An obsession with safe spaces is not just bad for education - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21678223-obsession-safe-spaces-not-just-bad-education-it-also-diminishes-worthwhile-campus <comment><USER2> I've been following a lot of this develop over Twitter and Youtube.

It's both sad and terrifying to see what is transpiring on these college campuses. There was a video filmed ( now taken down from youtube ) where a Yale Silliman College professor was trying to reason with some of these students.

The professor vehemently defended the rights to free-speech, while the students screamed at him that offensive speech should not be allowed on campus.

When the professor asked, "Who should be responsible for determining what is offensive speech?", a student replied with, "Anything that offends me!".

<comment><USER3> Is this where we pretend that there's no history of racial grievances at Yale (or Mizzou), and that history started afresh the minute before this confrontation? An honest accounting of what happened starts with the fact that there is a long history that had people simmering. Free speech is a wonderful principle, but it conflicts with making students, particularly minority students, not feel alienated.

This started when someone at Yale sent a relatively anodyne email suggesting (but not ordering!) students be reasonably racially conscious in their costume choices (ie no blackface) [0], and someone who is "charged with setting the 'intellectual, social, and ethical tone of the College'" [1] decided to salt the wound and mocked the idea that students may be legitimately offended by cultural appropriation [2].

As mostly male white people, it's easy to defend free speech when it isn't your people or culture being treated as a costume.

If you're curious about Yale, imagine, for starters, how living in, say, Calhoun hall would feel if you're black [3].

       Calhoun College, one of the 12 residential colleges at the heart of the
       university's undergraduate life. It is named for John C. Calhoun, a Yale
       valedictorian-turned-politician from South Carolina and one of the 19th
       century's foremost white supremacists, who promoted slavery as "a positive
       good."

[1] [http://pastebin.com/TLGSdaTg](http://pastebin.com/TLGSdaTg)

[1] [http://silliman.yalecollege.yale.edu/people/masters- office](http://silliman.yalecollege.yale.edu/people/masters-office)

[2] [https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis- dressing...](https://www.thefire.org/email-from-erika-christakis-dressing- yourselves-email-to-silliman-college-yale-students-on-halloween-costumes/)

[3] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/nyregion/yale-in-debate- ov...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/nyregion/yale-in-debate-over-calhoun- college-grapples-with-ties-to-slavery.html)

<comment><USER4> I'm a student at Brown University, and these issues have been at the front of campus-related tensions for the last 2 years (perhaps longer, but I wasn't aware of them then). Your post reflects the most vocal attitude on campus at the moment (the "free-speech" faction is shrewdly keeping silent). I'm up- voting your post because you echo the perspective of many of my peers who I respect, and I want to give others on HN the opportunity to respond to your post without it being hidden.

I do not know of any black people at my school who openly criticize this recent string of college protests (the debate seems to be predominantly centered around blacks in these incidents). Surely, if this pain is something only black people can understand and they are so united in this movement, then it suggests that their grievances ARE legitimate.

... and yet, something feels wrong here. Something feels wrong when I see hyperbolic signs like "our culture is not a costume" or retroactive counterarguments like "it's not only about the Halloween Costumes". Something feels wrong when I see people sharing FB statuses with #concernedstudent1950 when it implies they support the demands made by the student group [1]. Something feels wrong when my peers believe that whites cannot be the victims of racism, due to their racial privilege. I don't have a good response to your points, but I'm interested to see others' replies to your comment.

At any rate, all I'm sure of is that the political climate has dramatically changed in the last 2 years.

[1] [http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/columbiatribune....](http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/columbiatribune.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/45/345ad844-9f05-5479-9b64-e4b362b4e155/563fd24f5a949.pdf.pdf)

<comment><USER5> He is largely being down voted for simultaneously invoking history while ignoring the right to protest exists only because of free speech and the right to assemble.

The ability to have protests like we've seen on campuses and elsewhere are defended entirely on 1st amendment grounds. Watering that down to push an agenda, no matter how righteous, is the kind of idea only those truly ignorant of history would propose.

[http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/civil-rights-first- amend...](http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/civil-rights-first-amendment)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independe...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District)

etc.

<comment><USER4> Your username checks out, so take my upvote. That said, the debate has moved past centering on First Amendment Rights as the point of contention; rather, the issue is whether students _should_ dress in "offensive" Halloween Costumes even if they are legally allowed to.

<comment><USER5> Hypothetical:

If the situation was the reverse of now and the majority was openly racist and found anti-racism costumes offensive [say, Martin Luther King Jr costumes] ... would you still favor banning "offensive" costumes?

I guess I just feel we don't have the luxury of determining what speech should be allowed because sometimes the majority is in the wrong.

<comment><USER6> Actually, since I'm white, I think it would be considered racist were I to dress as MLK Jr. ...

<comment><USER5> Do you genuinely not understand I'm talking about a member of a minority doing that?

<comment><USER6> I actually did upon first reading, but it was very late.

<comment><USER5> Ah okay, sorry. Now I think its clear that I wasn't talking about white people doing it, yeah?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I find it really hard to believe this article is presenting a fair argument when it makes claims like:

> _People as different as Condoleezza Rice, a former secretary of state, and > Bill Maher, a satirist, have been dissuaded from giving speeches on > campuses, sometimes on grounds of safety._

There are some _really good reasons_ why students protested to prevent the school from paying $35k for a 35-minute speech (Condoleezza's speaker fee for the speech in question), such as the fact that many people consider her to be a war criminal (which IIRC was in fact the basis for the protest, that and her role in an administration that promoted torture, not some unsubstantiated claim about feeling unsafe). I was unfamiliar with the Bill Maher speech issue before, but a quick search shows that the protest there was about remarks Bill made on his show that students felt were racist towards Muslims.

<comment><USER8> I can come up with moral and ethical objections for any given speaker; if one does not want money going to morally debatable speakers, they should object to all paid speakers.

I believe objecting to all paid speakers on campus to be a defensible position, but paying for a variety of speakers also seems to be a strong position.

<comment><USER9> Everyone has their own lines for when a speaker is too objectionable, I honestly don't have a problem with someone protesting some speakers but not others.

I mean, isn't that precisely what protesting something is?

(That said, there are definitely I think good and bad ways to protest, and also reactionary protests that escalate way past what's acceptable)

<comment><USER10> If the college republicans weren't able spend their portion of student fees to bring some Republican I found repugnant to campus, how would I ever have the opportunity to ask him very uncomfortable questions during the Q&A after his speech?

Back when I was a college leftist we welcomed these opportunities. The idea that they should be censored was abhorrent.

In fact, we joined forces with them when the college papers editor decided that he could re-write and censor letters published by both groups (and in the process inflaming hostility between us, until we discovered our words had been changed as had theirs.)

I think liberalism has lost sight of the mission of defending ALL people's rights, even ones you disagree with. "I will defend to the death your right to say it" and all that.

\----

(so was I downvoted for challenging republicans or because we joined with the college republican to challenge the censorship in the school paper? Oh, maybe it was criticizing "liberalism"? I guess that's not PC.)

\----

PPS -- This was during the days of "political correctness" when any position taken from the left was shot down with "that's just political correctness" and it was an insult- like you could never think that you're just being PC. Which of course as not in the least bit true. Back then.

Alas, reality has become a parody of history.

<comment><USER7> There's various levels of offensiveness. And also bear in mind that both of these cases were for a commencement speech. Commencement speeches are not the places for divisive speakers. If the Young Republicans want to raise money to pay for someone to come speak, that's very different than the school paying the equivalent of free tuition for 3 students for a year for an extremely controversial speaker to give a 35-minute commencement speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The last I had heard of the term was in high school where a handful of teachers and administrators had a small rainbow sticker on the windows of their doors indicating that the room was a place where one would feel safe from discrimination. It was an anti-bullying movement that not provided a place to eat lunch, do work, etc. but more importantly gave victims a place to seek help and privately report offences. Bear in mind the system came into existence to fight homophobia.

The beast this movement has evolved into, if it has any relationship to the system I knew, has come completely off the rails and seems to me to be turning into the bully.

</comment><comment><USER9> As with many articles on the subject, I think it's important to define what precisely "safe spaces" mean.

The Economist attempts to define a "good" version:

> Like many bad ideas, the notion of safe spaces at universities has its roots > in a good one. Gay people once used the term to refer to bars and clubs > where they could gather without fear, at a time when many states still had > laws against sodomy.

I've seen it written elsewhere that there are many existing safe space where people can come together and talk: an Asian American gathering, or Black Student Union meetings, or LGBT support groups, etc. I think these spaces are critical for the comfortable discussion and sharing of some pretty private details about a person's struggles and thoughts. These spaces aren't meant to dissuade dissenting opinion so much as provide a place where people feel safe to express their thoughts with others who understand, empathize, or have undergone similar situations/thoughts.

