Hacker News Reader

Comment by phyller | Hacker News Reader

It's amazing to me how China is so effectively creating a 1984-type situation without much stir among the rest of the world. These chat programs are super important for everyday life in China. The same company that provides chatting also provides your ability to pay for everything, and a credit score that determines what you can buy, how much you pay, and more. So if you say something you shouldn't, this could very easily be something where your entire life is destroyed. If they choose, these ultimately government controlled companies can easily make it so you can't buy things anymore, you are not trusted anywhere, and even your friends all disconnect with you because your bad score could affect theirs.

Pretty scary.

It will be interesting to see how the Chinese government reacts to globally available, unfiltered internet via satellite, like the one SpaceX is making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellat...

View on HN

>It's amazing to me how China is so effectively creating a 1984-type situation without much stir among the rest of the world.

This is perhaps because of several things:

1) That's the way "the rest of the world's" governments and corporate interests want their own countries to go, and have been pushing towards since decades. The rest of the world's leaders (most of them) could not care less for the lip service they pay to "freedom" et al.

2) A superpower gets to do whatever it likes "without much stir from the rest of the world". Heck, France and Britain had 1/3rd of the world, outside or their national borders, enslaved "without much stir from the rest of the world" until well after WWII. And suddenly the "rest of the world" will care for what China does to its own citizens?

3) It's nobody's business really what China does to its own citizens. There are other countries with the worlds largest prison population and most police shootings (by crazy amounts, like having 25% of the worlds prisoners for 4% of the worlds population), and they continue in that path "without much stir among the rest of the world". Why would it be different here?

I think you have raised false equivalencies here

It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing.

I think it does more to illustrate hypocrisy and priorities than anything; it's like worrying about another driver's flat tire, when your own car is literally on fire. Though I do understand and agree with your overall sentiment.

On the other hand, it's reasonable to worry about another driver's car being on fire despite your own flat tire.

Huh? No, these are simply USSR-style what-aboutisms that China has inherited.

Accusation of "what-aboutism" is the real BS cold-war trick (notice how it's also one-sided itself: it's an accusation against the other side of which the good people of our side are clear).

It amounts to "put on blinders and follow your side when it accuses the other, and never see things in perspective".

It generally means that only one side has the right to criticize (if the other side answers back, it's "whataboutism") -- and that third parties shouldn't call bot the pot and kettle black (it's whataboutism to even mention the pot), and instead should listen to the pot accusing the kettle of blackness.

Even worse when it's not bloody business of the pot what the kettle does -- but they want to make it so anyway, because they like to boss other kitchen implements around.

There is nothing different from the above what aboutisms to the ones the USSR used, they are actually almost verbatim. China throws around logical fallacies (what aboutism, red herrings, slippery slopes) all the time, it makes me wonder if chinese high schools teach their positive use in rhetoric/debate classes.

I’m one of the first ones to criticize the USA, there is plenty that is wrong to talk about! But open up a thread that is critical of the USA and you’ll rarely see Americans bringing up problems in China, yet discussions about China almost always lead back to discussions about the USA! When china is ready to talk about its problems without referring to the USA, well, it will be ready to become a superpower. Right now they just come off as insecure.

As a US citizen it is a valid argument because those "other guys" is our own country.

It's not "don't go after those guys", but "take care of our own problems first". This way, when offering solutions to other oppressive countries we wouldn't look like hypocrites.

Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise?

> Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise?

Yes, they would be the ideal person to give that advice.

Boom nailed it. I just don't want them correcting my form.

Dang, okay, that was a stupid analogy I made. It should have been something like "If you're obese and sickly, should you spend your time evangelizing the importance of diet and exercise to other unhealthy people instead of eating right and exercising yourself?" I don't think its even a good analogy anymore though.

I get that 'what-aboutism' is a logical fallacy in general, and it can prevent beneficial action from taking place. Isn't it a special case when the 'other party' is yourself? (obviously this is a US centric comment).

Consider it simply that you should endeavor to take good advice no matter the source, even if they seem hypocritical.

Bruce Lee was right in this regard, take what works from wherever you can. Worrying about the messenger being biased can ignore a really good tree in an overall forest.

Would you want McDonalds to give dietary advice, while at the same time pushing burgers and fries down the world's throat?

So we shouldn't try to help people in other countries until we are literally perfect? Or are you making the argument that the US government is in fact more oppressive than the Chinese government?

