Can Huawei use Github anymore? Wouldn't that be US based technology that would be fined or worse if they allowed Huawei on in an explicit way?

And don't most sites have a "tell the mods about something that looks illegal" button? I see a big 'flag' button here.

In all fairness, when you get flagged on HN, dang doesn't come down on you quite as hard as CCP does when you get reported for something they don't like. Giving them your app's business as a hostage does not sound very wise to me.

Quite the contrary, blocking software due to some misguided US-specific regulations is quite common on GitHub, see youtube-dl.

> Can Huawei use Github anymore? Wouldn't that be US based technology that would be fined or worse if they allowed Huawei on in an explicit way?

https://github.com/Huawei

> And don't most sites have a "tell the mods about something that looks illegal" button? I see a big 'flag' button here.

Traditional moderation systems are built to handle abuse, such as threats, stalking, and spamming. Chinese moderation systems are built differently. As the title "Illegal and harmful information" suggests, they're primarily built around suppressing speech that is deemed politically undesirable. If you're interested in the details, I highly recommend you read the article written by someone who worked at 抖音, China's TikTok [1]. Oftentimes Chinese platforms are extremely responsive to reports about political speech, but are sluggish or do not respond at all to reports about abusive behavior. The Chinese systems are just designed differently, and are usually connected or even run directly by the government. e.g., if you click through on Gitee, you end up on a page run by the "Cyberspace Administration of China" [2].

[1] https://www.protocol.com/china/i-built-bytedance-censorship-...

[2] https://12377.cn/

> > Can Huawei use Github anymore? Wouldn't that be US based technology that would be fined or worse if they allowed Huawei on in an explicit way?

> https://github.com/Huawei

Yeah, there's been a few pushes, but has been pretty dead for at least a year. They pretty clearly stopped using it for the most part once they were put on the entity list.

> Traditional moderation systems...

I don't really see anything structurally different there versus western site moderation tools. It's totally valid to discuss china's political issues, but the fact that a 'contact the mods' button exists doesn't really further that discussion in a meaningful way.

Could you expand? Why would Github be fined if they let Huawei on their service?

> And don't most sites have a "tell the mods about something that looks illegal" button? I see a big 'flag' button here.

Perhaps. I think the debate is about exactly what is illegal, not about features that allow reporting illegal activity.

> Could you expand? Why would Github be fined if they let Huawei on their service?

Because they're on the US's Entity List, which bans US companies from doing business with them without case by case, explicit approval from the US Commerce Department.

https://www.androidauthority.com/huawei-google-android-ban-9...

> Perhaps. I think the debate is about exactly what is illegal, not about features that allow reporting illegal activity.

Sure, but pearl clutching over a 'contact the mods' button or the fact that they didn't host their code on a US site that they're literally banned from interacting with by the US government doesn't really further that discussion, and in my mind cheapens the valid discussion around actual CCP issues.

> > Could you expand? Why would Github be fined if they let Huawei on their service?

> Because they're on the US's Entity List, which bans US companies from doing business with them without case by case, explicit approval from the US Commerce Department.

Oh wow, I had no idea. I don't know how I missed that. Thanks!

So I guess US companies cannot buy their employees Huawei phones (without explicit approval).

How can not hosting on Github an argument for "censorship first"? Even if Hauwei can use github today, it can easily lost the access when POTUS sign an executive order.

We saw this happen with an Iranian developers last year or the year before.

The "Control Panel for Reporting Illegal and Harmful Information." is link to government website for user to report illegal and harmful information. It is a link, not part of gitee website.

It is better translated into "Portal for Reporting Illegal and Harmful Information", the linked website is: https://12377.cn/

It's basically the report button on github. This 1 hour old account clearly has an axe to grind. The criticisms aren't even decent.

>It's basically the report button on github.

No, it isn't.

The report button for github goes here.[0] A github hosted feedback/review system.

The link on gitee goes here[1]. A website ran by "Central Information Office Network (National Internet Information Office)" , Beijing.

