Buzzfeed journalist denied China visa following coverage of Xinjiang crackdown(hongkongfp.com)
hongkongfp.com
Buzzfeed journalist denied China visa following coverage of Xinjiang crackdown
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/08/22/buzzfeed-journalist-denied-new-china-visa-following-award-winning-coverage-xinjiang-crackdown/
115 comments
An indirect reminder that now that YC China is a thing @sama and @paulg and any other affiliated will have to avoid saying anything negative about China in order to keep doing business there.
They should issue public statements condemn China's terrible rights violations now and promise they won't retract them. Establish integrity and refuse to give it up in the name of Chinese money.
If YC China succeeds and becomes big there, it'll inevitably draw Chinese attention back to YC US including news.ycombinator.com. I would expect they'll have to begin blocking sensitive discussions on HN in the near future. The wave of one hand is all it takes to destroy YC China, because of one upsetting thread on HN getting back to authorities in China.
If they plan to stay in bed with China and all that entails, it might not be a bad idea to formally separate HN off from YC (for the sake of YC and the sake of HN). The Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive about certain things, easily insulted, and unforgiving about the lack of compliance. They've barred far larger targets for far less than the discussions that go on here.
If they plan to stay in bed with China and all that entails, it might not be a bad idea to formally separate HN off from YC (for the sake of YC and the sake of HN). The Chinese authorities are extremely sensitive about certain things, easily insulted, and unforgiving about the lack of compliance. They've barred far larger targets for far less than the discussions that go on here.
YC and HN are symbiotic. Much easier to just make YCChina and news.ycchina considering it won't be in English.
>They've barred far larger targets for far less than the discussions that go on here.
Can you give any example of China successfully censoring any large media companies outside of their own territory?
>They've barred far larger targets for far less than the discussions that go on here.
Can you give any example of China successfully censoring any large media companies outside of their own territory?
All it takes is for a stuffed bear related post to make the front page.
HN is already blocked. Funny, right?
Where? Over the last 2 years I visited HN from China almost daily without any issues. I'm no longer there, but this test seems to indicate that HN is not blocked: https://viewdns.info/chinesefirewall/?domain=news.ycombinato...
HN isn't blocked in China
Well it is definitely blocked last time when I was in China, or in Beijing, but that is like 3 years ago.
Miss out in the future number one market on earth or stand up for human rights?
Certainly a scary future.
Certainly a scary future.
> future number one market
That's highly unlikely given the current state, as US consumer is is about 1/3 of the world's household consumption https://www.selectusa.gov/largest-market, and is growing 3% this quarter. China has alot of debt problems, and will suffer heavily in a trade war. About 45% of Chinese GDP is in 'investment', where probably half is waste (continued state investments into expensive-to-maintain, rarely used rails, bridge, and buildings). Whereas for a developed country like US, it's about 20% investment (70% in consumption).
Population wise, US is augmented by steady immigration and will increase to 400 million in 2040, 500 million in 2100. China hit its peak in birthing in 1970s, and has been experiencing a steady decline since, projected to hit max 1.4 billion people in 2030 and then go to around 1 billion or below in 2100. US average income is still 7 times the Chinese average income.
IMO, China's hit its peak already in 2008 and is in decline, whereas US has recovered from 2008 and is rising
That's highly unlikely given the current state, as US consumer is is about 1/3 of the world's household consumption https://www.selectusa.gov/largest-market, and is growing 3% this quarter. China has alot of debt problems, and will suffer heavily in a trade war. About 45% of Chinese GDP is in 'investment', where probably half is waste (continued state investments into expensive-to-maintain, rarely used rails, bridge, and buildings). Whereas for a developed country like US, it's about 20% investment (70% in consumption).
Population wise, US is augmented by steady immigration and will increase to 400 million in 2040, 500 million in 2100. China hit its peak in birthing in 1970s, and has been experiencing a steady decline since, projected to hit max 1.4 billion people in 2030 and then go to around 1 billion or below in 2100. US average income is still 7 times the Chinese average income.