The reality for the US is if it tries to take action to improve perceived injustices in the world, it is being hypocritical and "imperialist". If it does nothing, it is selfish and heartless, having the power to help but doing nothing. As far as the US goes, we are screwed either way.

Regardless, I think I can look at what is happening in China, not like it, and feel foreboding about the future. This isn't some small country somewhere. This is the most populous country in the world and I empathize with the people who live there. And frankly, China is the heir apparent to the US as the global super power. This concerns us all.

>So we shouldn't try to help people in other countries until we are literally perfect?

You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period. Who appointed you world cop? Besides, it always ends up in tears (besides it being hypocritical help with strategic ambitions attached from the establishment side, even if ordinary people mean it sincerely).

>Or are you making the argument that the US government is in fact more oppressive than the Chinese government?

Internally, not. Globally, surely yes.

>You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period

So when oppressed people inside an imperfect country are pleading for help from another imperfect country which is capable of helping,

The country being begged to help should go “sorry, we’re imperfect, can’t help. Besides, even though you’re asking for our help and we can certainly help, we’re not the global police, so we can’t help you.”

There's help and there's help. Are we talking help as in sending temporary emergency relief after a natural disaster or famine or help as in ousting a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a puppet dictator?

Ask the guy who said “You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period” to clarify.

Side note, being democratically elected does not mean your country is a democracy. Hitler was democratically elected. Doesn’t change the fact that he consolidated power after the fact.

And interestingly enough China, the topic of this thread, is consolidating power. This week their administration has announced their plans to abolish presidential term limits, clearing way for their president to remain in power indefinitely.

>It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies.

Actually the argument is more like: bad guys shouldn't go after bad guys. It's hypocritical, self-serving in the name of some "cause", and creates worse outcomes.

You know, like a bad guy going in to bring "democracy" (assert control for strategic interests and/or ensure cheap oil and favorable currency use) and ends up in chaos, civil war, fundamentalism, and refugee waves. Time and again.

But I guess hypocrisy never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing.

As for good guys, they can go after the bad guys all they want, and we'll even cheer for them.

Fallacy.

Bad guys can go after bad guys. Good guys can still go after the remaining bad guys.

If we sit around waiting for he without sin to cast the stones, if on the off-chance that such a rare soul exists, then that small army-of-one will be outnumbered and overpowered and neutralized.

Don't disagree with you that nobody else is very different. Way too many "progressive" "change the world" techies are willing to get into bed with governments like this as long as they are making money. It's sickening.

Where you are wrong is the suggestion that this isn't entirely different. People bitch about US policy all the time. 50% of the political discussion on HN is bitching about US policy. I can't blame anyone for that (especially because it affects so many), but HN is a site based in the US, started by a VC firm based in the US, etc. It's super annoying when people from other countries who have never lived for any length of time in the US and act like their country is heaven on earth complain, but you get to complain, nobody stops you, you'll often get upvoted.

That doesn't happen in China. If the government (the party), which has been in power for 80 years, decides you don't get a voice, you don't get a voice. Given enough time, because we allow criticism and discussion, US policy will probably change as it has many times over the centuries. What's gonna happen in China? Nobody knows.

If it scares people that we now have strongmen dictators in Russia, the Philippines, Turkey, etc, and we've now got that in China, a nation with a small cadre of party leaders ruling over 1 billion people that have no real outlet to disagree, and which only gains more and more power, you really can't blame them. And if you're being honest with yourself, you can't really act like those systems are really the same thing.

The Chinese government is effectively the one described in 1984. If we're not that far gone in the West, it's because we allow things like free media and the publication of stuff like 1984. You can't really say they are the same thing.

> Way too many "progressive" "change the world" techies are willing to get into bed with governments like this as long as they are making money. It's sickening.

Hey, gotta enhance shareholder value, man.. Fiduciary responsibility and all that.

It really is insane to hear the very passionate thoughts of my Shanghainese friends when it comes to how bad the US system is or how bad Trump is. But then I realize they have no other outlet for expression about their own system, So they direct their energy at what they think they know however badly reported to them by controlled media. The only thing people will talk about in very hushed tones on a completely unsolicited basis is how badly their families suffered under the CR. Even X generation kids know what was done to them by their own government. That's why the military police popped up in Shanghai train stations 2 days ago. Government protecting itself from its own citizens.

