4 ms·

Whataboutism is always strong on HN whenever there’s any critique of anything Chinese.

izacus 4y ago
It's because we prefer actual privacy applying to everyone instead of xenophobic hypocrisy. Put a stop to this - for everyone.
- friedman23 4y ago
  No, it's because there are a bunch of Chinese nationalists working in tech. Your comment reminds me of critiques of Russophobia. Turns out in hindsight Russophobia was completely warranted.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    I, the original commenter here, am as white as the driven snow, with no connections at all to Russia or China. The hypocrisy and the invasion of privacy is what upsets me, not which government has jurisdiction. The Chinese government almost certainly has access to Facebook and Google's data, too. I don't want ANYONE building a profile on me. Even if it is "just" for ad targeting. It won't be just for ads in the future.
_trampeltier 4y ago
What do you think how I feel as european guy with the US spy industry.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rightbyte 4y ago
"Whataboutism" is such a silly word to deflect hypocrisy. You can't take concerns about TikTok seriusly from politicians etc that are fine with e.g. Facebook.
- azinman2 4y ago
  I absolutely can. Whether you think they’re principled doesn’t take away truth looking at a major issue. All the other issues you’re referencing are discussed ad nauseam here all the time. Yet no one ever posts to criticism about say Meta by saying “well it’s the same as what TikTok does!” So there’s clearly an asymmetry in the whataboutism. I wonder what it’s like in Chinese media. I bet you they stay on topic, if allowed. In terms of the sources, it is basically the job of any government to be concerned about such issues of how a foreign agent impacts things domestically, independent of any other job they may or you think they should have.
  - rightbyte 4y ago
    > All the other issues you’re referencing are discussed ad nauseam here all the time. Ye, critized by the average HNer, yes. I agree with that. Usually not on a "national security" basis though, which makes the concern about TikTok a trigger for me since I am not American. And usually countries that ban Facebook are mocked for being paranoid or against free speech. I meant hypocrisy in the "mainstream establishment", not among privacy conscious tech people. HN has swung significantly on the matter in the last years.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  I agree with you. People love to throw around the word "whataboutism" when you call them on their hypocrisy. That's why it's a lot of politicians' and commentators' favorite word. They never care to elaborate as to why they think the other example you are bringing into the discussion is not comparable to what is currently on the table. Ironically, crying "whataboutism" is, in itself, a form of whataboutism. Generally, when you bring up another similar example in an argument where someone appears to be applying a double standard, the idea is to start discussion about what the actual standard is. In this case, I would like to know why Facebook is not considered a security risk on this scale when they collect equal amounts of data, given the fact that Chinese and Indian agents are likely deeply embedded at Facebook (as they are at Twitter, per Mudge's disclosure) in positions that have access to the data. That means the standard is clearly not: "Companies who make troves of data about Americans available to the Chinese government are bad." I would like to know what the standard is. I would also like it to be extended to cover Facebook, Google, Apple, Uber, and all the other American companies who surveil me too. While we're at it, I would like it to be extended to cover the NSA and the FBI, too, who wipe their ass with the 4th amendment.

It's because we prefer actual privacy applying to everyone instead of xenophobic hypocrisy. Put a stop to this - for everyone.

friedman23 4y ago
No, it's because there are a bunch of Chinese nationalists working in tech. Your comment reminds me of critiques of Russophobia. Turns out in hindsight Russophobia was completely warranted.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  I, the original commenter here, am as white as the driven snow, with no connections at all to Russia or China. The hypocrisy and the invasion of privacy is what upsets me, not which government has jurisdiction. The Chinese government almost certainly has access to Facebook and Google's data, too. I don't want ANYONE building a profile on me. Even if it is "just" for ad targeting. It won't be just for ads in the future.

_trampeltier 4y ago

What do you think how I feel as european guy with the US spy industry.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rightbyte 4y ago

"Whataboutism" is such a silly word to deflect hypocrisy. You can't take concerns about TikTok seriusly from politicians etc that are fine with e.g. Facebook.

azinman2 4y ago
I absolutely can. Whether you think they’re principled doesn’t take away truth looking at a major issue. All the other issues you’re referencing are discussed ad nauseam here all the time. Yet no one ever posts to criticism about say Meta by saying “well it’s the same as what TikTok does!” So there’s clearly an asymmetry in the whataboutism. I wonder what it’s like in Chinese media. I bet you they stay on topic, if allowed. In terms of the sources, it is basically the job of any government to be concerned about such issues of how a foreign agent impacts things domestically, independent of any other job they may or you think they should have.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  > All the other issues you’re referencing are discussed ad nauseam here all the time. Ye, critized by the average HNer, yes. I agree with that. Usually not on a "national security" basis though, which makes the concern about TikTok a trigger for me since I am not American. And usually countries that ban Facebook are mocked for being paranoid or against free speech. I meant hypocrisy in the "mainstream establishment", not among privacy conscious tech people. HN has swung significantly on the matter in the last years.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
I agree with you. People love to throw around the word "whataboutism" when you call them on their hypocrisy. That's why it's a lot of politicians' and commentators' favorite word. They never care to elaborate as to why they think the other example you are bringing into the discussion is not comparable to what is currently on the table. Ironically, crying "whataboutism" is, in itself, a form of whataboutism. Generally, when you bring up another similar example in an argument where someone appears to be applying a double standard, the idea is to start discussion about what the actual standard is. In this case, I would like to know why Facebook is not considered a security risk on this scale when they collect equal amounts of data, given the fact that Chinese and Indian agents are likely deeply embedded at Facebook (as they are at Twitter, per Mudge's disclosure) in positions that have access to the data. That means the standard is clearly not: "Companies who make troves of data about Americans available to the Chinese government are bad." I would like to know what the standard is. I would also like it to be extended to cover Facebook, Google, Apple, Uber, and all the other American companies who surveil me too. While we're at it, I would like it to be extended to cover the NSA and the FBI, too, who wipe their ass with the 4th amendment.