6 ms·

..does anyone else find some small irony in this, given that China is also the country fixated on CCTVs and social scoring of its own citizens in a panopticon o

by zeruch 5y ago

..does anyone else find some small irony in this, given that China is also the country fixated on CCTVs and social scoring of its own citizens in a panopticon of its own design? I don't disagree with the premise of people > algorithm, just noting the almost strange disconnect between it and the underlying polity and its tendencies.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
analyst74 5y ago
Because you're seeing it through the lense of western media. If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, those are straight forward decisions. CCTV protects people from street crime; credit score seems to provide tremendous value in establishing trust between strangers, let's build a better version; people > algorithms, let's regulate the latter.
- eximius 5y ago
  And "reeducating" non-Han minorities is also for good of its citizens? Those who disagree with the party? A benevolent authoritarian government could be very efficient and good, but we still reject authoritarianism because it is bad.
- alphabetting 5y ago
  >If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens Why would anyone do that given treatment of Uyghurs?
  - bckr 5y ago
    It's a mental exercise similar to watching a movie."Willing suspension of disbelief", it's called. Why would you care whether Mr. Big Muscles is winning or not given that he's just pretending to be the hero of the universe? From the Chinese perspective, what their government is doing to the Uyghurs is justified because terrorist separatist muslims. And anyway, from the Chinese perspective, nothing really bad is happening to the Uyghurs anyway, they're just being reformed into good citizens.
    - snapcaster 5y ago
      If you're American I'm sure you can relate to the Chinese here. I almost never think about the millions of dead Iraqi people my tax money contributed to
      - alphabetting 5y ago
        The major difference is in America you can criticize what America did to Iraqis at the top of your lungs and work to get different leaders elected. Can't do the same in China without consequences.
        snapcaster 5y ago
        Is that a major difference? to who? us? makes absolutely no difference to the victims
        alphabetting 5y ago
        It's true you can't undo the past but it's still a major difference. A population having the ability to speak freely and change elected leaders can effect change and prevent governments from continuing bad policies. Is it really that difficult to see how different that is from a continual status quo?
        snapcaster 5y ago
        In what way do we not have a continuous status quo since world war 2? the US continues invading countries and expanding the empire regardless of protests or people's writings. That's my point, none of it has made a difference
        scarecrowbob 5y ago
        I can complain all I want and work for as much change as I'd like. Completely without any sort of consequences in the world.
  - analyst74 5y ago
    It's a difficult topic, I don't think any country has found a humane way to deal with terrorist organizations. US chose to bomb Afghanistan into the ground, China chose to establish very strict social controls. Both are terribly inhumane to innocent people in those regions, but what are real alternatives?
    - 2fast4you 5y ago
      Nobody is talking about terrorist organizations.
      - prewett 5y ago
        Terrorism was the reason given for the initial escalation towards the Uighurs around 2014. There were several domestic terrorism incidents involving a handful of Uighurs around, the most notable (to me) being there was a car-fire/bomb in Tian'anmen Square late 2013 and a knife attack at Kunming Train station. Wikipedia lists a steady stream of domestic terrorism incidents involving Uighurs [0]. It seems like the Chinese government only has one tool in their toolbox--control--so apparently their solution is to eliminate the entire ethnicity, although my prediction is that ultimately that will increase the amount of attacks, because now the entire population has a (concrete) grievance as opposed to a few radicalized ones. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Chronology_of_major_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Chronology_...
        cntheowaway 5y ago
        It seems in China it’s only considered terrorism if it’s committed by an ethnic minority. Han Chinese have committed far more terrorist attacks yet you don’t see the government putting innocent Han Chinese in concentration camps.
- tauwauwau 5y ago
