Hacker News Reader

Comment by ashleshbiradar | Hacker News Reader

a big chunk of the mainstream traditional media in India is pro-establishment and pro-government. Digital news organizations were predominantly anti-establishment, thus the efforts by the government to toe the organizations to its line.

First it introduced the FDI regulations for foreign media as mentioned in the article.

Second they have recently proposed to bring Digital news organizations and streaming platforms under regulation of the central government https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/11/india-to-regul...

They brought FCRA for NGOs and civil societies which is considered a death kneel for civil societies in India. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/fcra-bill-virtually-m...

and have been harassing Amnesty International India for years now, which recently concluded to AII shutting down India operations https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/29/amnesty-to-hal...

View on HN

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

if you would care to notice, most of the criticism comes from authoritarian countries or countries that have a known history of violating human rights.

Israel( issues related to Palestine) China( I dont think I need to mention anything) US( Guantánamo Bay ) Russia (again, authoritarian)

So, if something can be criticized, it should not exist?

a big chunk of the mainstream traditional media in India is pro-establishment and pro-government

And? Why would you not be pro your own government? Should the media be against the government that people elect and which protects people's rights? Should the media be pro foreign governments and agencies?

I interpret pro-government as "supports the current administration's agenda". You seem to be interpreting it as "anti-anarchy" or at least 'pro-democracy". But a free (to be critical of the government's policies!) and independent press is crucial to the functioning of a democracy.

Well, in practice, there is not much difference.

The same freedom that allows the media to criticize legitimate concerns when it comes to the government also allows hostile foreign interests to amplify minor issues or manufacture fake ones to take down the government and install one that they can control from the outside, often to the detriment of the country and the citizens. So, my theory is that the countries that will succeed over the next decades are the ones which can protect themselves from foreign influence, by kicking out foreign interest groups, "aid" agencies, investments, apps, "news" sites etc. which India is doing. The obvious side effect will be that legitimate concerns and legitimate organizations which are detrimental to the establishment will also be suppressed. But I don't think there is a way to not do that.

Didn't the WHO literally do a house call to the entire country of India in their ultimately successful quest to eradicate smallpox? I wouldn't rush to condemn international aid.

You put scare quotes around both aid and news. Neither of these things are inherently bad.

Misinformation is the threat, not simply foreign information.

Government control of media is not a remedy to misinformation. In fact it is frequently a source.

You seem to be espousing an isolationist strategy but the genie is out of the bottle. Any country that tries to pull back from the rest of the world will suffer in comparison.

Any country that tries to pull back from the rest of the world will suffer in comparison.

Well, China has greatly benefited from doing exactly that. They greatly regulate and control foreign influence while they exert their influence every where they can. India is a big rival and they have been funding everything from the Naxalites (the underground Indian communist organization) to mainstream parties, organizations, media, universities... whatever they can which gives them political advantage.

China doesn't have a isolation strategy, they have a control strategy: foreigners that follow their rules are very welcome, as opposed to simply banned from visiting. Its strange to call a country with a clearl export focus "isolationist".

I don't think we disagree. Isolation is an essential part of it. If they didn't have isolation to begin with, they wouldn't be able to control anything.

I guess I don't understand what meaning you put into "isolation" then.

India's new NGO legislation is a page straight from Beijing. Same with banning Chinese apps and pushing back on FAANG. It's a step in the right direction, hopefully an indigenous ecosystem will pop up in the coming years, but India's problem has always been execution. Still, this is a good time to push - India can and does get away with murder now to thanks new geopolitical realignments. China had to wait much longer before conditions were relatively favourable.

two things here

1. Just because they did it and were successful doesn't mean everyone who does it will be successful. They did a thousand other things which will never happen in India. Like being a technocratic society which punishes corruption quite publicly.

2. Just because they were successful doesn't mean that is the only way to do it.

Sure, that's actually a very good point with regard to the CCP's great firewall in the context of economic prosperity. It remains to be seen how well that works long term. I wouldn't ask for the same treatment myself.

Regardless of what certain individuals want, ignoring inevitable outcomes don't fare well for them.

For example, like Yuval Noah Harari mentions in Sapiens, agriculture was not necessarily good for individuals. But since it allowed long term storage of food (in the form of grains), it allowed for stable habitats which grew into cities and nation states. There were still tribal people for a long time (there still are) who didn't adopt the technology but they were increasingly at the mercy of those on the other side.

We've seen the same with other technologies, like powerful weapons in the last centuries.

I think, in the new information age, we're headed to a similar trajectory with this new set of propaganda methods and defenses. Those who don't incorporate these new technologies into their systems will be at the mercy of those who do.

A good level of skepticism is a healthy check on corruption. People (for now) in the minority opposition should have some voice, it'd be odd if there weren't opposition outlets to say anything contrary.

The powers that be protects people's rights, until they don't, and you don't want to be the proverbial frog in the pot coming to a boil.

I agree.

However, I don't think we have a choice. At this point, the only two choices seem to be either to be governed by a tyrannical government fueled by national interests or a tyrannical government controlled by foreign interests.

I believe in decentralization of power, a structure where the governed are closer to those who govern them. I think this leads to people in power having more skin in the game.

We are a parliamentary democracy, we already have decentralization. We willingly let go because of the false dichotomy you present.

No, the media should not be pro government. Yes, the media should be against the government first and should criticize and be sceptical on whatever the government is doing. And if after checking the facts, the government seems to be doing good, it's okay to compliment. But media should never be pro government.

Ask nicely and Modi might give you a courtesy tap.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com