
Things You Cannot Say on China’s Internet - tpatke
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/24/world/asia/china-internet-censorship.html
======
azag0
I've always told my parents who grew up in communist Czechoslovakia that the
Chinese communism is a very different beast from the eastern-bloc communism
they've know (which Vaclav Havel described masterfully in his texts). But this
article would feel very familiar to them.

------
Canada
It would be nice to see a table of the things one cannot legally say in
different countries.

~~~
zebraflask
That would be fascinating.

------
yoz-y
Hm, I find it weird that it is forbidden to publish things that "publicize
luxury life". I would dare to say that most Chinese popular TV series and
movies do just that. (Be it in the ancient china period or in the present
time)

------
wiradikusuma
I don't understand.

== Stereotyping alert ==

At least in Malaysia and Singapore, even though there are a lot of Chinese
(but not China national), "China girls" (from China) carries negative
connotation. The reason is, many of them work in brothels, dodgy massage
parlors, etc (you get the idea), and they're also known to "steal people's
husbands" and being "gold diggers".

In China itself, it's "common" for rich people to have mistresses, and
prostitution seems to be "common" (I have few friends who regularly visit
China for this purpose).

Is it _because_ of that the China govt puts censorship, or _despite_ of that,
or totally unrelated?

~~~
rtuulik
Its totally unrelated. Like most issues with prostitution, it is simply caused
by poverty.

China is a very materialistic society with incredibly high inequality and it
lacks any sort of welfare support network.

If you just walk around in shanghai, then the country might seem pretty close
to first world levels of development. But if you go deeper inland, you will
find hundreds of millions rural people who have been left behind, and still
live in grinding poverty.

When you are that poor, then becoming a prostitute can be a acceptable option
for you.

~~~
malnourish
I would imagine that people choose sex work even if they are not destitute.

For example, look at the American porn industry or "high-end" call girl/escort
scene. Often, it seems, these women (and men) come from means, or at the very
least, not squalor.

Poor sex workers are of course more open to exploitation, but you would still
find sex workers in developed nations with high social welfare (Australia, for
example).

------
hownottowrite
The actual list as published by the China Netcasting Services Association on
2017-06-30:

Original:
[http://www.cnsa.cn/2017/06/30/ARTI0Qg4cp7jtd1Z5o0RnfzM170630...](http://www.cnsa.cn/2017/06/30/ARTI0Qg4cp7jtd1Z5o0RnfzM170630.shtml)

English (via Google Translate): [https://goo.gl/j7ii74](https://goo.gl/j7ii74)

------
pmarreck
This is a quintessential example of not basing policy on evidence of harm. Any
decision that affects others (such as policy) should be empirically-based, or
risks being simply wrong/bad (as I would surmise it is, in this case).

~~~
jamesrcole
I agree with the spirit of what you say, but I think those requirements are
too stringent. It's very difficult to get evidence before-the-fact for a lot
of public policy type issues.

I think it would be better to be seek out and take heed of evidence, but not
block things because of lack of prior evidence. What you need to be able to do
is experiment -- try out policies -- and gather evidence from that. This will
lead to some number of failed policies but ought to lead to better overall
outcomes in the long-run.

~~~
pmarreck
The problem with operating laws-as-experiments are that laws are extremely
difficult to change, while actual experiments are not.

> It's very difficult to get evidence before-the-fact for a lot of public
> policy type issues.

Yeah, and this is exactly where I constantly see mistakes made and where I'd
want some data or at least secular ethical rationality first, indicating at
least a direction to take with policy. For example, treatment of sexual issues
was terrible decades ago (and depending on where you are in the world, still
is) due to lack of basing it on secular ethics ("who is actually harmed by
this behavior? and in what capacity? and how much, by some objective
measurement? and for how long?") or evidence ("wow, sure seems like a lot of
animals are reproducing just fine despite having a percentage of gay members,
maybe it's not so bad after all"). Or look at drug laws or prostitution laws-
all based on big old dusty religious books or Victorian-era repressed
sensibilities instead of rigorous data or secular ethical discussion.

You might argue that prostitution/oral sex (remember sodomy laws?) are an
"affront to nature" instead of perhaps a "necessary evil," but without
evidence as to actual objective harm (physical/emotional pain, long-term
negatives, societal negatives at an institutional level, etc.), you should
only be able to act in accordance with that by yourself and without being able
to impose it on others.

In court, you cannot convict someone ("act against them and their interests")
unless you prove harm has been done. Creating laws that curtail anyone's
freedom should be treated equally.

I am 100% certain that China has absolutely NO good empirical basis to support
their banning of 68 things off the Internet other than a flawed perception of
reality.

------
markussss
I just wanted a list, not an article. :~(

------
yann63
One rule is to never click on "list" articles. Most of them are not worth your
time.

And after reading the comments here, it is the case for this one too :-/

