Hacker News Reader

Comment by sofixa | Hacker News Reader

On one hand, this is a classic dictatorship move. Senegal just did the same just after postponing elections.

On the other hand, Pakistan really did have terrorist attacks just before the election, targeted at the election. So taking heavy handed steps to protect the election integrity can be explained.

View on HN

IN Pakistan army decides and is the real ruler. Elections are only a face to appear as a democratic sate. In fact Pakistan elite (including army higher ranks) just is there to milk the country and build estates outside (West/UAE/etc).

Isnt it also true that no democratically elected or coup-installed Prime Minister in Pakistan's history has ever successfully completed a single full term in office, ever since their independence[1]?

And if that is true, isn't Pakistan a glorified tin-pot republic, thats democracy only on paper & manages to stay alive at the mercy of the propping-up prowess of U.S. and U.K., to act as a lily pad[2] of sorts in the region?

[1]

Every time the gov’t topples (no Pakistani Prime Minister has completed 5 years in office), corruption/looting reaches even higher levels… …to replenish and grow the bounty that was paid to buy out votes in elections and in the parliament. Sad, but v familiar to Pakistanis. 12:08 PM · Apr 9, 2022

https://twitter.com/bznotes/status/1512870199338287106

[2] Cooperative security location

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

Funny way to express the $65 billion of FDI that China's put into Pakistan, along with joint development of the JF-17 and 47% of China's arms exports as a whole, isn't it?

Or has the near-total cut in US military aid to Pakistan over 2018-2022 been a delayed coup de grace, and should we expect the country to implode at any minute?

Nobody can afford Pakistan to implode I think. The fact they have nuclear weapons is like a giant blackmail file on the entire world.

This dynamics is the underlying principle of every democracy. Only the sophistication of the civilian facade differs.

If you want to see how fast things show their true colors stop paying "your" soldiers. When it happens due to breakdown of government-nation relationship coup or military pacification of civilians is imminent.

> ... every democracy ... If you want to see how fast things show their true colors stop paying "your" soldiers.

Laying off soldiers and officers have been quite common in democracies. It is not really a problem. I guess it is mainly a problem if there is social unrest to begin with and the layoffs are a spark and maybe not done in an orderly manor.

Laying off some soldiers is ok when done by soldiers.

The problem with social unrest is that government loses capability of collecting taxes and stops paying all soldiers and the military can't have that.

How does cutting off communications prevent terrorist cells from executing their planned attacks?

The real reason is obviously that the ruling elite usurped and imprisoned Pakistan's most popular leader, which means the political situation is very volatile.

Bombs with mobile phones attached designed to trigger when the phone is called/texted?

Cheap battery powered mesh radio devices could just as easily trigger something, and be difficult to trace.

These are terror attacks, not three people trying to shoot the same target in a motorcade.

It impedes their situational awareness. If they're waiting on signals that never come, you win. If you capture one, he can't warn the others.

You know what they say about plans and first contact with the enemy...

I guess it's not a terrorist attack if nobody knows about it. Imagine you see the news "Poll site in the Bronx firebombed" right before you head out to vote. You're going to think twice about voting. But if you don't see that news story, you'll just go vote, because you don't know there's a risk of being killed.

The logic makes sense but I wouldn't like to see a media ban here. "Congress shall make no law..."

As an idea, media moratoriums immediately prior to elections seems fairly sensible. AI and disinformation attacks are likely to be 'last minute'. Maybe the entire phone and Internet system is going a bit far. Also, obtaining broad consensus for just muting the main social media channels doesn't seem that unreasonable. My thought is, unless gunmen are showing up at polling stations, what exactly is so urgent to discuss that people haven't already made up their minds about in 24 hours? Here's a few pro and anti standpoints [0..3].

[0] https://tech-ish.com/2024/01/12/2024-elections-internet-blac...

[1] https://www.axios.com/2020/09/25/majority-polled-back-a-soci...

[2] https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-on-the-week-of-the-elect...

[3] https://cybershow.uk/blog/posts/election-disinfo/

"As an idea, media moratoriums immediately prior to elections seems fairly sensible. AI and disinformation attacks are likely to be 'last minute'."

Not just for misinformation, but for true information that can inject bias into the decision. Many people use polls leading up to an election to pick the winner. Primaries are an institutionalized version of this where the first few states get greater influence of the options available in the others. If we actually want to pick the best people, then we should be working to eliminate bias.

I would love to see heavy restrictions in campaign advertising, the creation of a central campaign website on which every registered candidate gets a page to design, same day national primaries, some implementation of ranked choice voting, and restrictions on predictive polling or other predictive reporting that can influence the result. Although these raise many first amendment questions around legality.

