Facebook Blocks Chinese Billionaire Who Tells Tales of Corruption | Hacker News Reader

Facebook Blocks Chinese Billionaire Who Tells Tales of Corruption

nytimes.com

249 pointsJerry280 comments

I was at SoundCloud briefly and an interview with this guy was posted on Ming Jing radio. We were DDOS’ed and eventually had to take his profile offline as well due to the volume of requests. At the same time, I remember Googling his name and found his FB and Twitter accounts were disabled too.

I brought up the optics of blocking him in a MingJing slack channel but at the time there wasn’t another way to mitigate the traffic. I imagine this is due to the same pressure. Maybe not, though.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/world/asia/guo-wengui-...

https://www.hongkongfp.com/2017/04/21/wanted-billionaire-guo...

I searched "Ming Ling radio" and didn't get as many results as I did with "Ming Jing Radio", so I guess that's a typo.

You’re right- I couldn’t quite remember the name. I updated my comment.

> Facebook said the content on both pages had included someone else’s personal identifiable information, which violates its terms of service.

Oh yeah, and in the meantime, if you forget to flick a switch -- which unsurprisingly is ON by default and is hard to find -- everybody and their dog can tag you in photos, even if it's not you. Which would either be slander or personal identification without your consent; pick one. They have no problem with that though.

Yeah, definitely sounds hypocritical from Facebook. I can imagine they were under pressure from China to block him and needed a good excuse.

Isnt't Facebook already blocked in China?

They are of course salivating at the possibility of (re)entering China. Anything to get on the good side of the Chinese gov't is very important if that's what they want.

If that switch sets the ability to tag you, then one could argue that the position of the switch indicates your consent. Of course, it should have been opt-in, not opt-out.

I looked through the settings and I couldn't find this switch. There doesn't appear to be any way to stop people from tagging you in photos. All you seem to have control over is your own timeline - whether people can add to it, and who can see stuff from it.

I stand corrected and I apologize. I am pretty sure it did exist in the past but I haven't used Facebook in years so I am having contemporary info about it.

The hell was I even writing, sorry, was pretty tired.

I meant "I haven't used Facebook for years and I am NOT having contemporary info about them".

I was kind of joking, but kind of not, when I said a few weeks back that eventually Google, Facebook and Twitter would start selling Silencing as a Service (SaaS). Whoever pays more gets to control the manufacture of consent -- all of the sudden those who like different brands, political candidates, who don't believe the correct things will simply get their accounts deactivated.

Why would they sell it? That undermines the fundamentals of the product.

Because they actually can deliver on this, there are plenty of would-be buyers, and there's little regular folks can do about it. They know people won't stop using their services, because they're too critical in day-to-day lives.

For Facebook, the users are not consumers, but the raw material. The advertisers are the consumers. Of course, Facebook won't want to lose the eyeballs, but the way most people use FB would almost not changed, maybe very slightly - so within a small margin, nobody would leave.

I'm pretty sure they already kinda started, only, like top-level credit cards, it's invite-only and not advertised, but done only for "special friends" on "special occasions". People with don't believe correct things have been losing accounts on Twitter and Facebook for quite some time already.

Yep. And the slippery slope argument is valid. Democracy is better served by strengthening voices of the people, rather than consolidating it in the hands corporate-governmemt elites in the name of fake news.

>when I said a few weeks back that eventually Google, Facebook and Twitter would start selling Silencing as a Service (SaaS)

Would start?

It is kind of interesting how these group of companies(Google, Facebook, Cloudflare) spin "Net Neutrality" when they have it their way, and then blackout sites when particular demographics demand it to be so. Most notably gab.ai.

I don't defend or care what gab.ai does, but the hypocrisy is maddening.

gab.ai appears to be on Cloudflare:

    $ dig +short NS gab.ai
    ara.ns.cloudflare.com.
    terry.ns.cloudflare.com.

I never forgot about when Yahoo! helped China throw dissidents in prison.

Won't forget this either.

If Guo's breaking law, then let him be sued, and actually he's doing these things to try to get sued. Guo is backed up with a legal team, and is hoping to expose more in court.

