This fund is the most popular among locals.
It's ironic that this was written by someone whose government has made it illegal for him to learn what happened the last time his government cleaned up some protestors with tanks.
I couldn't believe that any person in the West could believe such a thing, and the only explanation is that Chinese disformation spreads far and wide beyond China's own borders.
I understand that there's a diversity of opinion among the people of Taiwan (and some mixed messages from the government itself) regarding the issue, but it doesn't seem unbelievable that someone might think that the people of Taiwan share a belief in their country's official policy.
Is there something I'm missing?
Now that the opposition can easily win elections, they have mostly become the ROC government, but they don’t buy those original tenants of mainland unity at all (though they don’t have the power to change them, nor do they want to antagonize the PRC as much as they would if they could).
I want to also add that the oppositions, although not antagonize the PRC as much as they would, is also antagonizing the PRC more than the nationlists; the PRC-hating original tenants died off (it’s been 60 years after all), and the nationalists transformed themselves to fully embrace PRC in the name of economy. You have the nationalists (Kuomintang) occupying both ends of the pro/anti-PRC spectrum, and this weird situation is arguably one of the prominent problems of Taiwanese identity.
The government even really acts officially as if it is the government of all of China sometimes, such as its support of the PRC in certain maritime claims. The ROC claims certain islands are "part of China" even though they would fall under the physical control of the PRC and thus don't really concern Taiwan.
>"Beijing’s latest response to protesters came as a grave threat issued Tuesday morning through state-run media, saying Hong Kong citizens are "asking for self-destruction,"
Why can't these brute countries just show a bit mercy to these peaceful protesters?
There's a strong attractor basin around discussing the same news as everybody else that's worth pushing HN away from, in general.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
That seems like it should be fair game.
anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.
While there is a lot of great work in high tech and startups coming out of China, we (and the people who run this site) should be clearheaded: there is no significant distinction between the military and industry in China. Cooperation with China comes at a cost that will, eventually, be paid.
Not to say that HN is actively filtering out China-critical posts. But they easily could in the future.
By the way, you’re unlikely to convince anyone with personal attack.
Given what chance? from whom? Surrender to whom? It seems there's some authority that ppl have to comply with, and they should be "slaughtered" if not? This doesn't sound like democracy at all.
> If a party you have no prior social contract with endevours to threaten your existence you have every right to threaten theirs. Such people are undeserving of civility.
Who is threatening your existence? Is the victim in the video threatening anyone?
Nothing to say about this :-) Just FYI I care democracy & so do HK ppl.
> No one atm, I just think China should be wiped off the map and its leaders executed in public.
The last person I knew who tried to wipe several countries off the map and execute its ppl is a poor German. Though he did write a book to defend his idea which is "persuasive" somehow. I'd suggest you start from there.
And yet somehow that feels untrue.
I've posted a zillion explanations of this if you (or anyone) want more explanation: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturf&sort=byDat...
Comments like this poison the commons badly. The overwhelming majority are pure imagination, born out of humans' inability to listen to others with different perspectives from their own. If you have any evidence for the accusations you're making, send it to firstname.lastname@example.org so we can investigate, as the guidelines ask. Comments you strongly disagree with are not evidence of anything other than that people in an international forum have very different perspectives.
Really? How deeply have you looked into this? Usernames follow patterns, entire names with only comments defending China from bad PR, voting happening in bursts, etc. The same thing happens on other sites and the same patterns happen with other areas with well known disinformation and social media teams.
The people bringing attention to things like this gave their reasons. Not only that, this is a thread about Chinese propaganda.
I would love to be shown that I'm off base, there is plenty of information that users don't have to that should make these things pretty obvious. Instead of looking into the extremely suspect patterns here though, you just called my comments 'poison' and 'pure imagination'. If you are going to say that, show me that it's true. Why are so many names in this thread named the same way and only used to counter negative stories about China?
These are all hallmarks of disinformation campaigns from other groups and the same patterns happen on other sites. I think that is worth a discussion. A moderator jumping in to say it's 'poisonous' to point this out while giving no information to support that is pretty disgusting.
If you're worried about abuse, you should be doing what the guidelines ask and email email@example.com instead of posting off-topic and destructive insinuations in the thread, where the odds are we won't even see them. We don't come close to reading everything here. I looked at some of the accounts with similar names and didn't find anything. That doesn't mean I looked at everything you saw; I probably didn't. If you want your concerns taken seriously, we're happy to look into specific links that you send. Occasionally we do find evidence of abuse, and in such cases we crack down hard. But we need you to follow the site guidelines, and not react to our requests to stop breaking them by breaking them further.
It is indeed poisonous to accuse other users of posting in bad faith, merely because their views seem preposterous to you. Users accusing other users of astroturfing, shilling, meddling, propaganda-ing, foreign-agenting, spying and so on is the most common internet trope there is right now. It's painfully clear that almost all of that is simply made up, and obviously we can't have HN discussions degenerating to that level.
