Hacker News Reader

Comment by smacktoward | Hacker News Reader

The problem is that these types of regimes tend to preside over a system that's extremely stable, right up to the moment when it really really is not.

Batista's Cuba was very stable and friendly to foreign investment too, for instance. Then along came Castro, and suddenly not only was it not particularly stable, but lots of those foreign companies had all their holdings expropriated by the new government for having collaborated with their oppressor. Oops!

View on HN

The difference being that China's culture, for the most part, is okay with the surveillance state. There's protests for sure, and places Hong Kong (an ex-British colony) are not okay with it, but most Chinese citizens are aware of the censorship and don't care.

I think what's happening more is that westerners are projecting their own culture and philosophies onto the population. Americans are especially passionate about free-speech and they assume that Chinese citizen's share that, hence all the doom prophesying like your comment.

It's not just about censorship and surveillance. These are there to prevent people from finding out and doing something about other forms of oppression. So what you are saying is that Chinese people culturally don't care about govt oppression unless it's their turn?

> The difference being that China's culture, for the most part, is okay with the surveillance state.

If they weren't, how would you know? Do you honestly think anyone who isn't would be dumb enough to say so out loud, especially to a pollster or a foreigner?

Fair enough, it could be survivor bias, but the firewall is so easy to bypass with a VPN that it would most likely be more evident.

Anecdotally I spent half a year in China, and whenever I brought up the censorship with people who lived there, I got more than just a few responses where they rolled their eyes and said we (Americans) are obsessed with it, followed up with, "Who cares?"

My point wasn't entirely about survivorship bias. People in a surveillance state are going to be especially careful about what they say to people like foreigners and journalists, as those are people who are likely to be under even more close surveillance than are average citizens. So whatever you say to them is very likely going to be something you say in the hearing of the government, even if the person themselves does their best to keep your secret.

Your argument is not falsifiable then: If a citizen says something bad about the totalitarian government—he is true and the government is that evil; if something not that bad—he is oppressed and fearful so this is untrue and the government is that evil. I don’t mean totalitarian government isn’t evil at all, but this way of thinking would keep leading you to confusing opinions like “why hasn’t this government collapsed” or “we would be appreciated by most people if we overthrow their government” etc.

Many Chinese have gone from sharing a plate of meat with their family once a month to affording meat every day. In that context, surveillance (and minority concentration camps) feel irrelevant.

Hmm, how can we really know the population is _okay_ with this? Seems like if things are working this is what the outward appearance would be. But the existence of all this social control means there must be some internal risk China sees.

After all, China is continually upgrading its surveillance and other means of social control. They're also committing cultural genocide in Xinjang despite the international media fallout. They must feel like there's some real threat worth fighting to do all this.

Also unlike the other top 8 or so world economies, China has had an internal revolution/civil war quite recently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com