Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
YouTube shuts down 210 Chinese channels posting about Hong Kong (cnn.com)
74 points by bedros on Aug 23, 2019 | hide | past | favorite | 50 comments



Quote: "Protesters are demanding greater democracy and an inquiry into alleged police brutality during past demonstrations."

Jesus, do Donie O'Sullivan and Kevin Collier, article authors even have a slight idea what HK protests are about? Those protests started to oppose a bill regarding extraditing to mainland China. Later on as the tension and police brutality escalated those points were added. Here is the 5 points the protesters are demanding now:

1- the bill must be withdrawn (this was the initial motive for protests)

2- the chief executive must resign (he ordered to police to start retaliatons)

3- the government must retract its characterisation of the violent clashes as “riots”

4- there must be a full independent inquiry into the actions of the police

5- everyone arrested in respect of the clashes must be unconditionally freed.


I'd consider the extradition bill not-very-democratic, doubly so in the HK is a somewhat autonomous zone, so forcing extradition reduces it's autonomy and therefore it's citizens' democracy.

So how is this false?


Currently Hongkong has extradition treaties with many countries, but none with 'China' (Macao, Taiwan, mainland), which is a historical legacy but is now an oddity.

Extradition treaties in general do not reduce autonomy and democracy. Extraditions under this bill would follow (I believe) similar procedures to extradition to other countries.

The key worries, I believe, are that charges brought on the mainland might be fabricated and political because of the nature of the system there (absence of independent judiciary) and that pressure could also be applied on Hongkong authorities not to deny these requests, or simply that the procedure is such that Hongkong courts don't have much scope to refuse requests.


CNN is no longer a reliable news source.


Stuff like this makes me feel like we're the suckers.

1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?

2. All the accounts are created through VPNs. Well, YT is blocked in China. If Chinese people are trying to show us what the protesters are actually like (I don't know for real either way) they would have to use a VPN. And they would be inclined to work together to vote up related content for awareness.

3. If a state like let's say Texas in the US had a legal system where I could commit a crime in PA and escape to Texas, wouldn't we want to fix that? Of course there would be protests. Think of the recent protests we've had in France, just for tax reasons. You think if this kind of law changed in Texas you wouldn't see fires and overturned cars?

My point is, maybe our view into that side of the world is not as clear as we think.


> 1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?

This is a good example of a particularly sinister argumentation style, and you can see it everywhere these days. It typically goes like this:

1. Take an objectively bad reality. "Citizens of Hong Kong could possibly be extradited to a totalitarian state for any thing that state decides was a crime."

2. Restate it as an abstract ideal or extreme case, ignoring the details that make it bad, and ask why one wouldn't want this thing that's actually good: "But shouldn't people who commit crimes in other countries have to face justice?" / "Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?"

I'm not sure what to call it, but it would be good to have a two or three word phrase to succinctly call this kind of thing out. I'll have to think, but would appreciate input from others who have noticed it as well.

Edit: I would add that the really "sinister" part is that those bad details are ignored for the sake of making the argument, but are, in fact, the end goal.


Not trying to be sinister. That is the reality right? It's a hard question.


Chinese people trying to show us what protesters are like would be free to upload videos from Hong Kong, because YouTube is not blocked in Hong Kong, only in Mainland China.


But government agents in China posting deceptive or false stuff wouldn't be blocked.


It's pretty clear what the view in Hong Kong is too. On "their side" of the world.


[flagged]


> Extradition treaty require local competent court to make a decision whether to extradite or not.

Actually it erodes the court's decision-making ability as all the court can do is judge whether the request meets the legal standard, not whether there is any merit to it.

> here majority of the protestors do not even understand how extradition works.

That's patronising and, unless I see some reliable polling on it, I wouldn't believe it is true.

> Hong Kong do not have a decent judiciary or legal system, it works at the whims of China (again a perception created by few).

This is broadly false.


> Actually it erodes the court's decision-making ability as all the court can do is judge whether the request meets the legal standard, not whether there is any merit to it.

