I can't help wondering though if this may have unexpected benefits for e.g.: sleep quality, civility in online discussions, exercise. It's hardly intended that way, but could end up being a net benefit for the well-being of citizens, particularly if it were implemented in a highly-developed country like the US.
And no, having an Internet curfew for preventing bloody protests won't improve the well-being of citizens.
I, for one, don't care at all about the positive externalities of taking away people's rights, nor do I see the merit in discussing them. It normalizes the taking away of rights when we discuss how great it could be when you aren't allowed access to information and freedom of movement.
The streets are still full of kids because no one can afford to give every child the latest smart phones.
Iraq is a war torn country. Minus the big cities like Baghdad and Erbil, most of the people don't have a lot.
If you're just complaining about politics, I won't argue.
The martial law introduced in Poland from December 13, 1981 to July 22, 1983 resulted in an unmatched birth rate increase. The 82-84 generation was big, with all the future consequences even after the fall of communism in 1989: overpopulation in schools, difficult job market, but many friends on the playgrounds. The generation of 88 and later didn't have these issues. But had others ;)
Thanks to Poland's quick economic development and rise in life quality & capacity, the 82-84 generation didn't create another baby boom, as their births were spread out over a 10 year period. Some had children at 25, some at 35. This, coupled with the 90-94 generation not willing to have kids early, of course led to an overall drop in fertility, which the current government is trying to fix by throwing money at it. The situation didn't get worse, but fertility didn't get much better either. Most don't want to have 3 or more kids these days. And that's what we need if we want to make more kids than the economic immigrants and the third world countries, so we can keep our retirement and workforce afloat. Or we put it on the shoulders of these immigrants. But then in a few decades the current western culture will be replaced with a new one. I'm not saying it's good or bad. But it's healthy to understand the possible futures. I know which one I like more, and hopefully will work towards it.
Boy did I go off-topic...
This curfew is a scaling back of previous heavier restrictions.
>At least 110 people have been killed and more than 6,000 wounded in Baghdad and in the south, since security forces started cracking down on demonstrators.
And the whole world is "outraged" about HK. Here on this thread the other posters are making jokes.
If they killed every single person in the country no one would give a shit. Same way no one gives a shit about Yemen.
While around that same time, the US accidentally droned 30+ Afghani farmers . The international response to that? It doesn't exist to this day.
> Senior Hamas official Mahmoud Al-Zahhar, admitted in an interview to Al Jazeera "when we talk about 'peaceful resistance', we are deceiving the public. This is a peaceful resistance bolstered by a military force and by security agencies, and enjoying tremendous popular support."
So you basically had a bunch of militants using civilians as cover. They were throwing Molotov cocktails and using kites with incindiary devices.
To compare this with the Hong Kong protests is absurd and intellectually dishonest.
Harvard carried out a study involving a survey polling people across 30 different nations on a variety of different topics.  This includes (among various other more detailed categories) peoples' awareness of various world leaders, their self determined attention rate to news involving various leaders, and their general rating of those leaders. It reveals quite a lot of really interesting and surprising results. For instance about 88% of Americans do not know who Modi is, 85% of Saudis do not know who Putin is, but coming out on top is Israel which sports a less than 5% awareness of Modi. A number of the results really reveal how much of a bubble we all live in.
But the reason it's relevant is because it gives some third party measurement of how people within various countries view their country's leaders. As with all big data like this, people can prove anything they want - so I'm going to avoid giving any more specific numbers other than the neutral ones from above. Okay one more fun one, Tanzania just friggin loves everybody!
 - https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/reflections-survey-...
Otherwise intelligent people are incapable of understanding that their outrage is being directed to serve geo-political ends. Antagonising China is patriotic. Antagonising Israel serves no end, and is, also of course, anti-Semitic.
The truly ironic bit is when presented with the idea that many mainlanders may be more supportive of their government than of HK, they dismiss it as brainwashing, compelled speech, or just flat out propaganda. As if we arrive to the contradictory conclusions we hold independently, and from first principles, without any steering...
"Direction" implies that there was a coordinated decision to inflate the importance of the Hong Kong protests by sending more journalists there to produce more articles. But Hong Kong was already an internationally important city with many journalists. Of course they were going to report on protests happening right under their nose.
For example, when the German broadsheet Die Zeit published an article on the protests, it was by the same journalist as always when there's something to report in Hong Kong. When they sent a team into Yemen, they weren't allowed into the country, operated from Djibouti and used a Yemeni reporter as a proxy to allow them to do interviews via video call; of course using a translator because there wasn't enough forewarning to learn a language for this assignment.
The difference in reporting difficulty explains the difference in reporting frequency.
If the media really wanted to patriotically antagonize China, they could have devoted similar attention to incidents in places like Nanjing, Zhuhai or Wuhan, but I only saw Wuhan make it into English-language media; that played out as usual when something happens where no (English-speaking) journalist is there to report on it.
You don't need to send more journalists to a place to have more coverage of it.
You need to promote the articles journalists write to front-page headlines. You need to have talking heads who have never left the telestudio talk about the issue.
Sure, you have to deal with the constraints imposed on you by local authorities. Israel for some odd reason isn't super-keen on letting journalists into the Gaza strip, either. But that, itself, is part of the story.
There's a trade war going on, and China has never been in the Western sphere, and antagonizing it is popular and easy, and currently very patriotic, because they are also stealing all our jobs.
Antagonizing Israel is not patriotic, and it's a 'Western' nation, and it's not stealing our jobs, and also you will be in the company of a bunch of truly despicable anti-semites, and the people repressed there are definitely 'non-Western'.
The media cultivates this particular branch of selective empathy, in a way that just happens to coincide with geo-political leanings of our governments. And we eat it up, wholesale, without even a shred of self-awareness.
It's not that Al Jazeera isn't biased, or even that it's less biased, it's just that it provides a viewpoint which is so obviously missing from western news sources, and if you're not making an attempt to expose yourself to that viewpoint, you are only hearing one side of quite a wide variety of global political issues.
One extremely contemporary example of this is Hong Kong. In trying to find out what was going on, I was searching for videos of the police shootings. This  is the US cut of the first shooting. This  is footage of the exact same incident from ChannelNewsAsia, a Singapore news company. No need for commentary beyond that since I think the extreme difference between the videos, and the message they try to convey, speak for themselves.
I'd never heard of CNA before that. Seems to be quite a solid source of information . Though I expect it may only a matter of time before that honeymoon fades. It wasn't long ago that I also used to think the same of Reuters.
 - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-anniversary-hongkon...
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN4MvOrPotk
 - https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/international
"Police confirmed that an officer opened fire at a protester, saying he was acting in self-defense. “A large group of rioters was attacking police officers in Tsuen Wan,” police said in a statement. “Police officers warned them, but they were still attacking police. A police officer’s life was seriously endangered. In order to save his and other officers’ lives, they fired at the attacker.” One clip posted on social media and verified by Reuters shows the protester, an as yet unnamed 18-year-old man, swing a baton at a policeman, brushing his right arm."
The article and video are designed to imply that the Chinese are claiming that the the officer who fired at the protester is the one who's life was in danger -- that brushing the officer's arm was placing his life in danger. Somebody only consuming that media would have no idea that in the middle of the group of protesters was a police officer who the protesters continued to beat, potentially to death. Note as the crowd disperses to the point that the beaten police officer laying on the ground would become visible, the video immediately cuts to a new frame - repeatedly.
This deception is made even more gratuitous by the inclusion of the police spokesperson's response. Without being able to understand the context of what was happening in that video, which is not provided, the spokesperson's comments sound completely absurd and basically like he's just overtly lying to justify shooting a protester. That in effect makes people think the officer's statement is simply propaganda. Somewhat ironic.
