Vietnam's Internet is in Trouble (wapo.st) 121
The World Post: Vietnamese authorities have harped of late on the urgency of fighting cybersecurity threats and "bad and dangerous content." Yet the fight against either "fake news" or misinformation in Vietnam must not be used as a smoke screen for stifling dissenting opinions and curtailing freedom of speech [The link may be paywalled]. Doing so would only further stoke domestic cynicism in a country where the sudden expansion of space for free and open discussion has created a kind of high-pressure catharsis online. Other countries, including democratic states, are also scrambling to rein in toxic information online. But while Germany, for example, specifically targets hate speech and other extremist messaging that directly affects the masses, Vietnamese leaders are more fixated on content deemed detrimental to their own reputation and the survival of the regime.
The ruling Communist Party of Vietnam has repeatedly urged Facebook and Google to block "toxic" information that it said slandered and defamed Vietnamese leaders. Google sort of conformed by removing more than such 5,000 clips; Facebook also flagged about 160 anti-government accounts at the behest of the government.
The ruling Communist Party of Vietnam has repeatedly urged Facebook and Google to block "toxic" information that it said slandered and defamed Vietnamese leaders. Google sort of conformed by removing more than such 5,000 clips; Facebook also flagged about 160 anti-government accounts at the behest of the government.
Re: (Score:1)
Lol an AC that shitposts and then answers themselves. Don't you have a post to write on Vietnamese Facebook, Vladimir?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The Vietnamese Communist Party is completely ruthless
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
When the captured Hue the Commies sent death squads with a list of names of anyone who'd backed the South Vietnamese government. 2,800 and 6,000 people or 5-10% of the population of the town was murdered . Some of them were buried alive. The Communists never prosecuted anyone for this.
It happened around the same time as the My Lai massacre where US troops killed civilians. However some US troops tried to stop the massacre
Re: Nonsense! (Score:2)
Nice wallotext!
Re: (Score:3)
Who is Reverend Green? He's a character I created to explore some experimental political viewpoints. He's religious, unambiguously communist, socially conservative, and perhaps outspoken. Yet I hope his words are sometimes not far from the truth. Brothers and sisters - look around you, open your eyes, write your own narrative. || FWIW, I have a low-UID /. account in my real name. I used to post regularly. Yet the chilling effect of the current social climate in America is such that I am no longer feel comfortable posting political thoughts under my own name.
I'm not sure why you're criticising me for going off on a tangent from the Vietnamese Communist Party to their enablers in the West given that Hal_Porter is also a character I created to explore 'experimental political views' without getting the real me blacklisted for criticising the left and explaining their opponents when I feel they're being unfairly criticised.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I'm just (lightly!) criticizing the *length* of your post. A wallotext is kinda unpleasant to read on mobile.
Re: (Score:2)
It's bold in terms of jerking people around but, uh, I may have gone too far in places [youtube.com]
The trouble with "hate speech" (Score:3, Insightful)
The best solution is to not allow the government to prohibit speech, so then there is never an issue with who defines what how.
I'm not sure how someone having a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis "directly affects the masses", but I'm sure German officials could answer that.
Re: (Score:2)
The best solution is to not allow the government to prohibit speech, so then there is never an issue with who defines what how.
"Ring . . . ring"
"Hello, Vietnam . . . ? This is Slashdot calling. We just wanted to let you know that we decided that y'all are not allowed to prohibit speech anymore."
"*click*"
"Hello . . . ? Hello . . . ?"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are mixing up communism with totaliarism.
China is communist/totaliarian with a capitalistic economy.
And I doubt their free speech laws are worth than other countries.
There are plenty of levels of democracy, actually China considers itself a democracy, go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the Chinese government companies and intervention in companies, China government+economy is better described as being Fascist.
Re: (Score:2)
So the Chinese are the "Real Nazis(TM)"?
Explains their hardcore racism and apparent desire to create genetically modified Superhumans. If they hadn't already snapped up their Lebenstraum back in the 50s I'm sure we'd be seeing the Chinese goose stepping over their neighbors.
Why are we propping up the Chinese? Could it be that their political system is the envy of the Neoliberals? Libtards would love to be able to squelch "right wing Nazi bigots" the same way the god damn gooks can. If the neoliberals th
Re: (Score:2)
Fascism doesn't necessarily have a racial component to it. After all, it was co-founded by a jew. Nazism does, however, and it is really a superset of fascism, thus you can have fascism without nazism. But yes, the Chinese government economically behaves similar to fascism.