It's disappointing to see FB taking side with the most powerful government (ironically, which is already blocking its service) during this historical event.

Also: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/facebook-fascism-ma...

TLDR: social networking site blocked his account for 30 days after he posted ‘Kamal ka phool hamari bhool’ (Our mistake, the lotus) with a photo on his page. (lotus is the political symbol of the current government in power, BJP)

Doesn't match my experience. I have been seeing a flood of anti BJP posts on social media and nobody's getting banned. It's like the opposition is just waking up to the social media outreach reality :P (a welcome change perhaps).

Do you post publicly or privately? This is happening increasingly for public posts

Facebook is becoming a censoring platform each day

Just a few weeks ago they blocked a mutual friend if mine who posted anti govt stuff

And they blocked a guy who shared a photo of a bill on which "Kamal ka ful hanari bhul" was printed (Lotus flower, our mistake as in electing BJP was our mistake)

The guy who shared the oic was banned for 30 days

A mutual friend?

Of you and who else?

What soet of question is this?

Fucking amazing, huh... "Web 2.0" was supposed to be the democratisation of the web, that any user (not just big corps) can publish anything and be seen, but it seems to have morphed to a few bulletin boards controlled by corporations, where only mainstream opinions are welcome, and the rest gets taken down and the poster muted...

To use the cliched Matrix quote, "What good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?".

Does FB have any incentive to bend to the will of the Chinese government? They're already banned in China.

Facebook has been making a lot of overtures to appease the Chinese government as of late. This is likely just another one. FB knows damn well you don't break into China without playing Chinese ball and they seem A-OK with doing so in the name of connecting the world.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/17/technology/facebook-gover...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-china...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/technology/facebook-china...

As with India, FB sees China as huge potential market and has been shamelessly courting the PRC government for years now. Zuck even asked President Xi to name his child on a state visit to the USA a couple of years ago (naming children is a big deal in Chinese culture and Xi - who was visibly surprised by the request - politely declined).

I posted before, but Zuck isn't Chinese and he isn't exactly a social butterfly in the USA either. This was probably just some awkward smalltalk, where Zuck was looking for suggestions for the kid's Chinese name (they definitely didn't ask him to pick out the kid's actual English name). Not weird if you don't understand hypersensitive Chinese culture.

It's pathetic is what it is. I've read he's also studying Chinese. It's really really pathetic, and if such tactics influence the Chinese administration—and we know that they do from Hollywood sucking up to China in recent years in the most abhorrent of ways—Chinese administration is pathetic as well.

Zuck is not a social butterfly even in the USA. It isn't surprising he is less so in china. Many Chinese make a big deal out of oversights and social faux pas, assuming they are intentional when everyone else just sees it as cringe (e.g. Jogging inpolluted beijing, I'm sure he just wanted to go for a jog!). That in itself is cringe worthy.

I have replied in another thread, but I will repeat it here. Both his wife and grandparents know Chinese, and I would be very surprised if they would not be interested in giving the child a Chinese name. Asking Xi -- a person who is not a great thinker but just a big ass politician whom he just met -- to name it publicly, simply put, you can't kiss more ass than that.

Poppycock. My Chinese wife and my non-English speaking mother-in-law still haven't selected a Chinese name for my 9 month old son yet (wife vetoed my suggestion of 小囧, grandma isn't making any suggestions either even though she can't pronounce his English name), and at this point I'm even willing to ask Uncle Xi for suggestions.

Giving a child a name is a big deal in Chinese culture, so I think your situation is unusual and shouldn't be used as a benchmark here. You also edited out "My Chinese wife and my non-English speaking mother-in-law have taught me very little about Chinese culture" which might explain your view on this matter.

Again, neither Zuck nor I are Chinese, I don't think you can use Chinese culture at all as a benchmark here. I'm sure Zuck knows less about Chinese culture than I do, especially since his wife is American born, and he never lived and worked in china for an extended period of time.