I think the whole propaganda war is idiotic. Let people see what's happening on both sides with complete context and judge for themselves. Real life is not full of Hollywood heroes and villains, it's invariably a million shades of gray. Debate and discussion these issues is healthy and productive for everybody. Most ironically, I suspect people would ultimately come to the same conclusion even with honest context. So why lie?
Well, which conclusion do you think they would come to?
In general, I agree with you that the media should strive to give an accurate impression of the truth and let the public form their own opinion. But this is a really gut-wrenching position to take sometimes, because the it's so clear that public opinion isn't capable of nuances like supporting a cause without supporting all the tactics of its supporters. Just as life is not full of Hollywood heroes and villains, it doesn't have Hollywood endings either. The good guys don't always win, and often the good guys don't win because the bad guys are willing to lie, and ambguity makes the good guys indecisive.
The need to get my news from international sources became apparent to me after hearing two radio reports on the same story. The local US radio said something along the lines of "Two Palestinians are dead after they attacked Israeli police." The BBC story said something like, "Israeli police shot and killed two Palestinian youths after the youths threw stones at the police." That's not even an openly pro-Palestinian organization, it's the BBC. There's still bias, but it's clear that the bias is in a different direction.
 I've been told by a 5-lingual friend that "throwing stones" is often a translation of a Hebrew/Arabic word (directly, "stoning") that sometimes includes behaviors like "dropping a refrigerator off the top of a building onto your target"--certainly a lot less innocuous than "throwing stones". I'm not saying that's what happened--I don't know--I'm just saying to be wary of assuming that any amount of secondhand reporting gives you an accurate impression of what's happening on the ground.
You should speak for yourself. There are people who care but that does not make a difference unfortunately (yet or maybe never).
As well you shouldn't speak in absolutes IMHO.
There is an undeniable discrepancy on how we receive and perceive information about individual subjects; Where our attention is directed, and from where it's deviated - what I'm surprised about is how this persists despite a medium like the Internet.
Oh, and the propaganda industry.
The world did not care.
> The world did not care.
I don't really see the equivalence between India and Pakistan's actions. Also, I'm not up-to-date on Indian politics, but how many non-Hindu leaders have been elected to top positions?
It's true though that Hinduism is far stronger today as a political force than it has ever been. And just as everywhere else, mixing religion with politics is not a good idea.
> Before the partition of India, what is now Pakistan was a much more diverse place but tolerance has declined as society has become increasingly Islamicised and more homogenous.
Minorities used to make up 15% of the population in these cities. Now they account for less than 4%.
Also not exactly Gaza-level lopsided...
I don't have a single product in my house that says "Made in Iraq".
It's not strange that North America doesn't care much about Iraqi plight, as we have next to no relationship with them or their people.
Same as we all cannot afford to cry over every single other person's mother and father passing away, but we cry over our own parents passing.
>Continue to keep soldiers there
Also it’s amusing that you’ve managed to elide the not insubstantial relationship of having started a war that killed at least a hundred thousand Iraqis and in all probability many more.
My government sending a few thousand troops over to Iraq decades ago does not bring me any closer to the people of Iraq.
If anything, it distances me from them.
I don't know anybody who served in Iraq.
I was always disgusted with Canada's involvement in the whole mess.
There are 10x as many People from Hong Kong living in Canada  as there are Iraqis .
So by that metric, Canadians in general should care approximately 10x as much about news from Hong Kong vs news from Iraq and I would say that's pretty accurate from what I have seen recently.
Hong Kong is ideologically closer to American's values, and so having China take it over can be seen as a form of indirect threat. It also plays into the whole trade war going on at the moment. Financially, American companies have more ties with Hong Kong than Iraq. ...
People are also influenced by what the media gives them to think about this week.
> I am Canadian.
> I am a polish immigrant living in Canada.
you're North American, Canadian then you're Polish. just pick one.
in the first example, you were speaking as if you're an American and others are right to point out that America does have some responsibilities regarding Iraq given the recent history. Canada was involved too.