But there's always going to be impletations taken to extremes, and the Economist article appears to be targeting those. But I wonder: exactly how prevalent are safe spaces that act as "justification for shutting out ideas"?

At least anecdotally, I haven't seen that many. This feels like taking what seems to me a minority of safe spaces and painting the entire idea with broad strokes.

I worry that people are strawmanning the idea of safe spaces by only using egregious examples as examples of bad, while ignoring the (IMO) vast amounts of good they have helped foster.

<comment><USER12> My only real experience with "safe spaces" has been a continuing call for an internet forum that I frequented to be a "safe space." In my experience with that, 100% of the time "safe space" meant "throw out anyone who disagrees with me even a little on this topic."

<comment><USER13> MetaTalk, I'm guessing?

<comment><USER14> Might as well just say metafilter in general and be done with it.

<comment><USER12> Neither. I'm not trying to import drama off-forum, so I'm not going to specify.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you are so weak that words hurt you, that the mere speaking of words makes you damaged, I am afraid that you need psychological help. I feel for men and women who face real dangers. I don't feel for Yale students who must listen to scary ideas.

<comment><USER16> I can't recall the last compliment I received over the last month, but I can tell you with vivid detail the racist words that have been thrown at me over the last ten years for being non-white. One of my friends who is black can recall the exact time years ago when he was sitting on a bus and a complete stranger from across the street called him a nigger.

But hey, words don't hurt right?

<comment><USER17> No, words do not hurt. I don't let words hurt me. You control your feelings and emotions. Its part of being a complete, mature adult. It is your responsibility to not let someone else's words hurt you and define you. Its called dealing with life and the fact that not everyone and everything in life is rosy and a great experience.

Here's my tip - when someone does or says something that hurts you, examine why you feel the way you feel and treat it with amusement. I'm a minority that has dealt with racist comments. It is what it is. Do the words hurt me? No. I'm amused at how ignorant some people can be, and I move on with my life and write some code.

<comment><USER18> I found this particularly enlightening, on this topic (no pun intended!) [http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/11617](http://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/11617)

<comment><USER17> Good read - thanks for sharing. I quite liked this:

'Padmasambhava said that when a stick is thrown to a dog, the dog will chase the stick. A dog's gaze follows the object, the stick. The lion gazes steadily at the source, the thrower. We need to look at our mind, the source of the emotion. An emotion like anger is the stick. The source hurling that emotion is our mind. It is the mind that projects. The source of our experience is our own mind.

Dzogchen [Buddhism] turns our gaze inward toward the source of experience, which is mind. Pristine mind is our lion's gaze.'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm reminded of this piece from a year ago. Called "Everything is problematic" it's written from the perspective of someone heavily involved with the radical left/queer scene and how they increasingly noticed a certain brand of anti- intellectualism that has taken hold. somewhat long, but well written [http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/11/everything- problematic/](http://www.mcgilldaily.com/2014/11/everything-problematic/)

</comment><comment><USER20> This is the result of a privileged class (if you're going to college, any college, in America, you're doing better than the vast majority of the world) wanting to be part of what it perceives as the revolution of our time. Whether or not this was based on legitimate claims or not, this has devolved into a completely arbitrary "revolution for revolution's sake" morass of nonsense. It's shameful thinking that this is how my generation is going to be perceived in years to come.

<comment><USER21> If you ask me, it's more of a diversionary revolution to distract from the current corporate power grab and disappearing civil liberties. Controlled opposition, if you will.

Major political donors will tend to lean toward candidates that support these social justice policies rather than ones which might endanger their position of power. When that happens, the ideology of an entire political platform, and that of everyone associated with it, is up for grabs. It may not be intentional, but these are the results that we're left with.

<comment><USER22> Thank you for posting this, because it's something I've personally suspected for quite a while. If you want to destroy a counter movement or opposing political side/class, the best thing to do is to turn them against each other. Now notice how just before this whole privilege/safe spaces/other crap started, things like Occupy were pointing out income inequality and perhaps making a few people nervous...

I don't think it's a coincidence.

<comment><USER23> That's basically what is happening with rent in SF. The landlords and other owners have basically turned the middle and lower class against newcomers to distract everyone from the real problem, which is a lack of supply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Before discussion takes off, maybe we can have a factual basis for talking about this issue and learn something too:

Could anyone who knows describe specifically how 'safe spaces' are implemented? Obviously we would need to talk about particular campuses because each school operates independently and has its own rules. Perhaps a link to the rule itself?

I humbly request that you don't respond with a general impression or with memes or things you read or heard about. We're overwhelmed with unreliable information already; more won't make the facts any more clear.

<comment><USER8> Every debate takes place under a constraint of limited information; if you do not wish to base the argument on what may be anecdotal or flawed data, it would be advisable to debate the principle of safe spaces. Which is to say, that it may be more productive for you to ask or answer the questions 'are safe spaces moral if we assume a perfect implementation (as described by the proponent)?', and 'what conditions are required for a good safe space, or what makes a safe space bad?'.

<comment><USER24> > it would be advisable to debate the principle of safe spaces

I think that would be valuable to discuss but we need to know what that principle is. I haven't seen anything that informs me about it. For example, one person in this discussion said they are basing their conclusions on one video they saw of one incident at one college.

My experience with similar issues in the past is that what most people discuss, in any forum, doesn't turn out to be true - they are solving problems that don't exist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The only way to resolve a conflict is to face it, not pretend it isn't there. I think people these days are overly sensitive to sensitive topics. As a (maybe isolated example), just today, I was called closed minded by a few attendees for asking a question during a "open" Q&A session about Islam and terrorism at school. Can't we just get over it and talk maturely?

</comment><comment><USER10> For the record, in the 1980s I started a campus liberal organization that eventually went nation wide. The Progressive Student Network. Our positions were totally in favor of free speech and totally defending "offensive speech" in particular.

One thing todays liberals don't seem to get is that marginalized people are the ones who get silenced when free speech isn't protected.

I never thought I would say this, but without Jesse Helms to kick around, liberals seem to have forgotten what they stood for. (we stood for human rights, unequivocally back then. But there was no right "not to be offended.")

</comment><comment><USER24> Let's remember that these are students in their world, college, and an essential part of college and learning is to experiment with ideas and ways of doing things. It has two implications:

1) This is their world, college, even if it's talked about on HN they should not be conforming to our standards. Education, like software development, is about experimenting and failing and learning from it all. College is the place where they can do that. Step back and give them room to grow up.

2) They would be poor students if they weren't doing things that challenge everyone else, especially the older generation. This is where innovation and innovators will come from. I hope they don't give %!#@! what everyone is saying about them; it would be tragic if we quashed their spirit.

<comment><USER26> The problem I identify is that such "safe places", from what I understand, discourage experimentation and new ideas by shaming concepts that may offend them.

I am interested in hearing your logic behind how this specific movement is going to generate innovation & innovators, as I think you are claiming (correct me if I'm wrong please). I think you may be mistaken if you believe this is just a challenge against the older generation- it seems to be a challenge against the ideas that do not conform to their criteria of having to be inoffensive.

<comment><USER27> >discourage experimentation and new ideas by shaming concepts that may offend them.

Yeah, experimentation with new ideas like blackface and rape jokes.

I think the main issue with arguments against is that they rely on some black and white vision of the world (also ignoring that you can have places that aren't "safe spaces" to do your experimentation). Darwin would not have been limited by safe spaces. But hey, maybe KKK recruitment would.

<comment><USER26> My knowledge on this topic is limited to only the video I saw of a group of students arguing with a professor.

The students were arguing about the FUNDAMENTAL criteria of what should be allowed to be expressed. If something offends people, that's not acceptable. So, this criteria is not limited to only "new ideas like blackface and rape jokes"\- it's anything that is considered offensive, and that's why it may discourage experimentation.

<comment><USER24> > My knowledge on this topic is limited to only the video I saw of a group of > students arguing with a professor.

I don't think one video is any more than an anecdote, not representative of all these people doing all these things at all these colleges nationwide.

<comment><USER26> Yup! You're right, and I wasn't referring to all colleges nationwide. Just the points backed in the video I saw.

Can you give me sources that exemplify supporters of safe spaces who aren't fundamentally against shaming any idea that may offend people?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This sort of attitude is a really scary thing -- the west seems on the brink of losing all of its values. How on earth am I going to make sure that my 5 year old doesn't end up this way?

<comment><USER29> Probably the most important thing you can do is you can try to NOT be a helicopter parent.

<comment><USER30> I've never heard that term before...is that an over protective parent?

