
China Fakes 488M Social Media Posts a Year: Study - suprgeek
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-19/china-seen-faking-488-million-internet-posts-to-divert-criticism
======
optforfon
Just to give you a bit of local perspective: talking to the locals here in
China (and actually a Chinese Malaysian guy I met too .. so it's not just
confined to the people agrarian paradise), they _ofcourse_ know that this is
happening, but they don't envy our free for all either.

The article says "a massive effort to distract its citizens from bad news and
sensitive political debates" but of course that's just one angle. The local
perspective is seeing it mostly as an effort by the government to try to
moderate sensationalism, things getting spun out of proportion and down right
fabrications (ie. US-TV news, Buzzfeed et al)

They see our CNN having some 24hr coverage of a kitten stuck in a tree - which
they will not stop till either half the nation is foaming at the mouth with
rage at the government's incompetence or it just becomes too absurd to keep up
- and they are understandably horrified

~~~
brendyn
I have also travelled China and speak Mandarin. I have seen this view, and
have discussed and pondered it a fair bit, but I've concluded it's wrong, and
dangerously so. Take what I say with a grain of salt, I'm no doubt wrong about
many things. Every society gets indoctrinated with it's own mix bag of beliefs
and taboos. I went to a talk in Bejing discussing all the reasons why China's
economy was fantastic and stable. It did not seem they could even consider the
possibility things might not. They were even optimistic about climate change.
I had to ask someone if it was the moon or the sun I was looking at in the sky
one day.

One of my opinions is that when the world breaks out into a global
slaugtherfest like WW2, it becomes essential for the survivors to research the
causes of such an event with the explicit goal of of ensuring that it won't
happen again. As far as I have seen, not a single society anywhere has done
this, rather, we have minutes of silence to remember those who took part in
the heroic massacre. I would not kid myself that I wouldn't also torture and
kill if I was placed in a horrible enough environment, so I have put explicit
effort into reading the works of Khaneman and others. Milgram's Experiment,
Stanford prison experiment, etc. I was watching a fire start in a bin outside
our library the other day, counting all the people walking by as smoke came
out, some of them throwing rubbish in and walking off. Fortunately I'd read
about bystander apathy so I just went and told someone and they put it out.

The "moderating sensationalism" view is clearly wrong when one looks at the
list of search items blocked. Let's see... Top result for Tiananmen massacre
in Mandarin produces no results (六四), in English, the top result is "Tiananmen
massacre a myth". How can China become a better place when it's people are
forbidden from even researching such events?

Another fascinating delusion in China is the distinction between "Chinese" and
"foreigner", and then perhaps "Japanese" will be refereed to separately,
because fuck Japan. It's quite difficult to explain. In their minds (this is
all "statistically speaking" of course", everyone takes on the "Chinese" or
"foreigner" label and thus they take on distinct beliefs and behaviours
associated with them. It's not trivial racism or anything, actually, they are
typically more polite to "foreigners", which they call me even in my home
country. One of the scary things that comes from this is the hard wired belief
that "Taiwan is China", despite being and separated and independent for 70
years. I have tried explaining this very carefully to many Chinese, and they
will understand each point individually, but at the end of the discussion they
say "but Taiwan is China!" and continue on with their insanity. Meanwhile
Taiwan has the day to day trouble of trying not to be massacred by China
wanting to "save" them and "bring them back" (actually things I've heard from
Chinese). It is as if one had a ex that still believed they were together and
the only thing stopping them from rape was the lingering threat of getting
beating up by the slightly less deranged partner (the USA). Of course, Chinese
people happily assure me that China would never use force in resolving this.
Actually, the official stance says they would only use force if Taiwan
officially claimed independence, and the idea of Taiwan actually being
independent is unpalatable, so everything is fine. So in summary, I have zero
confidence when Chinese people assure me this censorship is all for the
greater good.

Orwell's essay on freedom of the press (which was edited out of the first
edition):
[http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html](http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html)

~~~
optforfon
Hey, sorry, I think a lot of people got the impression I was condoning their
censorship. I didn't really mean to do that.