I've already stated it previously, as have other users, that giving a child is a big deal in Chinese culture. I'll add to that by noting that this typically involves the entire family - especially the child's grandparents. I would be extremely surprised if this was not the case with Priscilla and her parents. That coupled with the fact that Zuck is actively learning the language and culture makes it unlikely that his request was just social awkwardness nor that he is largely ignorant about Chinese culture as you seem to suggest. Plus if I recall, his wife was by his side when he asked Xi.

In regards to your point about Priscilla, many, if not the majority of ABCs (esp first gen) are raised by their parents "Chinese" culturally-speaking. Her not having lived or worked in China does not mean she is unfamiliar to Chinese culture. To suggest that is frankly absurd and runs counter to the Asian-American experience.

Because of all these reasons, many people view Zuck's request as a shameless act of ass-kissing and not just being "socially awkward".

Lastly, the reaction in China was not only due to "hyper-sensitivity" but also to a mix of 1) media exaggeration and 2) how important naming a child is in Chinese culture.

With all due respect to you and your family, your personal anecdote about your son not having a Chinese name is not the norm - even for mixed Western/Chinese couples.

Stop enforcing your values on other people! You still don't get it. Zuckerberg isn't chinese, his wife is Chinese Vietnamese American, his in law as are Chinese Vietnamese, they don't even speak Mandarin, yet you judge them as if they were narrow-minded hypersensitive northern mainlanders (because southerners are much more flexible). It distorts and perverts the Asian American experience, even among Chinese not everyone will share your values.

With all due respect, I know many mixed Chinese kids who didn't have formal Chinese names awhile after they were born, it isn't freaking easy, it isn't always a priority. What was chosen afterwards was informal. It just happens, not everyone shares your values, even among Chinese, and why the heck should they? They have their name, the one they will use for the rest of their lives, that is the important part, the rest is just technicalities.

Isn't Zuck conversationally fluent in Chinese? I'd assume he's also somewhat reasonably aware of a lot of Chinese social customs (like the baby naming thing) then, too.

His wife is Chinese and at the time he was very publicly studying Mandarin (and still is).

In any case, asking a stranger, albeit a VIP, to name your to-be-born first child is pretty weird. Doubly so in the context of Chinese culture.

And I wouldn't say this is due to "hyper-sensitive" Chinese culture. It would be seen as unusual even in western cultures.

First, it is just a Chinese name, not the English name on the kid's birth certificate, it wouldn't be considered anything more than a nickname to us. Yes, it would be weird in western cultures, but not incredibly so, there definitely would be nothing like the hyper sensitive Chinese response that occurred in 2016.

The response in China was relative to how important naming a child is in Chinese (really, East Asian) culture.

You are applying western standards to the Chinese response, which makes little sense.

It's President Xi (the current president) who he asked, not President Hu (the former president). Regardless, I agree it was a shameless display.

Yes, you're correct. I've edited my post now. Thanks for pointing out my error - had a brain fart.

Shameless business man.

I don't understand this either. The only way Facebook would be allowed to operate in China is if they do what the other Chinese social media sites do: have armies of staff on hand to delete politically sensitive content. Facebook would have to take on a significant new team, dedicated to nothing but deleting content deemed inappropriate to the Chinese government.

That's the only way Facebook could operate in China. I just don't see it happening.

It would just be easier for Facebook to build their own VPN for China.

It's actually fairly easy to get around the Great Firewall of China

This is not a very smart positioning for fb. They decided to play an active role in this dispute and take the side of the oppressing state.

We don't know the whole story, the chinese billionaire could also have a hidden agenda and try to get rid of political adversaries by inventing corruption stories and spreading fake news. So taking his side wouldn't have been wise either.

Facebook should've thought "not my circus, not my monkey" and ignore all of this, letting them solve their issues using the legal system.

Why would anyone use facebook now to communicate anything more than some cheap stories and cute cat photos?

> Why would anyone use facebook now to communicate anything more than some cheap stories and cute cat photos?

Did anyone ever use Facebook for more serious stuff anyway?

Pretending to be happy in front of friends?