For that matter, many in Central and South America take exception to the term "American" being applied to USA citizens. So the term "American" can in some contexts be ambiguous. However "North American" is unambiguously referring to residents of any country in North America. It's wholly reasonable for somebody living in Canada to speak of living in North America. Arguably Canadians and Alaskans have more of a right to the term than anybody else!
A one-person invasion? And he even succeeded at overthrowing a government all by his lonesome self? That's impressive.
This mild sarcasm I used above is to draw attention to the ludicrous idea that any citizen, anywhere, is responsible for the actions of their government.
Hee and haw about how we citizens brought whoever to power. I don't care. Until the day that government corruption ends and elections become fair, the governments' actions are not my own.
Call me when that day occurs.
P.S. here's a bit from the comic Doug Stanhope that hits a similar topic. 
"‘Oh, was that us?’ Was that me and you, Tommy? We saved the French? Jesus. I know I blacked out a little after that fourth shot of Jägermeister last night, but I don’t remember… "
Canada very reluctantly helped the US with their air raid campaign over Afghanistan, but as far as I am aware we didn't have much say in Iraq.
And either way, I fail to see how that translates to having a closer relationship with their people.
If anything, it distances them from our psyche.
Obviously the invasion of Iraq was the wrong thing to do. I am not arguing that it was right in any way whatsoever.
The lack of Canadian large scale military participation was due to practicality and not moral objections to the invasion :
"The weakness of the Canadian military had been a factor in its very limited role in the 1991 Gulf War. While the military had been asked about the feasibility of sending 4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group (4 CMBG) from Germany to the Gulf to participate in direct combat operations, the Canadian Forces were forced to report that Operation "Broadsword", a theoretical deployment, would likely be a failure."
I have no connection to Iraq personally.
I do not collectively harbor guilt and constantly stress about the horrible things that the country I choose to reside in has done in their past.
I have Hong Kong products in my house, and I interact with people who were born in Hong Kong all the time.
The same cannot be said for Iraqi products or people.
That is the point I am trying to make.
I try to keep up with the military involvement of my country, I'd guess other people in other countries would do the same.
Tho I guess in contrast to you I actually get to interact with a whole bunch of Iraqis, Afghanis, Syrians, and other nationalities out of the MENA region.
People out of HK are a rather non-existing sight at the local refugee reception center.
Your underlying point can of course be expressed substantively and I'm sure you can do that if you want to.
Since the day I first found Hacker News, some years before I created my account, this site and it's comment section has always been on my daily reading list. I'm a very infrequent poster, but have since then read hundreds of comments, pretty much every single day. I guess my personality leans towards trying to understand rather than be understood.
I don't really have any connection to the Silicon Valley, but from the moment I first laid eyes on this site, it felt like an invaluable resource of insight on a huge variety of issues, not just tech.
Sadly, these days I mostly just hate-read it.
On geopolitical issues, there's almost zero understanding from the commentariat, and if there is any, to make matters worse, a lot of the time you have to squint your eyes to even read it. There's a huge part of the written english webosphere, dedicated to discussing and analysing this, the most important subject of them all, <i>war and peace and prosperity</i>, from a completely different viewpoint, but you'd never know by just reading HN. Luckily you can go elsewhere, and I suspect a sizable number of past commenters have, in frustration, done so.
Here, all you get is the same tired neoliberal corporate media viewpoint. Constant denigration of the long, long, list of the enemies of the American political blob. The glittering valley’s technocrats opinions are indistinguishable from those of the shining city upon a hill.
In this dojo, the opposing voice is almost nowhere to be found, always shut down with cries of robots and unfair comparing.
Russian, Chinese, Syrian, Iranian, Venzuelean viewpoints? Forget it. All these countries have news and opinion sites in english, but never to be linked on HN. Getting those opposing perspectives is not for the HN denizen, unless it has first been approved for reading by the NY Times. HN comments have not yet reached the complete unbearable insufferableness of r/worldpolitics, but to me it seems like just a matter of time.