Re: (Score:2)
So, NAZI Germany, Franco Spain, Mussolini Italy ... or lets go a bit back in time: Luis XIV, the Medici in Vienna, the Ottoman Empire, Djenghis Khan, Neros Rome, Leonidas' Sparta etc. p.p. were all communist?
I don't think so ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I certainly am not confusing them. It's one thing to talk about what somebody says communism is, versus what it actually is.
Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy. And as it turns out, that is what communist revolutions always do (besides depriving you of your life savings and turning your home over to the state to do whatever they want with.)
The problem is, they never actually bring back democracy. They all create a pretend democracy, and even put words l
Re: (Score:2)
While you're at it, could you name one capitalist country that hasn't either economically switched to fascism or quasi-socialism? Or do you think all those factories are spewing out not-as-toxic air because capitalism? Or the ones that do aren't being supported by a fascist regime?
Fascism has a limited element relating to economics, which basically forbids somebody from running a business if the government determines that the business model is bad for society for purely social reasons. In Germany, this manifested in banning pornography businesses, among other things. Many people today, most often democrats, are not philosophically different from this. If you've ever read somebody on slashdot who says "such a business shouldn't be allowed to exist" because it goes against their ideolo
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans want to ban porn, condoms, marijuana, etc.
I'm pretty sure that's just catholics on all counts, even many on the democratic side. I don't think I've met a non-cathoilic republican that wanted to ban porn or birth control. Marijuana...actually it seems more republicans are in favor of marijuana. In any of these cases though, I haven't seen any popular demand to close all pornography or condom companies, and strip clubs (which would be the most "risque") seem to be very popular in red states.
Democrats want something more closer to socialism--ie, regulation with restrictions on who can own.
That's not socialism. Socialism stipulates that the means of
Re: (Score:2)
Well off the top of my head the Spanish election of 1936 saw a communist party along with similarly aligned party's come to power in a coalition. They didn't get very far at governing though as Franco decided that he should start the Spanish Civil War.
You're spot on with your Marx and your generalities are generally true so I'm not really saying your point is incorrect though.
Re:The trouble with "hate speech" (Score:4, Informative)
Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy
Citation is needed!
In fact, Marx has never discussed anything about how to archive communism.
One of the form of communism in idea of Marx is that the government must be exterminated, how does that mean "overthrow of democracy" when there would be not rulers at all?
Don't mixed the **interpretations** of Marx's ideas of Lenin, Mao, Stalin... in as Marx's ideas!
Re: (Score:2)
"the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror."
https://www.marxists.org/archi... [marxists.org]
Make no mistake about it: This IS the language of a would be dictator. He even talks about having a concentrated power structure to boot.
Communist revolutions work by terrorizing and then ens
Re: (Score:1)
Bullshit. Democracy just says whomever they don't like is terrorist and deny them ability to run in election. Or deny them right to rule in case they manage to run and win. See what is going on in Spain / Catalonia. Democracy at its best.
And whenever the wrong party wins, they are labeled communists/terrorists and you break all ties with them. You even terrorize them, sabotage them,... Go read history central and south america, how your cia was spreading democracy in nicaragua for example, where people kep
Re:The trouble with "hate speech" (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.
Henry Kissinger
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.
Henry Kissinger
That's fine, but I don't care about Kissinger.
Re: (Score:2)
Communist revolutions work by terrorizing and then enslaving (putting into forced labor and forced indoctrination) the local population until it bends to the will of the communist party.
You people should really start to read some books ...
The to big revolutions were in China and Russia.
What kind of government got overthrown? What living conditions did the masses have before that?
Hm? You funktards don't know that those revolutions overthrew totalitarian governments where 90% of the populations where bond sla
Re: (Score:2)
You people should really start to read some books ...
And you should read the communist manifesto itself. I've detailed this in another post.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
The to big revolutions were in China and Russia.
What kind of government got overthrown? What living conditions did the masses have before that?
Hm? You funktards don't know that those revolutions overthrew totalitarian governments where 90% of the populations where bond slaves or "peons" or "peasants" hold like slaves on fields?
Sure, there are many cases where bad governments were overthrown, just as there are many cases where democracy was overthrown. In either case, there are plenty of times when what they overthrew was better than what they had before. Take for example Cuba, under Batista the country was in the top 5 developed countries in latin america, had a GDP similar to most of Europe, and worker wages w
Re: (Score:2)
Cuba is not frozen in 1959, how do you come to that idea?
The 'problems' Cuba has are because of the american embargos.
Which 'democratic' government was overthrown by a 'communist' revolution?
