Hacker News Reader

Comment by sievebrain | Hacker News Reader

> they don't envy our free for all either

The Chinese are constantly brainwashed to believe that yes, it's true, China is a dictatorship and other countries aren't (this fact cannot be totally hidden no matter how much their firewall tries to block keywords like 'democracy') ... but that's not really a problem and democracy vs dictatorship are just two different styles with neither being better than the other. China has dictatorship and America has democracy but that's fine because China's needs are different, etc.

Any student of international history knows full well that this viewpoint is complete crap. The track record of totalitarian dictatorships is awful. But don't underestimate the power of total information control to warp and distort people's minds. I've encountered a Chinese person who believed they are well educated and understood the West well, and then came out with ridiculous statements like "people in the west have to wait a week for emergency medical care" as justification for why a "paternal" government is not so bad really.

The local perspective of Chinese people is essentially worthless for judging what's actually going on in China. They are fed a constant diet of lies, and unlike in other parts of the world their access to organised debunking of those lies is severely restricted. They can't even judge what's going on by measuring the opinion of those around them because the government subtly distorts that too (as seen by this article).

View on HN

I think it's also useful to keep in mind that it's not just propaganda, China's government is overall doing a decent job especially if you compare to how things were before. China basically spent a century being kicked around by outside powers, culminating in the Japanese rampaging around the place for a decade. Since the Communist Party took over, China rose to become a world power, with a strong economy, strong military, and no trouble with invaders.

Clearly, the Communist government is not without its own problems, e.g. the Cultural Revolution, which I'm not trying to diminish in any way. Some of those (like the Cultural Revolution) are seen as a failure of government which the current government tries very hard not to repeat. Some (censorship, general political repression) are accepted, either as necessary or unfortunate but tolerable.

Clearly, you can make the argument that China would be doing even better under a good democratic government. I'd be pretty receptive to that argument personally. But it's pretty hard to convince people that they should undergo a radical change in government, when the terrible effects of political upheaval are still fresh in people's memories, and the current regime has overseen such improvements. Throw in the ridiculous shit coming out of Western democracies at the moment (e.g. Trump) and that job gets even harder.

Edit: regarding the downvote, let me ask: if you had to be transplanted into the body of a Chinese person at some point in time, would you rather it be 1900, 1940, 1970, 2000, or today? From everything I know, I'd vote 2000 or "today" without hesitation, and not just because of computers and smartphones.

What do you mean not just propaganda?

The Chinese nationalism you talk about has strong roots in propaganda. Its the very purpose of propaganda.

Its also the same communist party which caused the great famine that are in power now. Different people, same party.

The amount of doublespeak in your writing makes me question if you really believe what you write. why are you defending propaganda?

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

Mike is a respected member of both HN and the Cocoa community. Are you implying that he's a shill?

No, I'm not implying that.

I'm implying that I don't understand how his arguments flow - they seem self defeating. For the reasons outlined above. I don't mean it personally, and I don't really care if he is respected or not. I just wanna get to the bottom of why, how and what he is getting at. And from his writing style it seem I am led to doubt he doesn't really believe what he is implying. Of course, I might and probqly an wrong so would appreciate clarification.

The argument of: its not just propaganda, its also a reflection of development - doesn't wash with me.

I still don't think so, but can I ask you a question. Do you think there are some strange posts on these threads, written with an underlying tinge of propaganda (not everyone). This morning I woke up to find my original post no further replied to, but down voted from 8 to 2. I also seem to be having a conversation with someone who registers a new name each time they post (I presume).

And the whole thread is about controlling social media - particularly through controlling perception of public opinion.

Honest question, what do you think? Irony, conspiracy, time zone differences.

> Do you think there are some strange posts on these threads, written with an underlying tinge of propaganda (not everyone).

You mean like yourself here [1] where you are touting government propaganda?

The thing about propaganda is, the more one-sided a conversation becomes, the less interesting it is. There's no single viewpoint that can pretend to take two opposing sides of an argument. Good internet comments are succinct, point out flaws in other comments' arguments, and are on the minds of other readers. If a comment thread doesn't make me think, I lose interest.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744448

Explain.

Explain one country that I am in any way supporting the propaganda of.