I think looking at actions around elections in Pakistan through a western lens can lead to false conclusions easily. Let me try and explain through an analogy.

Suppose a US political party (A) decided it wanted to win the US elections no matter what. And it had enough clout, "campaign contributions", among the various government agencies (courts, police, FBI) to make it happen. But it just didn't have the votes to make it happen. So it used the court system to declare an entire opposite party (B) as in-eligible to run the country. If you support Republicans/Trump, think Trump is found in-eligible and the entire Republican party is too. If you support Democrats, think Biden and the entire Democrat party are banned from running in elections. That means every single member of the house that claims to be from party B is banned as running for that party. And this isn't done 2 years in advance, but mere days/weeks from the election.

That sounds entirely undemocratic, right?

Now the party B figures out that it represents the will of the people enough and it has enough votes that it could not only run but has a decent chance at winning. So, the members decide to run as Independents. How do you communicate this to the voters quickly? When Charlie goes in to vote for someone from B, how does he find out who to vote for?

Now, add another issue to the mix. Party A really wants to win (when it can't in an ideal democracy) so it makes it difficult to vote for people in districts where it knows it is unpopular. Alice, Bob and Charlie can be living in the same household but get assigned 3 different voting locations. Imagine they all live in Dallas, TX and get asked to vote in 3 different locations in Fort-Worth, Garland and Irving.

Now, the only way Charlie can still vote for the candidate that he thinks represents his views the best is to make use of websites to look up where to vote and which candidate is associated with the now-banned party B. Without internet and other sources of instant and mass communication, Charlie can't do that.

As a result of these actions, party B loses the election and party A wins.

Please note this is a very biased - but plausible - way to interpret the events around the current elections in Pakistan. But hopefully that perspective helps on why blocking the internet and controlling the means of communication is so important to certain individuals, companies, and political parties in Pakistan. And also why we can't look at the situation from the outside and fully understand the nuances at play.

Hmm, I tried to follow but that seemed a little elaborate. I think if someone tried to pull-off what you described (declaring a candidate disqualified within a week of an election) you'd have civil unrest or worse on your hands regardless any information flows.

Like I said, it is one plausible interpretation of events. It started almost a year ago, and it's been reaching a crescendo roughly last week. And since this is Pakistan, civil unrest is quite common anyway. Heck, there's an entire article on the start of this election cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022%E2%80%932023_Pakistan_pol...

Specific sources to back up my claims:

- "So it used the court system to declare an entire opposite party (B) as in-eligible to run the country" and "And this isn't done 2 years in advance, but mere days/weeks from the election"

  https://time.com/6556335/pakistan-election-imran-khan-nawaz-sharif-military-pti/:
  
  > On Monday [Jan 15, 2024], Khan’s PTI party was banned from using its iconic cricket bat logo on ballot papers, significantly hampering its chances amongst an electorate which is up to 40% illiterate. Most crucially, it effectively bans the PTI as a party and means its candidates will likely have to stand as independents, who will reportedly use a range of symbols ranging from a rollercoaster to a goat. “The election symbol is an integral component of fair elections,” Raoof Hasan, PTI’s principal spokesman and a former special assistant to Khan, tells TIME. “It’s rendering the party toothless.”

  And similarly, a previously-disqulified party leader (think Trump/Biden) was suddenly eligible to run again. https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-elections-timeline-36ed1d7bc77e78e630044d33ef624454:

  > Jan. 8, 2024 — The Supreme Court scraps a lifetime ban on politicians with criminal convictions from contesting elections, clearing the way for Nawaz Sharif to seek a fourth term in office

- "The members decide to run as Independents. How do you communicate this to the voters quickly? When Charlie goes in to vote for someone from B, how does he find out who to vote for?"

  https://twitter.com/PTIofficial/status/1748893680084111408?lang=en:

  > Following website will provide you information about Elections 2024: https://insaf.pk/election2024
  >
  > Type in your Halqa/Constituency Number to find:
  > - Name of Imran Khan’s designated candidate
  > -  Electoral symbol name & picture
  > -  A WhatsApp channel link for the respective Halqa/Constituency, to get timely information

Sorry I did not realise you are describing a sequence of events that actually happened/are happening. Yes I am looking though my (UK) lens of a slightly saner election (I hope), not one where civil unrest is already the backdrop.

> you'd have civil unrest or worse on your hands regardless any information flows.

In a normal state sure. In a semi-failed state which no sane person would consider a democracy? Probably not so much..

