4 ms·

The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women and is presenting the results as "emancipation". This isn't disagreeable, its monsterous and d

The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women and is presenting the results as "emancipation". This isn't disagreeable, its monsterous and diabolical. The same limits that apply to serial killers presenting their handiwork on twitter apply here as well.

wazoox 6y ago
> The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women Do you have the slightest evidence for this? Census data shows that Uighur population doubled in the past 30 years, because this population hasn't been subjected to the "one child policy" among other things. This is a war of propaganda, from both side. None is particularly more believable than the other. proceed with caution.
- notadog 6y ago
  https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
  - Noumenon72 6y ago
    I was interested to learn that this policy only dates back to 2014, rather than being some longtime oppression. I had thought it was more similar to America's relationship with the Native Americans. > For decades, China had one of the most extensive systems of minority entitlements in the world, with Uighurs and others getting more points on college entrance exams, hiring quotas for government posts and laxer birth control restrictions. Under China’s now-abandoned ‘one child’ policy, the authorities had long encouraged, often forced, contraceptives, sterilization and abortion on Han Chinese. But minorities were allowed two children — three if they came from the countryside. Anyway, a world where China's tweet is up and this link is the first reply to it strikes me as far better, in discourse and the availability of truth, then a world where I know I'm only allowed to read this article and China cannot defend themselves.
- farseer 6y ago
  This is a good source that summarizes some of the primary accounts: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-... I am afraid this isn't propaganda unlike the above tweet.
  - La1n 6y ago
    Written by Adrian Zenz. I am sorry but if you really want to convince me/someone something isn't propaganda Adrian Zenz isn't the person to link. He is ultra religious and wrote some questional material before he felt "lead by God" against China, and has had quite a few times were we spread fake news. I find it weird to denounce one as propaganda but not look into who wrote this. A lot of the anti China sources are based on his or US and/or weapon manufacturers funded sources.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
w14 6y ago
If that's true, then is it not better the tweet stays up and is challenged? In this case the fact the tweet was taken down made headlines, but if censorship like this is becoming the norm, as it looks like it is, then these issues potentially get no exposure or discussion. That seems more dangerous to me.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > If that's true, then is it not better the tweet stays up and is challenged? I used to agree with this line of thinking, but I believe the past dozen years or so of the information age have made it abundantly clear that simply having the truth on your side and making a rational case for it is not even remotely sufficient to counter the spread of misinformation. Honestly, I'm not sure that free speech as a concept will be able to survive the information age. It seems as though any society holding it sacrosanct might be doomed to collapse from divisive pressure both internal and external. I hope I'm wrong about that, but only time will tell, and interesting[0] times they will be. [0] In the apocryphal chinese curse sense of the word, if that wasn't obvious.
  - julianmarq 6y ago
    > I hope I'm wrong about [society being doomed to collapse because of free speech] I'm confused, then why did you say this? > I used to agree with this line of thinking Unless I'm misinterpreting this, you seem "not to longer agree" with the merits of free speech. If so, then why do you hope to be wrong about it eventually disappearing? > the past dozen years or so of the information age have made it abundantly clear that simply having the truth on your side and making a rational case for it is not even remotely sufficient to counter the spread of misinformation. Even if I agreed with this—which I don't—the answer to this hypothetical reality is definitely not to start removing actual information.[1] For instance, having tweets like that exist would be good counterevidence to all to apologia of certain bad actors that goes around, even here in HN. > Honestly, I'm not sure that free speech as a concept will be able to survive the information age Usually the first ones silenced are the ones promoting censorship. That's what I'd usually say anyway, but it is pointless; I would be silenced eventually too and I don't want to be silenced, even if it happens to me after it does to the ones who are "inadvertently" asking to be silenced. > It seems as though any society holding it sacrosanct might be doomed to collapse from divisive pressure both internal and external. Do you have historical evidence to back up this claim? All in all, my hope is that we find easier, better ways for people to fact check, instead of removing data wholesale. Language is the basis of civilization, so restricting communication is not the way to go. Improving it is the way to move forward; it has always been so, I think. [1]: And to note, I'm not saying that what was said in that tweeted article wasn't an awful lie. The information is not the content, the information is the fact that it was said at all.
himinlomax 6y ago
I'd rather have this not censored and for the whole world to see than swept under the rug. Censorship is not a solution, it's the problem. Both in China and in Silicon Valley.
- aww_dang 6y ago
  I'm inclined to agree across the spectrum. However, I imagine Twitter wants to present an image of balanced moderation after recent domestic censorship.