If its because I am drawing attention to Taiwan not being fully recognised, as per our earlier thread. Then that is an assumption based in the fact of it being a non-un member. But I'm drawing attention to the type of corruption that let's countries (such as China and the UK) bully Taiwan.

Sound like a propaganda line?

Explain which country and how?

Please.

Can't believe you are lecturing on succinct arguments and at the same time calling my post propaganda without any reason.

Read your own post and apply it to yourself.

> Explain one country that I am in any way supporting the propaganda of.

You said propaganda is an effective means of helping China gain international influence:

> Public opinion outside of China is very important for business and strategy. Present China as an improving progressive regime, smooth over its human rights problems, and china can gain more influence internationally. [1]

I disagree 100%. It's not effective and it hurts China's relations. Relationships are built on trust.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11744448

Come on. You said I was touting government propaganda.

If by that you mean exposing it and its influence. Then yeah.. I hereby tout all government propaganda and always will do.

I wish international relations were built on trust. But that's a bollocks and idealised view.

My example of the UN membership is quite fitting. Small countries with no interest in Taiwan have been directly bribed by china to vote against letting Taiwan join. Call that trust?

Point out why and how this isn't true. Make a succinct argument, support your assertions.

> You said I was touting government propaganda. If by that you mean exposing it and its influence. Then yeah.. I hereby tout all government propaganda and always will do.

Touting does not mean exposing. "Exposing" is used for facts.

It is your opinion that propaganda is an effective means of helping China gain international influence.

You've confused 'identifying propaganda in action' with 'actively engaging in delivering propaganda'.

Over and over again in these threads you have defended Taiwan as a sovereign state. You keep thinking I am attacking Taiwan's status as an independent country. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am however pointing out how Taiwan isn't always recognised as a country.

Thats not my opinion, it is the opinion of many countries.. including the UN. Don't confuse it with my own opinion. These are the facts. It would be deluded to deny these facts. You could at very least provide evidence that says otherwise - you haven't.

Instead you have been deluded to the point of accusing me of touting propaganda for mentioning these things.

> You've confused 'identifying propaganda in action' with 'actively engaging in delivering propaganda'.

I do not think you are paid by the Chinese government to write these comments =)

If someone named Trevor argues that propaganda is an effective means of diplomacy, is Trevor part of the propaganda machine or not?

I would argue Trevor is part of that machine. A person can be part of an idea without being paid or asked to do it.

I believe you would argue that Trevor is not part of the machine. You would say Trevor is an outside observer and that he has no connections with it whatsoever. You might also say that I could be part of some machine of which I'm not aware, and I would accept that. I certainly am influenced by my environment.

> Taiwan isn't always recognised as a country. Thats not my opinion, it is the opinion of many countries.. including the UN

I said it's your opinion that China's propaganda helps its international influence. I did not mention Taiwan

It's fine that we disagree. Many nations do not recognize Taiwan as a country. That's a fact. It's also fact that Taiwan has its own directly elected government and does not pay taxes anywhere outside Taiwan. Both of these facts are educational.

I believe countries and the world benefit when all facts are shared. Chinese propaganda says that only some facts should be shared. Every time people outside China identify Chinese propaganda, it hurts China's stature internationally. Sure, plenty of people do business with China regardless. China could do heaps more business if it could stomach more facts once in awhile.

Now you are just making stuff up. I give up.

I don't believe you. I don't believe you can't see the difference between identifying propaganda and being part of it.

Your arguments are putting words in my mouth by using straw men like Trevor in a straw man argument: "propoganda is an effective means of diplomacy".

All I can see is some-one wriggling out of an argument where they begun by calling me out for making propoganda posts.

You can twist that statement and apply your own criteria to it, but it just isn't true: pointing out propaganda has nothing to do with being part of it. Infact its the very process that stops it. You can close your eyes and pretend it doesn't happen - but that wont make it go away.

I hope you have mis-read the entire thread but its looking more clear that you can't admit your wrong. Try starting with my first post.

I have stuck with this thread, because I thought - just perhaps - you genuinely didn't understand. I've simplified my position, now you can believe it or not. Its really not that interesting and has little to say about censorship anymore.