The only approach to dealing with abuse that makes sense is to look for actual evidence. Someone else having an opposing view, even a completely wrong view, isn't evidence of abuse. It's just evidence that people have different views on divisive topics. As for "voting happening in bursts", "hallmarks of disinformation campaigns", and so on, all that kind of thing is notoriously in the eye of the beholder. People mostly see whatever they've primed themselves to see, and that is a function of how strongly they feel about their views: the ones who feel most passionately about a topic are inevitably
the ones who see the most convincing 'patterns'. Still, if you're concerned about it, you're welcome to email firstname.lastname@example.org with specific links and we'll look into them. We always do. Just please follow the site guidelines from now on.
I've posted about this countless times, and anyone who wants more explanation can consume arbitrarily much of it here: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20astroturfing&sort=by...
Most of the comments from the last four months are actually whataboutism in response to criticism of China.
Edit: And very swiftly more downvotes and comment flags. Seems a little more stochato than a typical bad comment that gathers a few downvotes over time.
Wait, is there a difference, or is it just a matter of scope?
Surely we know China is a great propaganda power. This is the bread and butter of any serious socialistic regime on the left and right. It’s no surprise and no revelation. What is surprising to me is the nonchalant approach to fake news western media is prone to when it comes to both domestic as well as foreign issues. So, yes China is foing bad things, but come on NYT, you also do the lesser evil when it fits your agenda (or doesn’t fit the agenda of the day)
Scope I think is the main indicator. The stranglehold on information in and out of China is very strong, aided by the media being state-run and by the Great Firewall. CNN and NYT clearly are left leaning, but I'd say what happens in China has more in common with Fox, which increasingly over the years has devolved from simply a counter-biased to most news providers, to what amounts to the propaganda arm for the Republicans.
> What is surprising to me is the nonchalant approach to fake news western media is prone to when it comes to both domestic as well as foreign issues.
This is very frustrating indeed. Fox has, since it's inception been droning on and on about how left-leaning the main press is, but instead of simply accepting their bias, they seem deadly intent on proving them wrong all the time (which is of course ridiculous, because Fox is never going to say they aren't biased) and as a result they constantly fall into the trap of false equivalence instead of trying to find the Truth of a given situation, simply presenting both sides of a given argument. Their coverage of Climate Change is especially troubling in this regard because it paints the situation as though it's still unresolved, when in fact the anti-CC scientific community is laughably, hilariously outnumbered by the pro-CC community. It's not even a contest, I think the last number I saw was something like 97%-3%.
> So, yes China is going bad things, but come on NYT
In addition to scope though, I think severity is another one. Basically, how far they have to stretch a given truth to put out what they clearly want to put out. The NYT always has a certain spin, but typically they aren't stretching facts too hard, mostly just editorializing over facts, which in my opinion there's nothing wrong with. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a journalist to completely shed any and all opinions when writing a story, especially when they can cite relevant information to back up their position. In fact, I'd go so far as to say when a journalist has spent a fair amount of time getting immersed in a given topic, I'd very much like to hear their editorializing, because it's likely from a fairly informed viewpoint.
But, I also say all of this as someone who thinks centrism and balance in news coverage is greatly overvalued; I'd much rather see journalism that chases down the truth, and figures out which side has it more right, even if they don't always get it right themselves. I think the modern "just the facts" reporting has done a great disservice to our critical thinking abilities.
Like when the NYT completely blew the Covington story, due to its institutional animosity towards white people:
> The New York Times, sober guardian of the exact and the nonsensational, had cannonballed into the delicious story on Saturday, titling its first piece “Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March.”
They were forced to print a retraction less than 24 hours later when facts contradicted their racism.
What's the connection between "great propaganda power" and "serious socialistic regime"?
Also what's a "socialistic regime on the right"?
Although left and right are ambiguous terms, a generally agreed upon example of a socialistic regime on the right is Nazi Germany. Nazi is short for National Socialism. Whereas Soviet Communism was a socialist system with a goal of spreading throughout the world by a series of revolutions, National Socialism was a socialist system with a goal of spreading throughout the world via German conquest. Both aspired to world domination, but the means were different.
The Germans had a term for communists who swapped to the Nazi party - Beefsteak Nazis. Brown on the outside and red on the inside.
Seriously, it's not difficult to understand that any majorly autocratic government, left or right, needs a centralized government by definition.
That is got nothing to do with being left or right, but with being liberal or autocratic.
Note I say ideas here, because the reality is e.g. the republicans in the US are for the most part big government politicans despite being on the right, but that seems more a bastardization of the traditional right, which historically is about smaller government.
So generally speaking, because left wing political ideas tend to involve big government, it means that centralization is generally more extensive in left wing governments, and I would argue thus left wing governments are more liable to be autocratic.
