DeepSeek software developers are not the ones who want to censor anything. There is just a universal threat from getting shut down by the government if the model starts spitting out a bunch of sensitive stuff, so any business in China needs to be proactive about voluntarily censoring things that are likely to be sensitive, if they want to stay in business.
If your censorship implementation is good enough for 99.9% of people to get censored, you're good. A client-side implementation is good enough until/unless a lot of people start exploiting it, in which case you should put effort and proactively do something else to restore it to 99.9%, e.g. move it to the backend. If the government sees that you are being proactive about it, you'll still be fine. At that point, maybe you will still find 0.1% of people bypassing censorship with some highly obscure and difficult jailbreak, but that probably doesn't matter. If that difficult jailbreak becomes widely known, then be proactive again.
Everyone's heard of the "Streisand effect", but there's layers of subtlety. A quite famous paper in attachment psychology by John Bowlby "On knowing what you are not supposed to know and feeling what you are not supposed to feel" is worth considering. Constructive ignorance (literally ignoring certain things) is a survival mechanism. Yes, everyone in China knows about Tianamen, specifically because the government want to censor it. Much of how we navigate the social world is watching for the things people don't talk about, seeing where their fears lie.
See also: "Doublethink" in 1984.
> To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself.
Marvin Minsky, Published 1 November 1980
Freud’s theory of jokes explains how they overcome the mental “censors” that make it hard for us to think “forbidden” thoughts. But his theory did not work so well for humorous nonsense as for other comical subjects. In this essay I argue that the different forms of humor can be seen as much more similar, once we recognize the importance of knowledge about knowledge and, particularly, aspects of thinking concerned with recognizing and suppressing bugs — ineffective or destructive thought processes. When seen in this light, much humor that at first seems pointless, or mysterious, becomes more understandable.
http://bitsavers.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/pdf/mit/ai/aim/...
I'd forgotten Minsky was such a good writer.
And oddly reminded of an episode of Blake's 7 where Villa the hacker destroys a malevolent mind holding the ship captive, by telling it jokes until it explodes.
I'd love to hear them!
You could similarly argue that it is "funny" how every US business that builds something that can move around information must be knowledgeable about statistics that break down criminality or IQ by census race, or biological sex differences, or all manners of other "forbidden" information - but of course as members of the same social stratum as the people involved in such businesses in the US, we are not actually that worried about the possibility that our fellow tech elites will see the information they were supposed to censor and come in droves to want to introduce slavery or the Handmaid's Tale world or whatever. We consider the "forbidden" information merely wrong, evil, misguided or miscontextualised, and broadly trust our peers to see it in the same way. The real danger is instead if some other people, parts of the scary masses we don't have a good grasp of, are exposed to those memes and are misled into drawing conclusions that we know to be inappropriate, or at least unacceptable.
It's easy to imagine that a Chinese LLM wrangler would feel much the same: trustworthy, well-adjusted people know about Tiananmen Square and the Uyghurs anyway but understand that this information has to be seen in context and is prone to be interpreted in problematic ways, but who knows what would happen if we allowed uneducated and naive people to be exposed to it, and be led astray by cynical demagogues and foreign agitators?
Such as client side control of prices when placing an order
This doesn’t matter because censoring the system isn’t that important, they just want to avoid news articles about how their system generated something bad.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/...
1. *Antitrust and Monopoly Practices:* Google has faced numerous accusations and lawsuits regarding anti-competitive practices, particularly in search and advertising. They have been accused of manipulating search results to favor their own products and services, and of using their dominance in the ad tech market to stifle competition.
2. *Data Privacy Concerns:* Google collects vast amounts of user data, raising concerns about privacy. They have been criticized for tracking user location even when privacy settings are turned off, and for how they handle and share user data with third parties.
3. *Censorship in China:* Google faced criticism for complying with Chinese censorship laws in the past, filtering search results for content deemed objectionable by the Chinese government. This raised concerns about freedom of information and human rights.
4. *Workplace Issues:* Google has faced allegations of workplace misconduct, including sexual harassment and discrimination. They have also been criticized for their handling of employee complaints and for retaliating against whistleblowers.
5. *Bias in Algorithms:* Google's algorithms, used in search and other products, have been shown to exhibit bias, particularly in how they represent race and gender. This can perpetuate stereotypes and have real-world consequences.
In JS-land, you're right. You should basically do as little as is humanly possible in the view layer, which imo leads to a proliferation of extra network calls and weirdly-shaped backend responses.
If using Ghirdra was as simple as using the dev tools, the software industry would collapse.
The grand rule is don't trust the client. People break this rule and then try to paper over it with obfuscation, blame, and tightening their control.
You wouldn't run a shopping cart app where the item counts and totals were calculated client-side. You get the item id and quantity, and have the server do that. Just like if you were censoring something, you wouldn't send the client the unredacted data and then let the UI make the edits.
No obfuscation is needed for any of that. Open web has nothing to do with any of this
Sure it doesn’t have BigDecimal, but you’re not going to write HFT in JS either.
The NeWS window system was like AJAX, but with: 1) PostScript code instead of JavaScript code 2) PostScript graphics instead of DHTML graphics, and 3) PostScript data instead of XML data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeWS
NeWS – Network Extensible Window System (wikipedia.org) 86 points by stevewilhelm on April 12, 2016 | hide | past | favorite | 76 comments
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11477565
ScriptX and the World Wide Web: “Link Globally, Interact Locally” (1995)
https://donhopkins.medium.com/scriptx-and-the-world-wide-web...
PizzaTool was a NeWS front-end for ordering pizzas that had a price optimizer which would immediately figure out the least expensive combination of pizza style + extra toppings for the pizza you wanted. (i.e. ordering an "Tony's Gourmet + Clams" was less expensive than ordering a plain pizza plus all the individual toppings.)
Of course the untrusted client side user input was sent via FAX to the "server side" humans at Tony & Alba's Pizza, who validated the input before making the pizza, because performing input validation and price calculation and optimization in the front end via FAX would have been terribly inefficient. (This was in 1990, long before every pizzaria was on the internet, and you could order pizzas online, kids!)
https://donhopkins.medium.com/the-story-of-sun-microsystems-...
JS is perfectly powerful, if you don’t know how to use it that’s a good learning opportunity.
No, by a large margin no. Java is a hostile language to prototype programs at which JS excels. Awful styling, walls of code just to get sane defaults (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/uiswing/dnd/together..., seriously?).
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/javafx/get-started-tutorial...
The requirements are probably that normal users should not see “bad content”. If users can break the censorship it is maybe not the chat operators fault. They made an effort to “protect” the user.
Any user breaking the censorship likely knows already what the censor was blocking.
Obviously it isn't appropriate for all scenarios though.