4 ms·

“ Today, at least 270 Chinese diplomats in 126 countries are active on Twitter and Facebook. Together with Chinese state media, they control 449 accounts on Twi

by doodly 5y ago

“ Today, at least 270 Chinese diplomats in 126 countries are active on Twitter and Facebook. Together with Chinese state media, they control 449 accounts on Twitter and Facebook, which posted nearly 950,000 times between June and February. These messages were liked over 350 million times and replied to and shared more than 27 million times, according to the Oxford Internet Institute and AP’s analysis.” If the world’s democratic nations fail to react to China’s growing popularity, we’re going to see more and more of our countrymen slip into anti-enlightenment ways of thinking. This is ironic because enlightenment ideals would have assumed opening economic ties with China should have led to democratic ideals in China, but that didn’t pan out. US military might isn’t going to draw down China’s anti-democratic interests. China’s economic power is actually beating our democratic ideals. Being anti-China isn’t going to help. The rise of China as the world’s greatest economic superpower seems inevitable. The best solution will be a global effort to stream South Park directly to the Chinese people. Laughing at the absurdity of the situation is the best way to promote anti-authoritarian thinking.

loa_in_ 5y ago
As with all dictatorships, a statistical good dictator is better than statistical democracy (economically and long-term for the people). But the problems caused by a statistical malicious dictatorship could get out of hand, and for the whole world outside as well.
- underseacables 5y ago
  I believe Vladimir Putin referred to that as “a managed democracy“
- thedudeabides5 5y ago
  And even when you get a “enlightened despot” you still run into problems with their spoiled kids... Or have we not decided who comes next in Russia and China?
- the_dune_13 5y ago
  > statistical good dictator There were many more dictators / kings / leaders than proper democracies. Even they are often diluted into autocracy. There might more examples but percentage wise democracies are winning in the long term.
  - loa_in_ 5y ago
    > Even they are often diluted into autocracy. That doesn't make them necessarily bad leaders > percentage wise democracies are winning in the long term Democracies are the most stable of governments. I assume you mean they're winning in that case. But as far as the decision-making in the government goes democracies tend to be slow to respond and tend to prefer non-complex and low-risk solutions. Autocracies "do as they please", which can take them to great heights (or great lows, depending on the person in charge). Note though "tending to" doesn't mean those are constrained from making big steps, that's only a general observation.
    - jollybean 5y ago
      "Autocracies "do as they please", which can take them to great height" History informs that by and large, autocracies are exceedingly slow and inneficient, and tend to perform well only in periods of post-trauma with acute nationalism and oversight/economic aid from friendly partners. And when there was some kind of civilization there previously. The reconstruction of Japan and Korea after WW2/Korean War were exemplary of this but they had a lot of key favourable conditions. One could argue that China's recent development is frankly just a delayed post-WW2 kind of rejuvenation but they'll get diminishing marginal returns on authoritarianism as leaping ahead of other systems is much harder than doing the obvious of building new bridges and roads. And over the last 6 years China has increased centralized control even further.
op03 5y ago
> "China's growing popularity" People who think the Like count determines the future need to just ask Obama and Trump how many Likes they collected and whether all that work translated into any actual outcomes.
- doodly 5y ago
  I think popularity was the wrong word. More than anything I am concerned at how democracies are catering to Chinese audiences, ignoring the Chinese government’s authoritarianism because economics trumps democratic values. Maybe acquiescence would have been a more appropriate word.
bingbong70 5y ago
There may be fake fans but unpopular opinion, I'm one of the real non-Chinese fans. Many of their posts point out tremendous hypocrisy in the west's interactions with developing countries. As a citizen of the west, these criticisms are valid. >This is ironic because enlightenment ideals would have assumed opening economic ties with China should have led to democratic ideals in China, but that didn’t pan out. The idea that the west opened up with the goal of treating the Chinese equally, is on the surface true, but in reality misleading.... There is a lot of covert/overt activity that is primarily meant to result in regime change, something that I expect would be a negative outcome for the poorer people in China at this stage in development. Many in the west are prescribing that a country forget the recent past and take the actions of its major foreign adversaries (read mass criminals that voluntarily positioned themselves that way) as good faith... I don't think they have the luxury of doing that. The leaders are in power to do what's most beneficial for their population (domestic hyper-development) while avoiding an outcome that rhymes with 'century of opium'...serving western interests is a very low priority, as it should be. This is the century of 'Don't trust, only verify' and I too feel the employed cautious approach is a requirement.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "The leaders are in power to do what's most beneficial for their population (domestic hyper-development) " Their goal is 'Neo Han Imperial China', a 'Global Power' / 'Centre of the Earth' and to make most states in their direct influence (including Japan) vassals or lesser powers, which they view as their 'normal' place in history. They'll literally grab massive swaths of what the rest of the world regards as either international waters or domestic territory of other nations, and declare them as sovereign - right as everyone watches. Nobody will do anything about it as the maps are redrawn along with history. At the same time, they'll declare 'something something aboriginals in USA' while they put 100's of thousands people in jail on the basis of their ethnicity (Uighurs), move millions of Han into Tibet to secure control, and use every means to force Taiwan to fall just like Hong Kong. And that's without any discussion of internal controls. Authoritarianism aside, there is some degree of legitimacy in their own governance, after all, it's their own, however - the spillover effects are real and their ambitions lie far outside their borders.