It's more that in the west we just see it as this horrible evil thing and it
seems completely bizarre that anyone would be okay with it. I guess we just
assume they must put up with it when in fact they have their own rational for
supporting it (which ultimately is flawed, but it's still very interesting)

Have you traveled to Taiwan? I went there a few weeks ago and I found it a
fascinating place. While it's definitely got it's own identity it also is
definitely very "Chinese". Like more "Chinese" than probably some provinces in
the mainland. And on the mainland they get TV shows and stuff from Taiwan and
people know where Taipei and Kunming are on a map. People look forward to
visiting Kenting some day. Families are split between mainland and Taiwan etc.
So I can sorta see why they look at it all and think it's all part of the same
country. (kinda how we think Canadians are basically Americans) And you're
right, they definitely have no idea about how it'd actually work haha and they
definitely have a complete disregard for what the Taiwanese want (needs of the
many > needs of the few I guess??). One thing I heard is them wanting to have
a Hong Kong type of deal with Taiwan ... to which I said: "yeah right, over
all their collective dead bodies"

~~~
malaeisd
Yup, and there is a difference between "Chinese nationality" and "Chinese
culture/civilization."

The Taiwanese still consider themselves a part of Chinese culture, in fact,
they actually feel that they are the true "practitioners" of Chinese culture
because the Mainland Chinese went through the Cultural Revolution.

> kinda how we think Canadians are basically Americans

I think an even closer analogy would be between American Northerners vs.
Southerners.

As in, after the Civil War each side considers themselves to be "more
American."

The best way to explain it is this: If you ask a Taiwanese person to know the
greatest works of art "his people" have created "in their history," then he
will name works of art created in Mainland China, but authors and artists that
lived and died in Mainland China.

------
greenspot
Bad reviews on Amazon lead to faked good ones.

Bad reviews on Glassdoor lead to faked good ones.

Bad reviews on Yelp lead to faked good ones.

Sometimes bad reviews are not fair or heavily exaggerated, sometimes bad
reviews are from competitors. Bad reviews cannot be removed. Sometimes, faked
good reviews is the only way to bring back a balanced view.

So, this seems to happen everywhere and to be the natural response of a self-
regulating market. Means that we should be careful with user generated content
in general, _also users_ might have an hidden agenda.

Edit: Why the downvote? I am not saying that I like this, I just tried to find
an explanation for a market behavior.

~~~
pmlnr
Another study also states that Chinese people don't trust what they read; they
trust their friends', relatives', etc. opinion. This is why you don't see
wandering Asian tourists - they tend to visit what they know it's going to
worth is, based on, well, gossip.

And sadly, I'm leaning towards this myself, finding the amazon 5* reviews more
and more useless - although the same goes for most 1* reviews as well, those
are mostly angry costumers with a bad luck.

~~~
dspillett
I find 3* and 4* reviews most useful generally, especially when comparing two
products, if the review describes the pros/cons that go into their rating.
These reviews tend to come after a little consideration instead of being a
gushing "honeymoon period" reaction or a "maybe if I trash them they'll give
me a full refund to try get me to take the review down" thing.

------
jboynyc
Political scientist Danie Stockmann, who studies the role of media in
authoritarian regimes, has this to say about the Chinese situation:

> New and market-based media require a certain degree of liberalization,
> because market-based media need to cater towards audiences in order to make
> a profit and new communication technologies are faster than propaganda
> officials in spreading information. But this expanded social space places
> pressure on the authoritarian state. As a result, China is also constantly
> building up its capacity to control media, mostly through institutional
> infrastructures, in order to maintain a roughly uniform flow of political
> information. Therefore, China responds to the challenges posed by market-
> based and new media by both opening up social spaces in media while
> maintaining control through institutional mechanisms.

More:
[http://www.politicalcommunication.org/newsletter_25_1_stockm...](http://www.politicalcommunication.org/newsletter_25_1_stockmann.html)

------
dogma1138
While it might sounds bad and it sure is, how is it that different than the
100's of millions of "sponsored content" add's, "news articles" and blog spam
that 1000's of companies spread through the internet each year?