<comment><USER31> Kind of, but also "hovering" nearby to prevent every scraped knee and to step in whenever the child faces any difficulty.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Is it really infantilizing people to ask them not to wear offensive costumes? Is a polite request so absurd between adults?

<comment><USER33> So who decides what is or is not offensive? Can anyone?

How is one to predict what may or may not offend someone?

What if I find your comment and tone offensive? does that mean that you have to now remove it? or that you'll censor youself in the future, lest you continue to offend me?

And if you attempt to question the genuineness of my offense, then I take further offense at you attempting to de-legitimizing my original offense taken.

To ground my point by way of example, consider this lunacy about the cry of "Japanese cultural appropriation" and how that is 'offensive':

[http://cheshireinthemiddle.tumblr.com/post/131407267302/ginz...](http://cheshireinthemiddle.tumblr.com/post/131407267302/ginzers- spoopy-roxxi-ginzers)

Happily it was put to rest (by an ethnically Japanese person) but this is typical of the insanity that has taken over most campuses in the US right now

Yes, it is infantalization to request that others self-censor just in case they may cause offense to you.

there is no 'right to not be offended':

[https://youtu.be/fHMoDt3nSHs?t=201](https://youtu.be/fHMoDt3nSHs?t=201)

<comment><USER32> Hypothetically, if somebody went out to halloween as Foetus-Eating Penis Hitler, I'd think we'd agree it's tasteless and inappropriate.

At that point, everything is a spectrum between the banal and the monstrous. You just draw the line in different spots from others.

<comment><USER33> Actually, I'm not sure we'd agree. Personally I'd probably find that costume hilarious (depending on how well it was executed) but then I have a dark sense of humor. For example, I find this anecdote from John Cleese about his mother hilarious: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f74L2hRZE1Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f74L2hRZE1Y)

But let's assume that I found that costume 'offensive'. What would I be entitled to do? that is, what should I be able to do? Nothing.

That is, other than get offended, I don't have a right to do anything other than that. I certainly don't have a right to _not_ be offended.

Taking offense is so subjective that it is meaningless. Think of it this way, you may not like mayo on your french fries but a lot of people do.

Does that mean that you have to force others to not enjoy their french fries with mayo?

No.

It just means that you eat what you like and leave others to enjoy the foods they enjoy.

Gosh... now that I've typed that out I hardly can believe that it has become so irrational that we have to actually spell out such things to one another as adults in the year 2015.

sigh

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> What I find most strange in this is that safe spaces used to be places where individuals voluntarily gathered to be insulated from something and to feel comfortable opening up to their peers. The classic examples are supports groups.

The problem as I see is it that people who appreciate having a safe space are now trying to change the venue to one where participation is no longer consensual.

Take three locations, A, B and C. A and B are empty and C is a large room with all of society. Now take two groups, a majority and a minority group.

Members of the minority group wants a space where they can relate to other members of their group and avoid those who aren't members and can't relate. This is space A and what most people are calling a "safe space". Members of the majority group do the same. This is space B. Members of the majority group call this a "club/clubhouse". There really isn't much difference between a safe space and a clubhouse. Both are places where likeminded people can gather, relate to one another and conveniently ignore everything around them that they don't have to interact with.

The tragedy now is that space C, the public space is crumbling because it contains people from both groups trying to "improver the public clubhouse" from their perspective, ignoring the perspectives of the others.

You simply can't take a public space and make it a more comfortable/safe place for one group without likely alienating some of the people already occupying that same public space.

A lecture hall on campus can be a safe space, but designating an entire campus as a safe space without enthusiastic consent from everyone already occupying that public space is oppressive to anyone that disagrees.

</comment><comment><USER34> Looks to me like academia his now facing the consequences of the ideology many individuals in it push.

<comment><USER35> Indeed, there's a lot of _Schadenfreude_ going on here. The chickens are coming home to roost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Is there a link between the changing socio-economic makeup of our nation's elite college student bodies and these phenomena?

</comment><comment><USER37> Question - doesn't that give wonderful options for further discrimination? While excluding someone for his race is a non starter, not hiring him because of activities he was involved, especially causing unrest in college could fly.

</comment><comment><USER35> I believe that many people genuinely feel unsafe when in the presence of someone whose political beliefs offend them. The problem arises when that person, or those beliefs, do not in fact represent a threat. In such a case, feeling unsafe is delusional. Indulging this delusion just invites more delusion, which predictably spirals out of control.

The solution is to explain that feeling unsafe is unjustified when there is no credible threat. This strategy is not presently a reliable route to political power, which is why it's not being pursued. On the contrary, every concession to the delusion—e.g., the creation of "safe spaces" to protect people from largely imaginary threats—is testament to the present power of complaint. As long as there are special "protected" classes under the law (in the name, of course, of equality), we can expect more of the same.

</comment><comment><USER38> I think it's becoming evident that 18 is no longer an appropriate age to consider someone an adult. This isn't really even unprecedented, the age at which children were considered adults has shifted throughout history, and to me, it looks like it's shifting again.

These problems seem to arise because children are demanding to be treated like children, but we're making the mistake of thinking of them as adults.

<comment><USER18> As someone who recently turned 18, I disagree. From my perspective, these children are coddled to hell and back.

They're expecting colleges to parent rather than to teach. That's just how they grew up, that's just how they'll try to shape the environment. They don't want to fit the environment, they want the environment to fit them.

I've been a competent programmer since I was 16 and not having a degree means no one cares. What does it even mean to be an adult?

<comment><USER39> > What does it even mean to be an adult?

I've thought of that often. The more time went by the more I found the adults around me were ultimately fallible. The older I've gotten I've questioned my capacity as well. Am I being a good adult? What qualities to I aspire to have?

The people I see make it the farthest have the toughest hides. Life doesn't just throw shit at you from time to time it is a waterfall of crap. There is never a right time and waiting for it doesn't help. The adults I like the most set boundaries on life and work. They generally complain a great deal less. They have just as much to complain about, but choose not to waste time on trying to change the things they can't.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer)

O God, give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed, The courage to change what can be changed, and the wisdom to know the one from the other

I've fallen back to that recently. I've focused my energy on things that I can do to make a difference. For me, for my family and friends.

I haven't figured it out. You've no doubt heard of the programmer's imposter syndrome? Well I'm starting to believe that some of the best adults feel like adult imposters.

I could ramble for a while on this I guess.

<comment><USER18> Thank you for your post. I'm definitely going to keep the Serenity Prayer in mind, that's really powerful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Ugh! I'm so sick of seeing the media flip out over.. all of this.

Did I miss something, or is this piece not attributed? If the author is not an educator than I'm not gonna trust their opinion on what's good for education. If they're not a minority I'm not gonna trust their opinion on safe spaces. Just a matter of having the right qualifications.

The title statement claims to have some insider knowledge as to what's a "worthwhile" protest, while at the same time dismissing concerns for space space as worthless. What in the ever living hell.

> The University of Missouri episode shows how damaging this confusion can be: > some activists tried to prevent the college's own newspaper from covering > their demonstration, claiming that to do so would have endangered their safe > space, thereby rendering a reasonable protest absurd.

That's "damaging" only to the media wanting to tear into the story so quickly. CRY ME A RIVER.

<comment><USER15> The Economist has its quirks, one of which is to never assign attribution. The newspaper itself stands behind everything printed. If you disagree with the article, you disagree with the institution's opinion.

<comment><USER40> Thanks for that clarification. That is perfectly ok with me.</comment></comment></comment>


AT&T steps up copyright enforcement, kicks customers off network - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/11/att-boots-customers-off-broadband-network-to-fight-piracy/ <comment><USER2> This is what you get with industry consolidations. If there was more fierce competition, AT&T wouldn't dare do this. It's also one of the many reasons why it's bad for an ISP to own content companies and services, too. Draconian censorship of the whole network becomes almost inevitable once that happens.

See Google as another example of company that greatly expanded censorship efforts after it bought and then tried to monetize YouTube, music and movie services, etc. Once "platforms" start serving their own content on the same platform, it's all downhill for the user from that point, as the companies also start using anti-competitive measures against competing services on the same platform (Google downranking Yelp and shopping comparison sites, ISPs banning or throttling certain competing services, etc).</comment>


Information operations directed at Hong Kong - <AUTHOR> https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/information_operations_directed_at_Hong_Kong.html <comment><USER2> Good on Twitter and Facebook.

On top of blocking thousands of websites (which includes Facebook, Google, Twitter) China's government employs thousands of government employees just to purge even the most mild criticism of the CCP on Weibo [1]. They also employ tens of thousands to export their propaganda overseas, using sock puppet accounts to push their worldview[2]. And their worldview is fiercely anti- democratic.

