The suspended accounts include Western residents.
The vaguest possible reason. The only way this censorship could be more cowardly, is if the account was shown as missing. Or if it was shadow-banned, or pushed down in search rankings.
Worse than censorship, is hiding that censorship took place, and why it took place.
When you have subjective rules, you have a two-edged sword. When bad actors try to game the system, moderators/the judiciary/the benevolent dictator can step in and say, “I see what you’re up to, and I’m stopping it here.”
But of course, if you have bad actors enforcing rules that have subjective application, they can apply them unequally and create injustice. For example, if the police have the discretion whether to charge teenagers with a crime for possession of weed, they can overwhelmingly choose to charge members of one socioeconomic group, while overwhelmingly giving a pass to another.
My claim is that rigid rules are subject to gaming by bad actors subject to the rules, and flexible rules are subject to gaming by bad actors enforcing the rules.
Beyond ideological beliefs that “fairly applied” is more important than “just outcomes,” it comes down to looking at your threat model. In the case of Twitter, I consider Twitter’s own management to be the biggest threat.
Whereas with Hacker News, I trust the benevolence of its dictators, and consider bad faith users to be the biggest threat.
Its like a legal system, but with no penalty whatsoever for acting in malicious bad faith to disrupt the system itself, and the bad faith disruption generates even more avenues to disrupt, like some troll hall of mirrors.
Only thing you end up achieving is giving bad actors more ammunition, and meanwhile nobody who is truly unjustly banned is going to navigate 100000 sub threads of "case law".
Great example of how dysfunctional this ultimately becomes is Wikipedia, where you get the book thrown at you by wikilawyers (which is ironically against the rules itself, yeah ok...) for innocent infractions, but people operating in bad faith have no issues making Wikipedia say what they want it to.
Twitter is also never going to be honest about business case driven bans like this either, i mean do you seriously expect them to state that as the reason, even if it is their policy to do so? It would be the end of their business in China (supposing they aren't already blocked of course)
It is precisely the lack of this drama, the discreet manner in which they can censor and pretend they didn't, that I object to. People should know how they're being manipulated, and then talk about it - the so-called 'drama'.
But of course the censor would prefer to control the discussion without letting people know.
What people outside of China think is much less of a concern.
There are around 360k Chinese students in the US. If China didn't do anything to counter it, that would be a lot of educated young people eventually returning to China to take influential jobs who are aware of Tiananmen.
Would China go so far as to stop allowing their students to study in the US to stop that? Or would they just to to convince the students that the US is lying?
At Auburn University in the late 90s there was a seemingly random murder of a Chinese grad student and his wife. The local police were mystified because it didn't match a typical homicide and there appeared to be no motive, not even robbery. Eventually it turned out that the student was the son of a important regional politician back in China. His enemies had the son and daughter-in-law murdered in the United States to send him a message. Similar demonstrations of the long reach of the Chinese government could be made to students studying in the United States if they as a group started creating difficulties for the official narrative.
For those that have bought into the propaganda, the impression is generally that the government put down a dangerous riot that was killing innocents.
Start of the Twitter uh "thread" (not sure how to refer to these) https://twitter.com/Chinahnpy/status/1129327748743409664?s=2...
Here's the start of some tiananmen discussion: https://twitter.com/komali_2/status/1133764941675094016?s=20
Edit: both are, after all, caused by religious nationalism. Let's not ignore one of them.
To people live outside of China, that event is all they know about Tiananmen. But to a Chinese person especially a local resident, it's a place of many memories - a big playground for kids, a hub for changing buses, the entrance to Forbidden City/Zhongshan (Sun Yat Sen) Park/National Museum, a pathway to a shopping quarter, and of course a place full of annoying tourists.
No one is trying to hide anything. It's simply a wonderful venue for olympic games. The view would have been amazing! You will never get an opportunity like that again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGQke3dJdNU&feature=youtu.be... (again please ignore those awkward tourists)
(Obviously from 1984)
In the end are 64 leaders and the political powers behind it actually missed the opportunity to creat the New Democratic super power that still would today challenge us, but politically close to us as well?