Hong Kong has extradition treaty with 20 other jurisdiction did it erode its judicial independence?

> Patronising

It isn't patronising I have yet to see a manifesto with legal details why extradition treaty is ok with 20 other jurisdiction not with Taiwan and China. Below is a brief on it.

"Upon receiving a request for extradition, Hong Kong’s Department of Justice first determines whether several conditions are met, including: the crime is one of the 37 listed categories and punishable by seven years or more in prison; the offence in question is a crime in both Hong Kong and the requesting jurisdiction; the offence in question is not of a political character, and the offence is not punishable by death.

If the justice department determines that the conditions are met, then it goes before Hong Kong’s chief executive, who can decide whether to veto or proceed with the extradition request. At this point, the suspect can apply for judicial review, with a right to appeal in the city’s highest court. If the request proceeds, an arrest warrant is issued, after which the subject is immediately barred from leaving Hong Kong. Once the subject is arrested, the case moves to the courts, where a preliminary hearing is held. Once the court decides that there is no political motive behind the extradition request, and that there is sufficient prima facie evidence that there is a possible case, it can then make an order of committal. At this point, the suspect can appeal.

With the judicial process over, the request goes back to the chief executive, who can again decide to deny the extradition request on humanitarian grounds. Here, the subject can petition the chief executive to oppose extradition. Should the chief executive decide to proceed with the extradition, an extradition order is given. At this stage, the suspect can again appeal to the courts to stop the extradition. If the suspect decides not to appeal, or if the appeal is unsuccessful, the suspect is extradited. The process could take years, which is typical of extradition proceedings."


Oh yeah, the protests are absolutely nothing to do with increasing authoritarianism and overreach, increasing violations of one country, two systems and decreasing autonomy. Totally. These things are non-issues for Hong Kongers.


This is again a comment without an iota of evidence. If you have any proof of China breaking one country two system which means the provisions of "Basic Law", you can definitely take your case to competent Hong Kong courts.

Regarding extradition bill which is already made dead I still need to see any evidence that it was bad, except the protest more reflected that people think Hong Kong judiciary is incompetent and works at China's whims. Here below is a brief for your perusal:

"Upon receiving a request for extradition, Hong Kong’s Department of Justice first determines whether several conditions are met, including: the crime is one of the 37 listed categories and punishable by seven years or more in prison; the offence in question is a crime in both Hong Kong and the requesting jurisdiction; the offence in question is not of a political character, and the offence is not punishable by death.

If the justice department determines that the conditions are met, then it goes before Hong Kong’s chief executive, who can decide whether to veto or proceed with the extradition request. At this point, the suspect can apply for judicial review, with a right to appeal in the city’s highest court. If the request proceeds, an arrest warrant is issued, after which the subject is immediately barred from leaving Hong Kong. Once the subject is arrested, the case moves to the courts, where a preliminary hearing is held. Once the court decides that there is no political motive behind the extradition request, and that there is sufficient prima facie evidence that there is a possible case, it can then make an order of committal. At this point, the suspect can appeal.

With the judicial process over, the request goes back to the chief executive, who can again decide to deny the extradition request on humanitarian grounds. Here, the subject can petition the chief executive to oppose extradition. Should the chief executive decide to proceed with the extradition, an extradition order is given. At this stage, the suspect can again appeal to the courts to stop the extradition. If the suspect decides not to appeal, or if the appeal is unsuccessful, the suspect is extradited. The process could take years, which is typical of extradition proceedings."


> perception is that Hong Kong do not have a decent judiciary or legal system, it works at the whims of China (again a perception created by few). So the actual discussion no one wants to discuss or hear.

That's actually a bit surprising. I always had the opposite impression, at least in terms of judicial independence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_of_Final_Appeal_(Hong_Ko...

Most of the final appellate court judges aren't even Chinese which is remarkable (that it's mainly British, Australian and Canadian judges ruling in China).


You talk negatively about the protests with broad accusations, but without bringing facts to back them up. I really wish I hadn't to counter this.