~~~
mattmanser
Yes, an authoritarian state that murders and disappears people and then
undermines resistance by subtly adjusting the dialogue of its citizens is just
like a marketing agency.

Exactly the same, now I consider it more.

Forgive the hyperbole, but I think it does the suffering caused by their
regime a great disservice to compare it to sponsored ads.

~~~
dogma1138
Because the same marketing agencies also publish content for politicians and
political parties, lobbyists and interest groups? It's not like it's only used
to sell you car insurance and diet pills.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Yes but we don't kill anyone :-)

~~~
moreorless
Are you sure about that? It is just marketed a little differently.

------
DominikR
> The researchers said they found no evidence that people were paid for the
> posts, adding the work was probably part of the employees’ job
> responsibilities.

Probably? How on earth do they reach this conclusion? Is this science?

> Although those who post comments are often rumored to be ordinary citizens,
> the researchers were surprised to find that nearly all the posts were
> written by workers at government agencies including tax and human resource
> departments, and at courts.

I'm surprised that the article paints a picture of factories where masses of
chinese slave workers are producing cheap comments.

It's also very unlikely that they will have these kinds of sweatshops located
at tax departments and courts.

Another simple explanation: As of 2009, 10 million people were civil servants
within the Chinese government, and maybe, just maybe they are also sometimes
bored at work and post cat pictures on the internet.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_of_the_People%27...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China)

------
MaxfordAndSons
I wonder how many of those are in this thread. There are quite a few posts in
here written in good but not quite natural english, espousing various degrees
of conciliatory attitudes towards the propaganda state.

~~~
Semiapies
They may or may not be in this thread, but pg mentioned years back that there
are often a lot of suspect new accounts pushing official lines on stories
involving China.

------
aavotins
Turns out it's a Brave New World instead of 1984. And I am not surprised. A
semi-totalitarian government based around ideology. If China's idealistic goal
is set to be achieving communism through socialism, then what's better than
vox populi?

~~~
realusername
I'm not even sure if they still have any communist goal, it looks just like
any other authoritarian government now, it's probably only communist by name.

~~~
sievebrain
It's a totalitarian government with massive state ownership of businesses.
That's pretty much the definition of communism. The fact that they got less
extreme on their economic policies whilst remaining extreme on their
social/control policies doesn't make it not communism.

~~~
danharaj
The definition of communism is a classless society where workers have direct
control over the means of production.

~~~
adventured
No, that's the fake claim that nobody believes these days. Which is why no
nations are rushing out to become Communistic: as an ideology it didn't just
lose, it got completely demolished. The ideology espoused was never actually
sincere in any regard, it was merely a fraudulent cover for a power grab by
the party elite, which is why the claims of Communism have always contradicted
the reality perfectly.

There has never been a single implementation of Socialism - including
Communism and Fascism - that has delegated any power to the workers. It has
always and will always be held by the party dictatorship. No property,
including the means of production, is ever held by the workers, it is always
controlled by the elite of the party dictatorship for the purpose of
plundering profit and enslaving the workers. Which simultaneously explains the
_extreme_ poverty Socialism has produced every time it has been attempted.

~~~
danharaj
You're conflating Marxist-Leninism (and Stalinism, Maoism, etc. they tend to
get named after their dictator) with communism. You've just demonstrated that
most of the countries that call themselves communist or socialist... weren't.
That doesn't change the word or its definition.

The Free Territory and Catalonia were libertarian socialist communities. They
were betrayed by Bolsheviks and Stalinists respectively.

> Which simultaneously explains the extreme poverty Socialism has produced
> every time it has been attempted.

Britain forcibly deindustrialized India, reducing it from the most productive
region of the world to one of the poorest. This, somehow, is not an indictment
of capitalism, but all the dictatorships that call themselves communist are an
indictment of communism. I don't care at all to defend the likes of the USSR
or their satellite puppet governments, but you're drunk on propaganda if you
think any of these criticisms you've leveled cannot be made against the so-
called "free world".