Not if you can't have civil unrest. This has been happening in Russia for like every election cycle, and people do try to protest, but those protests are being quickly suppressed, each year more and more violently.

Sadly, it isn’t that hard to imagine these kinds of tactics being used in a western democracy. I don’t want to weigh in on the specific controversies but you’ve basically described small extrapolations from various tactics both US parties have variously been accused of trying.

> My thought is, unless gunmen are showing up at polling stations, what exactly is so urgent to discuss that people haven't already made up their minds about in 24 hours?

If they got blasted with misinformation 24/7 before election day, how much will those 24 hours help them make an informed opinion? It might stop last minute attempts at swaying the election. But it will not stop long running campaigns.

That is indeed a different and separate problem in a different information space. Personally, I don't think any kind of censorship is useful or justified there.

Hearing from friends that there were a lot of last minute shenanigans like poll locations getting changed, candidates election symbols getting changed (important given the lack of literacy).

Some countries including my home country Poland impose a ban on political agitation on the election day. It means that no political content may be published on that day, but whatever has been published before that is allowed to stay. This is an old law which predates the Internet, so anything from social media posts to hanging up election posters is liable to be prosecuted and the authorities frequently do so. It's less drastic than in Pakistan, more drastic than in the West, but it certainly does cause a chilling effect on people when they know they may lose a few thousands if they get caught.

Wait, do Polish people not consider themselves part of the West?

Genuine question. I've met and worked with quite a few Poles since moving to the EU and my current takeaway is that it's in a really interesting fusion time between West, East, and some more mysterious third thing.

I guess it was a shorthand for western Europe.

"The West" is a very murky sort of definition. Arguably the colloquial "Cultural West" is what is on the Western side of what used to be called the Iron Curtain. Poland was definitely on the Eastern side of that.

I think being strongly Catholic draws Poland into the Western sphere in spite of the Cold War divisions.

Iron Curtain was a political, not cultural border. Western civilization usually includes all European catholic countries, i. e. also Poland. (Huntington is a notorious example)

>Western civilization usually includes all European catholic countries, i. e. also Poland. (Huntington is a notorious example)

What about European Orthodox countries? Does civilization only tie to catholic religion?

Only person I know to try to actually sit down and draw civilization borders was Huntington and put the Orthodox on a separate but linked civilization to the Western world, but even he admitted that's arguable.

Although even then Poland counts as West.

It’s no coincidence that the term “Eastern Orthodox” is widely used for that communion of churches; while the Orthodox world is still traditionally considered part of Christendom, it is still distinguished from the “West”.

Yeah of course it was a political border but it absolutely had cultural consequences.

You can literally see the difference in Berlin on either side of the wall. The Eastern side is similar but still different to the Western, culturally.

Even the architecture is still quite different between the two sides.

You can see stronger cultural differences within western Germany (or any country, really), e.g. between Bavaria and North Germany.

One of the classic dividing lines between East and West, the Hajnal line, goes straight through modern Poland. It’s closer to the historic border between Poland and Germany though.

> One of the classic dividing lines between East and West, the Hajnal line

Hajnal line is pretty controversial / outright rejected by many academics.

Irrespective of whether it is true or not, the idea that this should be somehow defining the border of (Aryan) West and (Slavic/Untermensch) East was pushed by Nazis. Otherwise it's just one line out of thousands without special merit.

Hajnal himself was a refugee from Nazi Germany of Hungarian Jewish descent; it’s offensive and glib of you to dismiss him, of all people, as a Nazi.

Historically, Poland was both and is a transition region between central and Eastern Europe.

Even when Poland was conquered, it was still the interface between a central/western empire (Reich Germany) an eastern empire (Russia) and an in-between empire (Austria-Hungary) but I would certainly call a city like Białystok ‘eastern’, but not necessarily Warsaw, Krakow or Wrocław.

The trouble is that what counts as ‘Eastern’ Europe can be demarcated by several large historical events (Mongols, flavour of Christianity, Communism, etc) so a definitive answer is hard to give.

On the other hand an American (migrant) doing an about face about a group of people based on preconceived notions is completely expected.

It is complicated. Most people in Poland do consider themselves part of Europe, sometimes even part of the West. At the same time people in Poland often contrast the West (as in Western Europe and US) with Poland and perceive west as something different and better. It is sort of post colonial mentality but with a twist, because it is not tied to race. This idealised “West” is often very far from real situation in Western Europe. On the other part of the spectrum you got polish conservatives who see west as degraded and fallen. They used to say things like: France no longer exists. Meaning France is not what it used to be; it is not true west because they lost the spirit of real west.

Genuinely very curious what you (and more generally other Poles) think of that? Also is it effective (of course you have no control case for comparison)? Thanks.