Could you quote some Marx or Engels that support your position, please?
Re: (Score:2)
In the article you cited, what I read is how Marx observed the events, and his conclusion is still true today, not just "communist revolution", how about "Arab Spring", recent clashes in Venezuela,... That is when the conflicts between the old and the new societies reach the unreconcilable level, there only one way happens, revolutionary terror.
Re: (Score:2)
Chapter 4 of the communist manifesto should help clarify:
In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.
In all these movements, they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.
Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
https://www.marxists.org/archi... [marxists.org]
More sources here if you want to read everything about how Karl Marx proposed creating a dictatorship of the proletariat:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Notable in there is Marx's rejection of the Gotha Program. Also pay attention to what Engels says about authoritarianism. Remember, he co-wrote the communist manifesto.
Re: (Score:2)
As mentioned in my previous comment, Marx did not consider the "dictatorship" and "revolution" as the tool of "minority" to "take control" powers. The armed force revolution is the result of old "weaken" societies refuse to transform to new societies, despite the will of the mass (in this case, the proletarian class is a larger group).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In 1875, Marx attacked the Gotha Program that became the program of Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP) in the same year in his Critique of the Gotha Program. Marx was not optimistic that Germany at the time was not open to a peaceful means to achieve socialism, especially after German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck had enacted Anti-Socialist Laws in 1878.
"If in England, for instance, or the United States, the working class were to gain a majority in Parliament or Congress, they could, by lawful means, rid themselves of such laws and institutions as impeded their development, though they could only do insofar as society had reached a sufficiently mature development. However, the "peaceful" movement might be transformed into a "forcible" one by resistance on the part of those interested in restoring the former state of affairs; if (as in the American Civil War and French Revolution) they are put down by force, it is as rebels against "lawful" force."
for clearer,
Re: (Score:2)
Marx was notorious for using 'obfuscated' words for exact translation, if not known what he was really meant and the context.
Engels and Marx both spoke English, and they personally gave their stamp of approval on all of the translations by native speakers.
As mentioned in my previous comment, Marx did not consider the "dictatorship" and "revolution" as the tool of "minority" to "take control" powers. The armed force revolution is the result of old "weaken" societies refuse to transform to new societies, despite the will of the mass (in this case, the proletarian class is a larger group).
And according to his writing, democracies who refused to transform were included in this. (Also of note: He also predicted that communist parties would eventually win in a democracy. Sure, they won some elections, but that never lasted.) First, Marx commented that once communists were elected, then they would gradually gain more power over time. However after that failed in Fran
Re: (Score:2)
You seems to refuse all the quotes I presents, which Marx's ideas when you refuse those are Marx's ideas.
You're highlighting the final step of it, which he says democracy will take foot, but only after the overthrow of the "old societies"
No, it's how societies work, as I mentioned, not just "communist", when the conflict reach the point of unreconcilable.
Which is a commentary that modern communists are revising to advertise to the others to join their cause
Modern?? this from 1930s article. Nah, all the articles I cited are from very beginning of communism establishment, which rejected USSR and co as communism. What's your point?
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree? Then prove it: How many communist revolutions were democratically elected?
In 1946, the communist party won a plurality in Czechoslovakia [wikipedia.org], in an election that was generally considered fair.
The Czechs lived to regret it, but they did vote for communism. At the time, they feared a resurgent Germany far more than they feared the Russians, and they had clear memories of how Britain and France had betrayed them in 1938. Many saw a communist government as the best way to ensure their future protection by the Red Army.
Re: (Score:3)
In 1946, the communist party won a plurality in Czechoslovakia [wikipedia.org], in an election that was generally considered fair.
The communist party won 38% of the vote, which was achieved by deceiving the public. What they got was the largest number of seats in parliament, what they didn't get was a revolution, and they were expected to lose the next election pretty badly. Of course, being communists, they would have none of that. The revolution happened after the communist party staged a coup and overthrew the democratic government, forcibly removing all of the other elected parties and installing a single-party concentrated rule,
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree? Then prove it: How many communist revolutions were democratically elected? And how many communist revolutions ever allowed free speech? There have been many communist revolutions around the world, so if what you say is true, then at least one should meet both criteria.
Communist revolution? Actually, one must ask there really actual communist revolutions out there!