That's some serious stuff for a lots of people. LOL

There are plenty of (mainly) bars/restaurants in my area with their facebook page as only online presence. Some have a Twitter and/or Instagram account too, but you get the point

Sadly yes. A lot of people communicate exclusively through FB. I have been recently confronted several times recently for not noticing a post. It's weird

You know how when you go to a website, even one you'd never share, you'll get a prompt to like/share the page or its contents on Facebook? Every time that Facebook widget gets loaded, Facebook receives information about your browser/operating system/etc. that it uses to create a fingerprint that it checks against your previous history. You'll also get a cookie (which you essentially have to opt-out of) to better help Facebook track your browsing without needing the fingerprint.

So many websites put up that little like button that Facebook's reach extends well beyond what users upload directly to their website. Facebook's strength is that is can combine your demographic data with your network AND your internet habits. Facebook, in countries where it's not blocked, will even build profiles on people that have not signed up for facebook directly, for example if your friend uploads a photo of the two of you with your name. And Facebook advertises to these people as well.

So I think whatever isn't "more serious" that you do on Facebook is probably more serious than you think. You either need to be hyper vigilant about JS/cookies or you need to not use the internet at all to be able to divorce your profile and all of its information from the rest of the information Facebook has from you browsing the web.

Facebook is a huge ecosystem of apps, games, marketing, even direct productivity tools like their Workplace - https://www.facebook.com/workplace.

>Did anyone ever use Facebook for more serious stuff anyway?

i've noticed that people use Snapchat for the fun "throwaway" day-to-day stuff.

People are posting less frequently on Facebook now. It's not used for those "official big life events", such as "accepted to dream grad school", "got an amazing job offer", or "just got engaged".

facebook is a business, and as such, they're doing what they think is the right for the business, long term.

That’s a truism, boring to hear every time we discuss actions of companies, as if they have a carte blanche to do whatever they want.

It’s also clearly irrelevant. We aren’t discussing what’s legal, but about what’s good for business, or about what’s moral.

If I think facebook’s actions are immoral, I couldn’t give a fuck about Facebook’s internal priorities, shareholders or whatever.

I agree with you but also I am more curious of the motivation for even doing anything. If anything it seems safer and easier to do nothing instead of taking action.

This wouldn't be the first time that Facebook censors content based on bullshit reasons.

For example at one point they censored the famous "napalm girl" picture, saying that it's "difficult to create a distinction" between that one and pictures of nude children [1]. Well, then don't freaking censor pictures of nude children, it shouldn't be Facebook's job to police content, especially in the position that they are in.

When it comes to censoring content, in most cases censorship is wrong.

The only instances in which I tolerate censorship is hate speech, but even then I don't want Facebook to decide what is or isn't hate speech. Based on my experience of reporting posts and comments with textbook hate speech, I can tell you they are doing a pretty bad job.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/mark-zuckerberg-fac...

Why is it OK to censor "hate speech"?

Because my country's Constitution grants free speech, while outlawing hate speech and libel in the same article [1]. You'll see this in the constitution of many European countries and whether that's good or not, that's a matter of debate.

But what matters is that we are talking about the law and Facebook's censorship goes against the rights provided by my country's Constitution. Yes, they are a private entity and it's their property to do with it as they wish, but given their near monopoly on social media, at this point they should be punished for censoring content like this, just like how Google was fined for promoting their own services in search results.

[1] http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_1&par1=2#t2c2s...

"XYZ is a business, and can set whatever policies it wants..." is one of those thought terminating cliches that one uses when one wants to try to derail any discussion about corporate ethics and governance, stakeholders vs. shareholders, discrimination, abuse of customers, etc. It pretty much adds nothing to the discussion, and in fact detracts from it.

Not necessary. It's also to remind people that it's not a public service, and that they should not expect anything from it. You should not put anything important on FB, because "XYZ is a business, and can set whatever policies it wants..." and doesn't have your best interest at heart.

> they should not expect anything from it

Companies are actors in society, just like people and need to behave.

First of all companies need to operate within the law of the countries they operate in; otherwise they can always GTFO. But even further than that, much like how people can be dicks and do damage within the boundaries of the law, companies can do that too and the most effective way to counteract that is to ...