> Now you are just making stuff up. I give up.

No worries.

> I don't believe you. I don't believe you can't see the difference between identifying propaganda and being part of it.

For sure I can. You're doing more than identifying propaganda. You're saying it works. I'm saying that this is one of the messages pushed by propaganda/advertising.

I agree that it works until you're caught lying. Then it doesn't and you're discredited for a period. And, in the case of China, they lie so often that their propaganda does not work.

> Your arguments are putting words in my mouth by using straw men like Trevor in a straw man argument: "propoganda is an effective means of diplomacy".

Again, you said,

> Present China as an improving progressive regime, smooth over its human rights problems, and china can gain more influence internationally.

Again, I disagree 100%.

It's not a stretch to rewrite your above statement as "Propaganda is an effective means of diplomacy".

The definition of diplomacy is managing international relations. Those relations can be at any level, either between two citizens, two businesses, or two heads of state.

If English does not work, 你也可以用中文。

> You can close your eyes and pretend it doesn't happen - but that wont make it go away.

I'm not trying to make it go away. I think it's interesting to have a conversation with someone who has such a different point of view.

> I hope you have mis-read the entire thread but its looking more clear that you can't admit your wrong. Try starting with my first post.

One of the ideas perpetuated by advertising is that advertising is effective =). Unfortunately, we do not always know when advertising works because measuring the effectiveness of advertising is expensive.

Last I checked, I did not see any research published on the effectiveness of Chinese propaganda.

So, the question becomes, when people perpetuate ideas from advertising, are those people advertising or just expressing their views?

Who's right or wrong? There isn't a concrete answer.

> I have stuck with this thread, because I thought - just perhaps - you genuinely didn't understand. I've simplified my position, now you can believe it or not. Its really not that interesting and has little to say about censorship anymore.

No worries if you don't want to continue the discussion.

"Propaganda is a form of biased communication, aimed at promoting or demoting certain views, perceptions or agendas. Propaganda is often associated with the psychological mechanisms of influencing and altering the attitude of a population toward a specific cause, position or political agenda in an effort to form a consensus to a standard set of belief patterns. Propaganda is information that is not impartial and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively (perhaps lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or using loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information presented."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Take this account of propaganda in action:

'His village had become a ghost town, with fields dug bare of shoots and trees stripped of bark. For all his remorse and grief, he regarded the death as an individual family's tragedy: "I was 18 at the time and I only knew what the Communist party told me. Everyone was fooled," he says. "I was very red. I was on a propaganda team and I believed my father's death was a personal misfortune. I never thought it was the government's problem."'

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/01/china-great-fam...

Perhaps you should check again for research on effectiveness of Chinese propoganda:

try a google scholar search, this one came up quite quickly:

China's Propaganda System: Institutions, Processes and Efficacy David Shambaugh The China Journal No. 57 (Jan., 2007), pp. 25-58

Or perhaps one about international propoganda:

"One option in particular is the use of information to adjust the public opinion of the Taiwanese people regarding unification. In order to achieve this goal, China has turned to its propaganda apparatus to exert its influence over the Taiwanese media. China believes that by secretly seeping its message directly into Taiwan through its own local media, changes can take place from within giving more strength and credibility to the notion of unification. But is China’s strategy running according to plan? Recent trends in the national identity of the Taiwanese population might suggest otherwise. The purpose of this research paper is to analyze the patterns of the relationship between the pro-Beijing message of unification within the Taiwanese media and the trends of Taiwanese national identity in order to determine the efficacy of the propaganda’s influence as well as illustrate the possible implications of the findings'

From: Pro-Beijing Propaganda in Taiwanese Media Implications for the Future of Taiwan -China- U.S. Relations

http://academics.utep.edu/Portals/4302/Capstone%20Project%20...

To spell it out again: you aren't using the term propaganda as a word in anyway linked to its meaning. You have devised your own meaning with no grounding in its historic or contemporary use. I challenge you to find one other person who has ever use the word to describe what your are - failing that, perhaps put forward your own definition.

If identifying propoganda and the hidden agenda of someone is a form of propoganda. Then surely propoganda would be done openly and be formally introduced as propoganda - because that would help its claim. Propoganda is effective because people believe the lie and because the real agenda is kept hidden and secret - not because people expose it.