~~~
yoz-y
Although the title looks like it would led to a listicle, it doesn't. The
article is a perfectly fine column about the issue at hand.

------
thriftwy
The thing with obedience (which is disgustingly praised by quite some HN
commenters, maybe even not just astroturfers) is that it leaves zero territory
to live your actual life.

Which then will create people living completely double lives, the obedient
shell one and the _other one_.

~~~
dang
Please don't post generic ideological tangents to HN. Much as we might wish
otherwise, a public internet forum isn't able to have meaningful discussion
about things like this. It just turns into boring slop.

~~~
thriftwy
Why have HN at all then? Let's close comments.

You can't discuss specific things if you never figured generic things out. We
will have pointless discussions like "was is a good thing to murder this
particular person, or you say it wasn't?"

~~~
dang
We don't close comments because some comments are good. But some are boring,
particularly the generic ones and the indignant ones. To make HN discussions
better we need to make them less boring, i.e. less predictable.

Nobody figures generic things out. They're too generic for that. The true
things you can say are trivial and the non-trivial things are untrue.

The grander and more general a topic, the fewer interesting things there are
to say about it—especially in internet threads. Those few things get said over
and over, making the threads predictable and boring. The solution is to avoid
such tangents. To avoid a black hole, don't go near it.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20black%20hole&sort=by...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20black%20hole&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0)

~~~
thriftwy
> But some are boring

That's what you are thinking.

But you know what HN users think? They think +24.

------
miguelrochefort
The article fails to list the 68 things...

------
golergka
Every time an article that is politically critical of one of US's rivals is
posted on HN, there is a lot of incoming comments about how US is just as bad.
Which is perfectly reasonable and commendable - most HN readers live in US,
and a good citizen is more concerned with problems in his own country than
elsewhere. But it makes me wonder, what kind of justifications will this
article get.

~~~
jamesrcole
> a good citizen is more concerned with problems in his own country than
> elsewhere.

In practical terms it's hard to be personally concerned equally as much about
what happens in every country on earth, but as a matter of principle I think
what happens to people is just as important regardless of where they are. And
in our globalised world, what happens in one country, especially a major
country, can have implications for many other countries.

~~~
golergka
> as a matter of principle I think what happens to people is just as important
> regardless of where they are

Important to whom?

~~~
jamesrcole
To me, and obviously I think it is the appropriate attitude for others to
have, too, but of course I'm not trying to force that on anyone.

~~~
golergka
So, your own well-being, as well as well-being of your closest relatives, is
just as important as well-being of people on another side of the globe?

Clarification: I know that it's not what you meant. But if you answer "no" to
this question (as any reasonable person would) then I can show that from that,
it logically follows that well-being of people in your own country is more
important to you - because those people can affect you and people close to you
more than people on another side of the globe.

~~~
jamesrcole
I think people are equally important.

But if you're asking specifically what I would do, well, the question you've
posed is very abstract so it's hard to get clear what you're really asking.

What sorts of scenarios, where it's my close relatives vs people on the other
side of the world, are you thinking of?

It's often not a zero-sum game, and often the popular perception of it in
zero-sum terms is vastly overblown.

.

Regarding your clarification, I can not think of any scenario where I would
want something done that would benefit my close relatives at the expense of
people in other countries. I'm open to you suggesting some possible scenarios.