> It's immaterial in these protests as it is a manifestation of despair due to economic reality and worsening living conditions without a hope of revival.

The protest started because of the extradition law. Then, due to police brutality against the protestors, the demands widened to these areas.

I question your truthfulness. Was Hong Kong in economic despair? And is that the reason for the protest?

Also, the economy will take a hit because of the protests, so after some time there will be an effect visible. But be honest here, and don't mix up cause and symptom. Also, even if the economy of Hong Kong suffered, you have yet to show that the protests are because of that.

Furthermore, you claim there is "[no] hope of a revival". Well, if the Chinese communist regime works on making them suffer, it will be more difficult to prosper, but without that there is no reason why they shouldn't have success. It's a red flag that you make this claim.

> Extradition treaty require local competent court to make a decision whether to extradite or not. But For majority of protestors it is immaterial because the perception is that Hong Kong do not have a decent judiciary or legal system, it works at the whims of China (again a perception created by few). So the actual discussion no one wants to discuss or hear.

Edward Snowden went initially to Hong Kong because of the high independence and quality of their court system.

I want to hear discussion, after all I'm here because of that, but I don't want to hear echoed propaganda.

Your third point is an attack on the protestors. The AfD in Germany did something like that at a demonstration of children for measures against climate change. They asked them highly specific question regarding the actual percentage of CO2 in the air. Most got them wrong, and the AfD used that to devalue the protestors and the protest.

It is obviously clear that you do not need to understand the details to have a valid political demand that you can voice in a demonstration and protests. Insinuating otherwise is another red flag.

Can you even acknowledge a single demand the protestors are making?


I have yet to see a discourse or manifesto about real issues in Hong Kong, instead of arbitrary demands with one line statements which always change. Economic frustration of the young population in Hong Kong is widely reported including parking size apartments, and this is one of the underlying reason for protests. [1][2][3][4]

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/22/world/asia/ho...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-20/for-young...

[3] https://www.google.com.hk/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-a...

[4] https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/02/24/democracy-isnt-enough-...


> I have yet to see a discourse or manifesto about real issues in Hong Kong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Hong_Kong_anti-extraditio... :

> Complete withdrawal of the extradition bill from the legislative process

> Retraction of the "riot" characterisation

> Release and exoneration of arrested protesters

> Establishment of an independent commission of inquiry into police conduct and use of force during the protests

> Resignation of Carrie Lam and the implementation of universal suffrage for Legislative Council and Chief Executive elections

Those are all real issues in Hong Kong right now. Note how economic conditions are not in that list.


The protesters have very specific demands. Economic issues do not feature in them.


Are there any details released about FB/Twitter/Youtube removals other than we think these are state actors? I know twitter released a data dump but has there been any analysis? It's not that the problem isn't worth addressing, but non of these companies has had a good record with moderating political topics so far. There was complaints a few months back by Chinese YouTuber who cater to Chinese audiences that their subscriber and likes weren't comporting to like/vote/subscriber/dashboard statistics, most people just chalked it up to automatic VPN flagging. I'd like a little more transparency, otherwise it appears western social media is validating and devolving towards Great Fire Wall.



Youtube hasn't stated it was state actors, merely that they were suspicious (e.g. uploaded via VPN).. i.e it hasn't pointed a finger of blame.


I really wish the cyberpunk novels I read in my youth would stop becoming reality. Especially Distraction by Bruce Sterling comes to mind. It’s just so crazy that political entities run false campaigns, and that the impact of these campaigns is so profound.

I’m happy YouTube is fighting back, but at the same time I can’t help but wonder if our social media platforms are really geared to fight it. With so many hours of video uploaded, it seems impossible to regulate. I imagine that they are trying their best, but aren’t SEO people showing us every day, that it’s fairly easy to game the system? The worst part is the apparent lack of consequences. Does the Chinese government really care 210 of their propaganda channels were shut down?