Advertising is not propoganda, but I will save that discussion for now.

I appreciate your balanced tone despite the obvious frustration that I am venting and don't mind letting you know I am feeling.

Can I ask you what your first language is?. I know thats personal, so don't answer if you don't want. I just feel like the cause of this misunderstanding might be that you have different core definitions for words than I do. Your definition of diplomacy as a form of management - for example.

> Can I ask you what your first language is?. I know thats personal, so don't answer if you don't want

Sure, it's English. I do not consider that to be private information

I also speak Chinese and you can use that too if you like.

> I appreciate your balanced tone despite the obvious frustration that I am venting and don't mind letting you know I am feeling.

No problem

> But is China’s strategy running according to plan? Recent trends in the national identity of the Taiwanese population might suggest otherwise

That's a great example of international propaganda failing to work in China's favor

> Advertising is not propoganda, but I will save that discussion for now.

Propaganda is a form of advertising.

>> But is China’s strategy running according to plan? Recent trends in the national identity of the Taiwanese population might suggest otherwise

>That's a great example of international propaganda failing to work in China's favor

I'm still waiting for your definition of propaganda.

You've led me to believe that your interpretation is that every-time the journal article finds propaganda to have some influence then the journal article itself is taking part in propaganda and every time it doesn't find propaganda at work it is not.

Is that what you mean?

Propaganda is as you've defined it

> You've led me to believe that your interpretation is that every-time the journal article finds propaganda to have some influence then the journal article itself is taking part in propaganda and every time it doesn't find propaganda at work it is not. Is that what you mean?

Yes that's almost it. I would rewrite to say either (1) "when an article espouses propaganda, it becomes part of the propaganda machine itself", or (2) "when an article touts propaganda, it has an underlying tinge of propaganda".

The average Chinese person's life, and China's position in the world, has improved tremendously under the Communist government. This is basic fact, not propaganda.

All I'm saying is that part of the acceptance or even favor the typical Chinese person feels towards their government is because of this actual factual improvement.

I'm not sure what you find problematic here. Do you disagree with the existence of this vast improvement in people's lives? Do you agree with it, but think it somehow plays no part in people's opinions of the government?

Well, which came first, the government or peoples views on it.

When people can't openly express dissatisfaction and are censored and are subject to organised propaganda, then it's very hard to say.

Under the communist government peoples lives haven't improved: look at the great famine. So yes I disagree peoples lives have not improved because of communism in China.

You ask me to pick which era of government I would like to be under. But its all the same government using propaganda the same way.

So what if it is now improving the vast amount of peoples lives. What about the minority being tortued by it?

My conversations with Chinese people don't show a favour with the current government. But that's not much of an indicator, under the great famine, their was probably even more vast support for the Government. That's the nature of propaganda.

You say China has improved under communism. Think what it could have achieved without it. Or look back even further at what it achieved as an empire.

The average Chinese persons life has improved from an absolutely horrific existence under communism to a slightly better one - might be more like what your saying.

As I said before, it's the same party as always. Until propaganda is removed and freedom of speech installed, public opinion is far from fact and the average Chinese persons quality of life is as much fiction as it is belief.

I don't understand what you mean by "it's all the same government." If you were being oppressed and murdered and starved in 1940, it wasn't the Communist government, it was probably the Japanese Empire. In 1900 it was the old imperial government. In between you probably had the chance to be oppressed and murdered and starved by the Republic of China, who are now the government of Taiwan.

I'm not defending the Chinese government nor am I denying the role that propaganda plays in shaping public opinion there (as it does everywhere). But it is not only propaganda which does this. Life in China is much better compared to how it was in 1949, and part of the public's view of the government is due to that.

The view that life is better is meaningless if you mean its better than mass death and torture.

Portraying life as better now, is propaganda. Its a view that affirms the current government policies (even if you don't personally believe it).

Propaganda is very unique in China and communism. Mainly because it is unified, enforced, systematic and backed up with violence. The communist party have been in rule so long that they are experts in it and social engineering.

