
China holds drill to shut down 'harmful' websites - scaryclam
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-40830048
======
user982
It's amusing to read the alarmism in this article, on bbc.co.uk, while keeping
in mind that the UK already filters, surveils, and blocks websites nationwide
and has statutes to censor sites that advocate against the monarchy or
"imagine the death" of the queen.[1]

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom#Politics_and_extremism)

~~~
plandis
I'm curious -- are you a Chinese national? I feel like I keep seeing userXYZ's
posting pro-China whataboutism every chance possible.

~~~
dnh44
I really don't think using rhetoric like "whataboutism" as a distraction when
someone points out some sort of hypocrisy promotes conversation in any useful
way.

~~~
mercer
I'd agree in general, but I have noticed that particular topics have a way of
provoking a lot of comments that do seem 'suspicious'.

I've found that while in practice these comments are often by otherwise
somewhat acceptable HN commenters and not shills, they are often noticeably
more partisan/controversial/low-quality than their other comments.

Specifically, this seems to happen with discussions that involve particular
nation states (India, Turkey, Russia, Serbia, China are at the top of my
list), as well as particular topics (gender, Trump, socialism/capitalism,
etc.).

While I do agree that pointing this out violates the principle of charity and
possibly hurts the conversation, it's still a 'dynamic' that kind of stands
out.

EDIT: this is more of a general 'observation', not necessarily applicable to
this particular thread.

~~~
avar
It's curious that you leave the US out of your list of nation states that tend
to attract particularly low-effort comments around here. In my experience this
is way more pronounced with the US than any other country that's discussed on
HN.

Of course any country that's discussed here is likely to attract people from
that country who feel they have something to explain or defend, but due to the
userbase being predominantly American the bias is very much towards the US,
not India, Russia, China or whatever.

------
lettergram
> A document circulating online and attributed to a cyber police unit said the
> drill had been held "in order to step up online security for the 19th Party
> Congress and tackle the problem of smaller websites illegally disseminating
> harmful information"

If true, the Chinese government isn't even pretending this information is
"fake" or "untrue", but instead they just find "harmful".

~~~
allemagne
Considering true information as "harmful" is perfectly normal in Western
societies as well (in certain contexts). The U.S. government response to leaks
from Chelsea Manning, Snowden, and the leaks flowing right now from the
current administration have been similar: "The REAL problem is how damaging
this leak is!"

I don't mean to imply that it's an acceptable thing to think, or that the U.S.
is as authoritarian as China (it's not by an order of magnitude), but
contextualizing this makes it seem less surprising. If we're more alarmed, we
should have been this alarmed to begin with. This is the party that
spearheaded the Cultural Revolution and erected the Great Firewall... this
kind of behavior is very par for the course.

~~~
LeifCarrotson
There's a difference between being harmful to an administrative agenda, and
harmful to people.

It's one thing to publish a leak detailing corruption which "harms" the agenda
and reputation of the criminals engaged in it. Boo on them. "That which can be
destroyed by the truth should be."

It's another to publish a leak that reveals identities and plans made in
secret, and gets people killed.

Somewhere in the middle are leaks like yesterday's transcripts of Trump
talking to Australia and Mexico:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/austra...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/australia-
mexico-transcripts/) Perhaps world leaders should be able to speak together
confidentially, and perhaps these transcripts will 'harm' people in the future
when politicians are less able to communicate frankly because the
conversations are public.

------
bowmessage
What is the Chinese state going to do about the 'harmful' information that is
encoded in various blockchains, Bitcoin's[1] being one example?

[1]: [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z4k73w/someone-
pu...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z4k73w/someone-put-the-
tiananmen-square-tank-man-image-in-the-bitcoin-blockchain-to-troll-china)

~~~
DINKDINK
What You See Is All There Is

If the lion share of people can't see it, it doesn't exist.

------
itg
In the west, its the corporations that decide what content is considered
"harmful" and remove it. Ex: youtube, patreon, twitter, etc.

~~~
mfoy_
There's a tremendous difference between private companies deciding what to do
with their own platforms, and the government dictating what all companies must
do with their platforms.

~~~
davidreiss
Does that argument fly anymore when corporations are so much more powerful
than most nations?

FB and google both have a larger population than china. Censorship by FB or
Google is far more harmful/effective than whatever the chinese government
does.

Also, would we support corporations right to censor if they were censoring
content we disagreed with? Imagine if FB/Youtube/Verizon/etc started censoring
lgbt content. Would we still use the "private companies" can do whatever they
want argument?

Given how powerful many companies are ( especially monopolistic companies like
FB/GOOG ) maybe it's time corporations are required to protect free speech
like corporations are required to protect the rights of
minorities/disabled/etc.

~~~
mmierz
I disagree that corporations are more powerful than nations, because FB and
google can't compel you to do anything.

If I opt out of google, then I miss out on google's services. If I "opt out"
of my country's laws, I go to prison.

Google censorship only controls what people say on google. Government
censorship can control what their citizens say anywhere.

~~~
davidreiss
> I disagree that corporations are more powerful than nations, because FB and
> google can't compel you to do anything.

Not directly but they could get the government to act on their behalf. Also,
I'd say FB, GOOGL are more powerful than most nations. I don't think monaco or
luxemburg are more powerful than FB or GOOGL.

> If I opt out of google, then I miss out on google's services. If I "opt out"
> of my country's laws, I go to prison.

But if corporations can get the government to make the laws. Also, if your job
requires you to have a facebook account or an internet connection and FB or
AT&T "ban" you, that could be damaging to you.

> Google censorship only controls what people say on google. Government
> censorship can control what their citizens say anywhere.

In another way. Google censorship censors you on google on earth. Government
censorship only controls you within a nation's borders. You could argue that
google's censorship is global while a government's censorship is local.

When it comes to large transnational monopolies like GOOG and FB, in many ways
their censorship is far more damaging and dangerous. Even more so when you
consider the influence large monopolies have over governments and laws.

Whatever your views, it's a very interest topic.