If you can't spot the difference in methodologies then I'm not sure what else to say.

[0]: https://support.github.com/contact/report-abuse?category=rep...

[1]: https://12377.cn/

Countries have different rules, the world is a diverse place. I know that's hard for some to accept but it's how it is. Is having a button to report crime on your website some horrible end-of-the-world moment?

Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. all have these buttons on their site and often don't report actual crimes occurring on their platform to the police in order to protect themselves. Gitee is simply providing a link elsewhere for people who have a problem with content.

A UK man on youtube taught his dog to salute and got arrested for it because people reported it. A pregnant woman in Australia was thrown in jail for organising an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook. Many locals cheered these events on with gusto.

The people who decry the oppression in China, also actively support the suppression of opposing views and jokes back home. Maybe we aren't so different after all.

If you want to rant about Chinese laws without hiding behind the pretext of mobile OS discussion, make a proper HN thread about it or write a blogpost mate.

> Countries have different rules, the world is a diverse place.

Some countries have democratic governments, others have illegitimate ones. Some rules are totalitarian, others are not.

> Is having a button to report crime on your website some horrible end-of-the-world moment?

That it isn't literally the worst thing possible is hardly a convincing argument.

> Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc. all have these buttons on their site

Incorrect, as you've just been told.

> A UK man on youtube taught his dog to salute and got arrested for it because people reported it.

A Nazi salute. I guess you forgot that detail.

> A pregnant woman in Australia was thrown in jail for organising an anti-lockdown protest on Facebook.

I don't know the context but that sounds pretty bad. But how does it excuse the CCP?

> The people who decry the oppression in China, also actively support the suppression of opposing views and jokes back home. Maybe we aren't so different after all.

1. It makes a difference what views you believe should be suppressed. Trying to protect democracy and rule of law is fundamentally different from trying to protect the CCP autocracy.

2. The set of people opposed to the CCP autocracy isn't actually identical to the set of people who "support the suppression of opposing views and jokes back home".

> If you want to rant about Chinese laws without hiding behind the pretext of mobile OS discussion, make a proper HN thread about it or write a blogpost mate.

Why, because you want their "rant" to be less visible?

> Some countries have democratic governments, others have illegitimate ones.

Sure, for example it’s not uncommon in the US to ignore the majority vote and choose somebody else for president because of a fundamental design error in its voting rules.

I am against censorship in china in principle. However: 1) in article 2, it says "pornography, lewd conversations, nudity, graphic images and curse words — as well as unauthorized livestreaming sales and content that violated copyright." I think there is a real need for legal framework for content that are harmful for the society. China's online content laws also protects the society from child pornography, fraud, etc. And in the light of the harm of fake news and disinformation can have on the society, as people can see with covid19, there needs to be boundaries with speech. We could have laws govern internet space as well, just like how laws enacted through a democratic process can govern the physical world. As lives are more and more lived in the internet world, we could have laws to govern that world. Though I think there should be a legal due process, like with any law and law enforcement. If my speech is taken down on the internet, let me review the evidence, and let me appeal in a "court", let an independent judiciary judge if I am guilty or not. 2) censorship in china is instituted by the government, no business person could get away with it, they have to operate in that environment. Do the business person or the technologists want to do it? Absolutely not, its a hassle and more work on their part. But to survive in that business environment, they have to do it. These people just want to found these companies and conduct this line of business to earn money and earn a living. These people have families to feed and expensive mortgage to pay. No one wants to get into politics, ideologies. If you really want that every technologists should promote core ideals of freedom and free expression, even under these censorship, these apps in china are already allowing people to spread ideas and access information much better than before. Even under censorship, chinese people still read stories critical of government policies, corruptions, controversies etc that were impossible before the internet age (I read a large number of posts critical of one child policy and government worker implementation of it a few days ago). And the internet is still helping the society change. I wouldn't say these companies are complicit with censorship, because they won't exist if they didn't comply. Chinese government would shut down everyone of these internet services if they won't comply with the rules. And by being available they are still supporting more information accesses then when they weren't available. In my view, in some way, these people behind these companies are victims of the system as well.

