. The things mass media says will make it to the general public, true or not, the small dissenting voice will reach a select amount of nobodies.
nothingnewhere 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- entropea 7y ago
  Claiming constant "whataboutism" is a new way for the internet to stifle conversation. Please stop.
- yogthos 7y ago
  Nope, just pointing out that it's more productive to focus on fixing your own country instead of worrying about China. If you have exact same problems, but you ignore them and obsess about China instead then you're not helping anybody including yourself. Worrying about China is akin to worrying about the weather on Mars, there's nothing you can do about it and it doesn't affect you. Meanwhile, what your own government is doing both affects you and something you can have an impact on. So really talking about China is the real whataboutism here.
  - OnlyRepliesToBS 7y ago
    lol
tdb7893 7y ago
The suppression of political opinion is very different in the US, I would even go as far as to say that a lot of the issues in the US are because of the robust political dissent (which is a good thing, most of the large social problems have been solved by large scale dissent movements). I honestly don't know why the US government isn't more concerned about the Saudis but a large amount of people in the US are and tried to get the government to have a more hard line with them and stop arms sales but it was vetoed by Trump. I think the US is just a doormat right now on a international level and unwilling to come out on a decisive side (unless he somehow thinks it will help to get a trade deal).
sterileopinions 7y ago
Of course, even with a well articulated source you're downvoted on HN. You think that having a primarily U.S. based audience hackers would be inclined to poke holes in the perception of their own government versus practical reality. So curious, so inquisitive, so academic.
- entropea 7y ago
  You can tell truths up an down, have all kinds of sources that provide evidence to your claims, and HN will downvote you if it is self-criticism of US government or capitalistic practices that lead to censorship in similar ways as China. It can't possibly be nearly the same here, said the HN downvoter.
gitrog 7y ago
For the record, I posted this specifically because I feel that it provides a clearer picture of what censorship in China really is like, as opposed to the cartoonishly evil portrayal that most of Western media paints it in. Although I don't condone censorship overall, I do find it interesting and identify that governments will always find it necessary to impose some form of societal control. From this study, it seems to me that the Chinese government chooses to prevent events that may cause conflict and violence. That is almost noble, were it not for the fact that it also helps the government maintain a firm grip of control in all situations. I think there is also something to be said for the Great Firewall and how it manages to keep gigantic companies like Facebook and Google from interfering with foreign countries and how it spurs local companies to come up with similar solutions. The drawbacks are all obvious and I don't think it's necessary to repeat those here. The way that political dissent is managed in the West is so much more chaotic, and generally more violent. The public is split in two (usually) and played against eachother which often results in violence on the streets. Although being able to protest is at least symbolically a good thing, I often wonder if it isn't mostly just another tool used to create the illusion of freedom. If the public is constantly bombarded with misinformation and fear-mongering tactics it's highly unlikely that any sort of unified protest could convert to real, regime threatening change. So I agree with you that we should be critical of the West, and honestly this post wasn't a jab at Chinese politics in favour of the West, it was more of a learning experience for myself.
- sterileopinions 7y ago
  >it seems to me that the Chinese government chooses to prevent events that may cause conflict and violence. That is almost noble, were it not for the fact that it also helps the government maintain a firm grip of control in all situations. Every single state acts this way. Every single effective state system at least. It's called "Monopoly on Violence." It is one of the defining characteristics of "modern" state organizations. Unsanctioned use of violence directly threats the state's power and will quickly call into question the state's legitimacy if the state can't control coordinated or wanton violence. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
himeexcelanta 7y ago
Sorry, but the US is a constitutional democratic republic with generally functioning rule of law, while the other is an a mercantilist-authoritarian-dictatorship with absolutely ZERO legal accountability to its citizens. By conflating patterns of US government’s very real human rights abuses (domestic and abroad) with with the CCP’s abuses, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how each political system works and its relationship with its citizens. Also you’re using a red herring logical fallacy when you say “let’s focus on fixing shit here”. How about trying to do dispute the original premise instead of distracting?
- sterileopinions 7y ago
  >How about trying to do dispute the original premise instead of distracting? Why must we take a contrary position to what was stated? You do understand that it's a perfectly valid and normal thing to agree with what was stated but pivot the conversation towards something that is more relevant and actionable?

throwaway2048 7y ago

Censorship and avoidance of discussion of serious topics certainly is a thing in the american media, however it operates mostly on the basis of backscratching, co-opting and voluntary pushing of viewpoints by private media establishments. Its not difficult to find dissenting voices on pretty much any topics you care to name, and calls for collective action too, and nobody does much (or in reality, can do much) to stop them, the real trick of American censorship and propaganda is these views are never seen in the major media sources the vast majority consume. This is a vastly different model than how censorship in China operates, with different consequences, and different ways to oppose it.

