Hacker News Reader

Comment by thiagoharry | Hacker News Reader

In Equador pacific protesters are being repressed by the government, protesters are being shoot by snipers and nobody cares. Geopolitical interests are a very crazy thing.

View on HN

I think geopplitical interests in this circumstance may be rational if a bit cold. It is like someone paralyzed by a broken spine vs by a virus essentially - both are bad of course but the later has real fear of "contagation" to spark worry. Ecuador while messed up is "contained" and would fail to take even a neighboring territory without any third party intervention. The most impact everyone else could feel is a refugee surge.

Meanwhile China is growing in power and influence while not softening in authoritarianism but even going backwards with Xi. The threat that something like that may spread elsewhere worries which may be why the NBA and Activision/Blizzard are facing a fiercer backlash than Dr. Strange and the Red Dawn remake for their caving - they effectively extended their reach. While boots on the ground domestically wouldn't be plausible without some "magic" antinuclear technology or incredibly good missle defense and detection bringing an end to Pax Atomica getting fired and blacklisted over acknowledging Tiananmen Square is potentially plausible with global markets and clout. That level of "having a blacklisted employee or contractor bars the company from selling to China" wouldn't technically violate treaties. Jurisdiction may keep one safe but barring financial transactions would be within the powers of a nation and before that level of tracking would be logistically impossible.

> Geopolitical interests are a very crazy thing.

Ecuador has been eye-opening for me from a personalized-news perspective. I spent a few months in Ecuador working on a project with an NGO so I have many friends in Quito and a handful in Guayaquil. From the moment the IMF-related austerity measures were announced it was all over my newsfeed and I've been getting "recommend" alerts about the situation from Apple News and Reddit.

I assumed it was a major international story. A few days after the protests started I mentioned them in conversation to a friend at Reuters who only had a vague idea of the situation. I couldn't believe it. He's an international news junkie. Looking at my phone, the protests are (were? hopefully) a major story but looking at his you wouldn't even really know it was happening.

welcome to the bubble. yours is different that most of everybody else in the west.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble

I agree. Although this is indeed a sad state of affairs, there is a lot injustice going on the world right now that I feel are not getting the attention they deserve. I feel these news have been partly fueled by the Western propaganda machine, the counterpart of the troll factories employed by Russia etc. And I'm not the one who would often say that, it's just it seems a little bit out of proportion in the context of things. Like US is trying to pressure China for their own benefit. I don't know, I'm speculating of course but this is what it seems to me as a reasonably neutral observer.

And although I'm pro-democracy and think the repression of HK citizens is wrong, I can understand the Chinese government's point of view and their cultural reasoning. I see China as the spiritual successor to Soviet Union which did the right choices for its continuation. And when Soviet Union fell apart it wasn't really a triumph of democracy that followed. Sure other Soviet Union states have been more successful but Russia itself seems to be chronically vulnerable to mafia-type people who will strong-arm themselves into power. Better than Soviet Union? I guess, but Chinese government doesn't seem interested in wanting to try out if democracy would work.

I'm sure the government officials are also more concerned with their own selfish needs than just what would be the best for people. So far the only reason why I would see authoritarian government being good, is that it can act more powerfully than democratically elected government without having to fear their decisions weakening their re-election chances. Yet their privilege in being power only rests on their ability to force people to obey their orders - be it fear, bribery or mass-media brainwash. I don't think that kind of environment is sustainable and is definitely not an equilibrium state for humans to exist in. If something requires you to constantly keep distorting reality in order to keep it going, it can't be a long-term solution. And this is without taking in consideration the humanitarian problems, prevalence of corruption and the absence of critical thought.

In Ecuador, you have internal strife between two political groups and the main apparent goal of the protesters is to get the reinstatement of fuel subsidies. It's a tragic situation, but from a media point of view its understandably not nearly so compelling a story.

Agree. I have sympathy for people that are fighting for their freedom against a foreign power. I have no sympathy for people fighting to continue getting something for free that they got used to.

You have no sympathy for people fighting for the right to keep freedoms? Not sure what you mean by “for free”

Fuel subsidies are not a freedom or liberty. It's getting something for free that someone else is paying for.

Apologies I thought you were talking about Hong Kong, I don't know much about the situation in Ecuador,

A lot of stuff happens in the third world, I guess we become numb to it. But if it happens in the first world...then it stands out a bit?

China is a third world country by definition. India and China are industrialized now but they are still somewhat neutrally aligned to US/EU and Russia.

Hong Kong is very first world, though.

The terms "first world" and "third world" are often taken to mean a level of socioeconomic development, but that wasn't the intended meaning.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World

HK was part of the UK when it the terms were coined, so it was "first world". And now that the term's meaning has shifted it's probably fair to say it's still "first world", despite being part of China, which was originally "second world".

I never really thought of Hong Kong as being a part of Mainland China. Ya, China has political ownership (which is why we are having riots at all), but HK feels like a first-world modern city...they don't even block Facebook.

Apparently China was a second world country - even with Soviet-Chinese conflict. Granted the USSR was around then and their communism was standard "authoritarian's figleaf archetype" instead of "laughably obvious lie like democratic in the name of a dictatorship".

Of course the definition of 1st world = NATO aligned, rarely used numerically 2nd = Soviet aligned, and 3rd = Unalligned has been effectively replaced by connotation of advancement with 1st as post industrial, the once again rarely used as number 2nd as developing or industrial, and 3rd as undeveloped or unindustrialized.

Yes, by definition they are. But Hong Kong has been first world by that same definition.

> China is a third world country by definition.

China is a second world country by the original definition of that phrase, which was: 1st world — Western bloc; 2nd world — red and non-aligned; and 3rd — everybody else "not worth talking about"

> 2nd world — red and non-aligned

where have you seen "second world" used to refer to unaligned countries? this how almost everyone used "third world" before it became a non-pc synonym for "poor". in the original categorization, the "third world" was absolutely worth talking about. these countries were the proxy battlegrounds of the cold war.

The "non-alligned" movement was pretty much a Soviet making, an effort made exactly to render Western system in bad light, and reduce Western bloc's freedom of action.

Pretty much like this — "Hey look, Americans lambasting us for boycotting Guatemala. We are not Soviets, but they still criticise us!"

On one side, they will be staunchly opposing America, on other side, they have that "not Soviets" defence — greatly reducing Western political resolve

A couple things, I didn't really see a huge uptick about HK until China started "censoring" western companies with employees having to publicly backpedal. Second, money talks and there is a lot more at stake with western companies in China and HK then in Ecuador.

Almost like context matters.

Because it's not just about Hong Kong protestors but about how China deals with thoughts and opinions that aren't of the ruling government.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com