Your comment is an example of "whataboutism":

> Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

There is already a "sesame" score built in Sesame Credit by Alibaba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesame_Credit)

The Wired article is a little more exaggerating (https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/) but here is the rough breakdown of your score according to https://www.zhihu.com/question/27844479

1. Identity Characteristics (15%) Public Security Real Name Authentication Identity Information Information Stability ... 2. Credit History (35%) Credit Card Repayment History Micronesia Repayment Record Utilities Fee Ticket ... 3. Compliance Capability (20%) Payment Account balance balance balance balance car information real estate information ...... 4. Personal connections (5%) relationship circle circle of friends credit level of social influence ... ... 5. behavior preferences (25%) account activity level consumer level payment level consumer preferences ...

> So if you say something you shouldn't, this could very easily be something where your entire life is destroyed.

According to the article, this has already happened: Over on WeChat’s top messaging service, there were reports that some users had been banned or restricted based on the content they had shared. WeChat owner Tencent has disputed claims that it stores or reads chat logs, but — regardless — the app includes a social media-like feed where users can share public messages with friends.

Using WeChat can already destroy your life: http://www.zeit.de/feature/freedom-of-press-china-zhang-miao...

99% of the population could oppose a policy, but no individual could never know they aren't alone and they'll be disarmed against disciplinary power requiring fewer and fewer people at the top to control the rest with machines. Just a handful of decision makers controls search results, the new Google shopping censorship of the last two days, the massive purge of even very moderate conservative YouTube channels over the past few weeks... the only difference here is that the rulers skewing our discourse are "private". One "engineer" at a computer can silence the voices of over a billion people, whether in China or California.

Which makes it all the more important to maintain offline connections, and resist the pressure to include the online world in everything.

"The rest of world" occasionally complains about China's dictatorial measures as it occasionally complains about dictatorial measures in other areas.

The only time there have been angry crusades against a given dictatorship (NAZIs, Soviets, etc) is when a given group of nations view these dictatorships as enemies. Which isn't to say these areas weren't dictatorships but that it's always taken more than dictatorship to get the ire of even those nations claiming to care most about democracy and human rights.

>can easily make it so you can't buy things anymore

This actually happened to me on a small scale with a legitimate US company, as a US citizen placing a legitimate order. The company deals in high-fraud-risk physical goods, their system decided that I was a high fraud risk, and outright banned me for life. I would have been happy to provide any kind of ID, sent them cash in the mail, whatever. But nope, banned for life, end of story. Truly a bizarre, bizarre experience.

After their support line was no help, I emailed their CEO with no response so far. Their investors are up next.

What company was this?

What scares me more is the cheerleading and defense of this in the West, and the way this is voluntarily happening here.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01J24C0TI

This is a telescreen.

China's GDP is doing great, and GDP growth is the only thing that matters to quite a few people.

FAKE gdp. most likely 0% gdp growth, if not negative.

China’s 2015 GDP Was Exaggerated By Fake Data, Analysis Shows (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-01/china-s-2...)

Another Chinese city admits 'fake' economic data (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-data/anothe...)

This Is How China's Regions Fare in the Fake GDP Data Stakes (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-19/this-is-h...)

Two of your links suggest gdp growth of around 6% still.

They fake data to move gdp fractions of a percent.

Outright lying doesn't help further your argument. There's some excellent independent estimates of Chinas gdp out there.

This account has only used HN to engage in political battle—in this case national battle about China. Regardless of what you're battling for, that's an abuse of the site as explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, so we've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break the site rules with.

Anonymity paired with speech is a new modern invention which didn't always exist. I don't this it is necessarily true that that kinds of speech is always for the ultimate good.

I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior. It just seems like the modern version of sitting around a fire face to face and not being an asshole.

> I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior.

If only that surveillance didn't open up avenues for exploitation, targeting, and suppression even more.

And I'm pretty sure we've got a little too much "cpmpliance" monitoring as we are right now... I'm ready for ALPRs, Stingrays, and a bunch of other LEO practices to get curtailed or even stopped outright.

We can't only experiment with structures and tools that have only upside positive consequences.

The existence of a bad outcome is something to be avoided and guarded against, but I don't see why any possible tool which has a potential to be abused should be avoided.

Echo Show is not an anonymous broadcast platform. Using it to talk to friends is the modern version of doing it face to face; why do we suddenly need to have corporations or the government in the middle?

It is true that societies are experimenting with policing what people say online; Germany's attempts to combat hate speech and fake news come to mind. But that is (hopefully) different from punishing political dissent.