  Path to hell is paved with good intentions, and I don't think their are any good leaders.
- zeruch 5y ago
  "Because you're seeing it through the lense of western media." No, I'm seeing it through taking a series of factually established premises, and comparing them. Critical thinking (however anecdotally a position one launches from) isn't a byproduct of "Western Media". "If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, those are straight forward decisions." Are they? "CCTV protects people from street crime" ...or just makes investing in ski masks popular? Your statement is so absent any context (who has access to the CCTV, what legal recourse is there for auditing the footage from a privacy or legal evidentiary perspective), are there controls to prevent abuse, etc. I said nothing of a credit score. I said a social score, which is a very different, and much more contentious issue: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-e...
  - Aperocky 5y ago
    > Critical thinking Most people consider themselves critical thinkers, but subconsciously apply a bias on the sources they read. For instance they would go to depth on and apply every single possible suspicion on news that are against their perception, or failing that, just simply labeling it as 'false news'. At the same time, news or information that conforms to their bias are accepted as truth usually without any questions asked. It's alarming because most of the time it is worth a lot more to think critically of the news that conforms to what you believe - because you are already critical of those that are against it by default. That is what true critical thinking is.
    - zeruch 5y ago
      Everyone applies bias at some level, period. That said, the threshold for lazy loading bias can be significantly different for people, and trying to become a Vulcan-Mentat combo might not be the most ideal goal. Actually applying some real rigor and not just resorting to convenient heuristics (e.g. "Western media", "MSM" , "leftist" or "rightist" or several other "ists" reflexively) usually is a good start. " most of the time it is worth a lot more to think critically of the news that conforms to what you believe" Agreed.
- andreilys 5y ago
  If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, Please explain how the continued lockdown in Shanghai is “the Chinese government” doing good for its citizens vs. not wanting to lose face on an absurd zero covid policy?
- iqihs 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
esjeon 5y ago
I'm pretty sure CCP is trying its best to protect itself. It basically wants to be the single source of truth in the country, but algorithms interfere with this goal by providing "bubbles" to users. Once a person falls into a bubble, his view will start diverging from what CCP wants their people to see, causing instability inside the society. This is obviously a huge threat to their authority.
- hackernewds 5y ago
  This makes a ton of sense. Seems the next frontier for the CCP is to gain control of tech companies, most of which could be peppered with talent that has studied in the West
  - rakkhi 5y ago
    Does it really make sense? 1.2b people, if they know the govt is trying to control the narrative a vpn is not hard. What about 325m people in the US and other western countries that believe their govt would never lie nor their main stream media so never look for alternative news sources. Basically all Chinese in cities at least can also speak English. So they get Chinese and English news. Most people in the west cannot read anything other than English. Who really has the blinkered view? Remember the human brain believes things it hears often even when you know it's bs eg conspiracy theories
- rakkhi 5y ago
  Does it really make sense? 1.2b people, if they know the govt is trying to control the narrative a vpn is not hard. What about 325m people in the US and other western countries that believe their govt would never lie nor their main stream media so never look for alternative news sources. Basically all Chinese in cities at least can also speak English. So they get Chinese and English news. Most people in the west cannot read anything other than English. Who really has the blinkered view? Remember the human brain believes things it hears often even when you know it's bs eg conspiracy theories
  - zeruch 5y ago
culi 5y ago
China has recently had a lot of really similar rulings. The issue is that filter of western media wouldn't let you hear about those as often as you hear about CCTVs. Did you know their equivalent of the supreme court recently ruled that people can't be filmed in shopping malls (and other public spaces) without their consent?

