680
China is using the world's largest known online disinformation operation to harass Americans, a CNN review finds (www.cnn.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
304 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Chinese government has built up the world’s largest known online disinformation operation and is using it to harass US residents, politicians, and businesses—at times threatening its targets with violence, a CNN review of court documents and public disclosures by social media companies has found.

The onslaught of attacks – often of a vile and deeply personal nature – is part of a well-organized, increasingly brazen Chinese government intimidation campaign targeting people in the United States, documents show.

The US State Department says the tactics are part of a broader multi-billion-dollar effort to shape the world’s information environment and silence critics of Beijing that has expanded under President Xi Jinping. On Wednesday, President Biden is due to meet Xi at a summit in San Francisco.

Victims face a barrage of tens of thousands of social media posts that call them traitors, dogs, and racist and homophobic slurs. They say it’s all part of an effort to drive them into a state of constant fear and paranoia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 112 points 2 years ago (136 children)

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if Lemmy is rife with these trolls. And I'm not just talking about the tankies.

I will never understand people who advocate for communism as opposed to democratic socialism. Every major country that has ever gone down the communist road has ended up a dictatorship. That's not a bug of communism, it's a feature. I get the criticism of capitalism, I really do, but we can enact socialist laws that rein in the excesses and extremes of capitalism without sacrificing our democracies for one-party governments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 136 child comments
    •
  • [–] 56 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Every major country that has ever gone down the communist road has ended up a dictatorship.

    Up until not too long ago, every democracy relied on slavery, disenfranchised large parts of the population, and eventually ended up a dictatorship. If you asked someone in like 1810 whether democracy could work, it'd be completely understandable if they pointed out all the horrible aspects of Greek and Roman "democracy", American planations, colonialism and the Reign of Terror, and if they assumed all of these to be inherent to democracy.

    "Sure, the king isn't perfect, but he's surely better than Robespierre (who was inevitably succeded by Napoleon). And besides, great thinkers like Plato argued for a philosopher king – and that guy lived in a democracy, who would know better about all of it's evils?"

    Yes, communism has failed in many respects so far.* The reasons for that are complex, include active sabotage by anti-communist states, but anyone who doesn't genuinely and critically reflect it's failures is (probably) doomed to repeat those mistakes.

    Assuming those are inherent and inevitable based on less than a hundred years of history is imho short sighted.

    *Some very early societies were probably kinda close to what we conceptualise as communism™ today, but applying the term is anachronistic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Up until not too long ago, every democracy relied on slavery, disenfranchised large parts of the population, and eventually ended up a dictatorship.

    I don't think that's a fair comparison. Slavery was never an inherent part of democracy and democracy certainly didn't rely on it. Ancient economies might have, but not their democratic systems of government. By contrast, communism does inherently call for the violent overthrow of existing governments in favor of a one-party transitional government that violently suppresses all others. Like I said, authoritarian rule is not an unintended consequence of communism—it is very much intended and seen as necessary.

    Yes, communism has failed in many respects so far.* The reasons for that are complex, include active sabotage by anti-communist states, but anyone who doesn’t genuinely and critically reflect it’s failures is (probably) doomed to repeat those mistakes.

    I don't really think it's that complex. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you have a governmental system wherein multiple groups can check each other's power levels, the system can self-stabilize (that's not to say it always does, but it can at least). Communism, with it's one-party system, has no checks and balances, and therefore is much more prone to succumbing to authoritarian rule.

    You say we just haven't given communism enough time to "get it right" yet; I say they've already gotten it "right" multiple times. China is communism working as intended.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I think one thing that's confusing is that there's Marxism, communism, Leninism, MLM, etc. Different communist countries try to learn from other countries and each one has its own implementation based on its own material conditions.

    From what I've heard, Lenin's vanguard party and violent revolution thing was basically theorized to be required basically because of the long history of more peaceful movements being squashed by violent capitalists, the difficulty it is to wrest power from the old dictatorship, that of the rich, and the difficulty it is to change a country's culture (see the super brainwashed US that might re-elect Trump let alone ever be able to get affordable health care). It's not really required for communism so much as seen as a working theory of what's required to achieve it in a pragmatic way due to the US trying to destroy it in every country that's gone near it from its very inception and their full corporate-owned media blitz on people like Bernie or the democratic socialist in the UK.