The Internet cannot remain free if we allow governments to use their power to control narratives and suppress the truth. US-based Social media companies are not ideal judges, but at least they publish their methodology and allow public criticism of their platforms.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sina_Weibo#Censorship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sina_Weibo#Censorship) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party)

<comment><USER3> >The Internet cannot remain free if we allow governments to use their power to control narratives and suppress the truth.

I wish more people applied this same line of reasoning towards the US-based social media companies themselves.

If we hold true that Twitter's influence is so powerful that world superpowers are gaming it effectively to control narratives, then why aren't people more outraged at the near constant censoring of alternative voices in the West? Why are we cheering the use of corporate power when it's wielded against an ideological opponent in the East, but when it's wielded against ideological opponents in the West we hear a chorus of "it's a private company, it can do what it wants". Ultimately, we're just rejecting communist state-power with corporatist private-power.

I can agree that the latter is preferable, but I wish people would see the parallels.

<comment><USER4> The hive mind refuses to engage with hard-hitting analysis like this. Hence the down votes and no responses.

Outside of this scope, what is concerning me is that you can't hold a pro- china position. Look at the other comments here.

> I have some friends in China posting similar anti-protest posts on WeChat > social media. It's like the news they read has a completely different story > than what it's being told in legitimate new sources.

Holding a pro-china position apparently means you're reading fake news or part of a misinformation campaign.

The news we read is CORRECT, the news you read is WRONG.

We have the same problem here in the West. If you go against the church of progressivem you're a Russianbot.

Twitter needs to not get involved. It's election meddling, even if they take the "pro-democratic" side.

<comment><USER5> It's not election meddling. It's counter-meddling. Counter-meddling is itself kind of a form of meddling, but you're left with no choice if your platform is in the process of being deceitfully meddled with by one of the most powerful states in human history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> HongKonger here. I have some friends in China posting similar anti-protest posts on WeChat social media. It's like the news they read has a completely different story than what it's being told in legitimate new sources. The problem of fake news does become very apparent, and I hope people in China can eventually gain awareness or at least start to question the validity of their news sources.

<comment><USER7> Native Chinese here. Hacker news have been a great place to learn new things to me for 5 years. But the political views on Hacker news are somewhat naive to me. It seems that the Chinese Government is always evil and wrong, but why haven't the government collapsed after so many years if there were no people supporting them?

People in China, at least those millions people who are able to cross the Great Firewall, know that democracy is generally good, but they also know that a strong central government can also be useful for certain circumstances. Most westerners and HongKongers on Hacker news have a very extreme political view, you just believe "democracy is good"(TM), protesting against the evil Chinese government is good. But can you take a closer look at what is really happening in HK and then decide what you believe?

BTW, I'm neither pro-protester nor pro-police, I think the protest is a result of economic regression in HK. You could also check my comment and posting history to see that I'm not a 五毛党.

<comment><USER8> IMO the CCP gets its legitimacy to govern from its performance in some key areas: economic development and stability/security. That plays to the party's strengths, so the state-controlled media has actively promoted the view that these factors are the most important. Note how issues like the environment and health care were very much put on the back burner until public awareness and criticism reached a critical threshold, after which the party acknowledged the issues. So it's no surprise that the CCP enjoys a broad level of support on the mainland—it has performed well in the key areas it has convinced people matters most.

In a liberal democracy, on the other hand, people expect much more responsiveness to their concerns. And people tend to value freedom of expression and freedom from suppression. Those values are treasured in Hong Kong.

So no wonder mainlanders and HKers have different outlooks on this issue.

<comment><USER9> > the state-controlled media has actively promoted the view that these factors > are the most important

Or those are the most important factors and that's why they are optimizing for them first. Carville's slogan for Bill Clinton was "It's the economy, stupid", and it's plausible at least. What good does a healthy environment if you don't have food to eat? What good does economic progress if you don't have security? The West has operated very similarly imho, we're just further along. Environmentalism is still fairly young, and so are today's social safety nets (well, in Europe anyway). I don't see a reason why the Chinese wouldn't follow on that route (and indeed they are starting to care for the environment more).

> In a liberal democracy, on the other hand, people expect much more > responsiveness to their concerns. And people tend to value freedom of > expression and freedom from suppression.

But that's only because the basic needs are generally taken care of. I don't see any liberal democracy valuing freedom over food security (en masse, certainly some happily value _their_ freedom over the food security of others in society).

<comment><USER8> > I don't see a reason why the Chinese wouldn't follow on that route

That was the hope and belief behind Nixon's trip to China, and the inclusion of China into the WTO. But with Xi taking power, arguably the most totalitarian leader in China since Mao, there is no sign that civil liberties are anywhere on the horizon.

> But that's only because the basic needs are generally taken care of.

History does not agree with you, I think. People were fighting for democracy as a response to totalitarian systems which did not provide them with the resources and security they wanted—even before the age of plenty brought about by industrialization. And when the west was democratized, a lot of those countries were ravaged by two world wars, and far behind where China is today.

And when it all got underway, were not the ideals of the enlightenment in large part a counter to monarchies and feudalism which failed to provide what the people needed? If one sets aside the notion that without freedom, a plentiful existence loses its meaning (which is another, philosophical argument), I think the fight for representation in government is precisely a fight to achieve one's economic and social goals.

<comment><USER9> > there is no sign that civil liberties are anywhere on the horizon

The main question is probably what time frame that horizon is. It's hard to predict the future, very, very few people in 1985 (or even in '88) believed the SU would collapse, and yet it did a short time later. "The Chinese are destroying their environment" was a meme, now they are somewhere at the top regarding new sustainable energy installed, and they are fighting pollution (Beijing is in the situation Los Angeles was a few decades ago).

> People were fighting for democracy as a response to totalitarian systems > which did not provide them with the resources and security they wanted

That's what I'm trying to say. People want stuff, and a mostly capitalist, mostly democratic society is good at providing stuff for a large majority of the population. If it wasn't, people would care very little for democracy. Throw us into a hard and long recession and offer a (to the majority of the population) plausible way out via authoritarian measures and, so I believe, you'll be surprised how quickly they'll agree to abandon democracy. Democracy is to most (or to all? a different argument is mostly made by the affluent, and they never need to choose) a means to an end, not an end in itself. The CCP is currently still ranking very favorably compared to "before CCP" with regards to providing stuff. If that changes, or people believe that democracy could provide significantly more with few trade-offs, I expect the general sentiment to change. (Pro tip: want to fuel desire for democracies around the world? Make sure all/most citizens in Western democracies massively profit continuously from the democratic system, not just a minority at the top)

Given that civil liberties often follow wealth (it's easy to be generous when you're rich), I don't see why that wouldn't happen in China. They're not at a Western level of wealth yet, and for a significant part of the population, poverty is still the primary concern, not civil liberties. When that has changed, so will demands of the population (though it's unlikely they will too closely follow Western values, given their culture is very different in many regards).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The elephant left standing in the room is not the spam and bot accounts, but the official, state-actor accounts such as Xinhua News that pay for promoted tweets carrying the same message.

Granted this is likely beyond the scope of Twitter's safety team, but this completely sidesteps the issues raised here: [https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/19/twitter-is-blocked-in- chin...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/19/twitter-is-blocked-in-china-but- its-state-news-agency-is-buying-promoted-tweets-to-portray-hong-kong- protestors-as-violent/)

<comment><USER11> See [https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/advertisi...](https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/advertising_policies_on_state_media.html), which was posted to the Twitter blog at approximately the same time as this post.

<comment><USER12> So, wait...is the BBC no longer allowed to advertise upcoming shows on Twitter?

<comment><USER13> I was confused about this part too, but that link does have this:

> This policy will not apply to taxpayer-funded entities, including > independent public broadcasters.

Britain's BBC, Canada's CBC, and the US PBS should be covered by that.

Actually, what's to stop China from making their news agency tax-payer funded to take advantage of this exception?

<comment><USER14> How about state media that is already taxpayer-funded? Do they really get an exception here?

<comment><USER13> The quote in my comment has "independent public broadcasters". I think they will depend on third parties in order to make that determination.

<comment><USER14> That was my assumption as well. I can't imagine they'd put the North Korean state broadcasters on the same level as BBC or CBC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Facebook made a similar announcement today: [https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/08/removing-cib- china/](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/08/removing-cib-china/)

<comment><USER16> Wow, those posts. They are so unsubtle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Was in China when the first protest happened and the news coverage was mostly saying things like that the people are clueless in Hong Kong and don't understand the law about extradition. They had various experts all saying similar things and they would also point to random weibo posts about totally not on the payroll "people" saying they want their city back from the protesters.. I mean it's one thing if China'S central government wants Hong Kong to be a certain way but dressing it up as "lots of ordinary folks agree with them" is pretty disingenuous and it seems very fair for any platform to call the government out on it—-especially non-Chinese owned platforms.

