Hacker News Reader

Comment by jiggawatts | Hacker News Reader

> Just imagine what other companies will do once this is accepted for apple devices.

No need to imagine.

China flat out censors chat programs and discussion sites, and some words will instantly get you put on "the list".

Winnie the Pooh, for example.

Oh, you say that you're just interested in the wonderful literary works of A. A. Milne, but that's what the anti-government types always say! Prove your innocence in this kangaroo court, and you'll be let off with merely a stint in a re-education camp.

View on HN

I was using Tantan last year, a Chinese dating app. I tried to send a woman I was flirting with a message like “that pic of you is sexy”, and the app warned me against using vulgar language.

I can’t say sexy. In a dating app. With a woman I matched with. What am I supposed to do? Say she’s doing a great job of maximizing her gene pool’s potential for aesthetic presentation in the context of a romantic setting?

> Say she’s doing a great job of maximizing her gene pool’s potential for aesthetic presentation in the context of a romantic setting?

If she goes for that, she's a keeper.

Actually it's a good advice from Tantan. Chinese dating culture is very different. I'm not sure "sexy" is going to be received well, especially if she uses a translator (which is common).

The woman I was flirting with was in Morocco XD

Tinder does the same thing.

s/sexy/beautiful/

Not even remotely interchangeable.

s/sexy/hot

> I can’t say sexy. In a dating app. With a woman I matched with.

Would you go into a Christian church and start preaching about Hindu gods? Some might, but nearly everyone would say it's disrespectful of a different culture.

So it seems to me like it'd be a cultural difference. In Western culture sex is prominent (America, Europe, etc) even if repressed (America). In Chinese culture... well I'm going to assume it's still very much repressed.

Seems like you’re exercising a lot of social control over the couple. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to privately communicate their feelings. Simply chalking up social control to “cultural differences” ignores the fact that these aren’t cultural mores developed independently, but the results of a highly moralizing tyrannical government trying to assert social control for the material benefit of those at the top.

Indeed. After all, the application is supposed to be only a conduit for a private conversation between two people.

Two adults can negotiate their own communications protocol. Just because you met someone in a Catholic church, doesn't mean they aren't interested in Hindu gods or in sexuality. People are not defined by the culture they live in.

A dating app that tells you what you can or cannot say in a 1:1 conversation isn't a conduit for private communication - it's acting like a chaperone on the date. Except normally, chaperones are there to prevent sex, not police thoughts.

Might be useful to other non-natives also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaperone_(social)

> Why shouldn’t they be allowed to privately communicate their feelings.

I agree.

> Simply chalking up social control to “cultural differences” ignores the fact that these aren’t cultural mores developed independently, but the results of a highly moralizing tyrannical government trying to assert social control

I've never been to China. But even from an outsider's point of view your statement strikes me as self-centered. What right do you have to enforce your own morals upon an entire other nation?

> a highly moralizing tyrannical government trying to assert social control for the material benefit of those at the top.

Western countries are arguably the same. How does that make the Chinese government wrong and Western countries right?

> Seems like you’re exercising a lot of social control over the couple.

To circle back to this comment; am I? The control is over the internet. Until they've met in real life you're just a stranger on it. Strangers on the internet can be very dangerous and with very little repercussion. Governments have an obligation to protect their citizens. So you should speak kindly and respectfully. You never know what words might upset the other end.

When you meet in person then you're putting your own person at risk for the words you say instead of just an online pseudonym. When you meet in person the stakes have been raised. What does the government do to prevent the couple from talking sexy after they've met in real life? I'm sure there's a lot but once you've met in real life then either you're physically in their culture or they're physically in your culture and respect boundaries must have changed.

Can that system be abused for the people at the top? Absolutely. Is it abused for the people at the top? Well I live in America and so I see a lot of anti-China propaganda so I'd argue that it probably is. But you'd be blind to think that China's alone in that.

It depends on the context. The fact that it's a dating app means both people expect a certain privacy in their words and a certain "vulgarity" like calling eachother sexy without repurcusions.

Just like a porn website doesn't shield you from porn because it's "on the internet" , a dating website shouldn't shield you from intimate language.

> What right do you have to enforce your own morals upon an entire other nation?

Aren't they suggesting that the individuals involved decide what kind of language is appropriate for their conversation? I can't imagine how you'd call that "enforc[ing] your own morals" upon anyone, let alone an entire nation!

> What right do you have to enforce your own morals upon an entire other nation?

Careful with this argument. What right did the Northern States have to enforce their own morals upon the Southern States (which had ceded, and were therefore their own country)?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying this is not valid justification.

> What right did the Northern States have to enforce their own morals upon the Southern States (which had ceded, and were therefore their own country)?

That's a very good argument. But let me counter: we fought a war over it. That's what gives us the right to enforce the North's morals over the South's. Do you want to fight a war against China over our differences?

Even disregarding the war itself; that was about slavery and human rights (freedom) with strong undertones of racism. So if you want to make privacy a human rights issue then sure and yes. I'll even agree with you: I think privacy should be a human right! But until privacy is a human right recognized and enforced then again: what right do we have to enforce your own morals upon an entire nation?

UN's UDHR Article 12 [0] is very light about privacy (and what it even means) and (IMO) has a very very poor history of enforcement of human rights. Even more, it states:

> No one shall be subjected ... to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

And I would argue that statement extends to calling someone "sexy" which might be an insult to someone with different morals than yours.

[0]: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

The example you described is not analogous to texting a woman in a dating app.

But the point about cultural differences does stand (not that it should result in a government being able to police how two adults communicate.)

You would think any western nation would make a counter draft for freedom. But just look at these cowards...

The US has its own problems, but who should take something like the EU seriously? For what stands this union of countries? For absolutely nothing. Extremely weak, especially considering the union was advertised as standing for common values.

The common values of the European Union are there, visible for all: graft through subsidies and comfy posts for you and your political allies. Tried and proven, works beautifully, all the politicians love it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com