Hacker News Reader

Comment by tweetle_beetle | Hacker News Reader

The name of the mobile app is Riot.im. If that in itself is enough to be used as evidence against an innocent person, then the party doing the accusing is clearly comfortable with much more underhand techniques and it hardly matters.

Some lazily searched synonyms for groups of people which would fit the criteria of being more closely aligned include:

pack, mob, crowd, crew, gathering, rabble, syndicate, family, gang

Most of those have some negative connotations in the right (or should that be wrong) context. It's depressing to think about a chilling-esque effect on something as mundane as a chat app name.

View on HN

If a country has a jury system then it's not just about the authorities but their ability to convince people. A random juror will sure find someone having an app named "Riot" as indicating that they wanted to participate in a riot. In practice, that means the defendant needs to provide proof that the app is innocent rather than the prosecutor providing proof that it's not.

I guess you are lucky that you don't live here then. At the moment, just seeing the Telegram icon on the home screen will result in police scrutinising you more. Having something called "Riot" on your phone when people are currently being accused of Rioting for just being in the wrong place at the wrong time is just a liability. This is especially true with the new National Security Law which is being past imminently now.

I completely understand your point. I just can't imagine a scenario where some state authority takes the time to look at your phone and then:

- gives you a bad time if they see the word Riot.im on your phone

- or, lets you go about your business if they don't, or sees [generic chat app name]

If someone is intent on abusing their authority, then they will abuse it. There's no reason [generic chat app name] won't become the new "evidence" for tomorrow's abusers, even if it does accurately describe the app's function.

I appreciate the argument about not giving them cause to abuse their authority. But, as you say, if simply standing in the wrong place at the wrong time is enough cause, then it is completely impossible to stay safe by keeping a low profile. The system has been designed to give citizens little control and blur the lines of criminality.

edit I want to clarify that I don't want anyone to suffer, especially over something as mundane as an app name. The realist in me is happy for any measures to prevent abuse to happen. The idealist in me finds it disheartening that the motivations of abusive regimes and cynical legal systems even have to be given a moment's thought.

vict.im ?

Patriot? And then make sure in the Chinese App stores it is given a very communist-patriotic version of that name.

We're talking about a city where a woman was convicted for attacking police officer with her breast.

Yes but life isn't all or nothing. One can choose to reduce their risk and one of the ways to do this is not use an app called "Riot".

Protests are always a battle for the hearts and minds of the general public. Accusing protesters of violence, painting them as criminals as opposed to citizens exercising their rights, is absolutely key to justifying any crackdown.

Symbolism matters. The tongue in cheeck nature of a name such as Riot can easily get lost or deliberately mischaracterised in a heated propaganda battle.

When authorities decide whether or not to ban an app, it matters what the main purpose of the app is, and it matters what the broader public belives its purpose is.

Using an app called Riot is simply unhelpful if you're constantly defending yourself against accusations of rioting.

You are presuming everyone is acting in good faith. In interpersonal communication presume good intent and best efforts. But with media, war and politics, presume bad-faith and self-interest.

> I just can't imagine a scenario where some state authority takes the time to look at your phone and then:

> - gives you a bad time if they see the word Riot.im on your phone

> - or, lets you go about your business if they don't, or sees [generic chat app name]

In my Beijing experience, the police are not out to abuse authority, just to cover their behinds. Not reporting having seen the word "Riot" on your 'phone could get them into trouble, so they will report it - which means pulling you through the mill first.

It's not about evidence, per se, but about normalization. People from all walks of life might find a need for it in HK, and it's easier to convince someone to download an app they haven't heard of if it's called "Messages" or something than "Riot".

I mean, branding matters. Discord has one of the best voice chat implementations, but asking my coworkers to use it feels a bit iffy just because it has gaming-focused branding.

The word discord itself means:

disagreement between people

Even Facebook didn’t get their brand that wrong.

Branding does matter, but doesn't your example demonstrate the opposite point - overall brand experience is more important than a name?

Riot.im's potential brand association with the act of rioting stops with the name. There is no other reference to riots, or rioting, and violence is not a core part of the brand identity. There is no rioting community that it is appealing to, or normalising.

Discord actively affiliates itself with the gaming community in all aspects of its branding. The gaming community happily embraces it despite the (universally?) negative connotations of the name. You said that you would feel iffy about recommending the app because of the gaming-focused branding, rather than the name.

I get that this is a bit pedantic, after all the decision has been made and Vector, Matrix, etc. are all fine by me anyway. I'm all for changing insensitive, inappropriate names where they refer to specific cultural/historical events/figures which society feels should no longer be celebrated. But in my opinion this is much more superficial.

My argument is nothing to do with political correctness or the current cancel culture, which I shall not express an opinion on.

I'm just saying that if I am arrested and at the trial it is stated that "xyz has an app called Riot which she used for coordinating illegal gatherings", some people in the jury may understand this as proof of intent. This is especially true in a multilingual society where the app name will be translated into Chinese for the benefit of the jury.

This is why I would not use an app called Riot in Hong Kong. If you are unable to understand or emphasize with our situation then you will indeed keep arguing against me and there's nothing I can say to convince you.

This is the first I've seen branding considerations described as "chilling".

Your definition of that word seems absurdly broad. Is it "chilling" that Coca-Cola can't name a soda "Rebel Red" because it would remind people of the Confederacy?

Or is it just that brands have to be pretty tame and appeal to the lowest common denominator, and issues of free speech are secondary to people actually liking the brand?

Who is trying to make ideological points through their brand anyway? And what point is "Riot.im" making that society is now losing?

Companies pour a lot of time into naming, colors, numbers, etc - all of which have various meanings in different culture and evoke various feelings.

I don't know what that has to do with my comment. It seems like you agree with me.

My point was just that choosing a universally inoffensive name is a very common and practical part of branding.

Uh, names matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com