<comment><USER18> > but dressing it up as "lots of ordinary folks agree with them" is pretty > disingenuous

I wouldn't say it's disingenuous... given that there's nothing legally preventing mainland-Chinese from choosing to live in HK, and then being quoted as people who want "their" city back.

Odd to think, but HK is now experiencing a real _Red Scare_ , the likes of which the US only ever imagined in the depths of paranoid delusion. There are real (CCP) Communists, living amongst the HK citizenry, nudging HK's democracy (such as it is) toward their agenda by appearing to stand for "public sentiment"!

<comment><USER19> I believe that mainland people have to apply for a special permit to even cross the border into HK. I would expect it to be even harder to live there as a mainlander. So while they may be posing as HK residents on Twitter, I don't think they are in reality.

<comment><USER20> How old is your knowledge? China changes fast - my impression was that it was quite straightforward to go to HK. At least for people in SZ...

<comment><USER21> Shenzhen is a special economic zone, which had its own border with mainland China until early 2018.

[https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies- politics/article/21...](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies- politics/article/2128370/bring-down-wall-china-officially-scraps-border- around)

<comment><USER22> it's not a real boarder. and regardless the so called boarder was effectively gone since early 2000s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I was living in HK for 30 years. What I want to say is that we all need to prepare for a new form of propaganda, which is partially based on partial fact but with twisted explanation. They are getting more logical, therefore more persuasive to middle-classes. If we do not have freedom or human rights in our minds, it will be very hard to deny those propaganda.

<comment><USER24> Historically the most effective propaganda has been based partially on fact. Outright fabrication doesn't work as well as taking an accepted fact and twisting what came before or what will come after.

<comment><USER23> True. And this is getting worse because China is now rich. In old time, only brain-washed patriots believe those propaganda. But now CCP hires well- educated writers, Weibo opinion leaders to write seemingly objective articles that credit CCP exclusively with the economy growth. The middle classes in China has already believed in those propaganda faithfully because the messages match perfectly what they have experienced.

We need to be afraid of them. Because even if the Great Firewall disappears now, they will continue to defend CCP and their authoritarian system.

<comment><USER22> "This is getting worse because US is now poor. In old time, only patriots believe those propaganda. But now the media hires well-educated writers, YouTube opinion leaders to write seemingly objective articles that credit Trump exclusively with the economy growth. The lower classes in the US has already believed in those propaganda faithfully because the messages match perfectly what they have experienced. We need to be afraid of them. Because even if neo-nazism disappears now, they will continue to defend Trump and his beliefs."

Wondering if I am wrong? Even if I am wrong, how wrong???

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> China has been doing this for a while, not only on social media, but traditional media / institutions too. It's about time to get serious about this problem.

[https://www.hoover.org/news/china-exerting-sharp-power- influ...](https://www.hoover.org/news/china-exerting-sharp-power-influence- american-institutions)

<comment><USER19> It's inherent in all communist states (that have existed). There is a document called "Chapter NN", where NN is some number, I think in the teens, from eastern Europe that describes the dynamic. Unfortunately I have no idea how to search for it, so if someone could post a link I'd be grateful. If I recall correctly, the problem is that the State claims to represent the people, but in fact it does not represent the people. Thus, it must lie in everything it says, otherwise it could not claim to represent the people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This doesn't really explain the money they took from Xinhua News to promote certain tweets that lied about the protests being violent or unwanted by the majority of HK residents. [https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/1162711159000055808](https://twitter.com/pinboard/status/1162711159000055808) [https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-is-running-paid- ads-...](https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-is-running-paid-ads-china- criticising-the-hong-kong-protests-2019-8)

<comment><USER27> It's just a little further down: [https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/advertisi...](https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/advertising_policies_on_state_media.html)

<comment><USER26> Thanks. That's pretty clearly motivated by recent disinformation campaigns, but doesn't mention them at all. Kinda lets them off the hook in my opinion, not to mention keeping the money.

Edit: Facebook, for example, calls them out directly. [https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/08/removing-cib- china/](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2019/08/removing-cib-china/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> For those who want to understand the bigger picture of this propaganda campaign, check out this allegedly leaked instruction for how China controls media (picture in Chinese [1], transcribed in Chinese [2], google translated to English [3]).

[1]: [https://pincong.rocks/article/3572](https://pincong.rocks/article/3572)

[2]: [https://pastebin.com/anMtU0Lz](https://pastebin.com/anMtU0Lz)

[3]: [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fpastebin.com%2FanMtU0Lz)

<comment><USER29> [3] - what a read.

"5\. Video images of excessive use of force by police from outside the country must be promptly blocked and deleted at the first time, and it is absolutely forbidden to spread on WeChat and any social media."

<comment><USER28> For a better translation then the Google translate (i.e., [3] above), see the following Reddit comment:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/csj4ca/chinas_pro...](https://www.reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/csj4ca/chinas_propaganda_strategy_for_the_hong_kong/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I was recently in Beijing and noticed when posting on Instagram many bot accounts posting "Shame on Hong Kong" in Chinese.

This is a Facebook problem too. If you work at facebook please help!

<comment><USER31> Flag all the accounts that seem suspicious. The more signal, the easier for Threat Intelligence to identify them.

<comment><USER30> I did, but I feel like this could be solved with machine learning.

<comment><USER32> Seems like flagging the accounts should, in theory, feed back as data points into their machine learning models?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> So this has become the norm now. Social media products who's primary utility is to share information between people are now being used by governments to sow discord.

<comment><USER34> Your basically complaining that paper can be used to write whatever you want on it, by you and by people you don't like.

<comment><USER35> Not even close to an accurate comparison. It's not just paper - it's a printing press that can push your message directly to a device into the pocket of people who belong to specific groups that you want to target.

<comment><USER36> How is that different from spreading false information through newspapers when that was the primary source of people's information?

<comment><USER37> It's like the difference between the bow-and-arrow and handguns. Lower barrier to entry, greater potential for harm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm curious if Twitter would publish such pieces if the US was favourable with China's position in this conflict. Makes you wonder.

Or, to bring the issue home a bit: would Twitter post this information if they discovered the democrats running such a campaign? What about the republicans?

</comment><comment><USER39> 1.7 million were marching on the streets yesterday. Imagine, that's like every 4th resident of Hong Kong.

</comment><comment><USER40> Would twitter, fb et al ever expose a Western intelligence operation with this tone?

See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent)

Edit: In other words, is this post itself not an "information operation"?

<comment><USER41> A foreign state actor is using a platform maintained by a US-based company to spread anti-democratic propaganda that goes against the values of the US. They got blocked and called out. Sounds like a no-brainer to me, especially after the 2016 election.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Maybe one day our cyberpunk corporate overlords will be able to fine governments for this kind of shit.

<comment><USER43> Ain't gonna happen.

In reality, our cyberpunk overlords will fall over themselves to provide the best level of service to the highest paying autocratic government customers.

<comment><USER44> Is there a meaningful difference between a "fine" levied on the state by a firm and a fee the state pays the firm for a service? I'm reminded of Joe Nacchio... there's a guy who didn't understand this business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> What can technically-savvy Americans with moderate resources on hand do to help the protesters?

<comment><USER46> Do what you can to make democracy stronger at home. In the long run, what will help Hong Kong and other places that are at crossroads on the path to fully democratic rule is to have strong examples of thriving democracies that they can look to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> This is a good start, but there are well coordinated manipulation networks for conflicts around the world, that seem to run with impunity, sometimes inciting violence and fomenting hate. Then there are verified account of journalists/commentators and public figures who seem to be paid to Tweet particular narratives. There are other verified accounts that serve as a nexus of hate on Twitter, whose large follower counts give them a patina of invincibility. It's interesting that Twitter has the will to enforce its rules in some situations, but not in others.

</comment><comment><USER48> > We are disclosing a significant state-backed information operation focused > on the situation in Hong Kong, specifically the protest movement and their > calls for political change.

Two points:

1\. The post presents no evidence that this is a "state-backed" operation.

2\. Censorship seems like a wonderful tool when applied to your opponents. That support dries up pretty quickly when the censor targets you.

<comment><USER49> Is there another actor than the state in China that can get unfiltered mainland IPs ?

<comment><USER50> If you use Google Fi's cellular data in China, you can access sites typically blocked by GFW (source: first hand experience). So I assume the answer is yes. Not sure which entities have such access though.

Edit: IIRC some local friends from Peking University and Tsinghua University once told me that they could use Google and stuff (also typically out of reach) from their college dorms.

<comment><USER51> All foreign roaming users can get through the GFW. The local carrier sends everything through what is basically a VPN to your home cell carrier so it can be properly billed. A popular way to get around GFW for those with money is to use an HK cell phone in China.