IMO, China's hit its peak already in 2008 and is in decline, whereas US has recovered from 2008 and is rising
> China has alot of debt problems, and will suffer heavily in a trade war. About 45% of Chinese GDP is in 'investment', where probably half is waste (continued state investments into expensive-to-maintain, rarely used rails, bridge, and buildings). Whereas for a developed country like US, it's about 20% investment (70% in consumption).
This seems like almost the reverse of the conclusion you're trying to support. Investments in development and infrastructure are a good mechanism for long-term economic growth, and it's not clear that a trade war will hurt China worse than it hurts the US.
This seems like almost the reverse of the conclusion you're trying to support. Investments in development and infrastructure are a good mechanism for long-term economic growth, and it's not clear that a trade war will hurt China worse than it hurts the US.
> Investments in development and infrastructure are a good mechanism for long-term economic growth
That's true up to a point where the infrastructure is facilitating economic movements and transactions. China has already gone past that point to where they are building infrastructure for the sake of building infrastructure, not considering whether those rails and buildings will produce enough income to support maintenance in the next 5-10 years. There is such a thing as diminishing rate of returns (otherwise every economy would just keep building infrastructures forever) Currently, for every yuan Chinese government directly spends, it now only gets 1 yuan of return back, and it is declining.
As for the trade war, I think it is pretty evident who is winning, I won't go too much details into it; you can google every data around the aftermath of the tariffs.
That's true up to a point where the infrastructure is facilitating economic movements and transactions. China has already gone past that point to where they are building infrastructure for the sake of building infrastructure, not considering whether those rails and buildings will produce enough income to support maintenance in the next 5-10 years. There is such a thing as diminishing rate of returns (otherwise every economy would just keep building infrastructures forever) Currently, for every yuan Chinese government directly spends, it now only gets 1 yuan of return back, and it is declining.
As for the trade war, I think it is pretty evident who is winning, I won't go too much details into it; you can google every data around the aftermath of the tariffs.
> Investments in development and infrastructure are a good mechanism for long-term economic growth
That of course depends on the infrastructure situation in question. Japan vaporized trillions of dollars on infrastructure and it did absolutely nothing of consequence to boost their growth. Infrastructure wasn't their problem as it turned out, so each follow-on dollar they plowed into additional unnecessary infrastructure spending produced declining rates of return. China is guilty of plenty of that so far.
The US is the least trade dependent major economy. It would benefit from shifting some imports to increased domestic production, such as in the steel and aluminum industries. It's better to pay slightly higher prices if necessary and to produce domestic investment with quality blue collar jobs. That's not a universal of course, there's little benefit to the US trying to manufacture $20 toasters or $3 playing decks of cards or $1 shoe laces by hand.
It's ideal for the US to consume less and produce more. European nations boost savings rates with very high VAT taxes. Tariffs are another means to accomplish the exact same end, except it's even better because it bolsters domestic production at the same time that it reduces consumption by raising the cost of consumption.
So not only is there an extreme lobsided imbalance between the benefit in US / China trade due to the trade deficit there, the US would benefit from fewer goods pouring in from China in all scenarios because of the gains in domestic manufacturing (even if they're modest) + domestic investment, and lowered consumption. Less capital flows overseas, more stays home.
There's always the scenario that comes up of: what if China cuts off something that isn't easily replaced such as smart phone manufacturing, or similar. Other countries can easily pick up the slack, such as Vietnam which is a booming electronics manufacturer (and makes a lot of smart phones now).
On the flip side, China can't operate at all without US tech. They'd have to turn to stealing it. The rest of the world would largely proceed to banish those then-illegal Chinese products accordingly (particularly Europe, Latin America, Japan, AU/NZ, Mexico, Canada, etc).
That of course depends on the infrastructure situation in question. Japan vaporized trillions of dollars on infrastructure and it did absolutely nothing of consequence to boost their growth. Infrastructure wasn't their problem as it turned out, so each follow-on dollar they plowed into additional unnecessary infrastructure spending produced declining rates of return. China is guilty of plenty of that so far.
The US is the least trade dependent major economy. It would benefit from shifting some imports to increased domestic production, such as in the steel and aluminum industries. It's better to pay slightly higher prices if necessary and to produce domestic investment with quality blue collar jobs. That's not a universal of course, there's little benefit to the US trying to manufacture $20 toasters or $3 playing decks of cards or $1 shoe laces by hand.
