5 ms·

Contrary to popular belief, China does not give a damn about what any random particular individual reads or even writes. It's not exactly an efficient use of re

by Aunche 3y ago

Contrary to popular belief, China does not give a damn about what any random particular individual reads or even writes. It's not exactly an efficient use of resources to jail everyone who says something they find objectionable on the Internet. China's censorship and punishment mostly aims at maintaining the legitimacy of the Communist Party.

lisper 3y ago
> Contrary to popular belief, China does not give a damn about what any random particular individual reads or even writes. Try to get through Chinese immigration wearing a T-shirt that says "Tienanmen Square 1989" or "Free Tibet" and I'll bet you will find that they care quite a lot.
- exitheone 3y ago
  The CCP control is strictly about blast radius. Individual citizen in their homes are rarely subject to any enforcement action. Even talking critically on social media in small circles is mostly fine (apart from simple "bad-word" filters that just remove whole messages). The moment you reach a wider audience or "disrupt public harmony", they come down on you.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    Yeah but ultimately that is far more dangerous, no? The law enables severe punishments that are applied arbitrarily by those tasked with enforcing it. Knowing there is a clear and reliable line you can't cross allows for opposition movements to take advantage of that line and build within the narrow demarcations. Arbitrary enforcement means you can never know if someone in charge has it out for you that day because you probably already broke laws that could be used against you before coming anywhere near actively participating in political dissent. As the common wisdom goes: Al Capone was not arrested for being a crime boss but for tax evasion. Why bother setting clear boundaries on what behavior is or isn't anti-revolutionary if you can just make sure everyone already violates the law based on technicalities and then just decide who you want to arrest for it as necessary?
    - op00to 3y ago
      No, the DDR “spy on your neighbor” situation is much more dangerous.
      - hnbad 3y ago
        I'm not sure what the surveillance has to do. I was responding to a comment saying that while the CCP cracks down on dissidents it does so mostly based on perceived "blast radius" (i.e. reach). I'm saying this selective enforcement is actually worse than if they just blindly enforced a specific ban. If anything "spy on your neighbor" plays into what I said: you not only need to worry about getting on the bad side of the authority (i.e. those able to enforce the law against you) but of literally anyone else who might have it out for you. The legal basis for arresting people is just legalistic window dressing to create a pretense of law and justice. This is, by the way, the biggest practical distinction between the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: in peak Nazi Germany the police would just drag you off the street and throw you in a hole or shoot you for treason, in the Soviet Union the police would disappear you into a gulag but only after giving you an unwinnable mock trial where you would be put on record to confess (after torture if necessary or desired) to your treasonous counter-revolutionary beliefs. Because one followed purely from "might makes right" and the other tried to maintain a pretense of ideological principles and justice. Not that this mattered much to those on the receiving end - you'd still end up dead or imprisoned.
- sandspar 3y ago
  Try wearing a shirt with the N-word on it and getting through TSA. Each country has its triggers.
  - n4r9 3y ago
    Whilst true, there is a stark difference between stating a fact and using hatespeech.
    - sandspar 3y ago
      There are many facts that you aren't allowed to state in the west, including ones which would likely cause you trouble at TSA.
      - n4r9 3y ago
        Could you give examples? I can think of some cases where a controversial interpretation of the evidence will get you in trouble, but not well-established facts in the realm of "this historical event did in fact occur".
        sandspar 3y ago
        If you go back to before Jeffrey Epstein was exposed, you would likely face high level suppression if you made a public accusation of Prince Andrew. Many accusations of sexual assault were suppressed before they became believed during #MeToo. Courtney Love publicly warned about Harvey Weinstein in 2005, implying that his behavior was widely known for decades before he was finally arrested. We can talk about it now, but if a young actress had accused him in 2010, for example, she would have been suppressed. It's almost certain that there are other things like this going on right now. We just haven't heard about them yet. In other words, within our lifetimes we will almost certainly learn, "In 2024, they did..." and we're not aware of it now.
        n4r9 3y ago
        Well sure, but Prince Andrew conducting sexual abuse isn't currently in the realm of established fact. You and I have our strong suspicions, but he hasn't been convicted of anything and as far as I'm aware the evidence boils down to a few witness statements. The Tiananmen Square massacre is supported by photos, multiple eyewitness accounts from protestors and soldiers, foreign media reports, and even remorseful statements from government officials. > if a young actress had accused him in 2010, for example, she would have been suppressed She probably would have worsened her career prospects, which I agree is horrific. It's a testament of how the entertainment industry reinforces patriarchal norms. But it is a far cry from actual suppression. Personalities like David Icke have been lobbing accusations around about the Royal Family for years, publishing books and giving talks. As far as I'm aware he hasn't been imprisioned or censored in the UK for any of that. He's been banned from countries for denying the Holocaust and spreading COVID misinformation, but neither of these are cases of stating well-established facts.

