3 ms·

I’m not suggesting a pair of western reporters. I’m suggesting hundreds of western reporters, each with complete authorization to speak with anyone in private,

by jmpman 5y ago

I’m not suggesting a pair of western reporters. I’m suggesting hundreds of western reporters, each with complete authorization to speak with anyone in private, to go anywhere and gain full access to any location of their choosing. If the NYTimes reports that they went to Camp XYZ and found a shoe factory, and the Washington Post went to Camp ABC and found something less pleasant, then the NYTimes would want to go visit that same camp, along with the other 98 reporters. This isn’t a sinking ship with no independent observers. These are millions of people, supposedly in camps… or shoe factories. As for the gulf war justification, I have voted against every politician who ever authorized force based upon that deception. Unfortunately my fellow countrymen are willing to excuse it, and thus the lies will continue.

sudosysgen 5y ago
I don't see how two or a hundred reporters make any difference. It just takes one to find or fabricate a story and every outlet will run with it. That's just how the media works. The only way is to require bulletproof evidence. But we both know that's not the standard that the media are working on. I'm not saying that western media shouldn't be allowed there, by the way, I'm just saying that if they were or weren't there we would gain precisely zero information, because of a low standard of evidence, because of the certainty of deception, and because of the viral nature of reports. It's pretty simple to set up such a situation. Instead of a fully accessible factory, you can make up a story of it happening in some sort of controlled, maybe military or otherwise secretive, area. Or you can just claim that they removed whatever you found there. It has been done and will be done again. So if this openness were to be installed, I don't see how we could gain any information from it. There is only one thing. Hard data and proof. Not testimonials or qualitative evidence, but hard data. All it takes is for someone to fly a drone in the right place or leak a video. And videos over controlled facilities in Xinjiang have been leaked, they just didn't show anything egregious. So I don't understand why it seems so hard to produce this kind of hard evidence.
- jmpman 5y ago
  There’s first person testimony. Certainly the people making those statements could have ulterior motives. What would hard evidence look like to you? How could that evidence be obtained? How could the Chinese facilitate that evidence?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Video or photo evidence. First person testimony is often contradictory and objectively very poor. In the case of this issue there were many contradictions. You have to take a risk to obtain the evidence. I don't see any way for it to be facilitated, facilitated evidence is indistinguishable from fabricated evidence. You'd need to fly a drone or wear a bodycam. It would definitely come at a risk, unless you were doing it covertly with enough resources to minimize it.

by jmpman 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago

I don't see how two or a hundred reporters make any difference. It just takes one to find or fabricate a story and every outlet will run with it. That's just how the media works. The only way is to require bulletproof evidence. But we both know that's not the standard that the media are working on. I'm not saying that western media shouldn't be allowed there, by the way, I'm just saying that if they were or weren't there we would gain precisely zero information, because of a low standard of evidence, because of the certainty of deception, and because of the viral nature of reports. It's pretty simple to set up such a situation. Instead of a fully accessible factory, you can make up a story of it happening in some sort of controlled, maybe military or otherwise secretive, area. Or you can just claim that they removed whatever you found there. It has been done and will be done again. So if this openness were to be installed, I don't see how we could gain any information from it. There is only one thing. Hard data and proof. Not testimonials or qualitative evidence, but hard data. All it takes is for someone to fly a drone in the right place or leak a video. And videos over controlled facilities in Xinjiang have been leaked, they just didn't show anything egregious. So I don't understand why it seems so hard to produce this kind of hard evidence.

jmpman 5y ago
There’s first person testimony. Certainly the people making those statements could have ulterior motives. What would hard evidence look like to you? How could that evidence be obtained? How could the Chinese facilitate that evidence?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Video or photo evidence. First person testimony is often contradictory and objectively very poor. In the case of this issue there were many contradictions. You have to take a risk to obtain the evidence. I don't see any way for it to be facilitated, facilitated evidence is indistinguishable from fabricated evidence. You'd need to fly a drone or wear a bodycam. It would definitely come at a risk, unless you were doing it covertly with enough resources to minimize it.