It's ideal for the US to consume less and produce more. European nations boost savings rates with very high VAT taxes. Tariffs are another means to accomplish the exact same end, except it's even better because it bolsters domestic production at the same time that it reduces consumption by raising the cost of consumption.
So not only is there an extreme lobsided imbalance between the benefit in US / China trade due to the trade deficit there, the US would benefit from fewer goods pouring in from China in all scenarios because of the gains in domestic manufacturing (even if they're modest) + domestic investment, and lowered consumption. Less capital flows overseas, more stays home.
There's always the scenario that comes up of: what if China cuts off something that isn't easily replaced such as smart phone manufacturing, or similar. Other countries can easily pick up the slack, such as Vietnam which is a booming electronics manufacturer (and makes a lot of smart phones now).
On the flip side, China can't operate at all without US tech. They'd have to turn to stealing it. The rest of the world would largely proceed to banish those then-illegal Chinese products accordingly (particularly Europe, Latin America, Japan, AU/NZ, Mexico, Canada, etc).
> stand up for human rights
Can we all just get off our high horse? We literally have concentration camps at our borders and have bombed hundreds of civilians. We don't get to claim the moral high ground.
Can we all just get off our high horse? We literally have concentration camps at our borders and have bombed hundreds of civilians. We don't get to claim the moral high ground.
Yes, opposing those things should also be part of standing up for human rights.
[deleted]
Not everyone is from US, miss. Most people from other countries sees a concentration camp for what it is, a concentration camp. Some have parents or relatives that lived (or died) through those camps.
And I wouldn't dare compare US's detention center for illegal immigrants with the camp for millions of people detained without violating any laws. For instance, most countries have detention centers for illegal immigrants.
And I wouldn't dare compare US's detention center for illegal immigrants with the camp for millions of people detained without violating any laws. For instance, most countries have detention centers for illegal immigrants.
I understand that not everyone is an American but YC is an American company, hence the hypocrisy of only calling out YC China when the U.S. is also complacent about human right violations, which is the point I was trying to make.
The difference is that YC in America is not afraid or hesitant to call out things that are inherently wrong in the US. They both write and fund companies and non-profits that address those issues. With YC China, the best YC can realistically do is fund and self censor.
[deleted]
It's happened before. Think of all the Fanta those settlers in the Reichskommissariat Moskau are going to drink!
> future number one market on earth
Is there an example of a western brand that has yet gained significant traction in China? My understanding is that unless you are a Chinese company, your chances of competing in this “number one” market are slim. Businesses obsess at the population numbers but ignore the reality.
Is there an example of a western brand that has yet gained significant traction in China? My understanding is that unless you are a Chinese company, your chances of competing in this “number one” market are slim. Businesses obsess at the population numbers but ignore the reality.
The trick isn't whether these brands can access China, it's in what manner. Western brands sell very well in China, who gets the proceeds is the issue.
The big European luxury goods brands are doing a wild business in China. [1][2][3][4]
If you want to make a lot of money on China as a foreigner, you want to be selling a luxury brand product rather than offering a local service (eg fast food chain). That might be an iPhone or a Gucci bag or a Mercedes. Owning certain intellectual property, such as characters, can be equally lucrative (eg Marvel and Mickey Mouse). Nike and Jordan Brand have done a great business in China.
KFC in China for example, isn't controlled by Yum Brands US. It's controlled by Yum China, minority owned by Yum US. McDonald's has a small sliver of its own business in China.
Disney only owns 43% of its big new $5.5b park in Shanghai, the most popular park in China. Wang Jianlin had touted that he'd personally chase Disney from China, and that his parks would dominate instead. Disney really had no choice but to acquiesce and partner up. They'll make a lot of money from it and they had to cede control to do that.
Tesla is building a factory in China for the same reason everyone else has, there is no great alternative. You have to give local Chinese partners their big cut, or else.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-26/l-oreal-g...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/hermes-ex...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-24/lvmh-shin...
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-28/luxury-ba...
