8 ms·

If the CCP is innocent why not prove it to the world by sharing their data? Why hide things?

by f430 6y ago

mgamache 6y ago
Well, lets say they don't know, but there's a chance of a lab leak. Why take the chance when you can use FUD to confuse the world and remove the downside risk (which is very large).
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Perhaps they did not account for a potential Streissand Effect
buran77 6y ago
While Chinese authorities may very well be to blame for this, your reasoning is flawed. Governments hide a lot of things for a lot of reasons, whether nefarious or not, especially when it comes to sharing with foreign powers. The "argument" that "if you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is is just as worthless when promoting encryption backdoors as it is now.
- katbyte 6y ago
  I’m not sure you can compare the two, “why are you encrypting your data/communication” is very different then “why are you not sharing the early virus samples”
  - buran77 6y ago
    I looked at the principle of claiming that "if you're innocent why hide things". And that's exactly like saying that if you're not breaking the law then you have no reason to hide your communication from authorities because "they'll only look when they suspect something and that would just prove your innocence". If anything, accusing someone and asking them to prove their innocence opens the door to false accusations meant only to force the other side to leak some information. A principle you wouldn't want applied to you isn't a very good one.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      This principle applies to individuals, not to the governments. The latter are created by people to serve people and must be open and transparent. The alternative is being corrupt.
      - buran77 6y ago
        > must be open and transparent. The alternative is being corrupt. I think you oversimplified to get to this binary view. Where does "national security" fit in this "transparent or corrupt" philosophy? State secrets? Classified information and intelligence? Can the Chinese (or other) authorities simply raise deep concerns about whatever they want and expect US (or other) authorities to provide information as needed to prove the contrary?
        fsflover 6y ago
        I indeed intentionally oversimplified that, but consider how NSA is doing illegal things for the sake of "national security", because they are not tranparent or checked by anyone.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Then The WHO should be saying "we can't eliminate the possibility of a lab origin because China is engaging in a massive coverup and won't let us investigate anything" rather than "Laboratory contamination can be excluded because...".
  - buran77 6y ago
    If that is indeed their conclusion then yes, it should say that, perhaps in a somewhat less biased phrasing. In a similar vein, the Reuters title might be called "US government with extremely poor transparency track record raises deep self-serving hypocritical concerns over international report that doesn't paint US enemy in a bad enough light".
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      Media biases are a different issue. The WHO’s problem is that it’s supposed to be a politically neutral internationally governing body, and It’s conduct during the pandemic has lead many people to believe that it is operating according to a political agenda. The damage The WHO (and other public health institutions) have done to their trustworthiness has already had will continue to have serious consequences going forward. Anti-vaxx has never been so popular.
elif 6y ago
In modern discourse we use the acronym CPC rather than CCP. Unless of course you are intentionally invoking red scare era politics. Edit: ah rip karma. who was I kidding. Why would you ever promote neutral discourse when you can take sides.
- alisonatwork 6y ago
  I find this a really fascinating instance of micro-propaganda. CCP could evoke associations with "CCCP", but CPC might remind Americans of the Congressional Progressive Caucus or Canadians of the Conservative Party of Canada. It could be that neither acronym is especially neutral, not after surfacing the accusation that using one is implicitly biased. I have to admit to having used both acronyms in the past, but it was never for any malicious reason, it was just to try create continuity with other people in the discussion. The funny thing is that people in China use neither of these acronyms, they just refer to "the government" or "the party". This is probably the safest terminology to avoid being seen as biased one way or the other. What's so interesting to me, is that even your choice of a three letter acronym, which literally means the exact same thing just with a different word order, is considered to be taking a side. It goes to show just how fraught conversation on China has become that it's even considered important.
  - elif 6y ago
    It is not "my choice" of a three letter acronym. It is the party's choice for its English language representation. I'm not making any political statements here. I am suggesting that we use common nomenclature while pointing out a hazard of a specific instance of dated terminology.
    - hartator 6y ago
      > It is the party's choice for its English language representation. Maybe OP disagrees on the party authority to define language including naming itself.
    - alisonatwork 6y ago
      I think you misunderstood my usage of "your choice". I was using it as an indefinite pronoun, i.e. "one's choice". My point was that turning one's choice of synonymous terminology into a marker of political bias is itself an interesting comment on how difficult it is for people to engage in curious discussion about China. Given that at HN we are expected to assume good faith, I think it's fair to assume that most people who use CCP (or CPC) are not deliberately trying to take a side, they are just using a convenient acronym.
sixothree 6y ago
Innocent of what exactly? You seem to suggest they are hiding a single specific crime here. Which doesn't make any sense.
refenestrator 6y ago
Because there's no upside and guaranteed downside. People are accusing them of building the virus in a lab with literally zero evidence. Give the US a bunch of raw data to spin and it just makes that easier.
- hayst4ck 6y ago
  I don't think that's a very enlightened perspective. Maybe with people like Trump in the world who would definitely capitalize on that type of thing to cast blame there is inherent risk, but at least amongst civilized educated people, its obvious a virus could show up anywhere and disseminating information shows a clear desire to fight the virus as a member of the world, rather than a desire to use it as a political tool or to gain an advantage because china can execute more draconian mitigation measures than a "free" country like America would be able to. Where China is clearly to blame is the reduced amount of information clearly inhibited the fight against coronavirus, in the world's fight against this thing china defected rather than cooperated. Before any whataboutism is mentioned, Trump also defected and made a mess out of a response, lying to the public, and hiding cases. That doesn't make either correct and neither one justifies the other's actions. Both countries are clearly very in the wrong for their COVID reactions.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    Enlightened or not, it's accurate. Trump was actually president and now Biden's administration is raising 'deep concerns'. We knew or should have known the virus was coming for months before it was a problem in the US. It would take an incredibly enlightened politician not to try and scapegoat China for our failures, and they know this. Why gamble on our goodwill amidst all this rhetoric?
    - hayst4ck 6y ago
      If a country lied and kept information from the public and had internal propaganda which convinced a significant portion of the population that the US was in fact responsible, and it was transferred from the US to China, I would be quite concerned as well. The difference is that here our scientists can speak publicly, and in China that is not the case. China's behavior is concerning.
AshWolfy 6y ago
They dont want data sharing methods being revealed
croes 6y ago
Proving innocence? So that's where we are again? I thought an achievement of modern times was the concept that you have to prove guilt not innocence.
robin21 6y ago
Why didn’t Obama immediately share birth certificate during birther stuff?

