Comment by soundwave106 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by soundwave106 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It seems to be at first glance. The EU initiative you linked to at least seems to try to "[balance] fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, media pluralism, and the right of citizens to diverse and reliable information" in its wording. It also seems to be a committee linked to a EU cabinet, and thus is not directly sponsored by a national military force.

The Vietnamese "cyber-army" in contrast seems to be a direct arm of the military, and the language in the articles appeared to be more military / aggressive oriented ("fight", "combating", etc.) with no mention in the articles regarding "freedom of expression" or other balancing factors.

At first glance, there doesn't appear to be a direct link to the policy initiative from the Vietnamese government, unlike the EU initiative. Though language barrier may be an issue here; I tried Googling lực 47 and didn't get much beyond other news articles and a Wiki entry, but perhaps there are better terms to use. Still, military policy tends to be more opaque in most nations overall, so it didn't surprise me to find no published government information about this initiative.

"[balance] fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, media pluralism, and the right of citizens to diverse and reliable information"

Typical EU-style communication. The word "balance" conjures up images of health, reason, yoga classes and whole grain breakfasts.

But in the end, it still represents a worldview of enlightened apparatchiks vs idiotic plebes. Why does there need to be a "balancing act" between freedom of information and anything else? When is something reliable or diverse or pluralistic?

It's more, I suppose, the idea that multiple sources of information should be supported ("pluralism"). There is no such thing as an unbiased news source, so it is best in the long run for multiple sources of news to exist, each with their own viewpoint. It is easier to obtain a more informed opinion if one makes the effort to escape single-viewpoint media. Furthermore, by highlighting "freedom of information", there is at least a signal of intent to try and keep a degree of openness in the process, in that review of what they would call "fake news" does not infringe on that right as much as possible.

Whether you think the EU will actually accomplish what they say, that's another story. My guess is, it is very likely that the process will be more transparent and allow more leeway, versus what is going on in Vietnam -- a single political party controlling opinion through opaque military concerns. All nations / parties / political philosophies produce propaganda and advocacy pieces, that is not news. Vietnam, however, has never been known for generous press freedom. In fact, it recently has been cracking down heavily on all opinion points that do not reflect the ruling party (https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21731192-american-indiff...).

I don't see an equivalent in the EU right now, to be honest. Once Western governments start arresting bloggers and journalists for having an opinion differing from the government like Vietnam is doing, let me know.

Well, it'll be hard to let you know when that happens.

I can tell you this. We have multiple sources of news. Much more than ever existed before the internet came to our homes. I don't see how the EC can improve on this situation.

"a signal of intent to keep a degree of openness". How about a simple statement "the EC is not well-suited to determine whether fake news is a problem and, if so, how to deal with it". But I guess you'd need an ancient and strong tradition of popular democracy and hard-won constitutionalism to make such statements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com