The big European luxury goods brands are doing a wild business in China. [1][2][3][4]
If you want to make a lot of money on China as a foreigner, you want to be selling a luxury brand product rather than offering a local service (eg fast food chain). That might be an iPhone or a Gucci bag or a Mercedes. Owning certain intellectual property, such as characters, can be equally lucrative (eg Marvel and Mickey Mouse). Nike and Jordan Brand have done a great business in China.
KFC in China for example, isn't controlled by Yum Brands US. It's controlled by Yum China, minority owned by Yum US. McDonald's has a small sliver of its own business in China.
Disney only owns 43% of its big new $5.5b park in Shanghai, the most popular park in China. Wang Jianlin had touted that he'd personally chase Disney from China, and that his parks would dominate instead. Disney really had no choice but to acquiesce and partner up. They'll make a lot of money from it and they had to cede control to do that.
Tesla is building a factory in China for the same reason everyone else has, there is no great alternative. You have to give local Chinese partners their big cut, or else.
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-26/l-oreal-g...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/hermes-ex...
[3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-24/lvmh-shin...
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-28/luxury-ba...
Disney's partner is the Shanghai government, not Wang. And the partnership was many years in the making. Wang only made his boast after the park openned, to draw attention to his own properties.
KFC and McD owned Chinese franchises for decades before spinning them out for financial reasons.
KFC and McD owned Chinese franchises for decades before spinning them out for financial reasons.
I never said Disney's partner was Wang. I said that Wang said he was going to chase Disney from China with his own parks.
Yum and MCD were forced into partnering locally and giving up total ownership of those businesses.
If you're a German company you can freely set up a US version of your business and own it outright. Nintendo doesn't have to give up eg 70% of its stake in Nintendo of America. That's not the case if you're MCD trying to operate in China.
Yum and MCD were forced into partnering locally and giving up total ownership of those businesses.
If you're a German company you can freely set up a US version of your business and own it outright. Nintendo doesn't have to give up eg 70% of its stake in Nintendo of America. That's not the case if you're MCD trying to operate in China.
Could you give your source on MCD being forced to spin out their stores? In US 90% of the stores are owned by franchisees, not MCD https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-us/franchising.html Why should China be different?
You said "Wang Jianlin had touted that he'd personally chase Disney from China, and that his parks would dominate instead. Disney really had no choice but to acquiesce and partner up." I pointed out that the partnership with Shanghai predated Wang's boast by many years. If you didn't mean to imply some kind of causal relationship between the two you may want to clarify.
You said "Wang Jianlin had touted that he'd personally chase Disney from China, and that his parks would dominate instead. Disney really had no choice but to acquiesce and partner up." I pointed out that the partnership with Shanghai predated Wang's boast by many years. If you didn't mean to imply some kind of causal relationship between the two you may want to clarify.
The entire comment, like so many others, is just pure nonsense. This is not about understanding the reality it's about validating a narrative and so you get completely made up "facts" like Disney being forced to partner up when nothing of the sort has actually happened.
@dang why is the parent not banned for using hn for ideological battles?
The criterion is using HN primarily for ideological battles.
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
Starbucks, Apple, Tesla, Western car companies, IKEA, LinkedIn, Coach, Coca-Cola, Nike, L'Oreal, Adidas, Microsoft etc, just google this.
https://www.uschina.org/about/member-companies
https://www.uschina.org/about/member-companies
There are over 5,000 KFC locations in China
Buick, oddly enough.
https://www.google.com/search?q=buick+china+popularity&oq=bu...
https://www.google.com/search?q=buick+china+popularity&oq=bu...
Apple
iPhones?
The question is, how did the Chinese immigration know?
for each applicant do select count(*) from people_who_pissed_us where social_username = applicant.fb.username?
for each applicant do select count(*) from people_who_pissed_us where social_username = applicant.fb.username?
Ha, you've no idea how good they are at this.
It's a high-tech surveillance state presiding over 1.5 billion people with a history of crushing (quite literally, sadly) or 'disappearing' any signs of dissent.
Anecdotally: I once partnered with a Chinese cultural institute for a big event and ended up having my Gmail hacked as part of the compensation. They gotta know you're not a Tibetan separatist after all!
It's a high-tech surveillance state presiding over 1.5 billion people with a history of crushing (quite literally, sadly) or 'disappearing' any signs of dissent.
