Quote: "Protesters are demanding greater democracy and an inquiry into alleged police brutality during past demonstrations."
Jesus, do Donie O'Sullivan and Kevin Collier, article authors even have a slight idea what HK protests are about? Those protests started to oppose a bill regarding extraditing to mainland China. Later on as the tension and police brutality escalated those points were added. Here is the 5 points the protesters are demanding now:
1- the bill must be withdrawn (this was the initial motive for protests)
2- the chief executive must resign (he ordered to police to start retaliatons)
3- the government must retract its characterisation of the violent clashes as “riots”
4- there must be a full independent inquiry into the actions of the police
5- everyone arrested in respect of the clashes must be unconditionally freed.
I'd consider the extradition bill not-very-democratic, doubly so in the HK is a somewhat autonomous zone, so forcing extradition reduces it's autonomy and therefore it's citizens' democracy.
Currently Hongkong has extradition treaties with many countries, but none with 'China' (Macao, Taiwan, mainland), which is a historical legacy but is now an oddity.
Extradition treaties in general do not reduce autonomy and democracy. Extraditions under this bill would follow (I believe) similar procedures to extradition to other countries.
The key worries, I believe, are that charges brought on the mainland might be fabricated and political because of the nature of the system there (absence of independent judiciary) and that pressure could also be applied on Hongkong authorities not to deny these requests, or simply that the procedure is such that Hongkong courts don't have much scope to refuse requests.
Stuff like this makes me feel like we're the suckers.
1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?
2. All the accounts are created through VPNs. Well, YT is blocked in China. If Chinese people are trying to show us what the protesters are actually like (I don't know for real either way) they would have to use a VPN. And they would be inclined to work together to vote up related content for awareness.
3. If a state like let's say Texas in the US had a legal system where I could commit a crime in PA and escape to Texas, wouldn't we want to fix that? Of course there would be protests. Think of the recent protests we've had in France, just for tax reasons. You think if this kind of law changed in Texas you wouldn't see fires and overturned cars?
My point is, maybe our view into that side of the world is not as clear as we think.
> 1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?
This is a good example of a particularly sinister argumentation style, and you can see it everywhere these days. It typically goes like this:
1. Take an objectively bad reality. "Citizens of Hong Kong could possibly be extradited to a totalitarian state for any thing that state decides was a crime."
2. Restate it as an abstract ideal or extreme case, ignoring the details that make it bad, and ask why one wouldn't want this thing that's actually good: "But shouldn't people who commit crimes in other countries have to face justice?" / "Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?"
I'm not sure what to call it, but it would be good to have a two or three word phrase to succinctly call this kind of thing out. I'll have to think, but would appreciate input from others who have noticed it as well.
Edit: I would add that the really "sinister" part is that those bad details are ignored for the sake of making the argument, but are, in fact, the end goal.
Chinese people trying to show us what protesters are like would be free to upload videos from Hong Kong, because YouTube is not blocked in Hong Kong, only in Mainland China.
Are there any details released about FB/Twitter/Youtube removals other than we think these are state actors? I know twitter released a data dump but has there been any analysis? It's not that the problem isn't worth addressing, but non of these companies has had a good record with moderating political topics so far. There was complaints a few months back by Chinese YouTuber who cater to Chinese audiences that their subscriber and likes weren't comporting to like/vote/subscriber/dashboard statistics, most people just chalked it up to automatic VPN flagging. I'd like a little more transparency, otherwise it appears western social media is validating and devolving towards Great Fire Wall.
I really wish the cyberpunk novels I read in my youth would stop becoming reality. Especially Distraction by Bruce Sterling comes to mind. It’s just so crazy that political entities run false campaigns, and that the impact of these campaigns is so profound.
I’m happy YouTube is fighting back, but at the same time I can’t help but wonder if our social media platforms are really geared to fight it. With so many hours of video uploaded, it seems impossible to regulate. I imagine that they are trying their best, but aren’t SEO people showing us every day, that it’s fairly easy to game the system? The worst part is the apparent lack of consequences. Does the Chinese government really care 210 of their propaganda channels were shut down?
They’ll get better. They have to or someone will replace them. This kind of propaganda is a disease in a system that has not evolved to identify/combat it systematically.
There is conjecture floating around that Google/Facebook/Twitter are flexing their anti-propoganda muscles to avoid government regulation. ("See? We can block state actors all on our own")
Readit News
Jesus, do Donie O'Sullivan and Kevin Collier, article authors even have a slight idea what HK protests are about? Those protests started to oppose a bill regarding extraditing to mainland China. Later on as the tension and police brutality escalated those points were added. Here is the 5 points the protesters are demanding now:
1- the bill must be withdrawn (this was the initial motive for protests)
2- the chief executive must resign (he ordered to police to start retaliatons)
3- the government must retract its characterisation of the violent clashes as “riots”
4- there must be a full independent inquiry into the actions of the police
5- everyone arrested in respect of the clashes must be unconditionally freed.
So how is this false?
Extradition treaties in general do not reduce autonomy and democracy. Extraditions under this bill would follow (I believe) similar procedures to extradition to other countries.
The key worries, I believe, are that charges brought on the mainland might be fabricated and political because of the nature of the system there (absence of independent judiciary) and that pressure could also be applied on Hongkong authorities not to deny these requests, or simply that the procedure is such that Hongkong courts don't have much scope to refuse requests.
1. What if the law that's being opposed is legitimate? Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?
2. All the accounts are created through VPNs. Well, YT is blocked in China. If Chinese people are trying to show us what the protesters are actually like (I don't know for real either way) they would have to use a VPN. And they would be inclined to work together to vote up related content for awareness.
3. If a state like let's say Texas in the US had a legal system where I could commit a crime in PA and escape to Texas, wouldn't we want to fix that? Of course there would be protests. Think of the recent protests we've had in France, just for tax reasons. You think if this kind of law changed in Texas you wouldn't see fires and overturned cars?
My point is, maybe our view into that side of the world is not as clear as we think.
This is a good example of a particularly sinister argumentation style, and you can see it everywhere these days. It typically goes like this:
1. Take an objectively bad reality. "Citizens of Hong Kong could possibly be extradited to a totalitarian state for any thing that state decides was a crime."
2. Restate it as an abstract ideal or extreme case, ignoring the details that make it bad, and ask why one wouldn't want this thing that's actually good: "But shouldn't people who commit crimes in other countries have to face justice?" / "Should someone that commits murder in Taiwan be able to escape the law in HK?"
I'm not sure what to call it, but it would be good to have a two or three word phrase to succinctly call this kind of thing out. I'll have to think, but would appreciate input from others who have noticed it as well.
Edit: I would add that the really "sinister" part is that those bad details are ignored for the sake of making the argument, but are, in fact, the end goal.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
I’m happy YouTube is fighting back, but at the same time I can’t help but wonder if our social media platforms are really geared to fight it. With so many hours of video uploaded, it seems impossible to regulate. I imagine that they are trying their best, but aren’t SEO people showing us every day, that it’s fairly easy to game the system? The worst part is the apparent lack of consequences. Does the Chinese government really care 210 of their propaganda channels were shut down?
The primary source https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/m... is a lot more opaque than Twitter's announcement.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment