Anonymous Twitter users are exposing the extreme nationalism and pro-Russian sentiment circulating online in China -- and Beijing is not happy about it.
Any time I see the source of information is labeled anonymous, as in “anonymous intelligence sources” or, in this case, “anonymous twitter users”, I know I’m about to read some bullshit.
Of all the ways you could possibly interpret it, you deliberately chose the most most ridiculous interpretation.
A more reasonable interpretation is to note that internet atmosphere of highly censored political discourse, comments spreading fake news, comments encouraging warmongering and comments derisive of Ukraine have a place within political discourse on China’s internet.
That this is permitted a place on the spectrum of acceptable opinion is the point. It’s easier to caricature the point by exaggerating it and then disagreeing with the exaggeration.
Was I exaggerating? The article said that they’re translating social media posts.
Also, I always thought China and Russia were the countries doing the most censoring, but this war has opened my eyes, only for me to see the blindfold over them.
In the last week, the USA has condemned India and Turkey for human rights violations and now there’s the whole Shanghai debacle. The common denominator is these countries’ refusal to sanction Russia, according to the USA’s wishes.
West media is a mass censorship/propaganda machine, akin to China’s and Russia, and social media is a cesspool of stupidity all over the world.
It looks like their point is that censors are perfectly happy to censor the hell out of more liberal voices, but these posts are left up. It also notable that China’s state media has been far from neutral about the Russo-Ukrainian War, even as China has tried to curate a more neutral stance for an international audience.
You cannot possibly call out China’s state media lack of neutrality (as if it wasn’t expected anyway) as if your own state media (or non-state for that matter) had been any more neutral.
Would argue they’ve been just as bad if not worse.
Hell, all the largest media companies (yes, Meta, Twitter and co are de-facto media companies, the way they’re built and the reach they now have mean they have more influence than your standard news media organisation) have gone out of their way to make sure that the rules against “calling for someone’s death” don’t apply if you’re talking about a Russian. Could it be more obvious than that?
You’re completely missing my point. China is talking out both sides of its mouth. When it does press releases for an international audience, it presents itself as this holier-than-the-West neutral party that respects territorial integrity of all countries. When it comes to its own citizens, they make it clear that China has sided with Russia and doesn’t give a hen’s tooth about Ukraine.
Have you not been paying to attention to “the West”? The West-can-you-imagine-if-we-ever-intervened-in-another-country’s-elections-or-if-we-invaded-a-country-just-because-we-don’t-do-that? That West?
Yes, China is holier than the West. Even if you only go by “illegal invasions by capita”,
Yeah but that’s not unique, America talks a lot about the Uighur population in China but then goes right ahead and actually kills millions of muslims. I think a country talking out of both sides of their mouth to avoid war and difficulty is much more worthy than a country talking out of both sides of their mouth to create a dominion over the world.
Regardless, the claim is still true. Also, the US media has been plenty critical of the US government for civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
If you were alive at the time I’m sure you remember how against the war the news was. CNN, famously against the war. MSNBC, famously against the war. Fox News, famously against the war. Sure, now they admit it was a mistake to kill millions for checks notes “democracy” after mothers are already left without their sons. No thanks, I’d rather the approach of China. Can you remind me again how many countries China has invaded since, oh let’s say 1960.
Any time I see the source of information is labeled anonymous, as in “anonymous intelligence sources” or, in this case, “anonymous twitter users”, I know I’m about to read some bullshit.
Nationalism is only allowed when Amerikans do it.
So, they are translating random social media posts that are pro-Russian and somehow this is how more than a billion Chinese people think? WTF?
Of all the ways you could possibly interpret it, you deliberately chose the most most ridiculous interpretation.
A more reasonable interpretation is to note that internet atmosphere of highly censored political discourse, comments spreading fake news, comments encouraging warmongering and comments derisive of Ukraine have a place within political discourse on China’s internet.
That this is permitted a place on the spectrum of acceptable opinion is the point. It’s easier to caricature the point by exaggerating it and then disagreeing with the exaggeration.
Was I exaggerating? The article said that they’re translating social media posts.
Also, I always thought China and Russia were the countries doing the most censoring, but this war has opened my eyes, only for me to see the blindfold over them.
In the last week, the USA has condemned India and Turkey for human rights violations and now there’s the whole Shanghai debacle. The common denominator is these countries’ refusal to sanction Russia, according to the USA’s wishes.
West media is a mass censorship/propaganda machine, akin to China’s and Russia, and social media is a cesspool of stupidity all over the world.
It looks like their point is that censors are perfectly happy to censor the hell out of more liberal voices, but these posts are left up. It also notable that China’s state media has been far from neutral about the Russo-Ukrainian War, even as China has tried to curate a more neutral stance for an international audience.
You cannot possibly call out China’s state media lack of neutrality (as if it wasn’t expected anyway) as if your own state media (or non-state for that matter) had been any more neutral.
Would argue they’ve been just as bad if not worse.
Hell, all the largest media companies (yes, Meta, Twitter and co are de-facto media companies, the way they’re built and the reach they now have mean they have more influence than your standard news media organisation) have gone out of their way to make sure that the rules against “calling for someone’s death” don’t apply if you’re talking about a Russian. Could it be more obvious than that?
You’re completely missing my point. China is talking out both sides of its mouth. When it does press releases for an international audience, it presents itself as this holier-than-the-West neutral party that respects territorial integrity of all countries. When it comes to its own citizens, they make it clear that China has sided with Russia and doesn’t give a hen’s tooth about Ukraine.
Have you not been paying to attention to “the West”? The West-can-you-imagine-if-we-ever-intervened-in-another-country’s-elections-or-if-we-invaded-a-country-just-because-we-don’t-do-that? That West?
Yes, China is holier than the West. Even if you only go by “illegal invasions by capita”,
Yeah but that’s not unique, America talks a lot about the Uighur population in China but then goes right ahead and actually kills millions of muslims. I think a country talking out of both sides of their mouth to avoid war and difficulty is much more worthy than a country talking out of both sides of their mouth to create a dominion over the world.
Regardless, the claim is still true. Also, the US media has been plenty critical of the US government for civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
If you were alive at the time I’m sure you remember how against the war the news was. CNN, famously against the war. MSNBC, famously against the war. Fox News, famously against the war. Sure, now they admit it was a mistake to kill millions for checks notes “democracy” after mothers are already left without their sons. No thanks, I’d rather the approach of China. Can you remind me again how many countries China has invaded since, oh let’s say 1960.