They’ll get better. They have to or someone will replace them. This kind of propaganda is a disease in a system that has not evolved to identify/combat it systematically.


Not sure there is much analysis to be done here besides interpretive fan fiction.

The primary source https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/m... is a lot more opaque than Twitter's announcement.


I wonder if this is a trail run for many of these companies for the US presidential election.


Not everything is about the US elections. Hong Kong's future is independently important.


There is conjecture floating around that Google/Facebook/Twitter are flexing their anti-propoganda muscles to avoid government regulation. ("See? We can block state actors all on our own")


[flagged]


Did you read the article? This is a disinformation campaign by a nation state. This is information like literally made-up-for-clicks fake news articles on Facebook is information.


The article doesn't actually claim that - it just says that the accounts were posting using VPNs (which anyone visiting YouTube from China will be) and they appeared to be acting in a co-ordinated manner. I know there was some suggestion in the previous discussion that Twitter etc were likely responding to a campaign by a specific, very large online community of aggressively patriotic Chinese people.


Google, which owns YouTube, provided no details on how popular the YouTube channels were or how many videos had been posted to the channels.

Ahem.

Not sure you can even show me enough to support your statement. Those details are of high importance.

We do not know much of anything here, sadly.

We do know Google says some stuff about it.


How do you know? Not being a jerk. Genuinely curious.


This smells like sealioning.


> Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment which consists of pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions. The harasser who uses this tactic also uses fake civility so as to discredit their target.

Where is the harassment? There was a question asked. No persistence. No repeated questions. You are also assuming the intent to be malicious. What is your goal?


Its "or" harassment. The approach is to generally ask benign seeming questions that are very complex to answer. In the gp if of my comment there is already context and is a reply to something else. Bypassing all of that to ask how the entire thing works is likely a disingenuous attempt at using an asymmetrically simple question asking for a huge answer.


Ridiculous effort to help avoid answering an honest question.


You can choose to feel that way about it. the gp of my reply is pointing to the article, content and thereforce context therein. Not addressing any single part with a question done in the spirit of casting doubt knowing full well how the answer goes is perfectly within the description of sealioning.


Nah


So ban Fox news?


https://www.youtube.com/user/CCTVNEWSbeijing/videos

There are armies of weird looking accounts posting and upvoting obsessively in odd, non-organic patterns. Someone is obviously running a massive sockpuppet army.


Well it's the official state apparatus with 1.2 billion viewers with 10x the viewership of BBC.

There's tons of ways you can criticize it but sockpuppetry is probably not the best one to go for.


> Well it's the official state apparatus with 1.2 billion viewers with 10x the viewership of BBC.

No it's not. Youtube is blocked from the 1.2b viewers.

Also, not everyone in China watch CCTV. Young people don't even watch TV anymore.


This was state propaganda that was shut down.


Even if that is true, so? Who are we to make judgments for other people, or who are we to deprive them of the opportunity to make their own judgments? I know, YouTube can do as it pleases and they do not need to provide a reason either, but these answers make me think that they justify censorship as long as it is something "I believe is propaganda" or "I do not like" and the like.


Yeah?

Got details?


This still baffles me.. why not using YouReporter for this kind of things? Google is known to be bribed and corrupted by governments


Would love a source for this "is known" business...


I don't think that it's correct to call Google corrupted, but I tend to believe that a corporation will sink as low as its' host government needs it to -- and the United States doesn't have too great a track record with regards to fair global politics and open/honest behavior.

In other words : When your government asks your business to play ball, you'll more often than not do so.

'Irish Google' is only a nice tax evasion -- Google itself is at the beck and call of the US -- if only for how hard it'd be to operate without their support.


Genuine exchange of views and information should be protected. However these where not genuine people. It just like stopping someone who is trying to sell magic crystals that cure cancer.


>However these where not genuine people. It just like stopping someone who is trying to sell magic crystals that cure cancer.

My problem with that whole concept is that someone has to make that judgement about whether or not 'people are genuine', and that someone may get it wrong eventually.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: