
China Spreads Propaganda to U.S. On Facebook, a Platform It Bans at Home - QAPereo
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/technology/china-facebook.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology&action=click&contentCollection=technology&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront
======
jstarfish
It's not surprising. China just adds itself to the list of countries with "you
do it over there, but you don't do it here" laws.

* China fabricates propaganda on Facebook, but bans it at home.

* Germany manufactures and exports firearms, but tightly regulates them at home.

* The US manufactures and exports cigarettes and pharmaceuticals, but tightly regulates them at home.

* Israel markets binary option trading scams to the rest of the world, but bans them at home.

* Russia produces malware, but only punishes anyone who unleashes it at home.

There's a lot to be said about the credibility of products and services that
governments won't let their own people have access to but freely sell to the
rest of the world.

~~~
vslira
This should be a WTO principle or something: you’re only allowed to sell
products/services to foreign countries thay you allow to circulate internally
and on similar conditions.

~~~
jstanley
Why?

~~~
jdoliner
Because that's the globalist answer to everything. Find some organization that
you feel is responsible for fixing some moral failing you perceive in the
world. Lobby them, claiming that they are responsible for the moral failing
and immoral if they don't fix it. Get some lame piece of regulation out of it
that causes more harm than good. That harm becomes your next moral failing and
the process repeats. But everyone involved gets to project the outward
impression that they are making the world a better place.

~~~
brianjoseff
How do you propose we better address perceived moral failings?

------
deusofnull
I'm so glad my government, the United States Government, has definitely never
spread propaganda in foreign countries with the express interest of creating a
more favorable political climate there for their interests.

~~~
nscalf
I think this opinion is very narrow minded. Who is the person you're trying to
convince with this thought? No one is doubting that we are doing this
overseas, that doesn't make it any less concerning that it is happening here.
It is a weapon that doesn't result in war, I hope my government, the United
States Government, uses this more as an early option instead of going to war.
If anything, I'm upset they are not more effective at this.

When a foreign government disrupts my free elections though, I'm going to be
troubled by it. What you're saying is effectively belittling the importance of
hardening our own systems from this foreign influence.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> _Who is the person you 're trying to convince with this thought?_

Anyone who reads the article, and thinks "this is outrageous!" instead of
treating it as a chess move by an opponent.

~~~
jbooth
It's outrageous to the extent we're completely unprepared and maybe unwilling
to deal with it.

Radio Free Europe was at least just using the airwaves. These efforts are
using US corporations against the US.

~~~
emodendroket
European airwaves, on European radios.

~~~
jbooth
So, is that confirmation on 'unwilling'?

------
bognition
China didn't ban Facebook b/c they don't think it should exist, they banned it
b/c its a propaganda engine that they didn't want to compete with.

In the world of international jockeying and competition it would be naive to
assume they would use a tool like facebook against their economic rivals.

~~~
mtgx
> they banned it b/c its a propaganda engine that they didn't want to compete
> with

That's a good way to put it. Since China is so in-love with AI, I wonder if we
could use AI with the same purpose - spreading "freedom" information in China.

Something like this actually happened recently:

[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-
chatbots-...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-chatbots-
communist-party-ruling-critics-peoples-tencent-babyq-little-
bing-a7875601.html)

~~~
penistives
Or maybe it'll just end up spreading racism and denying the Holocaust.

Something like this actually happened recently:

[https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/24/microsoft-silences-its-
new...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/03/24/microsoft-silences-its-new-a-i-bot-
tay-after-twitter-users-teach-it-racism/)

------
volgo
At what point is "propaganda" just annoying advertising?

I mean, I've seen these silly promotion ads where they interview random people
who say China is great. They're annoying, but not unlike random mattress ads
or ebook ads I see everywhere on the timeline. Most of the time i just ignore
them always.

Besides, they're no where near the level of nastiness of local political ads
that denounce other sides as rapists and child molester (at least in my area,
where they basically show latinos as gang members)

------
fludlight
How is this news? Every global and regional power does this sort of thing to
further their economic and political interests. They do it against both friend
and foe. They've been doing it since newspapers first became popular.

And there's nothing wrong with it. Sure it leaves a bad taste in your mouth,
but Facebook posts filled with misinformation, sponsored by foreign agents
disguised as your countrymen are vastly preferable to the alternatives which
have historically included sponsored coups, astroturfed bloody protests,
economically crippling sanctions, and assassinations.

[1] China, Russia, the US, the UK, Israel, KSA, India, Germany, etc. Yes, even
Germany which many people on HN seem to think miraculously stopped spying in
1989 and ascended to ethical heaven. I wouldn't be surprised if Canada used it
during the Keystone pipeline debate.

~~~
tristanj
It's news because China runs by far the largest overseas propaganda campaign,
spending over $10bn per year on it. They spend 15x more than the US does on
overseas propaganda. What's worrisome is not the fact that they do it, but the
sheer scale of their program.

~~~
baybal2
Where did you get that digit?

$1.6B figure was leaked on the state budget in 2009

~~~
tristanj
$10bn estimate from 2015
[https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2015-06-16/chi...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2015-06-16/china-
s-soft-power-push)

------
StavrosK
I mean, it bans Facebook exactly because it's easy to spread propaganda
through it.

What the hell is up with this title? "Country attacks with weapons, the same
thing it bans internally". Obviously?

~~~
prklmn
No, not obviously. Why isn't it banned in every country that's not a US ally?
Just China...

------
throw2016
For all the talk about democracy, freedom, diversity and dissent the country
seems extremely uncomfortable and insecure in the face of diversity and
dissent it has no control over, unlike tightly controlled narratives in
traditional media and is now seeing gremlins everywhere. This is paranoia.

This is a new form of McCarthyism and its a double edged sword. Other
countries can use the exact same logic to ban hollywood and western media for
propaganda and you can't then lecture them on free press or accuse them of
authoritarianism.

It should be taken for granted there is going to be fair share of propaganda
and rumour mongering everywhere and always has been in human society.

The only way to 'control' this is to establish a 'ministry of truth'. But
given the level of double speak and paranoia I won't be surprised to hear
folks advocating a tightly controlled 'ministry of truth' to 'protect' our
fragile democracies.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Diversity of opinion is one thing. Dissent from official US positions, OK. But
very effective manipulation from very skillful people is something a bit
beyond "diversity of opinion". You can present a diverse opinion without
trying to manipulate, and without being dishonest about who you are.

This is something above mere diversity of opinion, or even dissent. This is
dishonest, covert propaganda.

~~~
BeetleB
>But very effective manipulation from very skillful people is something a bit
beyond "diversity of opinion".

You've just described the whole advertising industry.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Yes, I noticed that. Honest advertising is also something beyond "diversity of
opinion", but it's one that we accept. Dishonest advertising is another step
beyond that, one that we don't accept, and that we try to keep out of society.
This (China/Russia Facebook propaganda) is more like dishonest advertising; we
should seek to eliminate it.

------
xienze
I was wondering when someone was finally going to get around to asking if
countries other than Russia spread memes on Facebook. To the surprise of no
one except apparently Democrats, they do. Now the million dollar question,
will anyone investigate _China's_ involvement in influencing the election? Of
course not, that would weaken the narrative that Russia acted alone in this
endeavor (with Trump, of course).

~~~
mschuster91
> Now the million dollar question, will anyone investigate _China's_
> involvement in influencing the election?

If at all, China would have helped Clinton. An isolationist like Trump is not
good for China which depends on exports to the US and other western countries
to fuel its growth, which China needs in turn to prevent social unrest caused
by poverty.

No one will waste resources in tracking down who helped the loser of the
election.

