hker

This HN post?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29661475 "Spamouflage: CCP-Aligned Disinformation Campaign on Facebook Twitter YouTube"

Let me add some nuances to this claim.

Even if “every step is observed” is exaggerated, the surveillance system in China is pretty extensive: it can target journalists and international students among other “suspicious people”, and can compile individual files on such persons using 3,000 facial recognition cameras (in a single province) that connect to various national and regional databases. [1]

And this surveillance system is part of the bigger tracking program, which the Chinese authority has used to harass and intimidate journalists [2] (see this comment for more [3]).

And according to the memoir “A Promised Land”, even Obama and his staff were worried about Chinese surveillance during their stay at the Beijing hotel (see this review [4] or this summary [5]):

    “To make calls involving national security matters from the hotel, I had to go to a suite down the hall fitted with a sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF) — a big blue tent plopped down in the middle of the room that hummed with an eerie, psychedelic buzz designed to block any nearby listening devices. Some members of our team dressed and even showered in the dark to avoid the hidden cameras we could assume had been strategically placed in every room. (Marvin, on the other hand, said he made a point of walking around his room naked and with the lights on — whether out of pride or in protest wasn’t entirely clear.)” [4]

And I agree with other commenters [6] that the situation worsened significantly after 2018 as Xi was consolidating power, so experiences before 2016 or so may not be representative of the current trend (when Xi may get more terms).

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-chinese-provinc... "EXCLUSIVE Chinese province targets journalists, foreign students with planned new surveillance system"

[2]: https://www.newsweek.com/china-harassing-intimidating-journa... "China Harassing, Intimidating Journalists With Surveillance Built to Curb COVID-19"

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29685703

[4]: https://georgetoparis.medium.com/obamas-a-promised-land-on-c... "Obama’s “A Promised Land”, on China"

[5]: https://www.bannedbook.org/en/bnews/baitai/20201121/1434392.... "Obama recalls his first visit to China and was under surveillance"

[6]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29684626

The level of propaganda (censorship and sponsorship) of the West (BBC, CNN, etc., if that could be called propaganda) is nowhere comparable to the level of propaganda in China (CGTN, CCTV, etc.), and this is the reason that generally the West has free press while China does not.

See my other comment [1] for some pointers to the level of propaganda (censorship and sponsorship) in China (e.g., police tracking journalists and deleting photos for no reasons, sponsoring YouTubers with special arrangements), which clearly has no equivalent in the West.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29685703

This is why people generally trust BBC, but not media in China.

> a bunch of links of people on YouTube walking around this same area and not seeing anything like this.

There is heavy tracking and surveillance in China [1], especially in Xinjiang [2][3].

Hence any reporting of Xinjiang, including the YouTube links you mentioned and posted, have selection bias.

That is, unfavorable reports or videos are censored, while favorable videos are selected, if not outright sponsored as part of large-scale online disinformation campaigns [5][6].

=====

The tracking and surveillance of reporters in Xinjiang, where journalists are tracked and have photos deleted for no reasons [2]:

    I was in Kashgar to report on how the Chinese authorities had turned to technology to cement their control of the Xinjiang territory, a region in the west of the country. Foreign journalists who travel there are tracked. I became one of the watched.

    [...snipped...]

    Another time, a police officer stopped us close to our hotel. Inspecting Chris’s photos, he deleted a shot of a camel. When Chris asked why that photo was deleted, the man turned to Chris and said, “In China, there are no whys.”.

=====

The tracking and surveillance of reporters in general, using the pandemic as an excuse and using visas for control [3]:

    Several foreign and domestic journalists were forced to abandon stories after being told "to leave or be quarantined on the spot," the report highlighted. Press credentials were commonly canceled by Beijing officials and embassies were routinely tasked with trying to renew revoked visas from journalists. The report said foreign journalists were used as "pawns" in China's international diplomatic disputes.

=====

The sponsorship of favorable YouTube and other social media videos, also covering ethnic mintorities [5]:

     The Barretts are part of a crop of new social media personalities who paint cheery portraits of life as foreigners in China — and also hit back at criticisms of Beijing’s authoritarian governance, its policies toward ethnic minorities and its handling of the coronavirus. 