    A lot of the authoritarian nature of these countries is due to the material conditions from which they arose (usually poor, rural non-industrialized dictatorships, often colonized) and from which they had to stay alive (which is usually in a siege mentality as the US or other Western countries continued to sanction and undermine them). I'd definitely prefer to live in a Nordic country than any communist one, but they also started off in very different contexts, so I'm not sure if that will always be true. Like the other commenter, I'd be curious to see more data. I'd give the point to socialist countries right now though, because the experiment of capitalism has the entire global south counting against it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    From what I’ve heard, Lenin’s vanguard party and violent revolution thing was basically theorized to be required basically because of the long history of more peaceful movements being squashed by violent capitalists, the difficulty it is to wrest power from the old dictatorship, that of the rich, and the difficulty it is to change a country’s culture (see the super brainwashed US that might re-elect Trump let alone ever be able to get affordable health care).

    Anyone can call any other group "brainwashed." If that's all it takes for you to justify violence in order to change a system, you yourself are the fascist. Regardless of how wrong or deluded you think a people are, democracy requires that you rely on debate and conversation to change their minds in order to accumulate the support needed to change the system. If you resort to violence, you are enacting authoritarian rule, plain and simple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That's the thing, often the rulers resort to violence even before the people. You can't talk or debate your way into power against a dictator or monarch. They'll shoot your peaceful protestors and kidnap and torture your leaders. They will blacklist your writers and artists. Talking and other avenues should always be the first step, and if you're already in a democracy probably your only step, but if violence is used to enforce an unjust system I'm not sure how else you think it could be changed.

    I could see a vanguard party providing for more than just defense or violence, too. It provides a way to organize and spread your thoughts and ideas, a way to provide mutal aid, a way to focus your demands, a way to teach political theory, etc. The rich always have class solidarity while they are masters of splitting up the poor intos different factions based on race, sex, gender, etc. Finding a way to foster solidarity into a big group where the proletariat can get their needs met seems like a worthy goal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    load more comments (2 replies)
    • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 35 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    I think this is semantic(definitions) confusion. Please let me explain. For example communism by definition is a stateless society. Meaning a state cannot be communist. The countries you are thinking of have all called themselves socialist not communist. Socialism does not necessitate dictatorship or democracy. It's simply economical. Socialism is an economic system that abolishes private property which marx defined as different from personal property. Personal property includes your place of living your tv your clothes all your personal shit. Private property refers to owning the means of production. So under socialism you could own your house but not a factory or Google ect.

    The countries that are exploited the worst have sometimes had socialist revolts in the past. These countries are typically not functioning democracies beforehand. The USSR had a tsar. China's last emperor ended up joining the socialists once he was overthrown. Cuba had a U.S. backed dictator before Castro's popular revolution. These countries were not made into dictator ships because of socialism. You have the idea in your head because of capitalist propaganda.

    Democratic socialism is just capitalism with a nice welfare state built on it. Despite the name it doesn't necessitate having democracy or socialism. Infact it's incompatible with socialism. These states are nicer then usual capitalist states but often backslide. For example Britain moving closer and closer to privatizing their healthcare.

    I hope that makes some sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    • is called "LazyPhilosopher"
    • Writes a thorough, well-reasoned explanation of often-confused and weaponized semantics between various social systems.
    • Didn't patronize or "um akshully" in the slightest.

    Points for pleasant irony. You're doing good work 👍

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Every major country that has ever gone down the communist road ended up a dictatorship

    While I don't think full-on Marxism is necessary and am in agreement on the democratic socialism, I think the reason for this is really more towards the political end of it than the economic.

    If a country practicing a communist economy had a more representative/democratic political system from the start, I'd like to see how the results panned out. And I'd also like to see which came first, the dictatorship, or the communism. The former being first makes more sense than the latter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
    load more comments (7 replies)
    • load more comments (104 replies)