Anecdotally: I once partnered with a Chinese cultural institute for a big event and ended up having my Gmail hacked as part of the compensation. They gotta know you're not a Tibetan separatist after all!
That's pretty crazy.
Any idea how they hacked your Gmail account? MITM/intercepting your password? How did you find out? Did Google inform you some IP in a bizarre location signed in?
Any idea how they hacked your Gmail account? MITM/intercepting your password? How did you find out? Did Google inform you some IP in a bizarre location signed in?
Not sure, could have been as mundane as me using one of the staff laptops to login to Google - a no-no in retrospect.
Yep, a warning similar to this one, but in Gmail: https://news-cdn.softpedia.com/images/news2/Google-Extends-S...
Yep, a warning similar to this one, but in Gmail: https://news-cdn.softpedia.com/images/news2/Google-Extends-S...
One infers their systems are highly integrated (tax/crime/social/banking/education/gps all unified)
Or even as simple as a procedure:
(1) search for the applicant on google/baidu
(2) if the searches reveal support or sympathy for dissident or seditious activity, deny the visa application.
(1) search for the applicant on google/baidu
(2) if the searches reveal support or sympathy for dissident or seditious activity, deny the visa application.
It's actually quite surprising how un-integrated US government agencies and systems are.
It's not a bug, it's a feature
Decentralization is what most of the founding fathers wished for. It is indeed a feature, and one we must all be vigilant of.
Yes but it's also the primary source of a lot of government waste (the same type of waste the conservatives are against).
I think it makes sense to separate local, state, and federal governments, but there's surprisingly little government data sharing between even federal government agencies, even when there's jurisdiction overlap.
I think it makes sense to separate local, state, and federal governments, but there's surprisingly little government data sharing between even federal government agencies, even when there's jurisdiction overlap.
It may be the price to pay in to avoid your government becoming a highly efficient oppression machine
not that integrated, as matter of fact until last few years and maybe still even nowadays labor bureau database was not linked to Visa EEB database, so i could get work permit on invalid visa although they should be strictly linked
i guess they are quite thorough only when it comes down to dissent (though my wife in gov job hit immediately career ceiling after marrying me and everyone around her even newcomers kept growing except her, sure just coincidence /s and we both can't still really publicly say what we want because she has there parents and rest of family)
i guess they are quite thorough only when it comes down to dissent (though my wife in gov job hit immediately career ceiling after marrying me and everyone around her even newcomers kept growing except her, sure just coincidence /s and we both can't still really publicly say what we want because she has there parents and rest of family)
One would think, but at the same time knowing the bureaucratic garbage that happens at tech companies (and I would think communist party HQ is a bit worse), I imagine their system is likely a giant mess and it probably took a number of months to get back about the visa.
It's not that hard. When you apply for a visa you must state if you're a journalist or not. After that, a quick Google should suffice, especially if the articles written by her became popular.
What constitutes journalism?
I remember in the mid-2000s that online-journalists whose sites had millions of impressions per month were denied journalism visas because they weren’t traditional established print newspapers - then there was a debate about the difference between a blogger and a journalist.
I’d like to know if a non-journalist who maintained a very popular blog, such as an influential software engineer, who occasionally blogs about political or topical stories, constitutes a journalist or not. If they’re in the country for an industry conference but write about political events on their blog while they’re in the country have they violated their visa?
I remember in the mid-2000s that online-journalists whose sites had millions of impressions per month were denied journalism visas because they weren’t traditional established print newspapers - then there was a debate about the difference between a blogger and a journalist.
I’d like to know if a non-journalist who maintained a very popular blog, such as an influential software engineer, who occasionally blogs about political or topical stories, constitutes a journalist or not. If they’re in the country for an industry conference but write about political events on their blog while they’re in the country have they violated their visa?
That's a very valid question and from their documents, it looks like they define journalist as someone who does it professionally as a career:
"The term "resident foreign journalists" means career journalists who are dispatched by foreign media organizations to be stationed in China for a period of not less than six months for news coverage and reporting."
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/ywzn/mtyw/press_1/t944225.h...
"The term "resident foreign journalists" means career journalists who are dispatched by foreign media organizations to be stationed in China for a period of not less than six months for news coverage and reporting."