Taking any view on what the public think of its goverment, ain't easy or factual. It fraught in one of the most organised regimes of properganda in existence today.

You can't compare that to America, where you can openly disagree with the government. Without fear of imprisonment in a work camp without trial.

Basically when you say things like life is better because peoples positive views support it - I hear nothing but the torture and oppression which supports that state. And that ain't improvement. Its propaganda and control.

He's saying that life is better in concrete ways.

Life expectency is higher.

Medicine is more available.

Wages are higher.

Quality of life is higher.

Less crime.

More security.

Those are concrete things. Can we measure them perfectly? No. But clearly things have improved in China over the past 60 years...

Security and crime: Doublespeak.

Wages and medicine: actually more inequality than ever.

Life expectancy: scraping the barrel.

These aren't concrete things. If they were we could, like you say, measure them properly. But even in the best conditions your anlysis would be linking your values to your methods.

My point: measuring stuff like this in a 60 year old regime based on self perpetuation and social control is not improvement its indoctrination.

For example: are wages higher by mean, mode or median.

Or more simply does less crime measure the improvement of a country. I can think of several pertinent examples of regimes and dictators who were quite sucsesfull with crime.

Higher life expectancy.. Well that's quite an easy one to improve when you stop starving everyone.

I'm not saying all my points are 100% kosher. I'm saying improvement is a very subjective term reaking of contradiction when not simplified or taken out of context.

> Higher life expectancy.. Well that's quite an easy one to improve when you stop starving everyone.

If that's the only reason, then why is the quality of life so much better in China than in India, the world's largest democracy?

For example,

- Life expectancy at birth in China is 73.5 years; in India it is 64.4 years.

- The infant mortality rate is fifty per thousand in India, compared with just seventeen in China.

- The mortality rate for children under five is sixty-six per thousand for Indians and nineteen for the Chinese.

- Maternal mortality rate is 230 per 100,000 live births in India and thirty-eight in China.

- Only 66 percent of Indian children are immunized with triple vaccine (diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus), as opposed to 97 percent in China.

- The mean years of schooling in India were estimated to be 4.4 years, compared with 7.5 years in China.

- China’s adult literacy rate is 94 percent, compared with India’s 74 percent.

- India's literacy rate for women between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four is still not much above 80 percent, whereas in China it is 99 percent.

Source: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/05/12/quality-life-indi...

No its not the only reason I have! as I made clear - it wasn't the reason at all. You reply is meaningless without context.

It was one example of many providing a point that statistics are misleading.

Especially in describing quality of life under a controlling reigeme. Yes some things improve in some way. No - that's not improvement.

Its like saying if you sent me to prison my life expectancy, security, and perhaps even literacy might improve. Would I count being in prison an improvement? No.

Not unless of course you think I'm guilty, incapable, and need controlling.

Edit: typo.

So, this is all about perspective then?

Somehow not seeing your family members starve or die in childbirth isn't an improvement if they don't have other things you deem important?

> Its like saying if you sent me to prison my life expectancy, security, and perhaps even literacy might improve. Would I count being in prison an improvement? No.

Let's say I consider this prison to be an improvement to me dying of hunger, then would you be able to accept my perspective? Or would you consider me brainwashed?

Just curious, but do you perceive living in China to be the same as living in North Korea?

Yes, its all about perspective. Perspective based in reality. Context.

Take your childbirth example: mortality rate may have improved. This statement is great without context – of course thats improvement right?

Now take the context of forced sterilisation and forced abortion by local corrupt government meeting birth quotas. Thats perspective.

What do you base your perspective on?

(In response to your question on N.Korea, I don't know anything about North Korea so of course not!)

>Let's say I consider this prison to be an improvement to me dying of hunger, then would you be able to accept my perspective? Or would you consider me brainwashed?

I would consider you in prison. I would also point out that the prison (government) created the great famine (that made you hungry). Do you really believe that is improvement?

I can see where you're coming from, and I suppose it's our different life experiences that cause us to have different perspectives.

I grew up extremely poor and despite being upper-middle class now, I know my past influences how I see things.

Also, my experience working in China and with other Mainland Chinese just paint a different picture than what people tend to see in the Western media. (I'll add that I made it a point to avoid the expat bubble, so perhaps my perspective there is different from other expats as well.)