Do you honestly believe that it is better for society if people can't openly say "I disagree with removing presidential term limits"?

I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior.

A listening device in private homes is a genie that won't go back in its bottle. Are you willing to stand up and say, I trust every official, elected or otherwise, for the rest of my life, and the lives of any descendants I might have? Because you have just written a blank cheque that says exactly that.

Bad governments will do bad things. I'm talking about how surveillance could be a useful tool in designing society as a counter to anonymous speech.

Anonymous speech in your own home?

> I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior.

Someone hasn't learned from history. The impulse you're feeling is tempting, but it never ends will.

Surveillance isn't a good or evil unto itself. That's all I'm saying. It's a tool. I think it could be used to nudge behavior toward better global outcomes. I'm not wedded to the idea that everyone nearly everywhere should feel free saying anything free from consequences. Making speech accountable and attributable could be good.

You're risking a large evil to solve a small one (people being "assholes" it appears).

Also, I think "anonymity paired with speech" is older than you think, and probably arose soon after the invention of the printing press. One notable instance of centuries-old anonymous speech are the Federalist Papers from 1787-88 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers#Authorsh...). Anonymous speech is also important for attacking oppressive regimes, even if it's more often used for far less lofty purposes.

Even good, trustworthy regimes go bad, and any surveillance system designed to be powerful enough to expose assholes can be perverted to serve oppressive ends. I'd rather those regimes have to build their surveillance from scratch rather than finding them ready-made.

  If they choose, these ultimately government controlled companies can easily make it so you can't buy things anymore, you are not trusted anywhere

America already has that, it's called a credit score and it does this exact thing.

Your credit score isn't affected by what you post on Hacker News. Your credit score is affected if you don't pay your bills. You'll find it harder to get credit in the future. I don't see the relation with state sponsored suppression.

Also, you can still buy things with cash. In China they use these apps to pay for things, you can't buy some things with cash.

A lot of companies use publicly posted stuff + friends on facebook to create a credit score though so it does happen in the west. Just not quite in the same way as in China.

Is this true of the US? I see articles from 2015/2016 about credit rating agencies (FICO in particular) looking into "alternate data" to inform scores, including social media stuff, but it looks like FB was fighting that to some extent (more regulatory burden) and the tone is "this is coming" not "this is here".

Source: worked for an online payday lender. There are a lot of commercial APIs from "Consumer Reporting Agencies," providing public information beyond credit rating agencies, that are in use to determine lending decisions. The Wikipedia article on the FCRA[1] has a brief list of these firms and a summary of the laws around data collection and dissemination. IMO the United States needs to both step up enforcement of existing data privacy laws, and more legislation protecting people.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act

I assume, in the case of a payday lender, that that data was mostly used to determine how gullible a potential customer is, and how easy it will be to fuck them over entirely.

Pretty much. One of the metrics optimized for was profitability of repeat business. You want that inflection point where you get as much as possible from the customer while still leaving them solvent and up to date on payments. This is where having all that data was essential - you can build models and determine what the inflection point would be, in terms of payment terms for a specific customer. Traditional payday lenders do not have this data - they would just try to impose the biggest APR and penalties on a customer and rely on collections to recover as much of the "fictitious" (fictitious in that their business plan presupposes they will not be able to collect the majority of it) debt as they could. Collections is expensive and eats into your margins.

Credit score is just a mechanism to help people borrow other peoples money from across different institution in the US. Back in the day, your religious leader might walk down to the bank with you to vouch for your moral character, but that isn't really feasible today. China can literally block you from the market. A bad credit score in the US just lets other free actors see that you are a bad investment.

What should the rest of the world do?

Hopefully not what was done to open up imperial China to the opium trade.

At this rate, it seems reasonable to assume they'd use a kill vehicle to take the satellites out.

You'd see wide-spread jamming well before then.

The Chinese government isn't stupid enough to commit an act of war and open up their own satellites to retaliation. They'll just ban possession of the ground terminals like they ban firearms, drugs, "subversive" literature, etc. It won't be completely effective but will prevent most people in China from having unfettered satellite Internet access.

> They'll just ban possession of the ground terminals like they ban firearms, drugs, "subversive" literature, etc.

They probably already have. I think their customs forms have a checkbox to declare radios and telecommunications equipment, sort of like the US has for agricultural products. My guess is you'll get extra scrutiny, at a minimum, if you check the box.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com