3 ms·

That's quite an elevated take of my comment. I never implied they are 'sin' or telling people what to think (it would be a compliment as I'm usually not very pe

That's quite an elevated take of my comment. I never implied they are 'sin' or telling people what to think (it would be a compliment as I'm usually not very persuasive). I'm just stating that I have limited sympathy for them as they are not as credible as you think. Any chinese will know for sure they will be shut for some reason such as crossing a redline. Whether that's right or wrong it's your judgement. There are plenty of good media being punished in mainland China that got people angry and people protested and reversed their ban but the ones in the articles are not those.

hkmaxpro 5y ago
Can you define “dubious” and “crossing a redline” (so that they need to be shut) according to HK laws? Without a precise definition we cannot have a fruitful discussion.
- dumb1224 5y ago
  It is quite obvious they belong to a more sensationalism type of tabloid media. I refer them as 'dubious' due to this credibility issue. I may be wrong but there are definitely evidence of misinformation https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/hong-kongs-apple-daily-local-journalists-perspective-jimmy-lais-youth-reach https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/hong-... Sure in a western democracy it's fine (given that there's at least some alignment with party interest). But once it gets a lot of attention and an influencer status then the authoritarian gov won't let it grow further without consequences for sure. 'Redline' is a bad term but it's usually separatist, discrimination speech etc. Not all 'pro-democracy' media are targeted because they are simply not big enough yet. Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily defending any side, just want to discuss more nuances.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > in a western democracy it's fine (given that there's at least some alignment with party interest) If you mean that in a democracy, publications need "at least some alignment with party interest", that's certainly not the case. However, given the multitude of political interests, the publication is bound to align somewhat with someone. (Also, I disagree with the term "western democracy": Taiwan is Chinese and has a thriving democracy, as did Hong Kong until recently, plus there's Japan, S. Korea, Indonesia, India, Chile, Benin, etc etc. Democracy hasn't been 'western' for generations.) However, I wonder a bit if this thread is becoming overly critical. I am aware that in any dictatorship, they allow some outlets - as long as they don't grow too powerful, as you say.
    - dumb1224 5y ago
      Oh absolutely Sorry for the poor choice of words, I agree with you whole heartily. Again my english is probably too bad to convey the meaning 'any press will align with someone given that there are so many parties and he multitude of political interests'.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Sorry, I should be more cognizant that not everyone's English is perfect. Yours is far better than my Cantonese!
wolverine876 5y ago
> they are not as credible as you think Again, how do you know what I think? I'm not as dumb as you think. > Any chinese will know for sure they will be shut for some reason such as crossing a redline. Whether that's right or wrong it's your judgement. It's not my judgement, it's a matter of human rights. Whether I judge it so or not, those people have a right to act and speak freely. It's not up to me (or you or the CCP).
- dumb1224 5y ago
  Sorry I didn't mean that. Yes I agree individuals should be able to speak freely. But also we need a bit collectivism and responsibility for a better society. They are not mutually exclusive. It's up to you and me that's right (but I don't know what is the chinese party to do with me).

hkmaxpro 5y ago

Can you define “dubious” and “crossing a redline” (so that they need to be shut) according to HK laws? Without a precise definition we cannot have a fruitful discussion.

dumb1224 5y ago
It is quite obvious they belong to a more sensationalism type of tabloid media. I refer them as 'dubious' due to this credibility issue. I may be wrong but there are definitely evidence of misinformation https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/hong-kongs-apple-daily-local-journalists-perspective-jimmy-lais-youth-reach https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/risj-review/hong-... Sure in a western democracy it's fine (given that there's at least some alignment with party interest). But once it gets a lot of attention and an influencer status then the authoritarian gov won't let it grow further without consequences for sure. 'Redline' is a bad term but it's usually separatist, discrimination speech etc. Not all 'pro-democracy' media are targeted because they are simply not big enough yet. Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily defending any side, just want to discuss more nuances.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > in a western democracy it's fine (given that there's at least some alignment with party interest) If you mean that in a democracy, publications need "at least some alignment with party interest", that's certainly not the case. However, given the multitude of political interests, the publication is bound to align somewhat with someone. (Also, I disagree with the term "western democracy": Taiwan is Chinese and has a thriving democracy, as did Hong Kong until recently, plus there's Japan, S. Korea, Indonesia, India, Chile, Benin, etc etc. Democracy hasn't been 'western' for generations.) However, I wonder a bit if this thread is becoming overly critical. I am aware that in any dictatorship, they allow some outlets - as long as they don't grow too powerful, as you say.
  - dumb1224 5y ago
    Oh absolutely Sorry for the poor choice of words, I agree with you whole heartily. Again my english is probably too bad to convey the meaning 'any press will align with someone given that there are so many parties and he multitude of political interests'.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Sorry, I should be more cognizant that not everyone's English is perfect. Yours is far better than my Cantonese!

wolverine876 5y ago

> they are not as credible as you think Again, how do you know what I think? I'm not as dumb as you think. > Any chinese will know for sure they will be shut for some reason such as crossing a redline. Whether that's right or wrong it's your judgement. It's not my judgement, it's a matter of human rights. Whether I judge it so or not, those people have a right to act and speak freely. It's not up to me (or you or the CCP).

dumb1224 5y ago
Sorry I didn't mean that. Yes I agree individuals should be able to speak freely. But also we need a bit collectivism and responsibility for a better society. They are not mutually exclusive. It's up to you and me that's right (but I don't know what is the chinese party to do with me).