It's not that "because Soviet was failed so they - communists try to lie that Soviet was not communism". It's ironical that who predict the fall of Soviet and was vocally against Stalinism or Leninism or Trotskyism, etc are Marxists themselves:
This is from 1931 article of Socialist party of Great Britain: http://www.worldsocialism.org/... [worldsocialism.org]
The wage-labour system in Russian State industries, like the system here and elsewhere, is a system of Slavery. The spread of piece-work will intensify the slavery ; it will enable the "Communist" rulers to squeeze more surplus-produce out of Russian workers, just as it has helped the Conservative and Liberal capitalists of this country. Alleged "quotations" in support of it from Marx merely brand Stalin & Co. as hypocrites and their followers as ignorant dupes. The Russian Government must make a profit in order to pay interest upon its loans if for no other reason, and this fact alone is sufficient to explode the myth that Russian State industry is run on Socialist lines.
The Russian Government has to borrow money to run its industries, like any other capitalist concern, because it has to pay for machinery and raw material, because its employees have to pay for the food, clothes and houses they need; because, in a phrase, all the means by which these requirements are produced are private property. It has not established an oasis of Socialism in a capitalist desert. Had it tried to do so it would have been speedily annihilated.
Re: (Score:1)
Communist revolution? Actually, one must ask there really actual communist revolutions out there!
You're creating an argument based on the "no true Scottsman" concept, which is a logical fallacy. How many times do communist revolutions need to result in failed states before you finally say "gee...I think this whole thing may not work after all."? Capitalist economies prosper all the time, so why has a communist economy never prospered if it is really so much better? There never was a true Scottsman, nor will there ever be.
This is from 1931 article of Socialist party of Great Britain: http://www.worldsocialism.org/ [worldsocialism.org]... [worldsocialism.org]
This didn't just happen in the USSR, it happened in every so-called communist revo
Re: (Score:2)
You can downmod me to your heart's content, I honestly couldn't care less about karma points. My comments are completely on topic and relevant. Because you have nothing better to do than follow my posts and mod-bomb, obviously you need to find something else to do far more than I do. So why don't you just go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
The case of China is to abandon the monopoly of the state with the economy and (it's important, it happened when China decided to against the Soviet) the Wests were lift off embargo against the country.
If not for the investment, it's impossible for an economy no matter Soviet-style or Western-style would surviv
Re: (Score:2)
No, your previous comment is exactly what AC mentioned. The Soviet economy is actually state capitalism (mentioned above, deformed capitalism economy), which has the properties of capitalism system.
I stated this very plainly in my first reply to you: What communism says it is, and then what it actually is, are two very different things. FFS the concept of being stateless is a required component of communism, and it's impossible to obtain. Really, they propose having no laws, no governing authority, and no borders. Many, many things are wrong with this. I've grilled communists on reddit about people who decide not to follow the communist model and go back to capitalism (they will inevitably exist) and
Re: (Score:2)
Also, all your post about communism base on the Soviet system, which you insisted that it was, despite all the Marxists have been against that, all the original of Marx works are against that.
No, that's not how China became capitalist or even state capitalist
You seems to not understand what I said, China before reformed is like Soviet, is st
Re:The trouble with "hate speech" (Score:4)
Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy.
No, he did not say that.
You are an idiot.
During Marx times, he btw. was German, most countries had no or no real democracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Then prove it: How many communist revolutions were democratically elected? ...
AFAIK there were no communist revolutions on the planet so far
And as it turns out, that is what communist revolutions always do (besides depriving you of your life savings and turning your home over to the state to do whatever they want with.)
That is nonsense. Private house owners always existed in the DDR (German democratic republic), and BTW: they where not communist, they where socialist.
However: you get some bonus points however when you can explain how democracy actually works in a typical communist/one party system, the retarded US two party system and a democratic multi party system. And please take extra care to explain why a communist one party system is not or can not be democratic!!
Re: (Score:2)
Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy.
No, he did not say that.
You are an idiot.
It's in the communist manifesto, and he stated it in other publications as well.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
AFAIK there were no communist revolutions on the planet so far .
Just as there have been no true Scottsmen on the planet so far. (Don't combine the past and the present perfect progressive in the same sentence when.)
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
That is nonsense. Private house owners always existed in the DDR (German democratic republic), and BTW: they where not communist, they where socialist.
No, they were neither, kind of like China and Vietnam now are. Sure, they officially had a socialist system, but in practice the private sector was still allowed to operate there, and over time it began to outprod
Re: The trouble with "hate speech" (Score:2)
In Vietnam people are encouraged to vote in elections. I've seen the propaganda posters myself. In most elections there will be 2 to 4 candidates to choose from.
Of course, those candidates are all Communists. Just like candidates in American elections are all capitalists.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis as much as you want.
What has that to do with hate speech?