    [...snipped...]

     State-run news outlets and local governments have organized and funded pro-Beijing influencers’ travel, according to government documents and the creators themselves. They have paid or offered to pay the creators. They have generated lucrative traffic for the influencers by sharing videos with millions of followers on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. 

    [...snipped...]

     His videos do not mention the internal government documents, firsthand testimonials and visits by journalists that indicate that the Chinese authorities have held hundreds of thousands of Xinjiang’s Muslims in re-education camps.

    They also do not mention his and his family’s business ties to the Chinese state.

=====

> Hey what sort of bullshit is this HN?

This sort of bullshit (sponsored videos) should not be promoted on HN, which may fuel the disinformation campaigns [5][6].

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/29/china-province... "Chinese province targets journalists and students in planned surveillance system"

[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/insider/china-xinjiang-re... "Being Tracked While Reporting in China, Where ‘There Are No Whys’"

[3]: https://www.newsweek.com/china-harassing-intimidating-journa... "China Harassing, Intimidating Journalists With Surveillance Built to Curb COVID-19"

[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/13/technology/ch... "How Beijing Influences the Influencers"

[5]: https://web.archive.org/web/20211224143113/https://www.nytim... "How Beijing Influences the Influencers"

[6]: https://miburo.substack.com/p/cotton-the-act "Cotton the Act: Large-Scale Network of CCP-aligned Facebook Accounts Deny Mass Atrocity in China's Xinjiang Province"

Edits: added more links.

> any research that use Zenz as starting point...

A research could be inspired by Zenz, then went on to find independent evidence supporting the same conclusion (forced labor in Xinjiang).

Getting inspired by Zenz does not make subsequent research less credible.

You need to list specific flaws in the Broad Daylight report to discredit it.

> On par =/= equal. HKFP better than epochetimes, but not by much...

With the Reuters reporting [1] linked above which reports the same as HKFP, diverting the discussion on HKFP is a straw man.

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-xinjiang-hugo-boss-idI... "Chinese celebs, netizens slam 'two-faced' Hugo Boss over Xinjiang"

> The bias of Bitterwinter/HKFP is presuming PRC branches are going off script when acting "two faced" that gets "disavowed" by HQ...

The fact that the Chinese branch can go rogue against the global headquarter has been reported multiple times.

For an example in tech, see Arm China [2], where the damage to the headquarter is much larger than Hugo Boss or BCI.

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28329731 "Arm China Has Gone Rogue"

The “Broad Daylight” is an academic research, which necessarily cites related work or previous work, including of Zenz.

This is how academic research works. Citing Zenz per se does not make the the “Broad Daylight” less credible.

If people are against Zenz, please judge the “Broad Daylight” report by ignoring all reference to and evidence provided by Zenz.

If you find specific flaws with “Broad Daylight”, please list them so that we can discuss.

Saying that it cites Zenz is just pointing out how academic research works, and does not invalidate the report.

> Bitterwinter or HKFP are also far from reliable, on par with Epochetimes bias.

Bitterwinter is not used as a news source here, just an Op-Ed, because all needed reporting are supported by other news sources such as SCMP.

HKFP is just reporting what Hugo Boss headquarter and its Chinese branch are doing, with links to sources. You can follow the links to judge for yourself [1], or find alternative sources reporting the same [2]: Hugo Boss Chinese branch is making unauthorized Weibo post contradicting the Hugo Boss global headquarter.

So the local branch does not represent the headquarter [2], just like BCI Shanghai does not represent BCI headquarter (as reported by SCMP).

[1]: https://group.hugoboss.com/fileadmin/media/pdf/sustainabilit... "HUGO BOSS Statement on the Chinese region of Xinjiang"

[2]: https://www.reuters.com/article/china-xinjiang-hugo-boss-idI... "Chinese celebs, netizens slam 'two-faced' Hugo Boss over Xinjiang"

(And no, HKFP is more credible than Epochtimes, as [2] just validated the HKFP reporting, but this is a red herring for the current discussion.)