------
jensen123
Interesting. This makes me wonder about how many blog/forum posts in the
Western world that are written by PR agencies. Not working for governments, of
course, but for corporations and NGOs.

~~~
Kristine1975
_> Not working for governments, of course,_

Why not for governments?

~~~
jensen123
In the Western world, there seem to be this prevalent ideal that the people
should control the government and not the other way around. If a Western
government hired people to influence politics like this, wouldn't there be a
backlash?

~~~
Kristine1975
Where's the backlash against this: [https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-
manipulation/](https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/)

Or this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbara)

~~~
sievebrain
There was a huge backlash caused by the Snowden revelations and JTRIG
certainly got massive attention at the time.

Unfortunately there's no obvious way to stop it because politicians appear to
believe spy agencies should be unaccountable and above the law.

------
prestonpesek
Why don't we study our own social media habits with as much scrutiny? I mean,
if our version of the Chinese state is free market capitalism, how much of our
own social media ecosystem is clogged with "fake" posts, otherwise known as
content marketing? I bet we produce way more than 488M of that kind of crap
each year.

~~~
okc
I think the key difference is the government not cooperations are behind it. I
think if the American government were mass employing graduates to make fake
posts, then it would be scrutinised massively. (graduates, because social
control is an academic discipline)

Comparatively, between the two nations, I don't think the role of the Chinese
state in controlling the thoughts of its citizens can be easily compared with
American free market capitalism. In reality, China also has similar model of
capitalism which operates in a similar way.

The government creating fake posts, the Chinese fire wall.. Tiananmen Square..
people with anti-goverment views at local level - regularly going missing..
official and unofficial snithches on nearly every street.. I could go on.

The unique role of the Chinese government (unlike America) make their social
media habits interesting.

Now of course American social media habits are interesting, but not for the
same reasons, and I would argue: American social media habits aren't as
important in areas like human rights.

To put it in another context: if I was making this post from china or was
Chinese - I would be looking over my shoulder and perhaps writing more
ambiguously.

~~~
lumberjack
[http://www.computerworld.com/article/2470594/endpoint-
securi...](http://www.computerworld.com/article/2470594/endpoint-
security/army-of-fake-social-media-friends-to-promote-propaganda.html)

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-
op...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-
social-networks)

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/fe...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2011/feb/23/need-
to-protect-internet-from-astroturfing)

This is old news. It was first revealed in 2004.

~~~
crusso
The existence of the US government's looking into such a program or even
having a small version of it isn't surprising.

What would be interesting in a bad way would be if the US government was using
it at anywhere near the scale of the Chinese government.

~~~
okc
Agreed, with both of you. I like this hackernews forum, as false arguments
tend to be articulately called out and discussed.

The irony of the thread is that the fundamental debate is about if such a
forum should be allowed to exist without government mediation and control.

------
bjshepard
honest question that seems more pointed than it is: how many anti-CCP/China
posts did the CIA sponsor last year?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
If you mean the Chinese Intelligence Agency, they aren't anti-CCP. If you mean
the Central Intelligence Agency, then we have no evidence that they are, and
it is highly likely that they wouldn't bother. What is in it for the USA to
destabilize China and/or overthrow the CPP? A failed state with 1.3 billion
people would be a huge headache.

~~~
jjcc
> A failed state with 1.3 billion people would be a huge headache.

Here's one of the most interesting deceptive phenomenon that almost all the
modern human failed to detect. That's why the states have so many headaches
and will continue to have more headaches.

A rational politician should control his/her own strong desire from
ideology(i.e. eager to spread the value of democracy/universal human rights
all over the world) to avoid the "huge headache". But the reality is
irrational politicians driven by their strong belief pretend to be rational so
others think their decision is based on reasoning.

A famous example as I mentioned in another post is Mr.Obama blamed G.W.Bush,
who created headache of Iraq with a naive view that he was doing good thing to
Iraqis, but Obama created Libya headache by himself. What he criticized Bush
in words is just a way of showing he had a better judgement and more
reasonable than Bush so he can win in election. His behavior shows there's
little difference.

Another example is Politicians like to talk "US interests". Most people might
not think of the WORD is just a way to show other people they are rational.
Their behavior not always really align with US interest.

Next time when you hear a politician saying "A failed state with 1.3 billion
people would be a huge headache and against US interest", don't be so
confident they are the same as you. Politicians are special specie extremely
good at creating wrong impression to other people.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I don't think Obama created the Lybia headache, they were already breaking up
(failing) with the Arab Spring way before the USA intervened. The USA also
didn't kill Gaddafi, there was no oil to procure, and it was a NATO action
anyways. Contrast to Iraq, that was all on the USA. The people weren't
revolting, no civil war, there was just no reason for us to go there.

Obama is very different from GW Bush.