Sorry, but it just really grinds my gears to read someone casually say that the North American people have no connection to the Iraqi people. The US “embassy” in Baghdad is larger than the Vatican. Like all these endless wars, bombings and sanctions against the Middle East is just a minor matter. At worst a small mistake, that in the grand scheme of things is of little importance.
The consequences of the West's relentless and cruel war of destruction and chaos against the core of the African and Eurasian landmass will be the defining cause of most of the problems the United States, Isreal, Saudi Arabia and Europe will face the rest of this century. A thousand years from now, all history books dealing with the early 21th century will have The Invasion of Iraq as the focal point, with most everything else a mere footnote.
The United States has tried over and over to prevent any even bigger and stronger entities to form on it's opposing, much larger landmass. It has decisively failed, inevitably so.
In the 2020’s, whether it wants to or not, America and it’s shrinking list of vassals will have to come to terms with what roles they can have in this new world order, our shared future of mankind. If these formerly dominant parts of the world can not imagine a role for themselves that is appropriate, the rest of the world will choose for us.
What's your point exactly?
Is it that human nature is broken, and that we should try to compensate for it [by trying to force ourselves to care more] ?
(Because I wonder how many atrocities there are in the world, and how that scales if every internet stranger needs to be angry about every atrocity or else...)
Are people in Santa Barbara bad because they don’t keep up with things in Sparks NV too much?
No, that if we should be aware, we should be aware for all injustices, not just follow the ones we are force-fed by hypocritical self-serving interests (e.g. our country's diplomacy and subservient media preferring this victim over that, or getting outraged at this player over that - because it suits some diplomatic plans).
Especially when they atrocities they point people to look at are much more minor than others they purposefully ignore...
In general, getting one's own opinion, as opposed following the government/media agendas of enemies and victim's du jour, and knowing when they're manipulated, is a good thing...
should see through crocodile tears hypocritic concern, and that we should be aware of all injustices
Nobody is force-feeding anybody. TV news is dead, the newspaper is dead. People read the news they find interesting.
If you really think the reason people prefer read US-weekly to civil wars in foreign countries is because "The Man" then you're in for a rude awakening.
Newspapers and periodicals still set the tone at higher echelons, richer/older/more socially standing demographics, politicians, journalists, academics, and so on. Whether in print form or web format doesn't matter much.
And TV still has a stronghold in most families. Even with the internet, people watch more TV now than they did in the 70s and 80s ( https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/05/when-... ) -- and it's not all Game Of Thrones and the like.
But the point is rather moot, as the force feeding doesn't need to happen through newspapers/TV. The web, and even social media, would do just as good.
The main thing is to have the same narrative fed 24/7, with small diversions (e.g. everybody agreeing that X is the enemy du jour, but disagree on being hawks or doves against it. For even more fun, usually the "doves" don't promote a much softer touch that the hawks, just disagree on the details and subtlety).
>If you really think the reason people prefer read US-weekly to civil wars in foreign countries is because "The Man" then you're in for a rude awakening.
Not sure what the above means.
But people don't even care about civil wars in foreign countries, until their government decides to be involved, and to the degree that it reflects one or another partisan view.
There are tons of civil wars and atrocities Americans don't know and don't care enough to learn about. They just take a second hand opinion on the ones they are told, from one of the opinions on offer -- if there wasn't one, they'd be blissfully discussing some actor's divorce, The Joker or whatever the media bring up next.
World affair savvy, the public, is not. Heck, most couldn't even name the name of the Vice President, or their Senator, but they can still manage to mumble that "X" (enemy du jour) is bad, because this or that news item caught their eye, it's what's talked about in editorials, and social media viral stories, and so on.
People outside conflict areas only start to give a shit when it affects something they care about personally.
I don’t want people to be killed for protesting, but I don’t know if I care if that protest is successful or not. I’m open to ideas why I should.
