cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/36106116
[...]
According to the measures, introduced by the Ministry of Public Security (MPS), each internet user in China will be issued with a unique “web number,” or wanghao (网号), that is linked to their personal information. While these IDs are, according to the MPS notice, to be issued on a strictly voluntary basis through public service platforms, the government appears to have been working on this system for quite some time — and state media are strongly promoting it as a means of guaranteeing personal “information security” (信息安全). With big plans afoot for how these IDs will be deployed, one obvious question is whether these measures will remain voluntary.
[...]
The measures bring China one step closer to centralized control over how Chinese citizens access the internet. The Cybersecurity Law of 2017 merely stipulated that when registering an account on, say, social media, netizens must register their “personal information” (个人信息), also called “identifying information” (身份信息). That led to uneven interpretations by private companies of what information was required. Whereas some sites merely ask for your name and phone number, others also ask for your ID number — while still others, like Huawei’s cloud software, want your facial biometrics on top of it.
[...]
Beyond the key question of personal data security, there is the risk that the cyber ID system could work as an internet kill switch on each and every citizen. It might grant the central government the power to bar citizens from accessing the internet, simply by blocking their cyber ID. “The real purpose is to control people’s behavior on the Internet,” Lao Dongyan cautioned last year.
[...]
Take a closer look at state media coverage of the evolving cyber ID system and the expansion of its application seems a foregone conclusion — even extending to the offline world. Coverage by CCTV reported last month that it would make ID verification easier in many contexts. “In the future, it can be used in all the places where you need to show your ID card,” a professor at Tsinghua’s AI Institute said of the cyber ID. Imagine using your cyber ID in the future to board the train or access the expressway.
[...]
While Chinese state media emphasize the increased ease and security cyber IDs will bring, the underlying reality is more troubling. Chinese citizens may soon find themselves dependent on government-issued digital credentials for even the most basic freedoms — online and off.
For me, it looks like the Chinese government is attempting to protect their citizens' data and information through government actions and trust. Nowadays, people and AI systems can easily mine data and, at the very least, claim it's fair use or something similar, if I'm not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong; it's just my opinion. I'm trying to see positively what the Chinese government is trying to do instead of always viewing them negatively.
This is exactly what China propagates - trust.
One thing that I personally find puzzling is the difference how things like that are framed when it comes to actions by the Chinese government and some Western governments or blocs like the EU. If, say, the EU seeks to introduce the so-called 'chat control' people are (rightfully) criticizing it as surveillance, Orwellian dystopia, and things like that. If China does it, it is to 'protect' people who 'trust' their government. What makes that really strange is that such "the West bad, China bad okay" frames are echoed often by non-Chinese people who know China at best as tourists. (I explicitly do not refer to your post here as I assume you commented in good faith, but in general this is what I observe.)
There is a good documentary about China's surveillance state and the 'trust' the governments propagates in this context. Maybe you can manage to watch (highly recommended).
Total Trust
[Edit typo.]
I don't trust anyone with my information anywhere queerness is not both normalized and institutionally entrenched. Queerphobia must be as kuch a social faux pas as shouting the n word in times square was 15 years ago.
I have other criteria and reasons, but that rules out literally every place on earth that has ever asked me to identify myself.
In this community you're gonna be waiting a while!
But a couple of us are trying to address that, so keep coming back.
@JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
Don't worry, 'comrade,' there are communities here on Lemmy that are viewing China always positively and block anything that is even slightly critical of China.
Mea culpa. That post was cross-posted to the China community and I thought I was replying there.
In the Privacy community it is entirely appropriate to criticize China relentlessly. In the China community, it is not.
This is what you refuse to understand. I don't know if you care or not, but I agree with you about China's government. You will see that from my posts here and elsewhere.
But I also want these discussion forums to succeed. To attract new members, communities must stay on-topic and cover a variety of viewpoints about their subject.
The topic of that community is "China". It is not the "Communist Party of China" or "privacy".
By ignoring this, you're stopping that community from succeeding. And it's even worse than that: by helping to create an off-topic community frequented by a handful of members who already agree with you, you're ensuring that you reach nobody new, that you persuade nobody with your ideas (which, again, I agree with). Your wasting everyone else's time and your own too. It's sad and unnecessary.
In these .ml communities, China is always good with everything banned that is even slightly criticial of Beijing. It doesn't matter if it's 'China' or 'Privacy' or any other topic. If you want Lemmy to 'succeed', just start there. Here you are already reading unbiased, independent, and high-quality sources.
I've never denied that you post from generally reliable sources. The problem is the partiality. As you say explicitly here, you think that the cure to partiality in one community is partiality in another community.
That is the way information works in authoritarian societies - places like China and Russia. Truth does not exist so it's pointless looking for it. There's just propaganda on one side and propaganda on the other.
It won't work in free societies where people are accustomed to hearing different viewpoints. Sophisticated information consumers can easily detect efforts at manipulation. They will switch off and go elsewhere. IMO this one reason the China community is so empty. If you want to influence people, as you seem to do, the only way to do it is by trust. By convincing them that you're genuinely interested in finding the truth. That means posting some positive or neutral stories about China - because, after all, you don't really believe that nothing positive or neutral ever happens in China, do you?
Anyway, I've said enough for today. Others will judge for themselves. Once again, I agree with you about China's politics. But what you're trying to do by flooding that community with constant repetition of the same negative stories - it's not working, for the reasons just outlined. You're damaging this whole project and wasting your own time.
You (intentionally?) don't address what I have written.
In these .ml communities, China is always good with everything banned that is even slightly criticial of Beijing. It doesn't matter if it's 'China' or 'Privacy' or any other topic. If you want Lemmy to 'succeed', just start there so that 'people can here different viewpoints' also there.
Of course I addressed that:
You're helping to make the China community into the mirror image of what you so hate. The opposite of "no different viewpoints" is not "no different viewpoints on the other side". It's different viewpoints.