Re: (Score:2)
You can have a blog that mentions Hitler and Nazis as much as you want.
Of course I can. I don't live in Germany.
Also of course, I should have referred to the use of the swastika and not just a mention of the names. Please continue in that context. (Note that the swastika is a perfect example of "hate speech" being defined by the government. Germany says "it is", Korea says "it isn't".)
As for those who seem intent on pointing out that Slashdot cannot keep Vietnam from prohibiting speech, yet another "of course". I wrote of the best solution, which isn't necessarily possible,
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I can. I don't live in Germany. :D but that was a dumb ass comment.
Yeah, and what is the point? You also can have it in Germany, dumb ass. Oh sorry
(Note that the swastika is a perfect example of "hate speech" being defined by the government. Germany says "it is", Korea says "it isn't".)
I'm pretty sure you can use a swastika in a blog, why should you not?
Here is a blog, explaining why the Swastika is banned https://politische-bildung-bra... [politische...denburg.de]
Surprisingly it has a Swastika on the first page on the top
Re: The trouble with "hate speech" (Score:2)
Brownshirt thugs FTW!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A culture that must be shielded from such inanities (including screeds like yours) in order to survive is not fit for survival. Instead of teaching children to be adult snowflakes like the left does now, we should return to teaching them how to handle adversity.
Re: The trouble with "hate speech" (Score:2)
In that case, according to your definition, no culture is fit for survival.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, the people behind these "h
Re:The trouble with "hate speech" (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure what the solution is
"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." --Justice Sanford [findlaw.com].
Oppressing speech with censorship, even if the speech is made of lies, will never be effective, and can easily make the problem worse. If good people are not willing to speak up, then there is no hope for the country.
Re: (Score:2)
I know a guy who believes the govt is run by lizard people... I can't change his mind so, well it's his right.
I'd rather live in a world with guys like him than a world where nobody could say lizard people existed.
Um (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Vietnam is a communist dictatorship. I hope Internet censorship doesn't come as some sort of surprise ...
It's actually a communist oligarchy with a general secretary and ruling party.
Re: Um (Score:2)
Vietnam *is* big-C Communist. There are literally big red hammer and sickle banners hanging everywhere.
However Vietnam is not a dictatorship. There is no paramount leader, no dictator. Rather it's more of a bureaucratic gerontocracy. It's a single-party state, but factions within the Party are tolerated and openly discussed.
Vietnam is definitely weak on freedom of political speech. However it's also weak on surveillance and oppression. This is *not* a tyranny like Thailand. No one cares if you bad mouth t
No problem (Score:2)
Vietnam is now our puppet friend in the fight against our biggest rival China. The US will just need to cover up its ears like it does for Saudi Arabia
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the current Administration doesn't need to cover its ears, it cannot hear totalitarian victims very well.
Re: No problem (Score:3)
Yup, that long history with China is key. Half the major streets in Ho Chi Minh City are named after historical heroes who drove out Chinese invaders.
Despite the war and all that bad history, Americans have one really big advantage in dealing with Vietnam. We are most definitely not Chinese.
"toxic information" (Score:3, Insightful)
Jesus Christ. Having a well-educated, thoughtful, free, and open society is the remedy against "toxic information"
Anything else is censorship.
Re: (Score:1)
Well just make sure not to vote Democrat or Republican and maybe we'll achieve that someday.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not REAL communism... (Score:1)
No, the socialism that we want here in the West is REAL communism: only right wingers will be sent to the gulags, you see.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Soros (Score:1, Insightful)
The ruling class want FacebookGoogleTwitterEtc regulated to stop "populism." Here [theguardian.com] is Soros using fear to justify putting government minders in control, complete with scary images of eyeballs controlled by corporations and warnings of a Trump dictatorship.
Everywhere you look leftists and statists are using fear to put themselves in control of the Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Soros is making the prescient point that Facebook/Google/Twitter are monopolies of information and users. In case you didn't know, monopolies are a problem and a worse problem because US law has few objections against monopolies.
He said the opposite, namely, "the constitution, other institutions, and a vibrant civil society won’t allow it". Trump is acting a lot like Bush junior, who received mush less lamentation and fear. Speaking of which, the one fear-mongering here, is you.
Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet the fight against either "fake news" or misinformation in Vietnam must not be used as a smoke screen for stifling dissenting opinions and curtailing freedom of speech.
That's what the fight against "fake news" and "misinformation" is used for everywhere else.
Re: haha (Score:2)
If you'd seen a few Agent Orange victims, you'd realize how very unfunny your joke was.
Normalizing Censorship? (Score:1)