by doodly 5y ago

loa_in_ 5y ago

As with all dictatorships, a statistical good dictator is better than statistical democracy (economically and long-term for the people). But the problems caused by a statistical malicious dictatorship could get out of hand, and for the whole world outside as well.

underseacables 5y ago
I believe Vladimir Putin referred to that as “a managed democracy“
thedudeabides5 5y ago
And even when you get a “enlightened despot” you still run into problems with their spoiled kids... Or have we not decided who comes next in Russia and China?
the_dune_13 5y ago
> statistical good dictator There were many more dictators / kings / leaders than proper democracies. Even they are often diluted into autocracy. There might more examples but percentage wise democracies are winning in the long term.
- loa_in_ 5y ago
  > Even they are often diluted into autocracy. That doesn't make them necessarily bad leaders > percentage wise democracies are winning in the long term Democracies are the most stable of governments. I assume you mean they're winning in that case. But as far as the decision-making in the government goes democracies tend to be slow to respond and tend to prefer non-complex and low-risk solutions. Autocracies "do as they please", which can take them to great heights (or great lows, depending on the person in charge). Note though "tending to" doesn't mean those are constrained from making big steps, that's only a general observation.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "Autocracies "do as they please", which can take them to great height" History informs that by and large, autocracies are exceedingly slow and inneficient, and tend to perform well only in periods of post-trauma with acute nationalism and oversight/economic aid from friendly partners. And when there was some kind of civilization there previously. The reconstruction of Japan and Korea after WW2/Korean War were exemplary of this but they had a lot of key favourable conditions. One could argue that China's recent development is frankly just a delayed post-WW2 kind of rejuvenation but they'll get diminishing marginal returns on authoritarianism as leaping ahead of other systems is much harder than doing the obvious of building new bridges and roads. And over the last 6 years China has increased centralized control even further.

op03 5y ago

> "China's growing popularity" People who think the Like count determines the future need to just ask Obama and Trump how many Likes they collected and whether all that work translated into any actual outcomes.

doodly 5y ago
I think popularity was the wrong word. More than anything I am concerned at how democracies are catering to Chinese audiences, ignoring the Chinese government’s authoritarianism because economics trumps democratic values. Maybe acquiescence would have been a more appropriate word.

bingbong70 5y ago

There may be fake fans but unpopular opinion, I'm one of the real non-Chinese fans. Many of their posts point out tremendous hypocrisy in the west's interactions with developing countries. As a citizen of the west, these criticisms are valid. >This is ironic because enlightenment ideals would have assumed opening economic ties with China should have led to democratic ideals in China, but that didn’t pan out. The idea that the west opened up with the goal of treating the Chinese equally, is on the surface true, but in reality misleading.... There is a lot of covert/overt activity that is primarily meant to result in regime change, something that I expect would be a negative outcome for the poorer people in China at this stage in development. Many in the west are prescribing that a country forget the recent past and take the actions of its major foreign adversaries (read mass criminals that voluntarily positioned themselves that way) as good faith... I don't think they have the luxury of doing that. The leaders are in power to do what's most beneficial for their population (domestic hyper-development) while avoiding an outcome that rhymes with 'century of opium'...serving western interests is a very low priority, as it should be. This is the century of 'Don't trust, only verify' and I too feel the employed cautious approach is a requirement.

jollybean 5y ago
"The leaders are in power to do what's most beneficial for their population (domestic hyper-development) " Their goal is 'Neo Han Imperial China', a 'Global Power' / 'Centre of the Earth' and to make most states in their direct influence (including Japan) vassals or lesser powers, which they view as their 'normal' place in history. They'll literally grab massive swaths of what the rest of the world regards as either international waters or domestic territory of other nations, and declare them as sovereign - right as everyone watches. Nobody will do anything about it as the maps are redrawn along with history. At the same time, they'll declare 'something something aboriginals in USA' while they put 100's of thousands people in jail on the basis of their ethnicity (Uighurs), move millions of Han into Tibet to secure control, and use every means to force Taiwan to fall just like Hong Kong. And that's without any discussion of internal controls. Authoritarianism aside, there is some degree of legitimacy in their own governance, after all, it's their own, however - the spillover effects are real and their ambitions lie far outside their borders.