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/ywzn/mtyw/press_1/t944225.h...
> I’d like to know if a non-journalist who maintained a very popular blog, such as an influential software engineer, who occasionally blogs about political or topical stories, constitutes a journalist or not.
A good question. Consider also that a blogger, lacking an influential institution such as Buzzfeed or the NYT at their back, may find themselves in much deeper trouble than a denied visa. Arrest, prison, espionage charges, etc. have happened to foreigners, including televised confessions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/world/asia/china-confessi...
A good question. Consider also that a blogger, lacking an influential institution such as Buzzfeed or the NYT at their back, may find themselves in much deeper trouble than a denied visa. Arrest, prison, espionage charges, etc. have happened to foreigners, including televised confessions:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/world/asia/china-confessi...
> a quick Google
After switching of The Great Firewall for ones own browser, that pesky thing blocks useful information.
After switching of The Great Firewall for ones own browser, that pesky thing blocks useful information.
But the government doesn't block itself. I'm sure the Chinese government can access the open Internet.
Architect of China’s ‘Great Firewall’ Bumps Into It
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/world/asia/china-internet...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/07/world/asia/china-internet...
China is really good at keeping track of dissent.
Other replies seem to suggest that China is amazingly good at filtering out dissidents in their visa application process...
Actually it’s just that if you want to be a foreign journalist and live in China, you need to apply for a special Journalist visa. The process of application for those is much more difficult than other types of visa.
Which makes it very easy to select which media to approve.
Actually it’s just that if you want to be a foreign journalist and live in China, you need to apply for a special Journalist visa. The process of application for those is much more difficult than other types of visa.
Which makes it very easy to select which media to approve.
I found an interesting paragraph in the article [1] from Buzzfeed:
"But critics say [positive gestures from China towards Uighur] are overshadowed by the government’s more repressive measures, which have fueled the propaganda of a small number of extremists, including the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP), a radical Uighur militant group, some of whose adherents are believed to have been active in Syria and Afghanistan. According to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute, TIP released an issue of its online magazine on Aug. 29, calling for its fighters in Syria to prepare for future battle against the Chinese state in East Turkestan, a name many Uighurs use to refer to Xinjiang.".
The last sentence there struck me as unusual given what that implies: [2]
"The medieval Persian toponym "Turkestan" and its derivatives were not used by the local population of the greater region, and China had its own name for an overlapping area since the Han Dynasty as Xiyu, with the parts controlled by China termed Xinjiang from the 18th century onward. The historical Uyghur name for the Tarim Basin is Altishahr, which means "six cities" in Uyghur.
Starting in the 20th century, Uyghur separatists and their supporters used East Turkestan (or "Uyghurstan") as an appellation for the whole of Xinjiang, or for a future independent state in present-day Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (presumably with Ürümqi as its capital). They reject the name of Xinjiang because of an allegedly Chinese perspective reflected in the name and prefer East Turkestan to emphasize connection to other westerly Turkic groups. However, even in nationalist writing, East Turkestan retained its older, more narrow geographical meaning. In China, the term has negative connotations because of its origins in European colonialism and present use by militant groups."
[1] - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/the-police-stat...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan
"But critics say [positive gestures from China towards Uighur] are overshadowed by the government’s more repressive measures, which have fueled the propaganda of a small number of extremists, including the Turkestan Islamic Party (TIP), a radical Uighur militant group, some of whose adherents are believed to have been active in Syria and Afghanistan. According to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute, TIP released an issue of its online magazine on Aug. 29, calling for its fighters in Syria to prepare for future battle against the Chinese state in East Turkestan, a name many Uighurs use to refer to Xinjiang.".
The last sentence there struck me as unusual given what that implies: [2]
"The medieval Persian toponym "Turkestan" and its derivatives were not used by the local population of the greater region, and China had its own name for an overlapping area since the Han Dynasty as Xiyu, with the parts controlled by China termed Xinjiang from the 18th century onward. The historical Uyghur name for the Tarim Basin is Altishahr, which means "six cities" in Uyghur.