wazoox 6y ago

> The enitity that tweeted this statement forecibly sterlized women Do you have the slightest evidence for this? Census data shows that Uighur population doubled in the past 30 years, because this population hasn't been subjected to the "one child policy" among other things. This is a war of propaganda, from both side. None is particularly more believable than the other. proceed with caution.

notadog 6y ago
https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764c
- Noumenon72 6y ago
  I was interested to learn that this policy only dates back to 2014, rather than being some longtime oppression. I had thought it was more similar to America's relationship with the Native Americans. > For decades, China had one of the most extensive systems of minority entitlements in the world, with Uighurs and others getting more points on college entrance exams, hiring quotas for government posts and laxer birth control restrictions. Under China’s now-abandoned ‘one child’ policy, the authorities had long encouraged, often forced, contraceptives, sterilization and abortion on Han Chinese. But minorities were allowed two children — three if they came from the countryside. Anyway, a world where China's tweet is up and this link is the first reply to it strikes me as far better, in discourse and the availability of truth, then a world where I know I'm only allowed to read this article and China cannot defend themselves.
farseer 6y ago
This is a good source that summarizes some of the primary accounts: https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-genocidal-sterilization-xinjiang/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/01/china-documents-uighur-... I am afraid this isn't propaganda unlike the above tweet.
- La1n 6y ago
  Written by Adrian Zenz. I am sorry but if you really want to convince me/someone something isn't propaganda Adrian Zenz isn't the person to link. He is ultra religious and wrote some questional material before he felt "lead by God" against China, and has had quite a few times were we spread fake news. I find it weird to denounce one as propaganda but not look into who wrote this. A lot of the anti China sources are based on his or US and/or weapon manufacturers funded sources.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

w14 6y ago

If that's true, then is it not better the tweet stays up and is challenged? In this case the fact the tweet was taken down made headlines, but if censorship like this is becoming the norm, as it looks like it is, then these issues potentially get no exposure or discussion. That seems more dangerous to me.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> If that's true, then is it not better the tweet stays up and is challenged? I used to agree with this line of thinking, but I believe the past dozen years or so of the information age have made it abundantly clear that simply having the truth on your side and making a rational case for it is not even remotely sufficient to counter the spread of misinformation. Honestly, I'm not sure that free speech as a concept will be able to survive the information age. It seems as though any society holding it sacrosanct might be doomed to collapse from divisive pressure both internal and external. I hope I'm wrong about that, but only time will tell, and interesting[0] times they will be. [0] In the apocryphal chinese curse sense of the word, if that wasn't obvious.
- julianmarq 6y ago
  > I hope I'm wrong about [society being doomed to collapse because of free speech] I'm confused, then why did you say this? > I used to agree with this line of thinking Unless I'm misinterpreting this, you seem "not to longer agree" with the merits of free speech. If so, then why do you hope to be wrong about it eventually disappearing? > the past dozen years or so of the information age have made it abundantly clear that simply having the truth on your side and making a rational case for it is not even remotely sufficient to counter the spread of misinformation. Even if I agreed with this—which I don't—the answer to this hypothetical reality is definitely not to start removing actual information.[1] For instance, having tweets like that exist would be good counterevidence to all to apologia of certain bad actors that goes around, even here in HN. > Honestly, I'm not sure that free speech as a concept will be able to survive the information age Usually the first ones silenced are the ones promoting censorship. That's what I'd usually say anyway, but it is pointless; I would be silenced eventually too and I don't want to be silenced, even if it happens to me after it does to the ones who are "inadvertently" asking to be silenced. > It seems as though any society holding it sacrosanct might be doomed to collapse from divisive pressure both internal and external. Do you have historical evidence to back up this claim? All in all, my hope is that we find easier, better ways for people to fact check, instead of removing data wholesale. Language is the basis of civilization, so restricting communication is not the way to go. Improving it is the way to move forward; it has always been so, I think. [1]: And to note, I'm not saying that what was said in that tweeted article wasn't an awful lie. The information is not the content, the information is the fact that it was said at all.

himinlomax 6y ago

I'd rather have this not censored and for the whole world to see than swept under the rug. Censorship is not a solution, it's the problem. Both in China and in Silicon Valley.

aww_dang 6y ago
I'm inclined to agree across the spectrum. However, I imagine Twitter wants to present an image of balanced moderation after recent domestic censorship.