News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:'Today, Hong Kong; Tomorrow, Taiwan:' Resistance to China... by taiwanboy on Thursday June 27, 2019 @03:40PM (#20297849)
Tech/media related issue here is that

1.) There are many media companies in Taiwan that have taken subsidies/investments from the Chinese government. For example, the richest Taiwanese, Tsai eng-meng, currently lives in Shanghai, and owns many tv stations and newspapers in Taiwan. Many of these tv stations are watched by the older generations, and a lot of the channels are politics focused. Thus these channels usually have a pro-China angle on them: how well China is doing economically, and ignores any sort of xinjiang/Hong Kong/trade war problems/economic slowdowns/human rights issues China has. I shuddered when an older relative told me that the tv show had told him that concentration camps for Uighurs are ok because it keeps the peace.

And don’t think this is restricted to Taiwan. China has spread its media influence to other democratic countries in the world as well.

2.) hacking politicians. The pro-China presidential candidate, Han-Kuo-yu, was a literal unknown 6 months before the election for city of kaoshung. However, thanks to a (purported) digital influence campaign by Chinese hackers, he won the election. Then he declared to run for president, without having accomplished much of anything for the city. This sort of thing could also happen to US, in that China could interfere in the 2020 election.

Re:'Today, Hong Kong; Tomorrow, Taiwan:' Resistance to China... by thevagrant on Thursday June 27, 2019 @09:01PM (#20300563)
Regarding your point 1.) Where I live in New Zealand, the largest newspaper/website (NZ Herald) has a Chinese language version. It was shown that the Chinese version of the news articles are sanitised to be more China friendly. Articles critical of China are also often not featured at all in the Chinese version of the website. The Herald always states this is a coincidence and is due to a 'lack of resource' for the Chinese version of the publication but it's clear foreign investment is manipulating the news/media locally. (A rival news agency recently showed some of the writers had been to China on paid trips for 'media conferences' which appear to set the agenda on what to publish etc)
Re:'Today, Hong Kong; Tomorrow, Taiwan:' Resistance to China... by supertiger on Thursday June 27, 2019 @03:50PM (#20297932)
how arrogant do you have to be to attribute Han's success to Chinese hackers?
Re:'Today, Hong Kong; Tomorrow, Taiwan:' Resistance to China... by taiwanboy on Thursday June 27, 2019 @03:57PM (#20298014)
Careful there with the personal attack.

I put purported there for a reason. Han promised riches for citizens of kaoshung, went to visit China right after the election, and yet haven’t done a single thing yet to improve the city, before running for president.

Re:'Today, Hong Kong; Tomorrow, Taiwan:' Resistance to China... by cttet on Thursday June 27, 2019 @11:20PM (#20301210)
This is not a valid argument to support your speculations though. With the same logic, almost every politician is questionable.
Re:'Today, Hong Kong; Tomorrow, Taiwan:' Resistance to China... by tempguy9999 on Friday June 28, 2019 @04:37AM (#20302508)
> This is not a valid argument to support your speculations though

This was not speculation, it was a claim. Though I'd agree he did not provide links to support his claim.

> With the same logic, almost every politician is questionable

True, if every politician was indeed "a literal unknown 6 months before the election". But at least in the west this is rather unusual, so I can't accept your claim.

Re:'Today, Hong Kong; Tomorrow, Taiwan:' Resistance to China... by cttet on Wednesday July 03, 2019 @08:04AM (#20343504)
I was replying to the previous comment and refer to the exact comment.

The previous comment did not mention this, instead, it is "Han promised riches for citizens of kaoshung, went to visit China right after the election, and yet haven’t done a single thing yet to improve the city, before running for president.".

What I was saying is that this is not a valid argument.