by Aunche 3y ago

lisper 3y ago

> Contrary to popular belief, China does not give a damn about what any random particular individual reads or even writes. Try to get through Chinese immigration wearing a T-shirt that says "Tienanmen Square 1989" or "Free Tibet" and I'll bet you will find that they care quite a lot.

exitheone 3y ago
The CCP control is strictly about blast radius. Individual citizen in their homes are rarely subject to any enforcement action. Even talking critically on social media in small circles is mostly fine (apart from simple "bad-word" filters that just remove whole messages). The moment you reach a wider audience or "disrupt public harmony", they come down on you.
- hnbad 3y ago
  Yeah but ultimately that is far more dangerous, no? The law enables severe punishments that are applied arbitrarily by those tasked with enforcing it. Knowing there is a clear and reliable line you can't cross allows for opposition movements to take advantage of that line and build within the narrow demarcations. Arbitrary enforcement means you can never know if someone in charge has it out for you that day because you probably already broke laws that could be used against you before coming anywhere near actively participating in political dissent. As the common wisdom goes: Al Capone was not arrested for being a crime boss but for tax evasion. Why bother setting clear boundaries on what behavior is or isn't anti-revolutionary if you can just make sure everyone already violates the law based on technicalities and then just decide who you want to arrest for it as necessary?
  - op00to 3y ago
    No, the DDR “spy on your neighbor” situation is much more dangerous.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      I'm not sure what the surveillance has to do. I was responding to a comment saying that while the CCP cracks down on dissidents it does so mostly based on perceived "blast radius" (i.e. reach). I'm saying this selective enforcement is actually worse than if they just blindly enforced a specific ban. If anything "spy on your neighbor" plays into what I said: you not only need to worry about getting on the bad side of the authority (i.e. those able to enforce the law against you) but of literally anyone else who might have it out for you. The legal basis for arresting people is just legalistic window dressing to create a pretense of law and justice. This is, by the way, the biggest practical distinction between the authoritarianism of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: in peak Nazi Germany the police would just drag you off the street and throw you in a hole or shoot you for treason, in the Soviet Union the police would disappear you into a gulag but only after giving you an unwinnable mock trial where you would be put on record to confess (after torture if necessary or desired) to your treasonous counter-revolutionary beliefs. Because one followed purely from "might makes right" and the other tried to maintain a pretense of ideological principles and justice. Not that this mattered much to those on the receiving end - you'd still end up dead or imprisoned.
sandspar 3y ago
Try wearing a shirt with the N-word on it and getting through TSA. Each country has its triggers.
- n4r9 3y ago
  Whilst true, there is a stark difference between stating a fact and using hatespeech.
  - sandspar 3y ago
    There are many facts that you aren't allowed to state in the west, including ones which would likely cause you trouble at TSA.
    - n4r9 3y ago
      Could you give examples? I can think of some cases where a controversial interpretation of the evidence will get you in trouble, but not well-established facts in the realm of "this historical event did in fact occur".
      - sandspar 3y ago
        If you go back to before Jeffrey Epstein was exposed, you would likely face high level suppression if you made a public accusation of Prince Andrew. Many accusations of sexual assault were suppressed before they became believed during #MeToo. Courtney Love publicly warned about Harvey Weinstein in 2005, implying that his behavior was widely known for decades before he was finally arrested. We can talk about it now, but if a young actress had accused him in 2010, for example, she would have been suppressed. It's almost certain that there are other things like this going on right now. We just haven't heard about them yet. In other words, within our lifetimes we will almost certainly learn, "In 2024, they did..." and we're not aware of it now.
        n4r9 3y ago
        Well sure, but Prince Andrew conducting sexual abuse isn't currently in the realm of established fact. You and I have our strong suspicions, but he hasn't been convicted of anything and as far as I'm aware the evidence boils down to a few witness statements. The Tiananmen Square massacre is supported by photos, multiple eyewitness accounts from protestors and soldiers, foreign media reports, and even remorseful statements from government officials. > if a young actress had accused him in 2010, for example, she would have been suppressed She probably would have worsened her career prospects, which I agree is horrific. It's a testament of how the entertainment industry reinforces patriarchal norms. But it is a far cry from actual suppression. Personalities like David Icke have been lobbing accusations around about the Royal Family for years, publishing books and giving talks. As far as I'm aware he hasn't been imprisioned or censored in the UK for any of that. He's been banned from countries for denying the Holocaust and spreading COVID misinformation, but neither of these are cases of stating well-established facts.