<comment><USER49> But then you don't have a mainland IP

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I can't help but think that shadow-flagging these accounts would be more useful than blocking or deleting them.

Blocking/deletion looks like censorship, like someone is deliberately trying to hide something you're not supposed to know.

Leaving the content available, but flagging it as suspicious and linking to more information why its suspicious seems a lot more effective.

</comment><comment><USER53> This amounts to cyberwarfare being directed from China at its own people in Hong Kong.

The posts were designed to sow political discord, not calm things down. Governments are generally interested in promoting peace and stability. But not this one, apparently.

Its good to see Facebook and Twitter coordinated with each other in blocking the bad actors, rather than tackling the issue individually. I'd like to see more of that in the future directed at Russian government sponsored troll bots, Nazis and the like. Since these kinds of attacks are generally done over more than one social network, sharing basic info like IP addresses etc could be a good start.

These people are banned from Libr, the social network I built to replace Tumblr ([https://librapp.com](https://librapp.com)).

</comment><comment><USER54> [https://reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/csk1z8/leaked_possibl...](https://reddit.com/r/HongKong/comments/csk1z8/leaked_possible_ccp_propaganda_agenda_against_the/)

</comment><comment><USER55> I wish they would do this for politicians too. I see hundreds, possibly thousands of accounts spamming political propaganda garbage right at home.

It would be great if Reddit did the same too. Thousands of sock puppet accounts on Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER56> This makes total sense.

It's in Twitter's business interest to have open unfiltered internet as much as possible. By keeping Hong Kong open (and possibly getting China to open at some point), they'll help their bottom line.

</comment><comment><USER57> One of the lessons learned in the modern era is that you just can't get away with this kind of stuff - everything comes back to bite you in the end.

I don't know which government officials in the communist party thinks this kind of investment will be successful - and it may be short term successful - but you end up paying for it in the long run.

Maybe said gov't official ran a business selling chinese goods on Amazon and used fake reviews to successfully grow the business by pawning off really poorly made products into consumer hands. He/she witnessed the success and applied that theory everywhere - you can always buy your way to a good impression.

Well, it works (kinda) on Amazon because the blame and outrage still gets created, its just that there's no entity to ascribe the blame onto. The store is usually brandless, or can rebrand itself in an instant if things go south.

BUT the blame just doesn't dissipate into thin air. No, it gets assigned to the first thing that does have a permanent brand - Chinese goods. And then, chinese culture.

The US tried to use covert tactics in the 70s - 90s during the cold war era, in many places including the middle east. It was a time of naivety where "I can get away with doing illegal and immoral stuff" was an infectious attitude. Fast forward 30 years, and the winners are the people who immediately benefitted from those actions, but the losers (the AMERICAN GOV'T AND PUBLIC) are still paying the price via terrorism in the form of extra defense costs, safety concerns, tragedies and more.

Again - blame and resentment doesn't disappear into thin air. It collects, like pollution, and you pay a price a long way down the road.

China, you're not an anonymous store on Amazon. You're one of the strongest brands in the world with 5000 years of history. Your brand is larger than Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, and Google combined. This is just not worth it.

</comment><comment><USER58> Coordinated activity is banned on twitter? Has someone told Twitter?

</comment><comment><USER59> I absolutely love that they shared the dataset. Hopefully deters future bad actors as the raw data itself will be shared with the greater public and hopefully for greater analysis.

</comment><comment><USER60> My YT overlord lately decided I should watch Jackie Chan commentates about the situation in Hong-Kong [0]. I was very surprised to see the English comments almost unanimously support China. Would have expected the opposite sentiment.

[edit: stupid me, the uploader is CGTN, a well-known state propoganda channel]

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7rIg49I0yI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7rIg49I0yI)

<comment><USER61> Jackie Chan is entitled to his opinions.

During those protests there have been rioting and ransacking of the local Parliament with some expressing views that HK was not, or should not be, China. This can genuinely trigger feelings of patriotism and outrage.

The lastest protest seems to have been peaceful and to have respected the authorities' restrictions as much as possible so it may be that they have understood that using violence was playing into the hands of the other side.

<comment><USER62> One thing that is super impressive about these protests (other than the sheer number of people) is the lack of looting, violence etc (not counting police violence on unarmed people). Very very impressive. Compare this with French riots etc in recent years - night and day!

<comment><USER63> I actually expect that a lot of violence and such are false flag operations, designed to taint the image of the protesters.

<comment><USER64> Given what we've seen there with the planted triad attacks, it would make perfect sense that they would infiltrate and stage violence as well. That's a tactic that has been used even in liberal democracies in the past when dealing with rampant protests.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> I roughly reviewed these accounts, looks like lots of anti-CCP accounts were banned as well.

But I think twitter should remain a place for individuals not state actors.

</comment><comment><USER66> What makes coordinated activity from government entities different from brigading performed in coordinated ways by non-government people with political or activist agendas? Isn't that also manipulation? Or is it that Twitter just has its own political and economic agenda and their TOS/rules/blog posts are self-justification?

<comment><USER67> In my opinion; the main difference here is that the government entities used bots or paid people to post propaganda. While the pro-democracy non-government camp used their own account to share their views. This I'm okay with.

But a good example on how not to do it is the /r/hongkong subreddit, it's filled with pro-democracy accounts who will delegitimise any posts that goes against the general sentiment. It's impossible to have a constructive discussion there without being marked as a troll, or a pro-china bot. That to me is just the same as spreading propaganda and preventing free speech. That's not ok.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> This sounds like convenient achievement to establish that they're tough on shenanigans they don't like.

</comment><comment><USER69> Lesson being if you want to delegitimize an opinion, post en mass in favor of it from fake accounts.

</comment><comment><USER70> I am curious to know how do companies like Facebook control this kind of activity on WhatsApp where there is end-end encryption. I see a lot of propaganda on Whats App being circulated everyday and people keep forwarding such messages into various groups.

<comment><USER71> Can you seriously trust WhatsApp's security now that it belongs to Facebook?

<comment><USER72> A lot more than I trust China.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> It's so easy to tell lies and have people believe them. That's a big human flaw it seems :-/ that needs to be corrected, governments and corporations get away with public opinion manipulation way too easily. >:(

</comment><comment><USER74> It is about time they started calling out state actors. It doesn't even matter if they are taking active countermeasures as long as the public is made aware that this kind of thing is happening. It might be more effective if instead of shutting them down, they add a descriptive warning at the top of the post that states, "this message contains misinformation that is being deliberately disseminated by the government of China", along with a link to a relevant writeup of the issue. If they are going to point the finger, then they should point it at the instigator, not an "anonymous state actor". Finish growing a backbone, Twitter.

</comment><comment><USER75> While respecting the attempt to be fair and nonpartisan by way of moderating this site I cant help but feel this soft-touch approach by mods is somewhat naive.

</comment><comment><USER76> > Covert, manipulative behaviors have no place on our service

While I celebrate this from them to kill manipulation, this sentence can be applied to their own bias towards conservative people who get banned and progressive don't, even saying worse things or using the service on massive organization to take down accounts. If both parties do harm, they should be take down. But both Twitter and Facebook do enormous efforts to shutdown voices. Including Google and Youtube.

<comment><USER37> > their own bias towards conservative people who get banned and progressive > don't

Interesting, what leads you to believe this is the case?

I've heard of this happening; I've also heard of the exact opposite happening, e.g. this post which cites examples of specific people and pieces of content that were banned as well as the specific dates and times and durations of the bans: [https://medium.com/@thedididelgado/mark-zuckerberg-hates- bla...](https://medium.com/@thedididelgado/mark-zuckerberg-hates-black-people- ae65426e3d2a)

I'm sure it is true that there are conservatives who've been banned and self- proclaimed "progressives" who've done as bad or worse things who haven't. Hopefully you also agree that the examples in that post, of progressives being banned while racists who should have been banned but weren't, probably really did happen.

Due to scale, it wouldn't surprise me that all of those examples could be true without there being any systemic bias on their service. What leads you to believe that such a bias exists?

From what I've read, there's actually some reason to believe the exact opposite bias exists: [https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate- speech-cens...](https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech- censorship-internal-documents-algorithms)

Again, I think all those examples are probably true. But I think they could be consistent with a bias in any direction, due to scale.

<comment><USER76> There's plenty evidence, from internal emails calling "nazis" to some conservatives to presentations, hidden camera to a high level manager, etc. PrageU, some conservative voices are banned, and there are specific guidelines designed by them to ban them and shadow ban them. It is not news that Twitter, Facebook and Google shadowbans or directly demonetize or ban conservative voices.