I think so. china is vastly big and diverse. Things moving fast. Before 1949 China is a mix of capitalism, feudalism, foreign colonist, etc, the economy is agriculture centered.
1949 to 1970s, China did a lot of things to reform the nation to be a unified nation in all aspects. Politically, militarily, culture, education, economically, etc.
On ward Mao died, Deng took a very diplomatic and politically mature move to turn the economy to capitalism heavy. I.e., he claim that the way you do business has nothing to do with your political system. That’s of course a facade, or even a lie.
Then comes 64, they apparently heavily influenced by Ussa, and demanded similar changes. The Chinese people are not ready for that, the incumbent powers (both those just took power and want a more western democratic, and those diehard anti west ) don’t want that. And they promptly and skillfully shut it down.
China’s road to reform suddenly took a nose dive, from politically and economically moving the same direction, to politically heavy guarded towards anti western democracy.
Just like the guy coming to a big Corp and try to instate use strategic shift, by being passionate and fast acting, that person destroys the minimal confidence and trust people had with the new system.
Sure, 64 is well intended, but is it a positive event? No, sorry.
To me these years seem to be the darkest.
Early - 1949->51 saw the apex of the first wave of landlord killing, possibly 30M were killed.
Then, in the late 50's and early 60's we have The Great Leap forward plan, and the consequential three years of famine.
Estimates have been made that gauge The Great Leap Forward as having killed 18M to 56M chinese people : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
To round things off five years later The Cultural Revolution kicks off, you can visit university campus's in China today where you can still see where red guard factions fought each other in grenade battles. Maybe 10M Chinese died.
Deng was really trying to get food round the country; the development of farmers markets was a way to do this - black cat, yellow cat - it distributes food.
People needed to vent and the party did not handle it well. It was the party's own fault that the situation deescalated and led to the shocking events in June 89.
Edit: Please down vote this to death... The purest democracy will help people get it...
I'm sorry but how can anyone discuss with a straight face that perhaps people were moving too fast for a system to catch up. . . Which resulted in the above, then proceed to talk as if that government or system could develop from there. You don't get to come back from that.
But sure, “there is no fault that is purely one side faulted”. All sins are given equivalent weight. Who are we to decide which side was wrong here? Let’s just all forget about it and move on.
It was just a disaster and a sad moment in history. No winners, only losers.
> alternative names have sprung up to describe the events on the Internet, such as May 35th, VIIV (Roman numerals for 6 and 4) and Eight Squared (i.e. 8^2=64).
So as many other political movements around the world. A spark comes first, then maybe fire.
However, spark is just spark. Protesters of 6.4 was demanding something big, too big to be realistic. So they failed, paid high price for it.
To eat an elephant, you have to chop it into pieces first, then eat it piece by piece. Trying to eat an elephant in one sitting will probably kill the eater.
BTW: China is still opening up politically, it's slow but still opening. 20 years ago you wouldn't even imagine to be able sue the government for whatever they did, today however it's fairly common in some cases.
Economy I think is the main factor that force China to be more open. It's open up or die situation, I don't think even CCP had too many choice.
Not true. The control was tighter and tighter, day by day after 2008.
What been tightened up is censorship. However, censorship is not completely equals to control.
I know what you meant. You want all the rights in the constitution, so did I. But get things cooked require time. The current situation is, if you trying to get that a rush, then you will be cracked down and set everything back. Somebody tried that 30 years ago already and failed.
During the few decades of my life, what I've experienced is that the government move themselves more and more into a service role. The goal has been changed from gaining political dominance to generating profit. And they are more willing to act according to laws rather than just make some random new rules.
And all that is because we're now relying on an economy that depends on openness. Which, is hard to change as long as economical development is still the top one goal. And it will be, otherwise everything will fell apart.
So, unlike you, I'm pretty optimistic about the future. Few shady things and setbacks won't change that.
BTW: Here is something what you can do now:
1. Don't join them.
2. If you do join them, don't forget, one of the original goal of CCP is to bring democracy to China. So try do that from time to time as an inside job will you?
Of course, I personally like to keep things simple, I don't join them.
