Of course Zuckerberg wants to bow to Chinese censorship
m.signalvnoise.com
m.signalvnoise.com
"Look at this thing we built to stop real news."
I really don't see how Facebook wins here.
Which is good. Because it would be sad if collaborators in human oppression on the largest scale still happening in the modern era were the winners.
How would you call a Communist state? Democratic? Fascist?
The more fundamental problem is that Facebook makes it far easier and more profitable to run a cheap website stuffed with completely made-up stories than an actual newspaper, because it is much easier to catch people's attention with an outrageous fake headline than with boring real news.
Now that they did that, then all of a sudden "oh fake news". If they had just kept it to latest first, from only the pages you liked, then there would be no way for them to "wiggle in" such a thing as "fake news". On the one, the person's choices dictate what they see later on, and on the other Facebook has to "tune" things to your liking.
That's why there is such an dark-pattern on Facebook when you try to "UnLike" a page. I urge everyone to go give it a try and tell me if it's intuitive or obvious.
So I can definitely see why the Chinese government wants to protect itself.
I think Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" should be required watching to understand how real news can be spun to be positive or negative, e.g. 1 in 10 people die from this drug vs. 90% of people are saved with this medicine.
That's what China is trying to protect itself against.
This is just an excuse.
The rich and powerful in any country wanted to control media. They need fake news and make them prominent. They certainly can eliminate them easily; just like they would to censor real news. But they do need them to become prominent so people can buy in that censorship is necessary.
Possibly, but in case this happens to be true it may be hard to convince them to give up on censoring Western media, right?
China's Internet is full of junk and fake information. A while ago a poor young man's family spent their life's saving on hospital treatment that in reality does not help anything. Their belief comes from a seemingly legitimate source on Baidu Tieba. And just a few days ago, a patient believed that a doctor maliciously ignore his request to treat his daughter according to the fake "treatment" from some online search results. And stubbed the doctor 9 times, one of them pierced the doctor's heart.
Such stuff are routinely ignored, why? Because they do not pose a threat to the government's ruling. Instead, they actually reinforce the fact that government control over media is needed, which obviously is a vote to their continued ruling.
Another joke I learned recently perfectly explains this fact: In a community there is an abandoned car. The residents repeatedly ask the community manager to move it and no one did anything. Then one day someone painted "democracy, freedom" on the car, then the car disappeared next day...
I lived in China for almost a decade during its economic rise, and many predicted an opening and democratization of China. But it always seemed to me that the US was becoming more like China rather than the other way around, and so far I haven't been disappointed.
The question of whether we should or how could we trust Facebook or any government if they did publish a list - is it complete or not? How would we know an algorithm isn't reducing it's reach solely because it is on a specific list?
1) "We can't automate the stopping of fake news without hiring an army of trained human censors"
2) "Although since China already has an army of trained censors, it'd be easy to fix stuff for them with an API"
Edit, forgot to save, sorry:
The implication on #1 there is that for Facebook the cost is not worth it. Whether or not you agree with that is fine, but it's incredibly unfair to call it the same problem as China's censorship. It would cost Facebook something like $2-4 billion per year in labor to deploy a similar solution for just the united States
I don't know if a objective analysis of this is possible, but has anyone even tried?
What pisses me off with a lot people taking a moral stand against trump saying he is fascist, misogynist, racist (which is true btw) is that they ignore that Hilary voted yes for Iraq war, invaded Libya and look at Syria. Three failed countries where countless people have died and continue to die. Where is your morality now?
Interesting (and unsurprising) that the comments here all focus on Facebook rather than the general problem. Cisco did the same thing by building the great firewall. Dubai has no shortage of western companies selling solutions to censor the Internet. When Wikileaks was raising money on Amazon it only took an angry statement from a Senator to get them banned.
Companies are happy to dump principles and take the money. The solution won't be complaining about Facebook. Trying to legislate companies bad actions is how we got here, so that might work with some issues in the past, but it isn't the solution we need now. Protesting and boycotting can get Apple to stop using child labor and suicide nets, but as a solution it's slow and reactionary.
> Zuckerberg came to a compromise to be chums with the Communist party in China. I wonder if that will ever pay off especially when you are so invested now and the relationship is dictated completely on the conditions of the foreign government. If this is the beginning then I shudder to think what the next compromise will be that affects their end user. It sets an uneasy precedent for future prospects eager to capture the enormous market in China.
I'm really proud of Google that they just got up and left China once they realized it was a one way relationship with a lot of giving and giving.
I think this is a huge blunder from Zuckerberg and it definitely hurts Facebook's brand.
It also shows a more underlying urgency from Zuck, the stock price is tied to user base growth and without it, the perceived future value evaporates with it. That in turn shows how elusive this "zero-interest rate capital funded growth at all cost" is and it's starting to show cracks.