Not OP but we have the same regulation in Italy, coupled with one that forbids sharing opinion polls some days before the elections.

People don't particularly care either way.

They were somewhat effective pre-social media, but they relied also on a certain amount of fair play which is no longer as common as it once was.

Same here in France, and I guess most developed countries.

People go around it by sharing "vegetable prices" on Twitter. It's not very effective, but at least prevents stunts outside voting places.

We have similar restrictions in the UK. In the weeks before an election, government ministers and civil servants are not allowed to announce new policies or spending. On polling day, broadcast media cannot report on political matters or speculate about the outcome of the election. We also have extremely strict limits on campaign finance.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05...

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/11/media/uk-election-reporti...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50170067

Thanks dietrich, and for the helpful links to make the case. I may revise the blog post to incorporate those points.

Famously the BBC shows pictures of dogs at polling stations on election day so it's not political.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures-61333251

On the one hand, maybe. On the other hand you lose democracy “bragging rights” when you have to protect the soft skulls of your subjects.

Yes there's some of loss of the sense of absolute democratic purity. But then Aristotle saw that tradeoff against real polity quite some time back.

I think your point (that people ought to be smart and strong enough to withstand all and any malign influence(?)) made a lot more sense 20 years ago. In the Internet and AI influence age I think things have significantly changed. It's the integrity of the democratic process rather than the "soft skills" that requires a little more protection.

“Disinformation” is always a smokescreen. All nominal (keyword) democratic processes are filled with disinformation: standard advertisement. Those who want peace, lay down your own arms as well (no takers).

Like almost 2 years of election circus in the US federal election.

> I think your point (that people ought to be smart and strong enough to withstand all and any malign influence(?))

That’s absurd. I don’t conceptualize “people” as some not-me group.

Well I’m not Indian^W Pakistani but the principle is universal.

Here's a document I am currently reading for my research [0]. It contains some interesting definitions I hope you find helpful.

[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/6536...

Helpful?

> Here, disinformation refers to false, inaccurate or misleading information designed, presented and promoted intentionally to cause public harm or make a profit.

Is campaigning on lies a form of profit? You might win. These hypocrites really dare to present this as novel? Lying in politics?

What’s really the practical difference between this ostensibly oh-so clearly demarcated “disinformation” and less outright other-information? The difference is having a discourse fog which makes it practically impossible to conclude anything without sinking into a quagmire of rhetoric.

Here’s a “Beijing” statement, hypothetical:

> We the people of China

Ah! the eggheads exclaim. Propaganda! Clear disinformation since China is an authoritarian state (sorry, regime)—it can’t be a state “of the people”.

Here’s a “Washington” statement:

> The President does not suffer symptoms of senility

What is this? This is twenty different articles and op-eds back and forth on this topic:

- Well he went to the doctor 15 years ago and he said he was fine

- My good friend Joe Biden would never become demented—he would rather [redacted]

- I respect the President but it’s time for some young blood in leadership

- As a close aide to the President, blah blah

- He might not seem as sharp as 12 years ago but [diversion tactic]

Isn’t it amazing—you cannot peddle outright disinformation if you are sufficiently powerful, almost by definition; there is always some clown who will bat for you. And the result? A discourse fog. No one is a liar. No one is peddling “disinformation for profit.”

In conclusion: what we do are varying levels of information. But what these foreign forces do (because they are not here to defend themselves, and anyone who defends them (or just has a nuanced point of view) is just <regime>-puppet anyway) is disinformation because they clearly are X while they claim to be Y.

It seems natural that those who have power get to proclaim what is 'true' and what is 'false'. Foucault, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Chomsky, practically everyone who spared it a thought would agree with you.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding around the word "authority" (which we confuse with power in "western" language)

Firstly, what power says is immaterial with regard to actual truth or falsehood. That's why people wear T-shirts that say "Science is a bitch huh?". Certainly, millions may die because a man with a big gun, a big ego and a small penis swears that black is white, but ain't it always been so? Tomorrow you get to hold the gun, and suddenly you're "right".

But most importantly, "disinformation" has nothing to do with truth or falsehood. It's about intent. The word "intention" is right there. Otherwise what you have is "misinformation".

What pleases me about the linked definition is that profit and harm are deemed unacceptable intents. That scoops up every lying advertiser, every manipulative Big-Tech company, and every lying domestic politician into the "disinformation" net too, and for me that makes the world a better place. YMMV.

Indonesia's election is next week and they also impose 3 day "quiet day" where no political campaign may occur. I don't know if we'll have internet shutdown though.

No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com