<comment><USER37> I totally believe there are internal emails calling conservatives "nazis". I agree that it's not news that they shadowban and demonetize conservative voices.

I bet there are also internal emails calling liberals "snowflakes" and that they shadowban and demonetize liberal voices. Are you telling me you believe that never happens? They've never internally criticized a liberal or banned a liberal video?

If we agree that they both happen, where's the evidence of _bias_ , rather than just tons of mistakes due to scale?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> This shit is goddamn terrifying. Since when are american corporations the arbiters of accurate, international, and political, information?

We just crossed the rubicon. Public, proactive action against a relatively hostile foreign power by a non-governmental entity. If this isnt proof positive we need to either bust these monopolies or completely overhaul our view of the power megacompanies wield, idk what is.

<comment><USER45> > _Since when are american corporations the arbiters of accurate, > international, and political, information?_

They're not and that's not what this story is about.

These accounts were banned for violating Twitter's platform manipulation policy by spamming, co-ordinating activity across multiple accounts, creating fake accounts, mis-attributing their activity and evading bans.

An individual from Hong Kong or China is free to post exactly what these accounts tweeted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> I wonder what other sites are seeing this, Reddit and Instagram are pretty obvious Quora perhaps?

<comment><USER79> /r/sino has been working overtime of late, and sending their minions all over reddit to push their message.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Are you saying that the CIA is not trying to help the protests?

I'm not trying to say that the CIA is involved, but I would be surprised to learn that the US is not trying to get involved to amplify the noise the protests are making.

With Trump and his trade war, don't you think he would not ask the CIA to try to damage the reputation of chinese government by using protests?

I don't like the PRC and their method, but I'm just curious to ask what the US is doing.

<comment><USER81> Who says anything about CIA?

Please don't bring whataboutism into the discussion.

<comment><USER80> I'm not trying to downplay what the PRC is doing, I'm just asking about what is the us might be doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> This is an even more disturbing trend...

[https://www.news.com.au/national/chinese-police-cars- parked-...](https://www.news.com.au/national/chinese-police-cars-parked-on- the-streets-of-australia-spark-alarm-amid-hong-kong-protests/news- story/4709b12e4c4eb8e42a958fc7e19e3b95)

</comment><comment><USER83> How does a platform prevent coordinated activity if it allows end to end encryption?

</comment><comment><USER84> I strongly encourage Facebook and Instagram to follow suit!

</comment><comment><USER85> I'm assuming they used some sort of distributed bot framework to create thousands of accounts. So wouldn't they just recreate them again? Is it even possible to prevent this from happening again?

</comment><comment><USER86> Is anyway else underwhelmed by the number of accounts?

</comment><comment><USER87> This is so refreshing to see. Good on Facebook and Twitter for trying to be part of the solution.

</comment><comment><USER88> I don't think HN is immune to these kinds of CCP ops.

<comment><USER89> I doubt HN is even on the CCP's radar. Not only are we a low-value target, we're much harder to subvert.

<comment><USER90> _> we're much harder to subvert._

Surely, "I'm confident I'm not gullible" is the primary risk factor for actually being gullible.

<comment><USER91> ...but it's actually because we are aware that we _are_ gullible that makes a difference, not because we consider ourselves immune to it.

At least, that's how I see it...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER92> .

<comment><USER93> You should read the linked article.

<comment><USER92> .

<comment><USER94> They specially address your question.

> This policy will not apply to taxpayer-funded entities including independent > public broadcasters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> Yeah, time to get Julian Assange and Snowden back to America (gitmo)! The land of the free (for non-natives)!

</comment><comment><USER96> Way to go Twitter. Of course this is because they dont make ad money in China. But its a very very welcome step.

</comment><comment><USER97> One of the strangest things I seen so far was not online but on the street in Sydney, Australia. There was an "anti-democracy protest" [https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/anti-hong-kong-protest- in-...](https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/anti-hong-kong-protest-in-sydney- marred-by-ugly-confrontation-20190817-p52i4f.html)

It looks people who oppose Hong Kongers really exist and truly hold on to their beliefs.

<comment><USER98> Why not? Even within HK there are thousands pro-police anti-protest supporters.

[https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/08/17/oppose-violence- save-h...](https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/08/17/oppose-violence-save-hong- kong-476000-attend-pro-police-rally-organisers-say/)

Our opinions are shaped by what media are fed into our brains. I saw my friends divided into two camps because of the different media articles they read.

How do you make sure you are not biased and only read what you believe? Rad more and find the opposing articles!

<comment><USER97> > Why not?

Of course, Australia is a democracy so they are free to do so. The irony is that these "anti democracy" protestors are exercising their democratic right to protest!

Perhaps there are probably ulterior motives for their behavior, eg. these people want to prove their loyalty to the party in order to gain a better acceptance/ranking, or there kinds of peer pressure. Others could be simply influenced by the CCP mouthpiece - it to has reached Australia. Finally, some could actually be paid - the stakes are high enough.

I'm finding it difficult to accept these people actually believe that oppression of a minority is the right thing. Deep down, their beliefs are shallow and probably exist because nobody has challenged them. So engaging them rather than bannig or downvoting would be better

<comment><USER98> > The irony is that these "anti democracy" protestors are exercising their > democratic right to protest!

It's also irony that when "protestors" (or just people voicing their opinions) exercising democratic rights to protest are treated differently because they don't agree with your view.

From what I chatted with my friends, this is not about loyalty to any party. It's as simple as, when people spreads misinformation about your hometown, others seeing them and starting to talk legitimate shit about your hometown, you feel angry and voice your strong opposite opinions.

> Others could be simply influenced by the CCP mouthpiece Yeah, right. A large > number of Chinese students/immigrants, being in Australian democracy and > with access to all press articles on both sides, have lost their judgements > and can't tell what are facts at all.

> some could actually be paid - the stakes are high enough. Please back this > claim with sources.

From my experience, the people sharing the posts are ordinary people, who simply voice their concerns. Given the sheet number of them, paying them is not practical.

The irony is that we did see some posts about HK "pro-democracy" organizers paying protesters for them to go on the streets.

<comment><USER97> One thing I've noticed about some Australian protests, especially in Sydney when I attended some for a different thing a while back, is that there are actually a lot of "anarchists" around who love to attend any rallies and just stir shit up. These guys neither like any sort of governments, always come with their conspiracy theories... The three letter agencies, or harbour some other kinds of radical views, eg anti-Semitism. In other words, lots of weirdos.

Your're right, I have actually no evidence of anyone getting paid, so I'll retract that statement.

Curious, what kind of misinformation have you heard about your hometown? What are some of the strong opinions you would like to voice?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> If you'd like to read a well researched book on the subversive goals of the CCP, I suggest you read "Silent Invasion"[1]. Note that there some critical reviews of this book, suggesting it's connecting dots where there isn't true motive, but little criticism of the evidence presented. I encourage you to read it and make up your own mind and draw your own narrative around the facts.

[1][https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence- Aust...](https://www.amazon.com/Silent-Invasion-Chinas-Influence- Australia/dp/1743794800)

</comment><comment><USER32> I immediately thought to lookup Twitter's company about section. Under Values:

> We believe in free expression and think every voice has the power to impact > the world.

Edit: I didn't realize I appeared to be supporting the trolls. No, I meant it's good to know Twitter would support the Hong Kong protestors.

<comment><USER100> authentic voice, not paid gov't troll armies.

<comment><USER101> Devil's advocate: what if the "troll army" is actually a whole army of people from that country who are brainwashed to believe the party line? Is that not "authentic" if they really believe it?

<comment><USER100> not if they're being paid to produce the content (wumao pawns are). if they're NOT being paid, i would guess you are right, but frankly we should have disconnected china from the free world a long time ago and only given them logistics software. it's frustrating that they shut the west out but constantly try and infect the west with their backwards ideas

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> An analysis of information operations that caused and more importantly sustained the protests would be equally interesting.

I am 90% certain that foreign intelligence services or service are actively involved in the riots.

Probably funding it at least partially and inciting the crowd. Probably have assets in the group of protesters to direct their activity.

I have written before that China has been far more lenient than the US would have been under similar circumstances.

The moment someone had broken into congress they would most likely get shot, at least enough to stop them.

Shutting down an airport would mean spending quite a bit of time at a "detainment camp". Often in warehouses created by law enforcement to hold a large number of people outside of regular courts and jails (See the DNC in Denver).

The protesters are, for whatever reason, hell-bent on forcing China to act in a brutal manner. Any regime would.

<comment><USER103> While that possibly might be, there are legitimate grievances when you see that many people in the street.

I'd say this is almost certainly not instigated by foreign intelligence services and I'm skeptical they would risk trying to run it. (they probably aren't too broken up about it happening though).

