3 ms·

...and both are relevant. China probably is "hacking us." US/NATO credibility is suspect.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
godelski 5y ago
That's not the problem. We shit on the US all day every day. There's also not a problem with this. The problem is that when we're talking about someone else it's being used as a defense. Honestly it doesn't even matter if the US is doing the same thing. If something is wrong it is wrong, no matter who does it. Responding to "China is hacking the US" with "But the US hacks China" doesn't accomplish anything except create arguments nor is it logically consistent because both can be bad. The "but they did it" implies the action is not bad in the first place and that a double standard is an excuse. The problem is that there is not a double standard. People are also critical of the US's use of hacking both nationally and globally. So if you're concerned with the US hacking people it is logically obvious that you'd also be concerned with China (or anyone else!) hacking people. I'm tired of this argument because it just serves the propagandists. It eliminates a real conversation happening because we can't even start one because we don't even agree on a basic premise of that things can be judged independently. Comparisons can be great, but independent judgement/criticism is also necessary.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  What would you like to have discussed and/or judged independently? I agree that a lot of the comments here are shitposting or making reactionary equivocations. Others though, are making valid points... which you may agree with, or not. IMO, for example, the most important part of this to pay attention to is NATO. Cybersecurity & China seem to be the new focus of the alliance. To me, this seems like the most potentially impactful aspect.. and probably a key reason why this announcement was made in the way that it was made. IE, I think that what NATO do in the coming few years will make the history books, rather than Chinese cyberattacks. I may be wrong, but this isn't a disingenuous equivocation. It's just my judgement on this, at this point.
  - godelski 5y ago
    Well look at the conversations in threads about the US hacking. They typically discuss the international implications of this, how to protect yourself, and what we can do about it. Yeah, there's people that bring up China and Russia, but they typically aren't the top comment or a majority of the comments. The top comment in this thread[0] is the beginning of a conversation I'd like to see but one that is already being pulled away from. It recognizes the danger of these actions (independent of the country issuing them). It is not excusing the hacking by stating that another country has done it, but rather condemning it all around. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27883812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27883812
    - dalbasal 5y ago
      Those aren't really equivalents. This isn't just a thread about chinese hacking, it's a thread about a US-NATO statement in response to hacking. Anyway, who cares about convicting one or the other. This is about consequences. The consequences of whatever direction NATO is taking now are meaningful.. much more meaningful than the hack.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

That's not the problem. We shit on the US all day every day. There's also not a problem with this. The problem is that when we're talking about someone else it's being used as a defense. Honestly it doesn't even matter if the US is doing the same thing. If something is wrong it is wrong, no matter who does it. Responding to "China is hacking the US" with "But the US hacks China" doesn't accomplish anything except create arguments nor is it logically consistent because both can be bad. The "but they did it" implies the action is not bad in the first place and that a double standard is an excuse. The problem is that there is not a double standard. People are also critical of the US's use of hacking both nationally and globally. So if you're concerned with the US hacking people it is logically obvious that you'd also be concerned with China (or anyone else!) hacking people. I'm tired of this argument because it just serves the propagandists. It eliminates a real conversation happening because we can't even start one because we don't even agree on a basic premise of that things can be judged independently. Comparisons can be great, but independent judgement/criticism is also necessary.

dalbasal 5y ago
What would you like to have discussed and/or judged independently? I agree that a lot of the comments here are shitposting or making reactionary equivocations. Others though, are making valid points... which you may agree with, or not. IMO, for example, the most important part of this to pay attention to is NATO. Cybersecurity & China seem to be the new focus of the alliance. To me, this seems like the most potentially impactful aspect.. and probably a key reason why this announcement was made in the way that it was made. IE, I think that what NATO do in the coming few years will make the history books, rather than Chinese cyberattacks. I may be wrong, but this isn't a disingenuous equivocation. It's just my judgement on this, at this point.
- godelski 5y ago
  Well look at the conversations in threads about the US hacking. They typically discuss the international implications of this, how to protect yourself, and what we can do about it. Yeah, there's people that bring up China and Russia, but they typically aren't the top comment or a majority of the comments. The top comment in this thread[0] is the beginning of a conversation I'd like to see but one that is already being pulled away from. It recognizes the danger of these actions (independent of the country issuing them). It is not excusing the hacking by stating that another country has done it, but rather condemning it all around. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27883812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27883812
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    Those aren't really equivalents. This isn't just a thread about chinese hacking, it's a thread about a US-NATO statement in response to hacking. Anyway, who cares about convicting one or the other. This is about consequences. The consequences of whatever direction NATO is taking now are meaningful.. much more meaningful than the hack.