Recall the Porsche story during the 70s when access to capital was really great. The problem was they assumed capital would always be there but what happened was when they most needed it the market conditions have changed and Volkswagen swallowed it up.
Facebook's revenue models are coming under scrutiny as advertisers can't justify the ambiguous metrics and ROI.
I wonder who will buy Facebook, perhaps News Corp?
Google has essentially the same relationship with the US government. It's departure from China had more to do with this than any high mindedness.
For now. We used to say that information wants to be free. We can say today that money wants to be made. Eventually Google's growth will not be sustainable by creating or buying products and eventually killing them, they'll need new markets.
Sorry, that item is out of stock.
I am so sorry I ever joined that f*cking site.
In general I have tried to remove myself from things that keep my attention on my phone rather than what's going on around me. Now I sort of get frustrated when people ask me what they missed or what just happened in the real world while they were glancing down.
I have friends and family who I think have completely forgotten what's it like to just be a passenger in a car watching the world go by, because if they're not driving they're looking at Facebook or Instagram.
If you depend on Facebook for managing a page (work, band, etc), just use the dedicated Pages application. Same applies for Messenger if you don't want to get rid of it.
It's helped me curb the ridiculous "CTRL+T, fa, enter" reflex - seeing the login page instead of my Facebook feed every time I do this makes me notice how out of hand this has gotten for me.
What made the original Facebook hateful when compared with other "hot-or-not" sites?
- I can understand western media trying to stir polemic about it, it's how they make their money.
- I can't understand people buying media crap and getting "shocked". Didn't Facebook do similar things for US Gov in the past? Did they think Zuck was a people's champion?
You say that as if it was obvious. But actually he is successful, he is young, he is rich, he is known as tech-genius that changed the alone with his 2 bare hands, he is everything that we are supposed to aspire to be in the Western world.
As such, he is continuously spin as a good natured fellow tirelessly working for the good of mankind. So yes that will surprise a lot of people to learn he is not the White Knight they thought he was.
Still that doesn't feed the narrative beast so we conveniently forget that.
You see the same with other tech CEO's all the time, I rather like Larry Ellison for that reason, he rarely pretends to be anything he isn't.
Also not sure how much credit Ellison deserves for being unrepentantly unethical. I guess that's slightly better than being duplicitous about it, but still far from being worthy of admiration.
I hope you do not believe this yourself. Seeing this on HN makes me sad, and it is an insult to FB employees that it's Zuck built everything with his 2 bare hands. Such media manufactured popular misconception should not have any breathing air on HN.
But that's the reality of the world outside and that world is way bigger than ours. Ignoring it will not make it go away.
This opening summarizes the entire sentiment. FB and Zukerberg are not on your side and do not uphold any banner of morality.
I am going to have this quote framed and put up on a wall somewhere. For some reason, I suspect life and business will be easier if I remember it.
Freedom of expression, association, conscience & press are political freedoms at the centre of liberal-democratic ideologies and governing systems. China is not a liberal democracy, in theory or practice. There are treaties which define these freedoms as "human rights" but I think China is a nonsignator to them.
I do believe these freedoms should be protected for everyone. But in calling for them in non-democracies, one is pretty much calling for revolution. It's reasonable for us as individual democrats (or adherents to other ideologies which believe in these freedoms) to call for these rights to be honoured in china. It's kind of wierd expecting Facebook to.
The actual lib-dem regimes (US, EU, Japan etc.) are not refusing to do business in China until they honour these freedoms.
TLDR: Expecting FB to champion the cause of liberal democratic reform in China is too much to expect.
The ROC drafted and signed the UDHR (not a treaty), but the PRC was then at war with the ROC and doesn't view itself as a successor state to it.
The ICCPR, which is an actual treaty related to UDHR rights, was signed but not ratified by the PRC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civi...
The Constitution of the PRC protects a broad range of political rights (!)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_People%27...
Perhaps the government's view is that articles 51-54 (on limitations of political rights) justify the very extensive restrictions that the government has put on these rights in practice.
Yes, but in which direction? Is Facebook, and especially its self-aware pile of billion$, pulling China west, or is it pulling the west to authoritarianism? Somewhere there's a line whose crossing will be fatal, and it's an open question which side of that line we're on right now.
Trump, Putin, Brexit, LePen make me doubt a lot of my assumptions about progress.
Chinese gov has zero interest in pursuing a US like democratic system as do other surrounding big economies. Singapore is a good example, as well as Japan with it's single party that always wins, Korea's choi-gate scandal that exposed near dictatorial decision making at the very top (and PGH's father was a dictator) shows that at the structural level, the one party system which was further encouraged by the US during cold war against communism, shows a clear rift between the mentality of West vs East.
