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.
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.
You are a hypocrite and don't address my comments again. This is waste of time.
Go to these .ml comms before criticising anything here.
Since you didn't read very closely, or perhaps at all, I will put it in simpler terms: two wrongs don't make a right.
You're not going to fix the bias problem in .ml communities by creating a bias problem in the China community.
Here you read only news based on facts from reliable sources, nothing here is biased. The .ml comms intentionallly spread propaganda and propaganda only. But you are criticizing here, not there. This is hypocritical.
I end this discussion now.
Why do you keep talking about the .ml communities? It's irrelevant. We're not on an .ml community.
To repeat one last time: You’re not going to fix the problem you care about in .ml communities by creating a bias problem on Sopuli.