Starting in the 20th century, Uyghur separatists and their supporters used East Turkestan (or "Uyghurstan") as an appellation for the whole of Xinjiang, or for a future independent state in present-day Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (presumably with Ürümqi as its capital). They reject the name of Xinjiang because of an allegedly Chinese perspective reflected in the name and prefer East Turkestan to emphasize connection to other westerly Turkic groups. However, even in nationalist writing, East Turkestan retained its older, more narrow geographical meaning. In China, the term has negative connotations because of its origins in European colonialism and present use by militant groups."
[1] - https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/the-police-stat...
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Turkestan
Is this surprising at all?
Seriously. What did she think was going to happen?
She's lucky they were nice enough to wait out the rest of her visa instead of revoking it and deporting her on the spot. Shrewd move on their part for that, btw. If she was a citizen they would have just disappeared or killed her.
She's lucky they were nice enough to wait out the rest of her visa instead of revoking it and deporting her on the spot. Shrewd move on their part for that, btw. If she was a citizen they would have just disappeared or killed her.
they don't kill for stuff like this anymore, more likely regular prison, but she is lucky to be foreigner, so they could just restrict her traveling rights to Xinjiang and wait until her visa run out
That's a bit much. It's unlikely that even if she was a citizen they would have disappeared or killed her. More like give her a firm warning and lecture and a vague threat or two of what may be to come if she keeps it up.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/23/asia/china-lawyers-disappeare...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/29/the-disappeared-china-r...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/09/22/why-are-people-disappear...
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-deals-with-dissent...
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2014/11/28/chinese-dissidents...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/china-still-gathering-orga...
https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/29/the-disappeared-china-r...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/09/22/why-are-people-disappear...
https://www.businessinsider.com/how-china-deals-with-dissent...
http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2014/11/28/chinese-dissidents...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/china-still-gathering-orga...
NOPE
She's been there for 6 years. It doesn't sound like she or Buzzfeed is shocked, per se, but her recent story is far from her first investigative story critical of the Chinese government.
(full disclosure: I used to work with the reporter, but that was many years ago)
(full disclosure: I used to work with the reporter, but that was many years ago)
Actually, it's pretty surprising. Western journalists/academics have always been given a fair degree of latitude for reporting inside of China as long as they only wrote in English for foreign press.
There's been an active contingent of China Twitter loudly saying for the past few months that academics and journalists should be speaking out more about Xinjiang because the likelihood of visa revoking has been vastly overstated. Recent reporting seems to have touched a special nerve and the reactions are far more extreme than other negative China stories that journalists have weathered in the past.
There's been an active contingent of China Twitter loudly saying for the past few months that academics and journalists should be speaking out more about Xinjiang because the likelihood of visa revoking has been vastly overstated. Recent reporting seems to have touched a special nerve and the reactions are far more extreme than other negative China stories that journalists have weathered in the past.
I wonder how many pro-China green accounts, accounts used solely for anti-US sentiment, etc we will see commenting on this story. It seems the propaganda folks are turning more attention to HN.
There were 3 at the time of this posting with the usual bothersiderisms, etc. One even went full "Sharia law in the US!"
There were 3 at the time of this posting with the usual bothersiderisms, etc. One even went full "Sharia law in the US!"
Please don't break the site guidelines by insinuating astroturfing or shillage without evidence. Someone having an opposing view to yours is not evidence. Neither is an account being new.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I wasn't insinuating, I was stating. These types of troll/propaganda/astroturf accounts are obvious on the left/right or pro/anti-US side of things on Twitter/reddit and are similarly obvious here. You banned the specific account I mentioned for trolling.
I was unaware that discussing astroturfing, trolling, and propaganda on HN was prohibited. Apologies, I will refrain from calling attention to it in the future.
I was unaware that discussing astroturfing, trolling, and propaganda on HN was prohibited. Apologies, I will refrain from calling attention to it in the future.
Ok—please don't state it without evidence either!
I know it looks and feels super obvious, but I assure you this is an illusion. On the internet, people are orders of magnitude too quick to leap from "random user with obviously wrong opinion" to "obvious bot/astroturfer/paid shill". It's a crazy bias. We look into this stuff all the time, and 99% of the time it's just that some people disagree with you. More than 99% actually.
Even when we ban an account for trolling, that's almost always someone whose sincere passions about a topic led them to violate the guidelines and not stop when we asked them to stop. That's not astroturfing. People are just very passionate about divisive issues.
