4 ms·
This deserves reposting (by https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=onlyartists https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=onlyartists): “It fits the current Western me
by trasz 5y ago
This deserves reposting (by https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=onlyartists https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=onlyartists):
“It fits the current Western media narrative but misses the the point if you view every CPC action as security against threats to its control.[1]
They genuinely care for people and are doing this for their people's best: it comes on the heels of similar laws targeting addictive online gaming and restricting students access to this around a year ago. It's not about a battle between big tech and government for control (a decidedly Western projection), it's more China being innovative about the real threat to people's well being that tracking, and optimized recommendation can do. We know the threat in the West, just our system cannot do anything about it, because of the "freedom" of liberal democracy's lobbying system's and free market principles. The central government is acting on this because they can. Like most everything CPC does, it is an experiment: e.g, Hainan FTP is the nation's "biggest testing ground for addressing institutional weak links" and "Hainan plays the role of a testing ground for China's opening-up and helps ensure economic security" [2].
If you want to consider second order affects of this flex/ability, here's my take: They have the mandate, the political will, and the real power to enact these experiments / innovative reforms and this is another. Their governing system is constantly evolving. That flexibility is why I think they will win, if you want to compare governing systems: they can simply afford to take more risks, and thereby iterate/zero-in on more correct solutions by exploring the state space of governance, more effectively than less flexibile/more brittle/more stymied-by-existing power-players, "Western liberal democracies". It's good for China, and sad for the West, but I think it's a teachable moment for the West: that I hope can encourage/inspire the West's own period of "reform and opening up"
[1]: Tho understandable from a Western PoV given combative rhetoric of late--it does seem insecure, right? Tho that point is more a voice that wants to be in command of how it is narrated, rather than have Western propaganda (driven by the West's own insecurities about China) misrepresent it
[2]: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202204/1259272.shtml“ https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202204/1259272.shtml“
- andreilys 5y agoThey genuinely care for people and are doing this for their people's best: Please explain how the continued lockdown in Shanghai is doing good for its citizens vs. not wanting to lose face on an absurd zero covid policy as a way to secure political points?
- bllguo 5y agothis is ridiculous. It can genuinely believe that lockdown is the best approach, even if said approach turns out to be the wrong move. Which is hardly even a settled point. In fact, it seems like the height of arrogance to think China is making decisions about its greatest city with Western opinion in mind.
- culi 5y agoChina's total deaths from covid are likely in the tens of thousands. These "extremely harsh" zero covid policies have saved countless lives in the most populous country in the world (and lives in other countries). This is a pretty bizarre thing to criticize China about. In terms of the total amount of people they've had to lockdown and for the total length each person had to be locked down for, they've done way less than any other major country including the US
- sudosysgen 5y agoIndeed, I was very surprised to run the numbers a few days ago and realize we've been locked down here for around 4 months total on average (not including curfews). Now the lockdowns weren't nearly as severe as those in China, but it's interesting the average Chinese citizens only had to endure a few days of lockdown (obviously the distribution is massively skewed).
- chillacy 5y ago> doing good for its citizens Not to be semantic but this can be measured very differently depending on who you ask, and if someone's objective function has deaths weighing much more heavily than personal freedom (actually not an insignificant amount of people in the US as well subscribe to this for covid) then yea that is "good". Else I'm unaware of a universal agreed upon definition of the best tradeoff to make.
- zo1 5y agoWhat a quippy and dismissive way to respond to the multi-paragraph post that has genuine effort and arguably a unique take on the topic.