5 ms·

Aiding in the Chinese media's censorship is not good for China nor the world. When a government destroys the ability for it to be criticized it becomes untether

Aiding in the Chinese media's censorship is not good for China nor the world. When a government destroys the ability for it to be criticized it becomes untethered from consensus reality; megalomaniacs can take the reins and a kind of national hubris forms that can lead to devastating conflict and oppression. All governments need open dissent and criticism to keep from going down this path. Zoom should not be aiding and abetting the regime in this way.

WilTimSon 6y ago
Well, this presumes that it's a government acting in good faith. Sure, something like the UK or a EU country should have dissent and criticism to keep democracy healthy. However, countries like China, Russia, and NK, have no interest in fostering a healthy dialogue and it wouldn't be very conducive to their government's interests.
- ordinaryradical 6y ago
  > it wouldn't be very conducive to their government's interests. It depends on your timeline. If you eliminate dissent you may be able to push through short-term aims or develop a facsimile of national unity, but you will naturally eliminate nuance from your geopolitics. Even one or two generations into this experiment, you can wind up with a leader who truly "drinks the koolaid," who assumes the state propaganda to be reality. At that point, the regime is doomed.
  - umvi 6y ago
    Is the regime doomed? The people are screwed, sure, but once a government turns into a self-serving dictatorship, it can stay that way for a long time. Usually the first thing dictators do is disarm civilians and beef up the military, so the only way out is via a military coup (which usually just trades one regime for an equivalent one). In just 2 decades, North Korea will have had a dictatorship for a century.
    - cutemonster 6y ago
      The Roman Empire, a thousand years?
  - MagnumOpus 6y ago
    > wind up with a leader who truly "drinks the koolaid," who assumes the state propaganda to be reality There possibbly is no leader in history who drank the state propaganda koolaid as deeply as Chairman Mao. He accidentally murdered tens of millions when the propaganda turned out to be incongruent with reality. Meanwhile he stayed in power by butchering millions of potential opposition members, and by having nukes and ten million soldiers which impressed Nixon enough to bow and scrape before him. The lesson has been learned by Chairman Xi. As long as he brutally cleans house domestically and is a MAD-level military threat, absolutely no one can doom his regime.
    - nothal 6y ago
      What's going to happen when he's gone? Does the next leader understand well enough? How about the next? It's the same reason we're seeing so much strife in the US. In the US, societal opinion and legislative action hardly follow the same path. In fact, IIRC, public opinion has almost no impact on legislation. Wonder why everyone here feels like we're going down the wrong track?
      - tsimionescu 6y ago
        Why would Xi care?
      - jessaustin 6y ago
        ...when he's gone? Wishful thinking is a temptation, but it doesn't lead to reasonable analysis. Xi is in fine health at the age of 66. His father lived to the ripe age of 88. His mother is still alive, at 93. We can expect him to receive better medical care than they did, since he is leader of China and they spent several decades getting purged, imprisoned, overworked, and starved by the party. If the Chinese people look for a change in leadership, they had best look somewhere besides the calendar.
        oneplane 6y ago
        The 'when' is known because there is a limit to life (as far was wek now). So even if that when is in 40 years, it's still a when ;-)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
duxup 6y ago
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” -Martin Luther King Jr. This observation seems more immediate these days internationally than ever.
- criddell 6y ago
  This feels like the kind of thing that the CEO of Zoom should be asked about under oath by a congressional committee. It's supposedly a US company so it would be interesting to see just what influence the Chinese government has over it and why.
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    This applies fairly universally. As in any company based in country Z and operating in countries A through Y with differing laws. It's an intractable problem that's always been present, but what were once 'edge cases' are now front and centre as a result of technology bringing the world closer together, and therefore highlighting the areas of conflict. Case in point: Australia's law that enforces software companies to create a backdoor in encryption for reasons of law enforcement[0][1][2]. [0]https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-impact/ https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-... [1]https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/14/oz_encryption_backdoor/ https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/14/oz_encryption_backdoo... [2]https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/12/new_australian_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/12/new_australia...
chongli 6y ago
The problem for China is that Xi Jinping has essentially installed himself as dictator-for-life. He now rides to and fro on a tiger from which he dare not dismount. The CCP witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union and instead of opening up to a peaceful transition to democracy they chose to double down on top-down authoritarian policies. At the same time, they’ve sought to leverage markets for economic growth. The result is a conundrum: how to reconcile Marxist ideology with the prosperity of markets? This is where “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” comes in. This is an ideology of doublethink which can only be maintained through force. All of the censorship taking place, both inside and outside China, has the goal of ideological suppression for any speech the CPC deems a threat. And so here we are.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  > he dare not dismount Sounds as if you think he wants to dismount
  - kelnos 6y ago
    I think it was more a statement that it's difficult to maintain that facade perfectly, and a big misstep could bring the whole thing crashing down.
    - cutemonster 6y ago
      > could bring the whole thing crashing down. Hmm yes I guess for him personally maybe, however to me the overall system looks stable
  - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
    Tiggers can be hard to ride.
  - mellow2020 6y ago
    "He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount" is a Chinese proverb, if I'm not mistaken.
deathgrips 6y ago
Communists don't think that political dialogue exists as a genuine process between rational actors. They think that people's political beliefs are a product of their environment and class. This is why they don't like free speech and don't like debates. They think that schools are only capable of indoctrination. Therefore they seek to turn this indoctrination in favor of the workers rather than the bourgeoisie. Edit: if you disagree, please explain why. Marx believed that history moved according to dialectical materialism where almost all individuals are little more than atoms in a moving body.
- refurb 6y ago
  Why is this being downvoted? It’s a pretty accurate summary of Marxist beliefs.
  - jialutu 6y ago
    Well, because even though people on HN loves to preach "open dissent and criticism", HN hates actual dissent and criticism against the HN party line. So I am not surprised she/he got downvoted.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    It's because HN is basically a subreddit.
deathgrips 6y ago
You're not considering the real and terrifying strengths that dictatorship has over democracy. In true democracies the politicians never undertake a plan that lasts longer than one election term because they have no incentive to do so. In China they feel free to undertake 20 year plans with large upfront investments because the party does not care about winning an election every 2-4 years. Why do you automatically assume that elections provide a reality check? Would you say that the Democrats and Republicans in the USA are tightly coupled to reality given their frequent elections? On the contrary I believe that elections merely tie legislative actions towards what voters perceive as electable. It doesn't matter what the PATRIOT act does as long as a political ad can sell the idea of "safety" to you. Politics in democracies have devolved to little more than entertainment. On the other hand, China has achieved something very close to a technocracy where rules are based on expert opinion. The economy is controlled by economists, health policy is controlled by epidemiologists, and media censorship is controlled by political and social scientists. You are more likely to advance based on competence in Chinese politics than you are in the USA, where elections are just a high school popularity contest. The Chinese government has plenty of terrifyingly competent bureaucrats.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  This is why a successful democracy is one where only well educated and thoughtful people vote. Making it easier and easier to vote is a losing formula.
  - ryantgtg 6y ago
    I know you are trolling. But, what country are you using as an example? And what is the “this” in the comment you are replying to (I think you are attempting to make a point rather than actually responding to the content)? And finally, investing in education is a better solution than suppressing the vote.
  - throwaway8879 6y ago
    How are you defining a successful democracy? If 20% of a nation elect a philosopher king type leader, is that more "successful" than 90% of another nation electing a tyrannical despot?