Another big reason they are so set on keeping the status quo is the sheer amount of embarassing crimes against humanity which would almost guarantee former president Jiang Zemin an international spot light in Hague trials. Saving face is a huge component but also national pride plays a large role in China.
However, the biggest reason for China's commitment to it's current one party leadership structure is to avoid destabilization with it's multi-ethnic demographic. Even my friend from the mainland alleges that there are inter-provincial beefs and people won't even do business with certain ethnic groups or province due to existing stereotypes. Given it's massive population, US styled approach would be catastrophic.
Of course, I believe China must eventually become free and open but I also understand the impossible task of imposing Western ideologies onto China from the top down.
Change in China must come from the bottom up, the people, as we briefly saw a glimpse of that during the late 80s. People are too afraid, chasing materialism and money, a form of escapism, and the rich almost do certainly leave the PRC to live the American dream.
When China opens it's doors, which seems improbable this century (USSR only collapsed due to economic collapse otherwise it would still go on today and it's only a superficial democracy where control of the economy is centralized and divided through crony capitalism at the expense of average Russian citizen who's wealth is poorer than the average Indian), only then the giant that Napoleon was talking about will awaken.
I'd welcome that kind of China. If it doesn't happen it doesn't. I really don't get the "dont-miss-out-on-china" attitude. I don't give a shit about making more money through China by throwing away my own values like Zuckerberg did. Quoting Chow Yun Fat who got blacklisted from mainland cinema "Guess I will make less money then, I don't give a fuck".
Until it's mature enough, I don't think it's wise to sacrifice and compromise in the vague improbable scenario that is miles down this century.
In the meanwhile, read http://chinalawblog.com which offers a very good insight into doing business in China.
Every individual I've talked to so far that went to chase the Chinese Dream, have returned penniless, fed up, and repulsed by the mention of it.
How many Laowai do you know that made it in China that was able to take their hard earned capital out of the country successfully and live the life of the communist party princeling's offspring lifestyle in America?
edit: Hong Kong doesn't count as it's status and reputation it earned under British colonial rule that was favorable to Western businesses are no longer guaranteed as it integrates into the Chinese political system. As will Taiwan eventually and perhaps North Korea becoming another "province".
Put another way, stop blaming censorship for what is really a fault of Capitalism.
s/capitalism/incentives/
s/need/have/
?
Obviously capturing another billion people is a big deal either way, but I think they're going to be disappointed in their Chinese revenue in a year if they expected it to continue like it is now. I'm sure Zuckerberg has some financial advisors, but I can't see why anyone would want to invest there knowing the currency inflation that's coming over the next 2 years. I guess software isn't that much of a capital investment, comparatively speaking. Depending on how Zuckerberg structures this and how much USD he's putting in and at what rates, it might be worth buying some options against Facebook.
Though, if Facebook can get in now, I'm predicting riots in a year or two, and 'accidentally' having some problems with the anti-censorship systems could end up helping the protesters at a particularly important time. Who knows.
This seems a bit backwards. The currency manipulation argument is that they are artificially weakening their currency to make manufacturing and exported products more competitive, not strengthening it.
And while I would tend to agree that the the reality at this point is in fact the reverse, your argument on the basis of "I've heard that the free market value..." is not particularly robust.
The NDF futures market, which is free to trade wherever the free market sees the pair going, is perhaps a better place to look. For reference, the current Dec 2019 future is 7.44:1 [1]
[1] http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/emerging-market/chinese-r...
I heard that from some former Chinese daytraders. I agree that it would be a bad idea to trade assuming my ratio without a better source.
> which is free to trade wherever the free market sees the pair going,
I don't know how to interpret those numbers. I'm not sure exactly how the futures market interacts with currency controls.
I've read that Venezuela also has currency controls, and while the official exchange rate of VEF:USD seems to be 10:1 from a quick Google search, I also see a Bloomberg article mentioning that the black market has it at 1000:1.
It could be that you get 25 Yuan by illegally shipping USD across the Chinese border to scared Chinese citizens, while the government only approves its citizens to trade at the smaller rate.
If you can find one, have them contact me, I'm more that happy to trade with them :). Seriously, that's is just some really bad misinformation here.
2. They haven't been to China in a while, so they can't give an up-to-date black market rate. But a lot of economic indicators(property, bitcoin, etc.) show that people are willing to pay at least 20:1(conservatively).
3. Futures have to be traded in China. Otherwise they would absolutely buy large quantities of futures at the 7.44:1 price quoted here. There's political risk that the government might not enforce a futures contract if the currency gets too bad.
4. George Soros has already tried to pull a Soros on the Yuan, but it's harder when the government actively fights you.
5. At the current exchange rate, China is planning to print enough money to buy the US in a year, and the entire world in 2 years. So that exchange rate can't hold forever.