> I would also point out that the prison (government) created the great famine (that made you hungry).

Just to clarify, the government that created the great famine (Mao) is very different than the one that started to feed the people (Deng)

In fact, the Mao tried to have Deng assassinated several times.

So yeah, I would say it's an improvement since the CCP is now saying the Cultural Revolution was wrong.

I guess I see it as progress. If you take a look at countries like South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, all three were dictatorships until the 90s, when their quality of life improved enough for them to turn to democracies.

So I guess we'll just have to see where the Chinese people take themselves.

We probably agree on a lot. Our radical different positions are only really evident in the subtleties of semantics.

I think thats dangerous for China. People get tortured, killed and have no voice. Things may improve for the masses but if it isn't for the minority then its not really improvement.

Your last sentence:

"So I guess we'll just have to see where the Chinese people take themselves"

is the kind of subtle difference in semantics that divides us. You think China is ruled and directed by its people. Censorship, propaganda, history and injustice suggest otherwise.

The dangerous part is looking at the winners in Chinese society and saying - look! its improving! - whilst the losers are getting a tougher time as ever. You say you grew up extremely poor, so I feel like that might resonate with you.

I rephrase your last sentence as: so I guess we'll just have to see where the Chinese peoples totalitarian government take them. A small matter of semantics, yet a matter of life and death.

It sounds like you value freedom extremely highly, to the point where material improvements in your quality of life don't matter if not accompanied by freedom.

I can understand that, and even agree with it to a degree. But most people don't. If they have food and shelter and schools for their kids (well, kid, since we're talking about China) and consumer electronics and whatever else, and they're allowed to go about their lives, they mostly don't care if you're not allowed to criticize the government. It's not like East Germany where a third of the population was a Stasi spy, or like the Stalinist USSR where a huge number of ordinary people were shipped off to prison camps.

You say "You can't compare that to America." Why do you say that? I am nowhere comparing anything to America.

You seem bound and determined to take what I say as an endorsement of the Chinese Communist Party, or as saying that freedom doesn't matter, or that life in China is just as good in every way as it is in a Western democracy. But all I'm saying is that life in China improved a lot since 1949 by many concrete measures, and this improvement helps form the Chinese public's opinion of their government.

I think we have both expressed our views. I understand what you mean more with your summary of freedom.

We could go over the subtle points for a long time. I believe they mean far more than you might.

My overall point is more along the lines of this full scale propaganda really makes it hard to read peoples opinions of the government on quite a few levels. Perhaps that's not a fair direct retort to your development narrative. But they are connected.

I don't want to be to picky, but the great famine was caused by the government after 1949. May seem trivial now but.. I still see its effects.

The other problem with state control and censorship is you don't really know the level of what's going on. China has work camps without trial in regions far from where the person might live, offences are usually based around expressing dissent over policy. China also has a lot of snitches.. I was told that any one wearing the red armbands was one. And that's a lot of people. I know a lot of the government send young family members to study in places like new Zealand in case they start to lose favour.. So they have a way out.

Besisdes all these points China is a big place. Generalisations over public opinion and the importance of it are fairly misleading. Take Tibet for example, I doubt Tibetans have an improved opinion of the government.

I dont like disregarding your views but in all this dialogue I can't help thinking that your views in the context we are discussing - censorship - are legitimising and downplaying the problem of Hunan rights in China. The Chinese people have no voice and the kind of support you are giving the government by saying they are developing and represent the peoples views, seem to be the final nail in exstinguishing dissenters voices in China.

I doubt that is your intention but that's how it comes across and that's why I've been asking you to clarify.

I can't agree China has improved but that's a debate for how you define improve. For me improved in the context of China, doesn't mean shit if people can't express dissent. Its more like reinforcement.

Edited for typos.

It's weird that you're now criticizing me, not on the basis of facts or principle, but on the basis of what you perceive to be the consequences of my statements. Is that not the exact same argument that censorship regimes use, that certain things must not be said, regardless of factual basis, because discussing them is harmful?

I'm disregarding your views not censoring them.