~~~
rjsw
The push to do something in Libya was from Europe, it does have plenty of oil
though.

------
stephengillie
> _Although those who post comments are often rumored to be ordinary citizens,
> the researchers were surprised to find that nearly all the posts were
> written by workers at government agencies including tax and human resource
> departments, and at courts. The researchers said they found no evidence that
> people were paid for the posts, adding the work was probably part of the
> employees’ job responsibilities._

~~~
mc32
No I think this is more like someone working for some new startup talking it
up, or talking up the product. It may not be in the job description, but one
might be inclined to say good things.

Do recall these jobs are ones one gets by studying hard for a rote test/civil
service exam. So one might feel obliged when working for the state (where it's
prestigious to work, as seen by fam) to defend the state.

------
est
Spamming 400M posts is just casual business for any for-profit astroturfing
companies.

I am not surprised if you can find another 800M posts is for soft advertising.

------
otaviokz
About time they learned from Western governments.

------
known
"Media does not spread free opinion; it generates opinion." \--Oswald
Spengler, 1918

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Democr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2C_media.2C_and_money)

------
js8
How silly I was, thinking that there will be no jobs in the future due to
automation. :-)

------
adventured
This entire thread seems to be overflowing with pro-authoritarian, emotionally
reactive posts that are attempting to defend via diversion the actions in
question. I count a couple dozen variations of intentionally trying to divert
away from the actual topic. I'm surprised this thread isn't killed yet given
the quality of the postings occurring here.

------
Polarity
So it´s like content ads in the western world? buy this, buy that? nice.

------
zarlink
Well too bad nobody in China will ever get to read this post.

~~~
unlinker
Common wisdom says whoever is interested in reading this kind of stuff, will
end up reading it.

------
puppetmaster3
Do we have any data for USA, something I care more about?

ex: [http://tinyurl.com/hbsanfr](http://tinyurl.com/hbsanfr)

~~~
Kristine1975
The US government doesn't need to do this. It has press conferences and
gullible journalists: [https://theintercept.com/2016/05/20/pentagon-official-
once-t...](https://theintercept.com/2016/05/20/pentagon-official-once-told-
morley-safer-that-reporters-who-believe-the-government-are-stupid/)

------
Aelinsaar
I wonder if it's actually effective, or just makes the people calling for it
to be done, feel better.

~~~
exolymph
All of the above? Totalitarian regimes _always_ try to control the public
narrative. It matters.

~~~
Kristine1975
_All_ regimes try to control the public narrative.

~~~
mc32
Yes but the difference is in totalitarian regimes, theirs is the only
narrative. No one or nothing else's story is permitted, while theirs is made
to flourish.

On the positive side, when you have an undivided narrative like that you can
get a lot done (sometimes bad, sometimes good) without impeding distractions.

~~~
bjshepard
You can get books in the Shanghai library with a lot of narratives of world
history different than the CCP's.

Totalitarian is probably not the most fitting word to describe the current
state of Chinese society, insofar as it connotates an environment of constant
fear of unwarranted state intrustion into everyday life. The only environment
I've been in that could be said to be "totalitarian" in that sense would be
the south side of Chicago.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
DPRK and Eritrea are pretty darn close to totalitarian. Even at its worst in
the 60s/70s, China was just barely there, it is just too big to control likes
that.

It is difficulty it to describe China's political system using existing terms.
Maybe authoritarian, but that doesn't feel right either. It isn't transparent
in how the power flows, could even be an oligarchy or aristocracy.