It sounds like a bunch of people are protesting that their country and has few useful economic outputs, and that sucks, but I’m not sure what can be done about that.
I guess that enterprising freedom loving American ideology didn't take. Oh well what can you do /s
But I guess what I’m trying to say is I can clearly explain why I want the Hong Kong protests to be successful. I don’t think I can do the same for Iraq
My question is, why should I care if the protests are successful or not? It’s a separate idea from wanting protestors to receive humane treatment from the government.
Please stop making ignorant statements about my country... kthxbai
Was this before or after the west decided to parcel up middle eastern land based on whims?
I’m not saying it’s safe or anything, but Baghdad was spared ISIS, the former green zone is open to the public, compared to what most of the rest of the country has seen these past few years I fail to see how you’d classify it as a conflict zone.
Ultimately, wherever people are born, wherever they live, they are still people. They're not much different from us, they're just living in different circumstances. We could have been born there. Some sympathy is absolutely justified.
I do judge the Chinese government and their self proclaimed leader. I feel bad for the billion people of China who are unable to have free and open public discourse about their own governments actions, to hold and remove those in power peacefully and to be unable to find some sort of representation.
I think HK should continue its protests so that every individual and voice in the "West" can focus and view the shameful acts of the Chinese government.
In that context, there is quite some massive cynicism at play when the US celebrates itself for denying Chinese officials visa over the treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang, when the US also refused visa to ICC officials wanting to investigate the treatment of Muslims in "NATO occupied" Afghanistan .
Particularly in the context that the US was quite on-board with the "Uighur Jihadis!" narrative not too long ago .
You’re saying world does not care. Let’s suppose that’s true. However, locals aren’t caring and are shooting each other. Who is worse in that scale, the outsider or the very locals are obviously are very uncaring about each other?
I mean Iran, Russia and Saudi are all over there. They don’t need another entity adding their two cents.
It’s like AOC, let’s get out of Syria. We leave Syria —how can you leave Syria they’ve been our allies, etc.
In that part, or any part of the world people only become you allies in war when there’s something in it for them. They’re not doing so as a favor. Just like us. When we went into WWII it wasn’t a favor. We knew that not going in would be worse for us.
But it is winnable. What people want is for you to for once just go in for the actual ethical reasons, fight for the actual rights, secure the freedoms, stop the injustices. Not go to a country to secure oil under bullshit pretext of WMDs and terrorism, only to destroy a nation and create a terrorist state next to it, and only then leave it to fend for itself.
(I think everyone would think better of the US if the government said, "you know what, oil is really fucking important for prosperity of our citizens, and we're willing to kill people to secure it". It still wouldn't be ethical, but at least it would be honest.)
People worldwide are not (just) unhappy that the US plays world police. They're unhappy that the US proclaims to be the world police, but is in fact a world gangster.
This legitimizes the current puppet-government installed by foreigners.
I think a more appropriate term would be US-backed Junta forces.
Of course, some of us were saying this almost 20 years ago now: Don't invade Iraq, you'll destabilize the entire region.
I'm a one-issue voter: No foreign wars, period. Some of us do care about the well being of others, but it's impossible to have this kind of discussion because people are selfish. Everyone wants to talk about Climate Change, Socialized Health Care, etc, etc. Most people don't actually care about others, and it's why I want to slap anyone that discusses climate change. We have much bigger problems that we need to solve right now, or we're going to kill ourselves long before we fry the earth.
As a Chinese, I've personally been following Chinese forums and continue to see individuals that rationalize the behavior of the West and to try to put down flames that's only in the name of nationalistic pride, albeit few still. But it's an important theme, only if both side can put behind their bias can there be a better and more peaceful ending in the China-US conflict to bring benefit to us all. There are many intelligent and rational Americans, it's a sad story for Iraq and we wish them best, but at least the news is helpful in helping us collectively realize what the media has been doing to our brains.