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> This seems like a very slippery slope.

Recently Jackie Chan and Liu Yifei are a couple of higher profile individuals have expressed support for the mainland or condemnation of the protesters' riotous behavior. Jackie Chan is a Hong Kong national - Lieu Yifei is Chinese American. The reason that this is relevant is because we live in the day and age where holding the wrong opinion is increasingly frequently grounds for getting black listed or worse. They feel strongly enough that they're willing to risk an _immense_ amount, just to share their views and values.

They they feel so strongly about this issue is reasonable evidence that _many_ others also likely feel strongly about this issue, and not necessarily in support of the protesters. Consequently, there are undoubtedly large numbers of people expressing genuine negative views against the protesters. How many of these individuals ended up getting banned? It's twitter. A huge chunk of the userbase posts like bots. There's not exactly a whole lot of insightful discussion going on with 140 characters + memes. When you get into political talking points where real people are simply repeating the same talking points at one another, this gets even more extreme.

<comment><USER99> I just looked through Jackie Chan's movies for the past few years, and they're almost exclusively produced by mainland Chinese film companies. I understand he's a Hong Kong national, but it seems that he is toeing the line for the movie industry he's working for. Considering how the Chinese have cracked down on Cathay Pacific (forcing them to fire employees who have participated in the protests), I doubt a mainland movie star could get away with saying anything else.

<comment><USER104> Here [1] is Chan's filmography. He's very active in the American industry still. Using the fact he also acts in Chinese films against him is not very reasonable. And Liu Yifei is American Chinese and literally just got her big break playing the lead in Mulan.

It seems increasingly disturbing to me that people seem to want to assume that anybody who holds a different view from them must be a "troll" or some sort of secret government conspirator or whatever else. Social media echo chambers are making people increasingly incapable of understanding that people can see the same information, without omission or ignorance, and come to different conclusions.

<comment><USER45> > _Using the fact he also acts in Chinese films against him is not very > reasonable_

Sure it is. He's economically and likely personally exposed to Beijing. China has no rule of law. Offending Xi's government carries drastically harsher consequences than doing something similar in a country with the rule of law.

<comment><USER104> No, it's not because a Chinese actor acting in some Chinese films is about as irrelevant as you could get _unless_ you are claiming that anybody with any connection to China now cannot be trusted because they 'might' be 'compromised.' And in such case you would effectively disqualify 100% of the people with a direct interest in this, unless they happen to agree with you.

It's logic akin to:

\- only pious individuals can be trusted

\- it would be impious to argue against the 'fact' that everything revolves around the Earth

\- since no pious person would ever make such an argument, only impious individuals would and impious individuals cannot be trusted.

\- only untrustworthy individuals would claim Earth is not the center of the universe and all within it

\- since no trustworthy individuals are among the heliocentric claimants, it must be the case that they're lying.

\- QED: the earth is the center of the universe according to any and all who can be trusted

<comment><USER45> > _acting in some Chinese films is about as irrelevant as you could get_

He has current and future income from, as well as assets in, China. That's all jeapordised by deviating from the pro-Xi line. His views are fundamentally conflicted.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Which new programming language are you planning to pick up in 2019? - <AUTHOR> I am giving a good amount of thought to picking up Go for fun and profit this year. <comment><USER2> Dart

The language is pretty performant, nice to write and read, OOP, portable, strong typed, etc. Can be used for scripting, backends, etc.

With Flutter, you can get Android and iOS apps with the same codebase and near native performance. Downside is, not every functionality is supported, but it's getting better every week.

AngularDart gets you webfrontends without touching JS. Ok, it compiles Dart2JS because browsers are not supporting Dart (yet), but I don't have to write JS/TypeScript myself.

This will get even greater in a few years when Google releases Fuchsia aka Android-replacement.

Ok, there are downsides: \- no WASM support \- VM based for use outside of a mobile device/browser \- lack of some libs/frameworks \- not widely supported (like on the big 3 in the cloud or default install on top10 distros)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't plan to learn any new languages.

Also this might have been better as a poll:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll](https://news.ycombinator.com/newpoll)

<comment><USER4> Polls on HN!? Do you have an example link where it has been used?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've started dipping my toes in Rust and Elixir. Rust because of the concepts like borrow checker, highly strict compiler, traits etc. Elixir because it is based on Erlang and is highly concurrent due to Actors, and overall a very clean language syntactically. Both of these are very different from the traditional OOP language that I'm using at work (C#).

Actually this is something I wanted to do last year but didn't get enough motivation/energy to actually pursue it. Now I've forced myself to actually do stuff with Rust for the first quarter of 2019 and have made some progress. If things go as per my timelines, I'll focus on Elixir & Rust in alternate quarters. I've found this to be much better than tackling both in parallel which I was doing last year.

As an aside, in the last month of 2018 I dabbled with Pharo/Smalltalk just to investigate its highly dynamic nature, improvement to dev productivity & how things really were supposed to work in _real_ OOP. It was very impressive, especially considering we had something like in 80s & 90s.

</comment><comment><USER6> Last year I've dabbled mostly with high level languages: JavaScript, TypeScript, Python... a bit of Clojure. I guess it would be time to pick something like Rust or Go. But I still haven't decided which one to pick up first.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'll be the outlier: I'm working on learning Chicken Scheme, because it's a new paradigm and most of the libraries and frameworks I need are already there.

So far, I'm surprised at how easy it is to get started writing a web app with the Awful framework (for my fairly simple needs, it's anything but awful). Then again, I'm not employed as a programmer, so I'm not evaluating new languages based solely on practicality.

</comment><comment><USER8> Ruby

I don't find Python fun at all. I wish I did.

I've been messing around a lot with Sonic Pi, which seems to use a Ruby-based DSL and I love the expressiveness of Ruby.

<comment><USER9> Ruby is Perl and Lisp inspired from start.

Python sacrifices flexibility for consistency. Like Java but with duck typing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You may be interested in the information in the 2018 developer survey on HackerRank. [https://research.hackerrank.com/developer- skills/2019#skills](https://research.hackerrank.com/developer- skills/2019#skills)

Scroll down a bit from the linked part of the page and you'll find the responses for languages for 2019.

</comment><comment> a-saleh Either Ocaml or ReasonML. I always liked functional programming, and dabbled in haskell, but it always seemed too much of an investment to bring anybody who doesn't already like haskell into the project. But they did add deriving_via to haskell recently, so maybe I change my decision :P

</comment><comment><USER11> Embedded C++ (EC++)

I know, Bjarne Stroustrup seems to hate EC++ and claims it is dead, but tell that to game developers and the NASA Curiosity Mars Rover. You can't tell that to Opportunity, which does appear dead, but Embedded C++ is not to blame, just some dust storms on Mars.

</comment><comment><USER12> Rust!

New concepts, systems programming, seems to be getting some traction! Plus the book is awesome: [https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/](https://doc.rust- lang.org/book/)

<comment><USER13> Going with Rust too, while most of my company is starting to embrace Go. I feel like the weird guy, but having a strong Java/C# experience I think Rust complements my knowledge.

Learning by book (O'Reilly) and by nano projects / examples.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Admittedly learning a new programming language is very far down my "teach myself something programming related" priority list, if I was to learn a new language it will either be Julia or Elixir.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm going to continue messing around with Go for webservices and server stuff. Going to try to pick up either R or Python or a little of both for ML and bioinformatics stuff.

</comment><comment><USER16> C. I only know high level languages (JS, Ruby) but never delved into lower level ones. Not from lack of interest but rather lack of time. I'm going to change that this year.

</comment><comment><USER17> I've never actually planned to pick up any languages in the past. Normally just get forced into it.

It might be Ruby this year though, just because it's a part of our current tech stack.

</comment><comment> ha-shine Trying to stick with C++, mainly because it's everywhere. But jeez, it's a really huge language with seemingly endless amount of stuffs to learn.

</comment><comment><USER18> I've been interested in Go for a while, but I never seem to find the time. I just started a new Python project last night.

<comment><USER19> Perfect time to pick up Go!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> On a somewhat related note, does anyone think it's a good idea to pick up Android programming at this stage?

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm conflicted between Go and Rust. As my codebases get bigger, maintaining them in Python is not fun.

</comment><comment><USER22> Julia(for studying data science) and Pharo(for studying UI?)

</comment><comment><USER23> everyone is going for rust. Is it that good? what are the really good use cases of rust?

</comment><comment><USER24> Sql and Regex

</comment><comment><USER25> Rust

</comment><comment><USER26> Python

</comment><comment><USER27> Rust

</comment><comment><USER28> elixir</comment>


Video Streaming with Warp 10 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.senx.io/video-streaming-with-warp-10/ <comment> pp-ir This TSDB is full of surprise...</comment>