If the CCP is innocent why not prove it to the world by sharing their data? Why hide things?

by f430 6y ago

If the CCP is innocent why not prove it to the world by sharing their data? Why hide things?

Well, lets say they don't know, but there's a chance of a lab leak. Why take the chance when you can use FUD to confuse the world and remove the downside risk (which is very large).

loveistheanswer 6y ago
Perhaps they did not account for a potential Streissand Effect

buran77 6y ago

While Chinese authorities may very well be to blame for this, your reasoning is flawed. Governments hide a lot of things for a lot of reasons, whether nefarious or not, especially when it comes to sharing with foreign powers. The "argument" that "if you've got nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about" is is just as worthless when promoting encryption backdoors as it is now.

katbyte 6y ago
I’m not sure you can compare the two, “why are you encrypting your data/communication” is very different then “why are you not sharing the early virus samples”
- buran77 6y ago
  I looked at the principle of claiming that "if you're innocent why hide things". And that's exactly like saying that if you're not breaking the law then you have no reason to hide your communication from authorities because "they'll only look when they suspect something and that would just prove your innocence". If anything, accusing someone and asking them to prove their innocence opens the door to false accusations meant only to force the other side to leak some information. A principle you wouldn't want applied to you isn't a very good one.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    This principle applies to individuals, not to the governments. The latter are created by people to serve people and must be open and transparent. The alternative is being corrupt.
    - buran77 6y ago
      > must be open and transparent. The alternative is being corrupt. I think you oversimplified to get to this binary view. Where does "national security" fit in this "transparent or corrupt" philosophy? State secrets? Classified information and intelligence? Can the Chinese (or other) authorities simply raise deep concerns about whatever they want and expect US (or other) authorities to provide information as needed to prove the contrary?
      - fsflover 6y ago
        I indeed intentionally oversimplified that, but consider how NSA is doing illegal things for the sake of "national security", because they are not tranparent or checked by anyone.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AmericanChopper 6y ago
Then The WHO should be saying "we can't eliminate the possibility of a lab origin because China is engaging in a massive coverup and won't let us investigate anything" rather than "Laboratory contamination can be excluded because...".
- buran77 6y ago
  If that is indeed their conclusion then yes, it should say that, perhaps in a somewhat less biased phrasing. In a similar vein, the Reuters title might be called "US government with extremely poor transparency track record raises deep self-serving hypocritical concerns over international report that doesn't paint US enemy in a bad enough light".
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Media biases are a different issue. The WHO’s problem is that it’s supposed to be a politically neutral internationally governing body, and It’s conduct during the pandemic has lead many people to believe that it is operating according to a political agenda. The damage The WHO (and other public health institutions) have done to their trustworthiness has already had will continue to have serious consequences going forward. Anti-vaxx has never been so popular.