WilTimSon 6y ago

Well, this presumes that it's a government acting in good faith. Sure, something like the UK or a EU country should have dissent and criticism to keep democracy healthy. However, countries like China, Russia, and NK, have no interest in fostering a healthy dialogue and it wouldn't be very conducive to their government's interests.

ordinaryradical 6y ago
> it wouldn't be very conducive to their government's interests. It depends on your timeline. If you eliminate dissent you may be able to push through short-term aims or develop a facsimile of national unity, but you will naturally eliminate nuance from your geopolitics. Even one or two generations into this experiment, you can wind up with a leader who truly "drinks the koolaid," who assumes the state propaganda to be reality. At that point, the regime is doomed.
- umvi 6y ago
  Is the regime doomed? The people are screwed, sure, but once a government turns into a self-serving dictatorship, it can stay that way for a long time. Usually the first thing dictators do is disarm civilians and beef up the military, so the only way out is via a military coup (which usually just trades one regime for an equivalent one). In just 2 decades, North Korea will have had a dictatorship for a century.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    The Roman Empire, a thousand years?
- MagnumOpus 6y ago
  > wind up with a leader who truly "drinks the koolaid," who assumes the state propaganda to be reality There possibbly is no leader in history who drank the state propaganda koolaid as deeply as Chairman Mao. He accidentally murdered tens of millions when the propaganda turned out to be incongruent with reality. Meanwhile he stayed in power by butchering millions of potential opposition members, and by having nukes and ten million soldiers which impressed Nixon enough to bow and scrape before him. The lesson has been learned by Chairman Xi. As long as he brutally cleans house domestically and is a MAD-level military threat, absolutely no one can doom his regime.
  - nothal 6y ago
    What's going to happen when he's gone? Does the next leader understand well enough? How about the next? It's the same reason we're seeing so much strife in the US. In the US, societal opinion and legislative action hardly follow the same path. In fact, IIRC, public opinion has almost no impact on legislation. Wonder why everyone here feels like we're going down the wrong track?
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Why would Xi care?
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      ...when he's gone? Wishful thinking is a temptation, but it doesn't lead to reasonable analysis. Xi is in fine health at the age of 66. His father lived to the ripe age of 88. His mother is still alive, at 93. We can expect him to receive better medical care than they did, since he is leader of China and they spent several decades getting purged, imprisoned, overworked, and starved by the party. If the Chinese people look for a change in leadership, they had best look somewhere besides the calendar.
      - oneplane 6y ago
        The 'when' is known because there is a limit to life (as far was wek now). So even if that when is in 40 years, it's still a when ;-)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

duxup 6y ago

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” -Martin Luther King Jr. This observation seems more immediate these days internationally than ever.

