PricelessValue
Joined 8 years ago
Joined 8 years ago
Of course they do. Good god you completely missed my point.
But you said "people of those nations"? Now you are backtracking?
> It's also not a prerequisite to be Chinese or Uyghur to discuss this topic. If someone learns and becomes educated on a topic they can discuss it.
I didn't say it was a prerequisite. My point is that the assertion that "we don't want dystopian surveillance" is absurd considering the amount of surveillance we already have. Okay? Considering the guy wrote for a western news outlet, I'm assuming by "we", he meant the western world.
> He's also not saying that Uyghurs want this. He's saying nobody wants this.
Right. And my point is that we already have it.
Not just who started. The quality and sophistication.
> 2. How long they've been doing it 3. Percentage of people affected by it (not number!)
Yes. What else would it be? What other metric would you use?
Yes.
> Not sure about you but I don't have to put my government issued ID on my kitchen knives.
Neither do I. But that's because I love freedom.
What's the difference between ids on or for knives and ids on or for guns? It sounds ridiculous to us because our murders are by guns. But in china people kill each other with knives.
https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-atta...
Do you know what some people in the US want? Fingerprinted "smart" guns. More government surveillance/registry/etc of gun owners. What's the difference?
If people in china are killing each other with knives, doesn't "smart" knives or knife registry make sense just like a gun registry?
What people want a dystopian future? That's a pointless statement. Also, Nithin Cota is not chinese nor ughyur. How can he speak for those people.
> What China is doing in Xinjiang is not something many, if any, citizens around the world want.
You can say that about the same things that happened in the US, britain, europe and around the world.
How about on a per capita basis?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/06/tony-porter-su...
Or how about
1. In terms of quality and sophistication tech. US and Britain pioneered most of the surveillance tech.
2. Experience and age? We have decades head start on the chinese when it comes to tech surveillance.
3. We are more "connected" and a more urban society with surveillable data? Nearly 50% of china still lives in rural areas.
What silly clickbait. I swear the media ( or propaganda ) sure loves to scaremonger with "china".
The brits want it. Europe wants it. Russia wants it. And the liberal and conservatives in the US want it.
The leading surveillance systems in the world aren't in china. It's in britain. It's in the US.
Edit: Holy cow, the brigade is strong here.
Has nothing to do with that. It's because their comment section gets no activity to merit investment. Instead they are investing in "managing" social media via twitter, facebook, reddit, etc.
> So I have to give credit to HN to having one of the most civil comment sections on the internet.
It also has the worst and most biased comment section. It's why traffic is down and hardly anyone uses HN.
> So, keep it up, dang and sctb!
Only on "hacker" news would someone support censorship.
The spirit of hacker news died years ago.
That's the point he is making.
> if you ran a normal browser.
What's a normal browser?
Since 1890 or so. The US was the largest economy in the world for more than 50 years before ww2 started.
Maybe because it isn't quality journalism. Ultimately, something is worth what people are willing to pay for.
> The world will be a dark place if the only news sources left are blogs by self-proclaimed journalists.
It's just as dark a place with "quality journalism".