"Various work programs designed to establish full-employment for the German population were instituted once the Nazis seized full national power. Hitler encouraged nationally supported projects like the construction of the Autobahn highway system, the introduction of an affordable people's car (Volkswagen) and later the Nazis bolstered the economy through the business and employment generated by military rearmament. The Nazis benefited early in the regime's existence from the first post–Depression economic upswing, and this combined with their public works projects, job-procurement program and subsidised home repair program reduced unemployment by as much as 40 percent in one year.
Upon being appointed Chancellor in 1933, Hitler promised measures to increase employment, protect the German currency, and promote recovery from the Great Depression. These included an agrarian settlement program, labor service, and a guarantee to maintain health care and pensions."
Of course, you could say that Republicans in the United States have also done some of these things, but again, that would be Socialism on the right.
Vox has a pretty good explainer of the differences between Hitler's National Socialism and socialism. https://www.vox.com/2019/3/27/18283879/nazism-socialism-hitl...
Can someone point to some official documents from the protesters?
The complete withdrawal of the proposed extradition bill
The government to withdraw the use of the word “riot” in relation to protests
The unconditional release of arrested protesters and charges against them dropped
An independent inquiry into police behaviour
Implementation of genuine universal suffrage
> The government to withdraw the use of the word “riot” in relation to protests
Unfortunately, not reasonable.
OK, now it's no longer factual to say that it's not a "riot". I do not defend either side, but let's be sure to use the word correctly.
> The unconditional release of arrested protesters and charges against them dropped
Sorry, not reasonable.
What about the protester who is claimed to bite off a police's finger:
> An independent inquiry into police behaviour
But there will be an independent inquiry being requested on the protesters as well. I am not suggesting that, I am just saying obviously Chines government is going to demand that as well.
> Implementation of genuine universal suffrage
Moderately reasonable. You are asking a country to adopt a different political system in a prominent area.
But if you want to retrieve the skin of a lion by asking politely, or assume you only suffer minor scratch, you'd better prepare to get killed.
The one China says doesn't matter any more.
>Unfortunately, not reasonable.
It's completely reasonable the word riot carries legal implications that should not apply here. It doesn't matter what the common definition of the noun is it matters how the government uses that word.
It's the equivalent of a vegan saying "Meat is Murder" pointing out the technical definitions of the words then expecting all meat eaters to get arrested for at least conspiracy to commit murder.
Not to cast false aspersions but I bet you can't even look at the image in the link below and write the same sentence about the other leader in this photo without fearing for your future.
Sentence: Obama is Tigger.
Now you write the full sentence : Xi Jinping is ____
The amount of police violence during the protests have bumped that number to 5:
I do not refute the idea that polices are violent at the beginning, after all, that's what they are hired to do.
But the escalation of events pretty much marred the picture as a splendid mixes of colorful distortions.
If anyone recall how CCP got the power, they got that through violence.
It does not matter who is violent, the winner has to win in order to rewrite the history. And please be aware that demanding universal voting is calling for revolution.
I had extended family in law enforcement, and my brother is studying to become a police officer. They would be very offended to hear that police are hired to be violent. They're hired to enforce justice. A Hong Kong citizen speaking their mind against the government to achieve change is absolutely within the bounds of Hong Kong justice, to violently break up assemblies aimed at changing government policy by voicing discontent is far removed from the principles police forces like the one in Hong Kong were founded on.
If they were deployed simply to be violent towards people who voice their opinion the government no longer functions within Hong Kong's basic law and they are no longer representing the people of Hong Kong. Just like the people of China has done multiple times towards rulers who don't represent them, the people of Hong Kong fought back.
It does matter.
Well dear reporters, you failed to mention the fact that the story actually first started on Facebook.
Some guy who claimed himself the victim’s brother posted on FB saying his sister was actually shot by her fellow protesters accidentally. This incident is now heartedly discussed on a popular online community in HK(https://www.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=28439217). Those who can understand written Cantonese can take a look.
Anyway dear reporters, those above may not qualify to be a reliable source but still...the “state-run” media didn’t make up the story out of nowhere.
My feeling is just that the news report in modern time is simply no longer fact-driven.
It's just a feeling, but I'd say that's about as credible as these comments.
HN has been a target of this brigade for years.
It's a common way for Chinese to pick up an username, a common word plus few characters from their name. I created mine since high school and I use it like a charm for almost a decade. I'm not defending China, I just wanted to let you know NYT is not telling the full truth. I've done biz in HK for 5+ yrs, the conflict and tension between China and HK can't be simply explained in two or three sentences.
The protest is out of control right now, you can't imagine how scary and horrible the current HK is, protestors hit people if they don't want to join, they forbid people from going to work, they rush into airport, train station to interfere public transportation, etc. I was lucky to return back earlier, but it's really disappointing to see NYT only reports whatever favors them. People visiting HK for holidays or biz are not the right ones the protestors should blame. If you don't believe what I said, you can go to HK and take a look (I hope not, at least not now), or talk to anyone who just came back.
You feel your country can beat up Hong Kong?