(1) criticize their actions, as a warning to others, we have free speech after all and

(2) marginalize them, which in the case of companies basically means voting with your wallet, or eyeballs, depending on scenario

I basically do not care about Facebook not being a public service de jure, when they are a de facto one because of their near monopoly, therefore I expect them to operate on different standards than companies that only have a couple of thousands users. And it's my right to have such expectations, regardless of their legal status.

That's not what I mean.

I agree with your point, I'm just saying that people tend to use company services like they can count on them. The reality is that they have an agenda, and they will do whatever they can get away with to follow their agenda, not yours.

As such, and given our imperfect society, you should not expect anything from them and assume they will mess up.

I'm not trying to exonerate them from responsibilities, nor saying we should not act to improve things.

I just point out their nature and how we should take it in consideration in our decision process.

"XYZ is a business, and can set whatever policies it wants..." is an argument against moral behaviour by companies.

It's technically true to some extent (as long as the law allows), but that doesn't mean we should let them get away with it. Morality is what society makes it, and if we care about free speech, we have to address this and hold Facebook accountable.

Is it though? "facebook should have done this, zuck should have done that, why would facebook do these". It clearly sounds irrelevant when you think facebook as a corporation, which is something people clearly forget.

We need facebook to respond to this. Does he include someone's email or phone number? Or is simply referring to people's names a problem. If it is only referring to people's names to get banned, then that is horrible of facebook to do.

I can’t confirm for you how I know this but I know merely mentioning someone’s name and associating their name with something that can be construed as harassment, combined with use of the Report button is enough to trigger Facebook Jail for the poster/commenter.

Facebook's efforts will be in vain, because letting Facebook penetrate China — the way it has Europe — is a fundamental (geopolitical) security risk no matter how many concessions Facebook gives.

How do you armchair Chinese experts know this guy isn't the Chinese version of Donald Trump who is being silenced before he does more damage. To me it just feels like the technocrat class of China that is a big part of the govt does what the technocrat class in the US is incapable off. Everyone is a hypocrite here. Not just FB.

Well the American version of Donald Trump is not silenced as silencing people is not the American way. In short it doesn't matter who he is or what he does, we don't like big internet companies silencing people to appease censoring governments.

>as silencing people is not the American way.

Except when it matters -- e.g. if they're whistleblowers, activists, people like Manning, Gary Webb, or heck, MLK, and so on -- all the way to McCarthy-ism and Hoover.

You’re saying this like there is consensus that the President should’ve been silenced and disallowed from running... seems pretty ridiculous

I learned of this man recently from several different Chinese people in China. All are quite interested in listening to what he has to say. Personally I have no idea how much, if any, of what he says is true, but even if he's lying that's not an acceptable reason to silence him. It is also quite a coincidence that efforts to block him have increased right before the big show in Beijing this month.

I guess I'd like to know how accusations of criminal conduct are normally handled by facebook?

Suppose a user starts posting, all over facebook, posts that accuse a certain male of sex crimes, or... say... pedophilia. Further, this person names this male explicitly. Suppose further, the male has not been charged with any such crime. (Indeed, for all the users in his social circle know, he may not even be a suspect. He could even be completely innocent.)

What is the normal course of action that facebook would take in such cases?

Are the posts taken down? Is the poster warned? Does nothing at all usually happen? (That is, can a user normally make accusations of sex crimes or pedophilia without restraint?) What, exactly, happens in most cases of posts containing accusations of some form of CLEARLY criminal activity?

It seems to me that whatever happens in the proverbial "girl claims a guy is a rapist to their social circle" case, should probably happen here. I think their policy should be consistent, to the extent that is possible.

Though you're not explicit, I bet everyone reads this as "Facebook doesn't handle false rape claims equally", though you've provided no evidence of this. Instead just relying on "internet tropes" and people will end up filling in the blanks.

Not to mention that the article itself says that someone's PII was posted (presumably without consent). I don't know what it was, but it could easily have been some person's phone numbers with a call to action to harass them.

That sort of stuff _does_ get taken down by Facebook. Sometimes things get out of hand, but it's usually one "report content" click away from getting removed.

Maybe you honestly don't know FB's policies here, but posting this sort of comment basically reads as an accusation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com