> is bitterwinter.org a reliable source?

The bitterwinter.org article, which is clearly labeled as Op-Ed:

1. reports that BCI Shanghai contradicts BCI headquarter (which you can independently verify, as there are other news sources supporting this, such as the SCMP article I just added).

2. argues that the local branch (BCI Shanghai) could be under pressure for operating in China (the quoted text above).

If you don’t buy their reasoning (2 above), you can at least agree with the HKFP reporting that the local Hugo Boss Chinese branch contradicted the Hugo Boss global headquarter without authorization, and make your judgement call for why.

> or perhaps we should dig deeper...

You may want to read these sources [1][2], which I just added to my original comment and do not rely on Adrian Zenz.

> is adrian zenz, whom most of the xinjiang genocide claims originated from, a reliable source?

With those other verifiable sources [1][2], we can ignore the straw man question of whether Adrian Zenz is a reliable source.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/solar-chin... "Solar industry’s ties to China’s Xinjiang region raise specter of forced labor"

[2]: https://www.shu.ac.uk/helena-kennedy-centre-international-ju... "In Broad Daylight: Uyghur Forced Labour and Global Solar Supply Chains"

Check out this list on reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/dfg1ce/list_of_co... "List of companies under China's censorship orders (so far). Credit to u/lebe"

You are misrepresenting BCI by citing BCI Shanghai, which is a red herring in this discussion, see my other comment [1].

The problem with what you cite is not (only) with the outlet (CGTN), but with the source (BCI Shanghai), and also with using a red herring.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29666455

You misrepresented BCI.

And there are other independent sources showing forced labor in Xinjiang [1][2], regardless of what BCI Shanghai said.

BCI Shanghai is contradicting the BCI headquarter [3], and BCI Shanghai is not credible on this matter [4].

    While there are plenty of authentic reports, and investigations documented by independent research groups, the BCI Shanghai’s statement to deny the forced labor in the region makes us just think how much pressure the Chinese team of the group faces from the Chinese government.

It is not that rare for a local Chinese branch to contradict the global headquarter, possibly due to pressure of operating in China.

For example, the local Hugo Boss in China wrote statements on Weibo (supporting Xinjiang cotton) which contradicted the global Hugo Boss headquarter (stating that Hugo Boss does not use Xinjiang cotton) [5], and the headquarter clarified that the Chinese Weibo statement was unauthorized [6].

BCI Shanghai is in a similar situation: the local branch operating in Shanghai (claiming to find no forced labor) did not represent the headquarter [3].

The problem with what you cite is not (only) with the outlet (CGTN), but with the source (BCI Shanghai).

You are like stating that Hugo Boss is supporting the Xinjiang cotton, because you find a Weibo post by the local office supporting it [5]. This is wrong [3][4][6].

And with other sources finding forced labor in Xinjiang [1][2], the BCI Shanghai statement is a red herring in this discussion.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/solar-chin... "Solar industry’s ties to China’s Xinjiang region raise specter of forced labor"

[2]: https://www.shu.ac.uk/helena-kennedy-centre-international-ju... "In Broad Daylight: Uyghur Forced Labour and Global Solar Supply Chains"

[3]: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3127501/chi... "Chinese branch of Better Cotton Initiative challenges headquarters and says it has found no evidence of Xinjiang forced labour"

[4]: https://bitterwinter.org/better-cotton-initiative-why-its-sh... "Better Cotton Initiative: Why Its Shanghai Branch is Not Credible"

[5]: https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/26/hugo-boss-tells-chinese-cu... "Hugo Boss tells Chinese customers it will continue to purchase Xinjiang cotton, whilst own website says it has never used it"

[6]: https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/27/hugo-boss-statement-saying... "Hugo Boss statement saying it will ‘purchase and support’ Xinjiang cotton was ‘unauthorised,’ brand says"

Edited: added links [1][2][3].