------
altcognito
Before someone points out that nations have always done this:

It has never been this effective, targeted or difficult to uncover.

~~~
xienze
> It has never been this effective

Debatable, unless you're taking the claims that $100K of meme-tier ads on
Facebook changed the outcome of the election at face value.

> or difficult to uncover.

Is it really? Facebook certainly seemed very sure of every little ad that was
purchased by a Russian party.

~~~
altcognito
> Debatable, unless you're taking the claims that $100K of meme-tier ads on
> Facebook changed the outcome of the election at face value.

It's not just Facebook, or Twitter, or 4chan, or Reddit, or HN, or IRC, or
email, or TV ads, or superpac ads, etc....

Ads can be targeted moreso than ever, celebrities are more easily roped in
willingly or as useful idiots. Content has wider possibilities ("verified"
emails). People are much more primed for disinformation than they were in the
past.

> Is it really? Facebook certainly seemed very sure of every little ad that
> was purchased by a Russian party.

They paid in rubles. They didn't seem to even think it was terribly important
to hide.

------
pteredactyl
“New York Times Spreads Propaganda to U.S. as it Realizes Their Monopoly on
U.S. Propaganda is Coming to and End”

------
659087
Perhaps Zuckerberg can ask another member of the Chinese government to name
his next child to smooth this over.

~~~
prklmn
[https://twitter.com/MgtowExpat/status/927593680277348352](https://twitter.com/MgtowExpat/status/927593680277348352)

------
Splines
Honestly curious - does the US spread propaganda to the rest of the world? If
I had to guess it would be that hollywood historically did most of the work -
exporting "American" values and culture to other nations, but I don't know if
that's still the case.

Anyways, it would be interesting to know if there is any kind of US presence
on Chinese/Russian social networks (like, is there some bizarro mirror world
/r/the_donald in Russian with posts pushing some kind of US agenda?)

~~~
owebmaster
House of Cards? Brazil faced a coup d'etat with the same script of the series,
at the same time it was aired. I'm skeptical so I don't believe in
coincidences.

~~~
marcosdumay
There was no coup.

And really. People joked about it being equal to House of Cards. But the real
facts were way too outrageous to get into a fictional script.

~~~
owebmaster
This is what we call Propaganda, my friend.

~~~
marcosdumay
Do you honestly the Brazilian Justice and Congress joined forces to do a coup
and used a US TV series to manipulate the people into supporting them?

Really?

~~~
owebmaster
Do you genuinely believe that what I said is about a plot between a TV Series
and the corrupt congress and brazilian justice? Really?

I bet you are these kinds that think Brazil was been "left-wing" brainwashed
and the federal universities are all bolivarian. But a TV Series is just a TV
Series.

------
azangru
I don’t understand why the media obsess that much about who spreads which
propaganda where.

If people uncritically eat up whatever they are fed by their newsfeeds, then
we are hopeless. If, however, people can consume news critically, then
propaganda may merely be annoying, hardly harmful.

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>I don’t understand why the media obsess that much about who spreads which
propaganda where.

Maybe because they're part of the problem?

------
drak0n1c
At Quora there is a very strong presence of commentators who only focus on
answering geopolitical questions about China. It is an area of inordinate size
(quantity of questions + answers) compared to other topics of interest.

------
firefoxd
Oh, and this is an ad that ran in the U.S. airwaves.

[https://youtu.be/OTSQozWP-rM](https://youtu.be/OTSQozWP-rM)

------
outside1234
I think they probably banned Facebook about 20 milliseconds after they
realized it could be used as a weapon like this.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
They banned Facebook in 2009 because the 2008 Olympics were over and they no
longer had to pretend to be opening up to the rest of the world (they used
Uighur separatism discussion as an excuse). They’ll probably ban it before the
2022 Olympics to redo that show for face purposes only to reban it again
afterwards.

------
jorgec
CNN spreads propaganda to U.S. On Facebook, CNN earns awards as fairness and
freedom fighters.

------
unpwn
lol this is like some propaganda inception