by zeruch 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

analyst74 5y ago

Because you're seeing it through the lense of western media. If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, those are straight forward decisions. CCTV protects people from street crime; credit score seems to provide tremendous value in establishing trust between strangers, let's build a better version; people > algorithms, let's regulate the latter.

eximius 5y ago
And "reeducating" non-Han minorities is also for good of its citizens? Those who disagree with the party? A benevolent authoritarian government could be very efficient and good, but we still reject authoritarianism because it is bad.
alphabetting 5y ago
>If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens Why would anyone do that given treatment of Uyghurs?
- bckr 5y ago
  It's a mental exercise similar to watching a movie."Willing suspension of disbelief", it's called. Why would you care whether Mr. Big Muscles is winning or not given that he's just pretending to be the hero of the universe? From the Chinese perspective, what their government is doing to the Uyghurs is justified because terrorist separatist muslims. And anyway, from the Chinese perspective, nothing really bad is happening to the Uyghurs anyway, they're just being reformed into good citizens.
  - snapcaster 5y ago
    If you're American I'm sure you can relate to the Chinese here. I almost never think about the millions of dead Iraqi people my tax money contributed to
    - alphabetting 5y ago
      The major difference is in America you can criticize what America did to Iraqis at the top of your lungs and work to get different leaders elected. Can't do the same in China without consequences.
      - snapcaster 5y ago
        Is that a major difference? to who? us? makes absolutely no difference to the victims
        alphabetting 5y ago
        It's true you can't undo the past but it's still a major difference. A population having the ability to speak freely and change elected leaders can effect change and prevent governments from continuing bad policies. Is it really that difficult to see how different that is from a continual status quo?
        snapcaster 5y ago
        In what way do we not have a continuous status quo since world war 2? the US continues invading countries and expanding the empire regardless of protests or people's writings. That's my point, none of it has made a difference
      - scarecrowbob 5y ago
        I can complain all I want and work for as much change as I'd like. Completely without any sort of consequences in the world.
- analyst74 5y ago
  It's a difficult topic, I don't think any country has found a humane way to deal with terrorist organizations. US chose to bomb Afghanistan into the ground, China chose to establish very strict social controls. Both are terribly inhumane to innocent people in those regions, but what are real alternatives?
  - 2fast4you 5y ago
    Nobody is talking about terrorist organizations.
    - prewett 5y ago
      Terrorism was the reason given for the initial escalation towards the Uighurs around 2014. There were several domestic terrorism incidents involving a handful of Uighurs around, the most notable (to me) being there was a car-fire/bomb in Tian'anmen Square late 2013 and a knife attack at Kunming Train station. Wikipedia lists a steady stream of domestic terrorism incidents involving Uighurs [0]. It seems like the Chinese government only has one tool in their toolbox--control--so apparently their solution is to eliminate the entire ethnicity, although my prediction is that ultimately that will increase the amount of attacks, because now the entire population has a (concrete) grievance as opposed to a few radicalized ones. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Chronology_of_major_events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_China#Chronology_...
      - cntheowaway 5y ago
        It seems in China it’s only considered terrorism if it’s committed by an ethnic minority. Han Chinese have committed far more terrorist attacks yet you don’t see the government putting innocent Han Chinese in concentration camps.
tauwauwau 5y ago
Path to hell is paved with good intentions, and I don't think their are any good leaders.
zeruch 5y ago
"Because you're seeing it through the lense of western media." No, I'm seeing it through taking a series of factually established premises, and comparing them. Critical thinking (however anecdotally a position one launches from) isn't a byproduct of "Western Media". "If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, those are straight forward decisions." Are they? "CCTV protects people from street crime" ...or just makes investing in ski masks popular? Your statement is so absent any context (who has access to the CCTV, what legal recourse is there for auditing the footage from a privacy or legal evidentiary perspective), are there controls to prevent abuse, etc. I said nothing of a credit score. I said a social score, which is a very different, and much more contentious issue: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-explained https://www.wired.co.uk/article/china-social-credit-system-e...
- Aperocky 5y ago
  > Critical thinking Most people consider themselves critical thinkers, but subconsciously apply a bias on the sources they read. For instance they would go to depth on and apply every single possible suspicion on news that are against their perception, or failing that, just simply labeling it as 'false news'. At the same time, news or information that conforms to their bias are accepted as truth usually without any questions asked. It's alarming because most of the time it is worth a lot more to think critically of the news that conforms to what you believe - because you are already critical of those that are against it by default. That is what true critical thinking is.
  - zeruch 5y ago
    Everyone applies bias at some level, period. That said, the threshold for lazy loading bias can be significantly different for people, and trying to become a Vulcan-Mentat combo might not be the most ideal goal. Actually applying some real rigor and not just resorting to convenient heuristics (e.g. "Western media", "MSM" , "leftist" or "rightist" or several other "ists" reflexively) usually is a good start. " most of the time it is worth a lot more to think critically of the news that conforms to what you believe" Agreed.
andreilys 5y ago
If you start with the assumption that Chinese government is trying to do good for its citizens, Please explain how the continued lockdown in Shanghai is “the Chinese government” doing good for its citizens vs. not wanting to lose face on an absurd zero covid policy?
iqihs 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

esjeon 5y ago

I'm pretty sure CCP is trying its best to protect itself. It basically wants to be the single source of truth in the country, but algorithms interfere with this goal by providing "bubbles" to users. Once a person falls into a bubble, his view will start diverging from what CCP wants their people to see, causing instability inside the society. This is obviously a huge threat to their authority.

hackernewds 5y ago
This makes a ton of sense. Seems the next frontier for the CCP is to gain control of tech companies, most of which could be peppered with talent that has studied in the West
- rakkhi 5y ago
  Does it really make sense? 1.2b people, if they know the govt is trying to control the narrative a vpn is not hard. What about 325m people in the US and other western countries that believe their govt would never lie nor their main stream media so never look for alternative news sources. Basically all Chinese in cities at least can also speak English. So they get Chinese and English news. Most people in the west cannot read anything other than English. Who really has the blinkered view? Remember the human brain believes things it hears often even when you know it's bs eg conspiracy theories
rakkhi 5y ago
Does it really make sense? 1.2b people, if they know the govt is trying to control the narrative a vpn is not hard. What about 325m people in the US and other western countries that believe their govt would never lie nor their main stream media so never look for alternative news sources. Basically all Chinese in cities at least can also speak English. So they get Chinese and English news. Most people in the west cannot read anything other than English. Who really has the blinkered view? Remember the human brain believes things it hears often even when you know it's bs eg conspiracy theories
- zeruch 5y ago

culi 5y ago

China has recently had a lot of really similar rulings. The issue is that filter of western media wouldn't let you hear about those as often as you hear about CCTVs. Did you know their equivalent of the supreme court recently ruled that people can't be filmed in shopping malls (and other public spaces) without their consent?