Note that the sovereignty of Hong Kong is not as clear cut, because history.

Hong Kong was given to the Britain by three treaties in the 19th century (1842 Treaty of Nanking, 1860 Convention of Peking, 1898 The Second Convention of Peking), and the true copies of all treaties are in the hand of Taiwan, which were brought to Taiwan by the KMT government during its retreat to Taiwan before 1950.

If the declaration behind Hong Kong’s 1997 handover to China (the Sino–British Joint Declaration of 1984) is revoked, arguably it could be contested if Hong Kong should belong to the holder of the bearer shares of the three treaties, Taiwan. (See previous discussion [1]).

And in the most recent six-monthly report on Hong Kong published on 14 December 2021 [2], the UK government stated that China is not complying with the Sino-British Joint Declaration:

    With China now in a state of ongoing non-compliance with its international obligations under the UN-registered Sino-British Joint Declaration, the UK will continue to work with international partners to hold China to its legally binding obligations on Hong Kong. Upholding the promises it entered into freely is in the best interests of Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity.

China is not-complying the declaration behind Hong Kong’s 1997 handover to China.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23260934

[2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/six-monthly-repor... " Six-monthly report on Hong Kong: 1 January to 30 June 2021"

Let me reword the article and the discussion to highlight what is happening, this time try to reuse existing terms.

1. Chinese (the official language) is an invention [1].

The article explains its title with the history and development of different language families and dialects in China.

2. The Han race (the identity) is an invention. The united Chinese history (the view point of uninterrupted dynastic civilization) is an invention [2].

> ... the Han race was really only constructed in the last 100 years, along with the national mythos of several millennia of uninterrupted dynastic civilization.

3. An ethnically integrated China (the identity and political system) is an invention. The Chinese nationalism (the ideology) is an invention.

> an ethnically integrated China is, in fact, a modern invention linked to the rise of nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century.

4. The invention of an integrated China is sensible, because history [3].

> This idea is a very sensible one in the context of China being forced to open up to the world.

5. The invention of an integrated China is NOT sensible, because history [4].

> Mao Zedong supported the Hunan self-government movement even as late as the 1920’s.

[1]: https://www.historytoday.com/archive/feature/invention-chine... "The Invention of Chinese"

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29529921

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525040

[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29525343

=====

Clear thinking of different concepts, and understanding what is being discussed, is needed for a fruitful discussion.

Calling unfamiliar concepts as “a debate of definition of words”, and not understanding what is being discussed, is not fruitful for discussion.

Note that throughout the discussion, we are using “invention”, “construction”, or “convention” as the same concept, and study their consequences to the society, to politics, and to history.

Here, we are talking about created languages (Chinese official language), identity (Han), history (national mythos, narratives), ideology (nationalism), and politics (integrated China).

This branch of social science, which studies created and accepted concepts, deals with “social constructs” [5].

[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism "Social constructionism"

> ...at the expense of local languages/dialects.

Worth noting that many Chinese languages are facing extinction, including Mongolian, Manchu, Bouyei [1]. In particular, Manchu, the imperial language a little more than a century ago, was known by less than 100 people and mastered by less than 10 in 2013 [2].

[1]: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-languages/chinas-mi... "China's minority languages face threat of extinction"

[2]: https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/once-imp... " Once imperial language, Manchu facing extinction"

Mao’s 1920 proposal to split China showed that an ethnically integrated China, or a politically integrated China, was not a very sensible one in the context of China at that time.

Mao disproved your claim.

And that was my point: viewing certain historical events from a certain perspective is a social and political construct (the nationalism is a modern invention). The facts (Mao’s proposal) are supporting this view point: there could be alternative social constructs (for example, a split China).

Mao’s 1920 proposal disagreed with your social construct (that an integrated China was a sensible thing at that time, due to being forced to open to the world).

> Mandarin would form the foundation of the spoken standard (as had been the case for > 1000 years at this point)...

The Old Mandarin had its root from Jin (1115-1234) and Yuan (Mongol) dynasties [1], coming from “foreign ethnicity” 外族 (from a Han-centric view point). The history is less than 1000 years, less than the ancient poems (唐詩) that we are discussing.