Yet as a European I wonder - what with the neofascist takeover attempts powered by post truth and fake news (aka "harmful information") that were successful in Russia, and will probably some day be successful in the US...maybe China is on to something good here?

What if the state itself propagates those "harmful information"? It is a mistake to think that fake news are created spontaneously and that an intervention from above can fix the problem, given that it is plausible to think that they are, in fact, propagated by our media, politicians and state agents.

Also, I'd like to highlight that: 1) Putin has risen to power well before the existence of Internet fake news. Complex factors justify his political existence: economic depression of the country in the 90s; religion; the support of Russian oligarchs; fear of political instability. To say that they were successful in Russia is an oversimplification. 2) They did, however, play a big role in the 2016 US elections :-)

"What if the state itself propagates those "harmful information"

That would be preferable to an enemy doing it, as with the Russia / Trump affair, because your own state has less interest in ending itself than its enemies. Probably close to zero interest.

Um... did you just miss the whole 4 years of Trump administration in US? Or are you just completely oblivious about how all of these structures are already well entrenched in the west?

It's horrifying to see these posts - west has many of those criticized evil structures from China and somehow the conversation still ends up in xenophobia instead of approaches how we can purge these things from our societies.

This also goes for the root comment - notice how they complain about Huawei not publishing their code into western owned corporate repository beholden to western unaccountable laws like DMCA. Also notice how it ignores that iOS, completely censored by a Californian corporation, exists. They just care that these violations of freedoms are happening under a different flag, not that they exist.

It already is successful in the U.S. We just had a coup attempt back in January because an angry mob was convinced that our presidential election was rigged. I don't really know what to do about the misinformation other than systematically destroy the internet: just start smashing routers and cutting cables and don't stop until everything goes back to normal.

This doesn't sound any worse than iOS. If you're worried about personal computing you can rest assured that it died for the average consumer a decade ago.

I believe this is the wrong way to put it.

Personal computing never existed for the average consumer. The computing market was filled with hobbiests, specialists, and those needing a computer for some task. EG, authors typing manuscripts (part time work?).

Since then, the average consumer bought phones with extra fluff on it. They use it as toys, gimmicky things.

During that time of the average consumer buying phones, general purpose computing device use had still grown. It has merely shrunk as the overall percentage of "computing devices owned by people".

Nothing has died. General computing device purchasing and usage is at an all time high..

Consumers had PCs for a while before smartphones became popular.

Yes for 30+ years.

But not the average consumer.

Yes, there is a difference. I've been in a place where there explain you that the west is just like us, but it is total BS. There is a difference in independent courts, difference in freedom of expression and freedom of protest, there is a difference in a decision being taken by the society and by a small elite that exercise total control over the system. False equivalence is one of the most poisonous arguments that people deploy in order to deflect responsibility.

> Honestly is it any less "baked in" than the pre-eminent Western powers?

Because it's _less_ "baked-in". Germany just recognized their part in a genocide, China has yet to acknowledge the Tiananmen massacre.

Acknowledgement is lip service, especially decades after the fact. If they provide significant compensation, then yes. There is hope for better days for China too, but not by portraying them as unmitigated evil. I can't think of any significant nation that has caved to orchestrated, vested moral outrage and said "sorry you guys... we'll hold elections next years and play by your rules henceforth", especially when the very countries asking for this unrepentant about their own past transgressions costing millions of lives (atomic bombs, Iraq invasion etc.)

Germany will provide around 1.1 billion EUR but they will do it by sponsoring social projects over the next 30 years.

Social project run by western NGOs I guess? What is 1.1 billion when the west steals like 2~3 trillion each year since ww2 from the global south.

You can smooth over a lot of mismanagement or save a lot of costs this way. It also seems the dividend from the colonial days is not enough anymore to keep the West going given their infrastructure seem to crumble every year.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13563467.2021.1...