6. They reiterated that being labeled as a currency manipulator would be very bad for China, and there would be a huge surge in demand for the black market.
7. If you're caught smuggling USD into China, it's a pretty serious crime and they'll confiscate all of your USD. So the higher exchange rate has risk built into it.
8. You've been able to exchange $50k/person/year for a while, but they're starting to crack down on it. You need forms and approval for even $1000.
9. Since they're no longer in China, they wouldn't exchange at the 20:1 rate any more. But they'd happily bet against RNMB if you're selling futures at anywhere near 7.44:1 for December 2019. I'm planning to call a broker to ask about it, since I can't reconcile their pessimism with the fact that Yuan futures do seem at a glance to be traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which is a non-Chinese entity. Depending on what they say, you could probably earn a decent commission if you could refer a non-Chinese bank or something willing to deal with these guys.
The 'currency manipulator' theory is that China is keeping the value of the Yuan low to fuel exports. In reality it's the US growing debt and low interests rates that are far more of a factor in the imbalance. This is easy to see if you compare the Yuan against other currencies apart from the dollar - do that and the 'currency manipulator' theory falls apart. It's not the Yuan that's being kept weak against the dollar, but rather the dollar strengthening against everybody.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22658.pdf
You could of course claim that a formal dispute under the WTO would go nowhere, but you haven't yet done that.
Unique among the major international trade and finance organizations, the WTO has a mechanism for enforcing its rules. If a country believes another country has violated WTO rules, to its detriment, it may request the appointment of a dispute settlement panel to hear its complaint. The other country cannot veto the establishment of a panel or adoption of a WTO decision by WTO members. The panel reviews the arguments in the case and renders judgment based on the facts and WTO rules. If the losing party does not comply with the ruling within a reasonable period of time, the WTO may, if requested by the complaining party, authorize it to impose retaliatory measures (usually increased customs duties) against the offending country or to take other appropriate retaliatory measures against that country’s trade.
I admit I haven't read the actual trade agreements, but it appears that the WTO has no choice but to summon a panel to review Trump's claim. I'll write it out:
Claim(from you): Nobody in the financial or international communities is going to take any notice of Trump labeling anyone anything.
Assumption 1: Trump will file a dispute with the WTO.
Assumption 2: If a dispute is filed with the WTO, a panel will be convened to review it.
Assumption 3: If a panel reviews something, it has taken notice of it.
Conclusion: At least one person on the panel is in the international or finance community and will take notice of Trump's dispute.
Since we have a contradiction of the form P & ~P, either the original claim P must be rejected, or one of the assumptions behind the argument for ~P must be rejected.
I wonder: If someone is trespassing on my property and I call the police, am I merely a name caller until the court convicts them? It seems like initiating a formal process should be more than name calling.
But that's all they're going to get.
Please do tell me where I can get this deal :)
I have worked with a Chinese company for a couple of years and been to China too. I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I think he might be on to something here.
It seems to me that China is on the verge of a major unrest upon freedom. So far most of the people are quite happy with the fact that their material well-being has literally multiplied in a very short time. That more than covers the limited freedom they currently have. After all, they haven't had a chance to get used to a great degree of freedom at any point in their history sofar.
However, increased wealth only carries so far. At some point the newly appointed members of the upper middle class are bound to start wondering, why theír offspring regularly gets bypassed by the offspring of the party officials in entering the top universities. That's going to be a big deal.
At that point attempts to suppress free speech will have an inflammatory effect. I believe this will happen in the next ten or twenty years and it cannot be avoided. What happened in Thailand a few years ago will happen in China, scaled up to two levels of magnitude.
I don't care much about Facebook or whether Zuck's motives here are entirely self-served or not. I do assume free speech in China will be a hot issue sooner or later and that Facebook may play a big part in connecting their Chinese users to the rest of the world.
I wish all the best to China, the Chinese people and my Chinese friends. Such spontaneous friendliness I have not met anywhere else. May your road in joining the domain of freedom be as smooth as possible.
Maybe China can start there. (I know, they won't...sarcasm).
Many companies cooperate with NSA, rouge governments all over the world. Everybody does that. It's not new.
At the end of the day, people have to be paid and investment needs to be multiplied.
Facebook sells ads and to live longer, it needs to sell more ad. Invention is a growing vertically, which is very difficult and if you stop, you die. Expansion is growing horizontally, which is easy. You live longer, if you spread quickly.
I assume medium's #random at the end of the URL makes every HN post unique?
This is just wild speculation but perhaps Facebook market penetration into china reperesents the first step in achieving this leverage.
Now with Trump at the top I expect more freedoms in America to be lost.
Do we all need to lose our freedoms to remember how important they are?