One main reason for Mandarin to be the standard of Chinese is because of the influence of Mongolia (Yuan) and Manchurian (Qing), that is, non-Han ruling dynasties.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Mandarin

> the idea that Cantonese is more faithful to Middle Chinese ... and therefore better for reading ancient poems also is suspect.

The tones (esp. 平仄) are better preserved in Cantonese than Mandarin, I don’t think this is disputed.

In fact Cantonese preserves the tones (esp. 平仄) of ancient Chinese better than Mandarin, and this shows for example when reading Chinese poems [1].

Cantonese even almost became the official language of China [2].

[1]: https://www.quora.com/Do-most-ancient-Chinese-poems-rhyme-in...

[2]: https://www.scmp.com/article/694592/cantonese-almost-became-...

> > an ethnically integrated China is, in fact, a modern invention linked to the rise of nationalism at the end of the nineteenth century.

> This idea is a very sensible one in the context of China being forced to open up to the world.

The narrative of “China being forced to open up to the world” is also a social construct, and in this case a political construct.

For examples, Mao Zedong supported the Hunan self-government movement even as late as the 1920’s [1][2], quite some time after the end of the Qing dynasty in 1911. This clearly ran against the convention that China should be politically integrated as it is today.

[1]: https://blog.dwnews.com/post-896926.html "毛泽东：我想建湖南共和国 全国分为27国"

[2]: https://www.jstor.org/stable/652585 "Mao Tse-tung and the Hunan Self-Government Movement, 1920: An Introduction and Five Translations"

Lots of your objection stems from breaking Hong Kong laws (rule of law...being part of China, criminals aren't swept under a rug...).

Worth noting that there is a huge difference between “Rule of Law” and “Rule by Law”: China only has “Rule by Law”, not “Rule of Law” [1][2], because Rule of Law requires Judiciary Independence (hence “having Rule of Law” is incompatible with “being part of China”, as CCP stated explicitly [3]).

To make this concrete, let’s use the recent event of Peng Shuai’s allegation as an example. The accused ex-Premier Zhang Gaoli could be guilty or not, but under Rule of Law—where no one is above law, not even the party or prominent party members—he must go through the same process as other accused. This is the only way to show that criminals aren't swept under a rug for political reasons (such as because Zhang Gaoli was close to Xi Jinping during their time in Shenzhen). Putting the party or prominent party member above law (or behind some opaque process) is NOT Rule of Law.

And a huge disagreement causing the Hong Kong protest is due to deteriorating Rule of Law [4], due to worsening democracy in Hong Kong (the legislative council does not represent the majority opinion). This had been voiced out by a judge of Court of Final Appeal [5] and some prominent lawyer [6].

[1]: https://archive.md/WjWWF

[2]: https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2021C28/

[3]: https://www.thestandnews.com/china/習近平-法治要從國情出發-決不能走西方-司法獨立-...

[4]: https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/8-4-將軍澳遊行-參加者高太-香港已由法治...

[5]: https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/包致金-香港只享有-類法治-應改變沒有民主也...

[6]: https://www.thestandnews.com/politics/石永泰-亂談法治-會為政權錯誤鍍金

Indeed, the 2021 Report to Congress by U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission points out (p. 458 of [7]):

    Judiciary Independent in Name Only

    Hong Kong’s historically independent judiciary is no longer reliably impartial on cases related to matters the Chinese government deems sensitive, since the National Security Law has cemented Beijing’s right to determine which judges hear national security cases in which jurisdiction, almost guaranteeing outcomes the CCP prefers.

[7]: https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2021_Annual...

Hence, if you wish for Judiciary Independence and Rule of Law of Hong Kong, you would object the NSL, like the protestors did correctly.

This is the reason that comparing the protestors to Capitol rioters, as China did [8], is disingenuous [9].

[8]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-07/communist...

[9]: https://qz.com/1953776/dont-compare-trumps-insurrection-with...