> I can't think of any significant nation that has caved to orchestrated, vested moral outrage and said "sorry you guys... we'll hold elections next years and play by your rules henceforth",

Governments regularly cave in due to protests in democratic countries. It happened in the Netherlands a few months ago, for example.

Moreover, it's fundamentally important the fact that protests exist.

Comparing any western democracy to a dictatorship is the worst form of whataboutism.

> Or perhaps not acknowledging that under the umbrella of democracy the same things happen, is whataboutism.

No. That may be denial, but “whataboutism” is a variant (or, really, just a different name for) the tu quoque fallacy that deflects criticism by accusing the critic of hypocritically ignoring the same action they criticize when committed by a friendly party (or committing it themselves).

A critic denying that a friendly party engages in the act they are criticizing isn’t “whataboutism”. It may or may not be hypcocrisy, denialism, or something else, but its not whataboutism.

OTOH, accusing a critic of whataboutism (and invoking a nonstandard – indeed inverted – definition of “whataboutism” to do it) when they point out whataboutism as a deflection technique, so as to deflect the criticism contained in the original accusation of whataboutism is advanced-level whataboutism.

> the tu quoque fallacy that deflects criticism by accusing the critic of hypocritically ignoring the same action they criticize

I'm not justifying what happens in China, I'm saying that the US democracy spent 65 million dollars of 1948-1970s money to control the politics of a sovereign allied and financed far right terrorist groups that killed hundreds of innocent people and still refuse as of today to release the documents about it.

Sometimes some democracies are simply not better than regimes.

They can be equally bad, you knew if it happened to your country.

So maybe is denial, but maybe whataboutism is the idea that "we did some things, but look at us, we are a democracy, we did it because obviously it was necessary to preserve it, because the others are the real bad ones".

How did they not "acknowledge" it? They did and they do. "They" call it "1989 incident" and despite the Western believe Chinese people are aware of that incident. And yet, most people I have spoken to in my countless trips to China follow the words of Deng Xiaoping that it was worth to sacrifice 3000 lifes for 30 years of stability.

Edit: by the way, it annoys me that I got trolled into posting something totally unrelated within a tech article. Why are all Chinese-related articles turning into exactyly the same direction in the past 3 years? I am tired of that.

> it was worth to sacrifice 3000 lifes for 30 years of stability.

No one knows what China would be like now had the CCP acceeded to the students' demands and liberalised.

Taiwan ended their long period of martial law around the same time too, and for a nation with so much stacked against it, you can hardly say they're doing badly.

You have no idea what you are talking about. No idea.

I have lived in China. Freedom of press and Rule of Law(they don't exist in China) are amazing inventions.

You just don't have an idea how lucky and spoiled you are. I recommend you volunteer helping refugees just to get a glimpse of how the world works outside the West bubble.

It would be cool if we could discuss the technology for once instead of spinning into a geopolitical discussion or meaningless copycat allegations which likely will lead nowhere.

This kind of pragmatism is what leads to this kind of dystopian technologies.

If you want this discussion then you are on the wrong site because it is specifically mentioned in the rules not to do this. This adds nothing of value to the thread but it does add a lot of negatives (and lots of racism).

This kind of pragmatism is what saves us from pointless discussions.

Yes because software exists in a vacuum? The software is being discussed, and it's a monumental failure that it is hosted and distributed and used the way it is.

Because hn has got qualified opinions on technology and not so much on politics. The politics is just drowning any form of signal here.

It would be cool if the technology wasn't abused to push political regimes.

Not that the US military regime and imposed technological supremacy is much better (for us non American)

see

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27338555

Yeah, I post the same stuff in iOS threads.

"Virtually all Chinese apps are designed from the ground-up to support purging information deemed undesirable" seems like a very biased way of saying "Chinese apps, like pretty much every app anyone writes that features user generated content, have a reporting feature to tell admin about content that they might then delete if necessary."

YouTube has a reporting feature. Does that mean Google engineers are censorship-first, anti-freedom Communists who want to end freedom too?