elif 6y ago

In modern discourse we use the acronym CPC rather than CCP. Unless of course you are intentionally invoking red scare era politics. Edit: ah rip karma. who was I kidding. Why would you ever promote neutral discourse when you can take sides.

alisonatwork 6y ago
I find this a really fascinating instance of micro-propaganda. CCP could evoke associations with "CCCP", but CPC might remind Americans of the Congressional Progressive Caucus or Canadians of the Conservative Party of Canada. It could be that neither acronym is especially neutral, not after surfacing the accusation that using one is implicitly biased. I have to admit to having used both acronyms in the past, but it was never for any malicious reason, it was just to try create continuity with other people in the discussion. The funny thing is that people in China use neither of these acronyms, they just refer to "the government" or "the party". This is probably the safest terminology to avoid being seen as biased one way or the other. What's so interesting to me, is that even your choice of a three letter acronym, which literally means the exact same thing just with a different word order, is considered to be taking a side. It goes to show just how fraught conversation on China has become that it's even considered important.
- elif 6y ago
  It is not "my choice" of a three letter acronym. It is the party's choice for its English language representation. I'm not making any political statements here. I am suggesting that we use common nomenclature while pointing out a hazard of a specific instance of dated terminology.
  - hartator 6y ago
    > It is the party's choice for its English language representation. Maybe OP disagrees on the party authority to define language including naming itself.
  - alisonatwork 6y ago
    I think you misunderstood my usage of "your choice". I was using it as an indefinite pronoun, i.e. "one's choice". My point was that turning one's choice of synonymous terminology into a marker of political bias is itself an interesting comment on how difficult it is for people to engage in curious discussion about China. Given that at HN we are expected to assume good faith, I think it's fair to assume that most people who use CCP (or CPC) are not deliberately trying to take a side, they are just using a convenient acronym.

sixothree 6y ago

Innocent of what exactly? You seem to suggest they are hiding a single specific crime here. Which doesn't make any sense.

refenestrator 6y ago

Because there's no upside and guaranteed downside. People are accusing them of building the virus in a lab with literally zero evidence. Give the US a bunch of raw data to spin and it just makes that easier.

hayst4ck 6y ago
I don't think that's a very enlightened perspective. Maybe with people like Trump in the world who would definitely capitalize on that type of thing to cast blame there is inherent risk, but at least amongst civilized educated people, its obvious a virus could show up anywhere and disseminating information shows a clear desire to fight the virus as a member of the world, rather than a desire to use it as a political tool or to gain an advantage because china can execute more draconian mitigation measures than a "free" country like America would be able to. Where China is clearly to blame is the reduced amount of information clearly inhibited the fight against coronavirus, in the world's fight against this thing china defected rather than cooperated. Before any whataboutism is mentioned, Trump also defected and made a mess out of a response, lying to the public, and hiding cases. That doesn't make either correct and neither one justifies the other's actions. Both countries are clearly very in the wrong for their COVID reactions.
- refenestrator 6y ago
  Enlightened or not, it's accurate. Trump was actually president and now Biden's administration is raising 'deep concerns'. We knew or should have known the virus was coming for months before it was a problem in the US. It would take an incredibly enlightened politician not to try and scapegoat China for our failures, and they know this. Why gamble on our goodwill amidst all this rhetoric?
  - hayst4ck 6y ago
    If a country lied and kept information from the public and had internal propaganda which convinced a significant portion of the population that the US was in fact responsible, and it was transferred from the US to China, I would be quite concerned as well. The difference is that here our scientists can speak publicly, and in China that is not the case. China's behavior is concerning.

AshWolfy 6y ago

They dont want data sharing methods being revealed

croes 6y ago

Proving innocence? So that's where we are again? I thought an achievement of modern times was the concept that you have to prove guilt not innocence.

robin21 6y ago

Why didn’t Obama immediately share birth certificate during birther stuff?