Given the difficulty of maintaining Rule of Law under One Country Two Systems (as Tibet and Hong Kong showed), your hope of Rule of Law would object One Country Two Systems.

Also, before demonizing Two Country Two Systems, have you experienced it firsthand and come to your own conclusion? Do you know what you are disagreeing with?

Given the disinformation campaign of CCP [10], that is, CCP regularly injects disinformation into media (or in this case, deliberately confusing “Rule of Law” with “Rule by Law” in a newspeak way [1][2]), it is hard for Mainlanders to know about Hong Kong and have an informed opinion, even when they moved outside China.

[10]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20740179

Even IOC calls the Peng Shuai situation ‘humanitarian matters’ that they would proceed with “quiet diplomacy” [1]. Short of calling this a hostage situation, this is definitely not normal.

[1]: https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-statement-on-the-situation...

IOC is the only entity outside China which contacted Peng Shuai, whose external communication is under heavy control by China, so it may be harder for others to see what is going on.

Also, WTA is calling for an investigation into a #MeToo, which arguably falls under human rights.

In terms of leverage on China, I think Apple has a lot, since they employ a lot in China. Although the next question is, can they afford (of the order of) 1/3 of their revenue?

Would Blizzard and the IOC be closer to the WTA here, in that their are also hosting tournaments and events?

Both Billie Jean King, the founder of WTA, and Novak Djokovic support WTA’s announcement [1].

    “I applaud Steve Simon and the WTA leadership for taking a strong stand on defending human rights in China and around the world,” said Billie Jean King. “The WTA is on the right side of history in supporting our players. This is another reason why women’s tennis is the leader in women’s sports.”

    Novak Djokovic, World No 1 and cofounder of the Professional Tennis Players Association, said he fully supported the WTA’s stance, and everyone including the Professional Tennis Players Association (PTPA) and the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) was “asking for clarity on what is going on”.

    “We don’t have enough information and I think it’s a very bold, very courageous stance from WTA,” he told reporters.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/dec/01/wta-suspends-t...

Joe Pompliano thinks the WTA will lose 1/3 of their revenue [2].

[2]: https://twitter.com/JoePompliano/status/1466142522628059144

According to Joe Pompliano [1]:

> The WTA has decided to officially suspend all tournaments in China due to the censorship & disappearance of tennis star Peng Shuai.

> That means 1/3 of their revenue is now gone.

> Good for them for doing the right thing despite the financial implications.

[1]: https://twitter.com/JoePompliano/status/1466142522628059144

> I do not agree with you that the CCP's popularity in the mainland is fake. There are multiple studies that show that their popularity is real.[...][...].

I am not questioning CCP’s current popularity in Mainland (or Kim’s current popularity in North Korea), given their current control (including in education and media, both propaganda and censorship). When the population were brought up that way, even when presented with opposing view points their thinking is skewed (compared with many other democratic countries), and considers things as conflicts of super powers or humiliation by foreigners. Such thinking frequently persists and affects their actions even after they move outside of China (censor Hong Kong and Xinjiang in FANNG [1]), even in face of opposing evidence (linking Xinjiang to CCP [2]). Many of the Chinese population are effectively exporting their values to the world [3].

For a concrete example, even when foreign sponsorship does not pose material threats, some Chinese would suggest disproportionate responses (such as to consider draconian security measures and the National Security Law, resulting in arrests of the majority of democratic candidates [4]). This is disproportionate because UK and other European nations would not take comparable measures against comparable foreign sponsorship (by CCP). Just like in the US, Texas Secession could be discussed and supported without similar consequences to the NSL in Hong Kong [5]. This shows the resilience of their political systems, and by contrast CCP is overreacting.

Gaining popularity this way may be fine for CCP (or for Kim) for now, but when the system becomes unstable (due to declining economy and shrinking population), things may start to crack. The problem is not that it is fake, the problem is that the system (by censoring dissent and pointing fingers at others inconsistently) is unsustainable. And at least, this is why CCP and Kim do not currently have as high popularity in Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Sweden, Czech, Germany, France, or elsewhere.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27649830

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29384161

[3]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21194083

[4]: https://apnews.com/article/legislature-primary-elections-dem...