~~~
meric
In practice, and in name, China is a republic. The leadership of the CCP are
elected by it's 80+ million members. [1] Power resides in elected individuals
representing the party members. Party membership is not easy, but not too
difficult either. [2] One could make the analogy, joining the party is the
PRC's version of enrolling to vote, which happens to be a much more
complicated process than in the U.S. Not everyone is allowed to become a party
member, but that is also true in the U.S and other countries, where some or
all prisoners have no right to vote.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People%27s_Re...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China)

[2] [https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-join-the-Chinese-Communist-
Pa...](https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-join-the-Chinese-Communist-Party)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
We get to vote for local representatives in our trade union. I mean, the trade
union organizes the voting, but us non-citizen members aren't allowed to
participate. They give you one name to vote for, BUT IT IS STILL DEMOCRATIC
because you can write someone else's name in if you want. You get one name to
vote for, but you can vote for anyone - so wise!

Likewise, when party members vote for congress party members, the decisions
are often pre-determined. Ironically enough, Xi Jinping actually lost a vote
once:

> Xi held posts in the Fuzhou Municipal Party Committee and became the
> president of the Party School in Fuzhou in 1990. In 1997, Xi was named an
> alternate member of the 15th Central Committee of the Communist Party of
> China. However, out of the 151 alternate members of the Central Committee
> elected at the 15th Party Congress, Xi received the lowest number of votes
> in favour, placing him in last place in the rankings of members, ostensibly
> due to his status as a Princeling.[a][20]

Of course, it didn't matter much, because votes are..well..even under the
perverted Chinese system where outcomes are almost always predetermined, if
they are not what is wanted, they are just fudged anyways.

And everyone knew Xi Jinping would get elected even before the first vote was
cast by the party. There wasn't like any suspense, there were no odds in
London. This year in the US, it is not certain that Clinton or Trump will will
the POTUS election...we have hunches, but there is no certainty.

Calling China a republic is like calling North Korea a republic. Technically
true, but ultimately meaningless.

~~~
meric
Does Xi have full control of China? Does he have the power to do things like,
give cities away to foreign nations? Is his term unlimited? Is it inherited?

In the U.S., you've had Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and strong chance of
Clinton and Bush again next term. It's a Republic in name, but it is also
where a political system where political power is often inherited, arguable
even more so than in China. If U.S. qualifies as a republic, I'd say China
does too. We might know Xi was going to be president before the election was
going to happen, but that happens in Westminster parliaments too - we are only
electing our local representative, but everyone knows there are only two
candidates. Same is true for China, where it was Xi and Bo Xilai. The latter
lost.

------
orangeclk
As I know, Japan government also pays for posts in China. Maybe US does so.

------
transfire
Look over there at China! Nothing to see _here_ , right?

------
loceng
This isn't any different than Facebook (or government programs)
"curating"/filtering news/media.

------
mathattack
488M? Is that all?

------
ccvannorman
Interesting - how many social media posts a year are faked by US?

------
xufi
How many have been in Weibo hmmm

------
mlvljr
What about all the Flash games out there?

------
tiatia
Wait. Trump will soon pull the plug on China. Let's see how they can survive
this.

(gives them three years to balance trade with the US)

~~~
Intermernet
The first, and probably only important result of this will be a massive
increase in the cost of most products in the USA.

Let's see how they can survive this...

~~~
tiatia
Hm. Maybe.

But

1\. Lets see how much robots can replace of the labour

2\. China one accumulated most of the world silver reserves. Buying nothing
and selling silk and porcelain. This was one of the reasons for the Opium war.
Today China produces nothing that not somebody else could produce. Shoes,
Clothes, toys, electronics. They tried to get a monopoly with rare earth
metals but this seem to have failed.

I challenge your statement. I doubt the outcome.