criddell 6y ago
This feels like the kind of thing that the CEO of Zoom should be asked about under oath by a congressional committee. It's supposedly a US company so it would be interesting to see just what influence the Chinese government has over it and why.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  This applies fairly universally. As in any company based in country Z and operating in countries A through Y with differing laws. It's an intractable problem that's always been present, but what were once 'edge cases' are now front and centre as a result of technology bringing the world closer together, and therefore highlighting the areas of conflict. Case in point: Australia's law that enforces software companies to create a backdoor in encryption for reasons of law enforcement[0][1][2]. [0]https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-impact/ https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-... [1]https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/14/oz_encryption_backdoor/ https://www.theregister.com/2018/08/14/oz_encryption_backdoo... [2]https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/12/new_australian_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/12/new_australia...

chongli 6y ago

The problem for China is that Xi Jinping has essentially installed himself as dictator-for-life. He now rides to and fro on a tiger from which he dare not dismount. The CCP witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union and instead of opening up to a peaceful transition to democracy they chose to double down on top-down authoritarian policies. At the same time, they’ve sought to leverage markets for economic growth. The result is a conundrum: how to reconcile Marxist ideology with the prosperity of markets? This is where “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” comes in. This is an ideology of doublethink which can only be maintained through force. All of the censorship taking place, both inside and outside China, has the goal of ideological suppression for any speech the CPC deems a threat. And so here we are.

cutemonster 6y ago
> he dare not dismount Sounds as if you think he wants to dismount
- kelnos 6y ago
  I think it was more a statement that it's difficult to maintain that facade perfectly, and a big misstep could bring the whole thing crashing down.
  - cutemonster 6y ago
    > could bring the whole thing crashing down. Hmm yes I guess for him personally maybe, however to me the overall system looks stable
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  Tiggers can be hard to ride.
- mellow2020 6y ago
  "He who rides a tiger is afraid to dismount" is a Chinese proverb, if I'm not mistaken.

deathgrips 6y ago

Communists don't think that political dialogue exists as a genuine process between rational actors. They think that people's political beliefs are a product of their environment and class. This is why they don't like free speech and don't like debates. They think that schools are only capable of indoctrination. Therefore they seek to turn this indoctrination in favor of the workers rather than the bourgeoisie. Edit: if you disagree, please explain why. Marx believed that history moved according to dialectical materialism where almost all individuals are little more than atoms in a moving body.

refurb 6y ago
Why is this being downvoted? It’s a pretty accurate summary of Marxist beliefs.
- jialutu 6y ago
  Well, because even though people on HN loves to preach "open dissent and criticism", HN hates actual dissent and criticism against the HN party line. So I am not surprised she/he got downvoted.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  It's because HN is basically a subreddit.

deathgrips 6y ago

You're not considering the real and terrifying strengths that dictatorship has over democracy. In true democracies the politicians never undertake a plan that lasts longer than one election term because they have no incentive to do so. In China they feel free to undertake 20 year plans with large upfront investments because the party does not care about winning an election every 2-4 years. Why do you automatically assume that elections provide a reality check? Would you say that the Democrats and Republicans in the USA are tightly coupled to reality given their frequent elections? On the contrary I believe that elections merely tie legislative actions towards what voters perceive as electable. It doesn't matter what the PATRIOT act does as long as a political ad can sell the idea of "safety" to you. Politics in democracies have devolved to little more than entertainment. On the other hand, China has achieved something very close to a technocracy where rules are based on expert opinion. The economy is controlled by economists, health policy is controlled by epidemiologists, and media censorship is controlled by political and social scientists. You are more likely to advance based on competence in Chinese politics than you are in the USA, where elections are just a high school popularity contest. The Chinese government has plenty of terrifyingly competent bureaucrats.

koheripbal 6y ago
This is why a successful democracy is one where only well educated and thoughtful people vote. Making it easier and easier to vote is a losing formula.
- ryantgtg 6y ago
  I know you are trolling. But, what country are you using as an example? And what is the “this” in the comment you are replying to (I think you are attempting to make a point rather than actually responding to the content)? And finally, investing in education is a better solution than suppressing the vote.
- throwaway8879 6y ago
  How are you defining a successful democracy? If 20% of a nation elect a philosopher king type leader, is that more "successful" than 90% of another nation electing a tyrannical despot?