[5]: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/obama-administrat...

> It also bugs me that a lot (not sure how many, but a lot) of protesters _don't know what sort of freedom they want_.

Many Hong Kongers want CCP to leave them alone, which was the implicit contract behind the 1997 hand over of Hong Kong. To be more specific, Hong Kongers want to run the city their way (including have their elected representatives not being arrested [4]), and not having laws inserted into their mini-constitution (Basic Law) against their will, to respect their differences—more or less the way Hong Kong was run before 2019. Incidentally, I think that’s what most Tibetans originally wanted, and what most Taiwanese currently want (against unification), too.

Wanting CCP to leave them alone was the main theme behind the 5 demands in the 2019 protest. What they don’t know is how to achieve it, when faced with CCP, the PLA and the massive Chinese population.

I am less worried about them not knowing exactly what or how to achieve the freedom they want, just like the population of Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea might not know exactly what they wanted during their democratization (I would not be surprised by a Keybros interview when they democratized. BTW, if you want to know what the protestors think outside of cameras or Keybros, check out https://www.thestandnews.com/). Ignoring the selection bias, not everyone is as articulate, but this does not stop the trend of democratization. They democratized by trial and error 摸著石頭過河, and things work out fine for them. Same for Hong Kong.

> why could none of the 100 protesters articulate what concrete freedoms they are missing?

How did the Keybros interview avoid the selection bias?

> Why are the protesters mostly younger people who have never lived under British colonial times?

The younger ones have less burden and could go to the streets, the older ones with more burden supported them. See the election result for the proof [6].

> There is something deeply disingenuous among a part of the protester movement.

Hong Kongers want to say No to CCP, but this could not be said out loud with the PLA standing by. This is the disingenuous part. (Just like many protests in China would be prefaced with a support of the CCP, however contradictory and disingenuous sometimes it could get. Also, many Taiwanese wanted to say so, but again need to consider the threat of the PLA.) This is why many Hong Kongers left when they still could [6], they vote with their feet, if they could not vote with their hands.

[6]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29346205

> One Country Two Systems, not Two Country Two Systems.

CCP said that first to Tibet in 1951, then to Hong Kong in 1984. Seeing what happened, now in 2021 even the Nationalist party KMT in Taiwan is rejecting One Country Two Systems. Sometimes we need to learn from history.

I wish the WHO could name things more consistently.

- They did not rename the Ebola virus the same way the renamed the virus first discovered in Wuhan (as COVID 19).

- And they are happy to keep the SARS backronym in SARS-CoV-2, since SARS was first discovered in Hong Kong SAR.

- Now they skip over the Xi variant, although the Delta variant (or the name Corona itself) did cause some confusion earlier.

If they want to be classy in naming, can they be more classy to people outside of mainland China?

> Seeing that Hong Kong was literally an NED-sponsored [...] color revolution ... such as assaulting fellow Hong Kongers for merely disagreeing with them[...].

Your comment is vastly disproportionate, and does not explain what happened.

Your comment suggests the following:

- Hong Kong’s protest was mainly due to sponsorship by the US, that is, it would not happen to this scale without US’s sponsorship (via NED).

- Hong Kong’s protest was mainly undemocratic (using your examples).

When discussing a social movement of this scale (millions went to the street, protests went on for half a year, with aftermath still affecting current events), we must judge whether your examples represent the majority or the extremely rare minority of what happened.

Just like the social movement led by Mahatma Gandhi, the movement led by Martin Luther King, or the recent BLM movement would not change much even if hundreds of protestors did things that go against the main thrust of the movements (which did happen).

To make this concrete: imagine blaming the BLM on CCP because they supported it [1], which is absurd [2].

We know that:

- The pro-democracy group had a landslide victory in the 2019 election (during the protests) [3].

- Many Hong Kongers left Hong Kong after the National Security Law [4][5]: a higher percentage of Hong Kongers left Hong Kong after the NSL than German left East Berlin after the split of Berlin.