They have no problems talking about this with foreigners. They're a bit afraid to talk about it in China but it's not like everyone would report you for that (Orwell style).
On the other hand they sincerely believe CCP would rule forever, or at least until they die. They see no reason to rock the boat and potentially risk their careers or safety.
China is growing and developing really fast now and (from what I've heard) care more about the usual problems of a middle class than some historical tragedy.
Is the regime so stupid to believe the cover up works while keep the openness?
The alternative theory/hypotheis which can explain much better: The ban never really mean to keep the lid which is impossible. In fact, most educated Chinese know(And with a little diffrent view today from westerners and their own thoughts 30 years ago. But that's another topic).
The real purpose of blocking information was an preemptive measure to disable the hidden agenda covered under those memorial activities which fool most people to believe that they are only memorial activities.
In Xinjiang prison camps. Non-Han (mostly Moslem and Christian) Chinese citizens are imprisoned indefinitely in "reeducation" programs while simultaneously a campaign encouraging Han Chinese to migrate to Xinjiang is underway. The situation resembles Stalin's migration and imprisonment programs that killed off whole segments of Russian society during his reign.
Included are forced organ donation (death):
"Proof of China’s Organ Harvesting Found in Xinjiang":
"Chinese Authorities Draw Blood from Uyghurs in Xinjiang to Build Secret Organ Matching Database":
Downvoters: why? Do you have evidence that contradicts this?
Wikipedia has compiled a shitload of sources reporting on this subject. It is happening.
The existence of the reeducation camps is also well documented.
Perhaps people think it's off-topic, and distracts from the discussion at hand.
Having a discussion about anything China is becoming increasingly difficult.
The US alone spends vast sums on trying to sway online opinion.
It was probably mostly automatic: it's a brand new account posting links, so looks (to a program) like a spammer.
Got a lot of criticism for misrepresenting some people but it seemed surprisingly well balanced to me. Would love to hear some expanded critiques of it if anyone has one here.
But assuming total concentration of power is possible long term, it only increases the likelihood of a better outcome for the powerful. To the extent that they need the rest of us that may also increase our chances of survival, but what happens if/when they don't?
But, maybe that's a plus. A super corrupt and inefficient government that oppresses the people is going to be like North Korea and not give off that much pollution. So, perhaps if our only objective to optimize is minimal pollution, then 'China-like' is better than 'USA-like'. However, if that's our only objective we might as well nuke all living organisms so there is zero pollution emission.
On the other hand, if another objective is something like human flourishing, then 'USA-like' might be Pareto dominant when compared to 'China-like'. Even more so if human freedom is a necessary component of human flourishing.
Central planning of a real time instrumented economy using super computers - well that might be more viable.
The debate between capitalism and communism is ultimately one of about the true nature of the human mind: is it a machine or a halting oracle?
7 Billion dead humans because of 'Freedom' would be worse than a few hundred dead people?
But each dead person had a life and a story.
What is best?
In the meantime we're 7 billions and projected to reach 11 billions by the end of the century. We already can't seem to protect the environment today so I'm not holding my breath with a 40% population increase.
You never know when the person you're responding to might be Pentti Linkola.
The point is that we're told that we are in a climate an environmental emergency situation. But what are the emergency measures we take to respond to that? Nothing. Oh yes we want to ban plastic straws...
We are not doing anything now and the situation can only become much worse with the projected population growth (which is one of the root causes of our environmental problems).
This is the reality.
But let's remove our pink tinted glasses. The reality is equally harsh: The WHO forecasts 250,000 extra deaths _a year_ between 2030 and 2050 because of climate change .
You're quite obviously misrepresenting what I wrote when you immediately equal it to "murdering people"...
Abortion is not murder.
Wouldn't surprise me at all to find the climate crisis receiving little substantial action until such a state of emergency has to be triggered to deal with it. It's all very well declaring a state of climate emergency as UK parliament did, and Ireland shortly after, actually treating it as an emergency has yet to happen.
So whether it's a good idea may not matter if it's left so long it's the only idea - I only hope that like in wartime, it's a temporary state of affairs.