> I think it's also useful to keep in mind that it's not just propaganda, China's government is overall doing a decent job especially if you compare to how things were before

This post is about how government workers in China produce fake social media. It is not about the quality of China's economy.

I think you've completely missed the point. I wasn't talking about politics at all, nor was I condoning censorship and saying it's some moral good.

I'm just illustrating its perceived benefits. While we as a country have a national freak-out and foam at the mouth because we saw a nipple during the super bowl - some people might see that are media manipulation of mass psychology

When it comes to politics they're obviously using it for their own benefit, keeping their people in the dark and trying to rob the country as much as possible without being too obnoxious about it. These things are completely obvious to any outside observer and it's not interesting to just repeat them ad nauseum. I find it much more interesting to think that the censorship lets them say... contain hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang, or stop the whole place from turning into a crazy anti Japanese riot when some PM decides to go visit Yasukuni.

Then you can stop and think "Oh okay.. I can see how they can end up thinking it's a good thing..." B/c at face-value it makes no sense for them to put with it

Perceived benefits, or conditioned response?

One of this most insidious things about totalitarian states is people self censer to the degree it's hard to know what they actually feel.

One example I think most people on HN may see is how people talk about work. It's really rare for people with white collar jobs to admit they hate their job. Sometimes it's years after they quit before someone will say they hated a job.

Are the two are mutually exclusive? I'd argue both are true to a degree - though "conditioned response" evokes the kind of simplistic "mindless puppet" view of the Chinese perspective I'm trying to avoid. It has its own self contained logic that should be appreciated regardless if it's something from their culture and traditions, or something instilled subversively by the government. All I've tried to do is illustrate that logic as best as I understand it - without passing judgments or condoning it

I don't mean people are getting brain washed, just that they may not be expressing their views freely. Being willing to complain to strangers has huge cultural significance.

regardless of what you mean, can I just put phrases like: "hysteria about terrorism after the attacks in Xinjiang" into context:

"Rather than embrace lawyers, writers, and whistleblowers as allies in an effort to deal effectively with rising social unrest, the government remains hostile to criticism. The government targets activists and their family members for harassment, arbitrary detention, legally baseless imprisonment, torture, and denial of access to adequate medical treatment. It has also significantly narrowed space for the press and the Internet, further limiting opportunities for citizens to press for much-needed reforms."

Specifically on Xinjiang:

"Following the Urumqi attack, the Chinese government announced a year-long anti-terrorism crackdown in Xinjiang. Within the first month, police arrested 380 suspects and tried more than 300 for terror-related offenses. Authorities also convened thousands of people for the public sentencing of dozens of those tried. In August, authorities executed three Uighurs who were convicted of orchestrating an attack in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in October 2013. Fair trial rights remain a grave concern given the lack of independent information about the cases, the government’s insistence on expedited procedures, the fact that terror suspects can be held without legal counsel for months under Chinese law, and China’s record of police torture.

While there is reason for the government’s concern with violence, discriminatory and repressive minority policies only exacerbate the problem. In January, police took into custody Ilham Tohti, a Uyghur professor at Beijing’s Minzu University critical of the Chinese government’s Xinjiang policy. Tohti remains detained and is charged with “separatism,” which can result in life imprisonment. In August, Uighur linguist Abduweli Ayup was given an 18-month sentence for “illegal fundraising” after trying to raise money for Uighur-language schools."

Sources: Human rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/china...

and again: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/china...

It appears these sources are blocked in China. Source: http://www.greatfirewallofchina.org/

There are terrorism bases in Xinjiang. They raise fund for terrorism. Some of Xinjiang musilims have the same belief as ISIS. They killed civilians at railway station. But western people don't believe it. Xinjiang terrorist brought a lot of troubles to many Chinese cities even including Shanghai.

When attacks happend in Western World, Chinese never said, 'They are not terrorist. They are just part of muslims who fight for their rights while western people persecutes them.' All the world should have sympathy for each other agasint terrorism.

What a totally irrelevant post.

I was posting about the Chinese government response. The way they handled the problem. At no point is anyone denying the attack.

>All the world should have sympathy for each other agasint terrorism.

Really? I find that naive - if terrorism has taught us anything, it is that all the world should be deeply critical oh how any country responds to terrorism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com