Blaming the Hong Kong protests on CIA, NED, and the US does not explain the above events. Just like blaming the BLM on CCP does not explain the trend.

A much simpler explanation is that Hong Kongers do not like CCP rule, and they show it in the protests, in the election (when conducted fairly, without screening of candidates), and in their acts of leaving (when faced with the NSL and screening of candidates in future elections).

I suspect that the popularity rating of CCP, or of Kim’s regime in North Korea, would plummet if people know what is going on (that is, when the state censorship and propaganda are gone) and they are allowed to express themselves (for example, with a fair election). We just see this happened in Hong Kong.

[1]: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2020/07/01/commentary/w...

[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/technology/no-a-black-liv...

[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/24/hong-kong-resi...

[4]: https://news.yahoo.com/almost-90-000-people-left-040718900.h...

[5]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/11/world/asia/hong-kong-popu...

I think LeBron James and John Cena come close.

Given that the state media (the Global Times and CGTN) are showing images and videos of Peng Shuai (following the strong stance of WTA [1]), I think CCP is currently in damage control mode.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29280947

I speculate that Peng Shuai is currently alive, and if the released images and videos are recent, she is treated much better than some political dissents (such as Ai Wei Wei) under confinement, although I think even so house arrest or confinement should not be justified. It is clear that her external communication are currently under control, and CCP is showing only what needs to be shown (she is alive, only through state media, only to foreigners, especially WTA and other outspoken tennis players).

I think CCP is trying to work out a “solution”. CCP wants WTA to stay, the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic to run, and perhaps also that the #metoo movement not to spread, while I think the Weibo Post of Peng Shuai suggests that she currently wants acknowledgement (名份, much like that Zhang Gaoli does not disappear) more than justice (that Zhang Gaoli goes to jail for his action) [2]—even though the actions of Zhang is clearly through force, she later developed certain affection to Zhang Gaoli until Zhang tried to disappear [2]. (Again, not that I agree with what Zhang Gaoli did. A tangential question is, does a Stockholm syndrome make a #metoo less #metoo?)

I speculate that CCP may give Peng Shuai what she wants (for example, force Zhang Gaoli to acknowledge Peng Shuai, perhaps privately; or simply “remind” her that she could be treated much worse unless she complies, that is, via coercion), on the condition that this would make WTA to stay and the Beijing Winter Olympic to run and the #metoo movement not to spread (for example, Peng Shuai needs to say something publicly to control the PR, likely via state media). They may be busy coming up with a story for Peng Shuai to tell the world.

[2]: https://www.whatsonweibo.com/the-silent-storm-peng-shuais-we...

Unlike the WTA, ironically the IOC is silent, given that Zhang Gaoli (the ex-Vice Premier accused by Peng Shuai) has been working with the IOC and overseeing the preparation of the upcoming 2022 Beijing Winter Olympic for years [1].

[1]: https://olympics.com/en/news/beijing-2022-unveils-official-e...

> Taiwan is part of China...

Which ‘China’? The political China, or the cultural China, or ethnic China (ie, with a majority heritage from Chinese descent), or what?

How do you conclude that Taiwan is part of China? And what does it have to do with Xi’ speech or CCP rule?

> But calling into question the term 'reunification' is purely propaganda...

Taiwan has de facto sovereignty, and with a majority support against unification [1]. This is the current status.

So the quote around ‘reunification’ is reflecting the current status.

> ... in order to paint the PRC as trying to invade a foreign country like if they wanted to invade Vietnam or another neighbour.

Sending fighter jets and and bombers to Taiwan sounds more like invasion than ‘reunification’ [2], if you ask me.

If you say the situation is exactly like Germany, are you suggesting that Germany was reunified through military?

And what should happen if the majority of Taiwanese do not want ‘unification’ [1]? Should Taiwan be ‘reunified’ against their will?

[1]: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/taiwan-experiencing...

[2]: https://www.economist.com/china/2021/10/09/china-is-ratcheti...