yogthos 7y ago
Of course, the style of control is different, but the effect is the same. In the West we have an illusion of freedom and choice. We get to say whatever we like, we get to go an vote for any approved candidate, but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is what the oligarchy wants. The biggest issue is that the media is owned by the oligarchy, and so as you note any opinions that fall outside the accepted norm are ignored. This completely perverts democracy as unbiased media is crucial to having informed public that can vote meaningfully. It's simply not realistic to expect individuals to do their own research and become experts on many different subjects in order to vote because any individual subject can take years of study to grasp properly. The job of the journalists is to do this research for the benefit of the public and then present it in a way that's meaningful to the layman. When the media stops doing its job democracy dies.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  The effect is most certainly not the same, the fact that we are able to carry on this conversation on an American news site is evidence of that. If the only thing that mattered was what the oligarchy wanted, Trump would have never been elected, because from all accounts he was widely loathed by those in power, even within his own party, not that it makes him a good president, but its compelling evidence that they have less power than you are assuming.
  - yogthos 7y ago
    That's the whole point of the American system. You can say anything you like, and people confuse that with having actual freedoms. What we're really able to do is just scream into the void as the paper I linked in the parent comment clearly shows. Trump is precisely what the oligarchy wanted, his biggest achievement in the office was to drastically cut taxes on the rich and gut regulation and oversight over business. Trump helps the oligarchy and you have to be brain dead not to see that.
  - gitrog 7y ago
    > The effect is most certainly not the same, the fact that we are able to carry on this conversation on an American news site is evidence of that. I believe this study is stating exactly that we could carry on this conversation, up to the point where we all agree on something in enough numbers and possibly decide to take action about it.
entropea 7y ago
How many people never see the small news website telling the unabated truth but are only getting 65 patreons every month and a few tens of thousands of hits, if that? Now compare that to the viewership of USA's political propaganda network, Fox, MSNBC, WaPo, NYT, CNN, etc. The things mass media says will make it to the general public, true or not, the small dissenting voice will reach a select amount of nobodies.

nothingnewhere 7y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

entropea 7y ago
Claiming constant "whataboutism" is a new way for the internet to stifle conversation. Please stop.
yogthos 7y ago
Nope, just pointing out that it's more productive to focus on fixing your own country instead of worrying about China. If you have exact same problems, but you ignore them and obsess about China instead then you're not helping anybody including yourself. Worrying about China is akin to worrying about the weather on Mars, there's nothing you can do about it and it doesn't affect you. Meanwhile, what your own government is doing both affects you and something you can have an impact on. So really talking about China is the real whataboutism here.
- OnlyRepliesToBS 7y ago
  lol

tdb7893 7y ago

The suppression of political opinion is very different in the US, I would even go as far as to say that a lot of the issues in the US are because of the robust political dissent (which is a good thing, most of the large social problems have been solved by large scale dissent movements). I honestly don't know why the US government isn't more concerned about the Saudis but a large amount of people in the US are and tried to get the government to have a more hard line with them and stop arms sales but it was vetoed by Trump. I think the US is just a doormat right now on a international level and unwilling to come out on a decisive side (unless he somehow thinks it will help to get a trade deal).

sterileopinions 7y ago

Of course, even with a well articulated source you're downvoted on HN. You think that having a primarily U.S. based audience hackers would be inclined to poke holes in the perception of their own government versus practical reality. So curious, so inquisitive, so academic.

entropea 7y ago
You can tell truths up an down, have all kinds of sources that provide evidence to your claims, and HN will downvote you if it is self-criticism of US government or capitalistic practices that lead to censorship in similar ways as China. It can't possibly be nearly the same here, said the HN downvoter.

gitrog 7y ago

For the record, I posted this specifically because I feel that it provides a clearer picture of what censorship in China really is like, as opposed to the cartoonishly evil portrayal that most of Western media paints it in. Although I don't condone censorship overall, I do find it interesting and identify that governments will always find it necessary to impose some form of societal control. From this study, it seems to me that the Chinese government chooses to prevent events that may cause conflict and violence. That is almost noble, were it not for the fact that it also helps the government maintain a firm grip of control in all situations. I think there is also something to be said for the Great Firewall and how it manages to keep gigantic companies like Facebook and Google from interfering with foreign countries and how it spurs local companies to come up with similar solutions. The drawbacks are all obvious and I don't think it's necessary to repeat those here. The way that political dissent is managed in the West is so much more chaotic, and generally more violent. The public is split in two (usually) and played against eachother which often results in violence on the streets. Although being able to protest is at least symbolically a good thing, I often wonder if it isn't mostly just another tool used to create the illusion of freedom. If the public is constantly bombarded with misinformation and fear-mongering tactics it's highly unlikely that any sort of unified protest could convert to real, regime threatening change. So I agree with you that we should be critical of the West, and honestly this post wasn't a jab at Chinese politics in favour of the West, it was more of a learning experience for myself.

sterileopinions 7y ago
>it seems to me that the Chinese government chooses to prevent events that may cause conflict and violence. That is almost noble, were it not for the fact that it also helps the government maintain a firm grip of control in all situations. Every single state acts this way. Every single effective state system at least. It's called "Monopoly on Violence." It is one of the defining characteristics of "modern" state organizations. Unsanctioned use of violence directly threats the state's power and will quickly call into question the state's legitimacy if the state can't control coordinated or wanton violence. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

himeexcelanta 7y ago

Sorry, but the US is a constitutional democratic republic with generally functioning rule of law, while the other is an a mercantilist-authoritarian-dictatorship with absolutely ZERO legal accountability to its citizens. By conflating patterns of US government’s very real human rights abuses (domestic and abroad) with with the CCP’s abuses, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of how each political system works and its relationship with its citizens. Also you’re using a red herring logical fallacy when you say “let’s focus on fixing shit here”. How about trying to do dispute the original premise instead of distracting?

sterileopinions 7y ago
>How about trying to do dispute the original premise instead of distracting? Why must we take a contrary position to what was stated? You do understand that it's a perfectly valid and normal thing to agree with what was stated but pivot the conversation towards something that is more relevant and actionable?