I know it looks and feels super obvious, but I assure you this is an illusion. On the internet, people are orders of magnitude too quick to leap from "random user with obviously wrong opinion" to "obvious bot/astroturfer/paid shill". It's a crazy bias. We look into this stuff all the time, and 99% of the time it's just that some people disagree with you. More than 99% actually.
Even when we ban an account for trolling, that's almost always someone whose sincere passions about a topic led them to violate the guidelines and not stop when we asked them to stop. That's not astroturfing. People are just very passionate about divisive issues.
It's nice that the green name is there for easy screening, but eventually, that goes away. HN is still small enough that this kind of spam is easy to detect, but it may not always be that way. Botting/this type of spam on reddit has gotten increasingly sophisticated over the years, and some of the things the people implementing that stuff have learned there would work pretty well on HN too.
The green name goes away but if you aren't very active, you will then get automatically shadowbanned. I had a second account which I used to disclose specific things about the company I worked at but when I tried to reuse it after a while, all my posts went immediately to dead.
Please don't try to make this into Reddit.
I am “shocked”
This is “shocking”
This is “shocking”
China is the true enemy of freedom for the 21st century.
Nationalistic flamebait will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again, regardless of what you're for or against.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
eahman06(5)
Why is this even a news on HN ? All governments including USA denies visa to foreigners for political reasons. I remember USA denying visa to an Indian chief minister in past because of lobbying by evangelists and Islamist.
It might come as a surprise by American journalists are not entitled for a visa from China and I wish more countries would crackdown on click-bate rags like Buzzfeed.
It might come as a surprise by American journalists are not entitled for a visa from China and I wish more countries would crackdown on click-bate rags like Buzzfeed.
> I remember USA denying visa to an Indian chief minister in past because of lobbying by evangelists and Islamist.
This is whataboutism. You might be suprised to learn that I can and do oppose both.
> click-bate rags like Buzzfeed.
Buzzfeed's business model is to use the stupid memes and "Which Disney princess are you?" polls to subsidize serious investigative journalism and not have to keep it behind a paywall. You can agree or disagree with this choice, but it's an interesting alternative to requiring a subscription and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The article in question, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/the-police-stat..., is not "clickbait" in any sense: it is well-researched, well-written, and informative.
This is whataboutism. You might be suprised to learn that I can and do oppose both.
> click-bate rags like Buzzfeed.
Buzzfeed's business model is to use the stupid memes and "Which Disney princess are you?" polls to subsidize serious investigative journalism and not have to keep it behind a paywall. You can agree or disagree with this choice, but it's an interesting alternative to requiring a subscription and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. The article in question, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/the-police-stat..., is not "clickbait" in any sense: it is well-researched, well-written, and informative.
Irrelevant. Let us assume Buzzfeed is a paragon of journalistic virtue. Still does not mean the journalist deserves a Chinese visa. It is a privilege and not a right. Pretty much how a US visa is a privilege and not a right.
Americans outraging that their journalist was denied is nothing but very imperialistic attitude.
Americans outraging that their journalist was denied is nothing but very imperialistic attitude.
Foreign journalists based in China write critical stories about China on a regular basis. It's a bit bizarre to me why you're calling Buzzfeed a "click-bate [sic]" rag when we're talking about a journalist who had just published an investigative story about the Chinese police state involving Uyghurs.
I can understand calling Buzzfeed clickbait; "XX Best ways to N: number 6 will blow your mind" used to be their bread and butter. Even now, the #2 story on their website is "29 things that'll genuinely make people say 'OMG I love your outfit'".
It took me a long time after their move towards occasionally funding "real" journalism before I was willing to even click a link to their URL.
It took me a long time after their move towards occasionally funding "real" journalism before I was willing to even click a link to their URL.
Buzzfeed clickbait is not the same as Buzzfeed News.
Sure, but even looking at the two sites now I'm not sure I can see much difference in content quality.
> Foreign journalists based in China write critical stories about China on a regular basis.
So what ? They are not entitled to a Chinese visa.
So what ? They are not entitled to a Chinese visa.
The argument here is not one of entitlement.