~~~
golergka
> It's often not a zero-sum game, and often the popular perception of it in
> zero-sum terms is vastly overblown.

It's never zero-sum, and it's never full cooperative either.

> I can not think of any scenario where I would want something done that would
> benefit my close relatives at the expense of people in other countries.

Imagine that your close relative loses a job, and his, hm... "standard of
living" goes down X, while someone else on another side of the globe gets that
job, and his standard of living goes up 2X. (It's not zero sum, yes). Would
you be happy over such an outcome?

~~~
jamesrcole
> _Imagine that your close relative loses a job, and his, hm... "standard of
> living" goes down X, while someone else on another side of the globe gets
> that job, and his standard of living goes up 2X. (It's not zero sum, yes).
> Would you be happy over such an outcome?_

Why did they lose their job? Is it because of freer trade? If was something
like that then I would be ok, because I think that ultimately that's likely to
make things better for everyone including the people in my country and
including my relatives and descendants.

(and why does helping your relative out have to be at the expense of those
other people overseas? Perhaps the best way to help them is for them to
receive funding to get retrained to be more competitive in another area?)

I'm against the idea of blocking things with long-term gain, for the purposes
of short-term gain.

------
Mortiffer
And the number 69

------
chewz
Bigotry in XXI century. This is funny.

------
throw999890
Why is western media so concerned about China when their own government ramped
up their control over their own people ? And hackernews mostly westerners
going ga ga over this. You should be concerned about what’s happening at your
home than what’s happening in some other country. Stop policing the world.

There is a proverb, fix the dust in your eye before trying to fix the dirt in
someone else’s.

~~~
prklmn
Is our freedom of speech being censored online here? It's a good start that we
can talk about this very subject.

~~~
throw999890
Thats the only freedom you people have right now. It will be gone soon with
the way your country is heading. Making it mandatory to reveal social media
accounts for starters.

A country like China can protect its citizens from external propogandas. This
propagandists include countries which are envious of the growth that China has
achieved.

~~~
prklmn
Brainwashing is where all evil begins. If you do not have the ability to think
for yourself, and seek the opinions of others, you have nothing.

------
throw2016
Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the
spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home?

Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret
orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity
and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. Why is Snowden still
in Russia? Are we to pretend all this is not happening?

All this is left to the EFF. This is a kind of denial and posturing - oh look
how bad they are while looking the other way at the growing authoritarianism
at home.

Not even talking about the current censorship of alternative voices by Google,
Facebook and others in support of mainstream media like the nyt with
completely opaque and non transparent standards and lending credence to
shadowy groups like propornot.

~~~
pmarreck
OBJECTION: Whataboutist Fallacy

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

In addition, making a claim from a fresh anonymous account conveys the message
that you do not actually stand behind it, giving it zero credence.

~~~
paradite
> In addition, making a claim from a fresh anonymous account conveys the
> message that you do not actually stand behind it, giving it zero credence.

Let me do it instead then:

Why is Nytimes so concerned about China while failing completely to put the
spotlight on the burgeoning surveillance culture at home?

Who is going to talk about draconian surveillance, secret courts, secret
orders, gag orders and government officials empowered to violate your dignity
and privacy by searching your phone and personal effects. Why is Snowden still
in Russia? Are we to pretend all this is not happening?

All this is left to the EFF. This is a kind of denial and posturing - oh look
how bad they are while looking the other way at the growing authoritarianism
at home. Not even talking about the current censorship of alternative voices
by Google, Facebook and others in support of mainstream media like the nyt
with completely opaque and non transparent standards and lending credence to
shadowy groups like propornot.

I have an account created 1284 days ago and linked to keybase.io, is it
credible now?

~~~
Sangermaine
No, it's just as wrong and stupid. Repeating idiocy doesn't make it less
idiotic.

