________________________________________________________________________________
I don't think I've ever seen another HN post where every single comment was downvoted before. I know it's not the done thing to discuss downvotes here but it struck me as interesting given the subject matter of the article.
I've seen it only once before, also on an artice critical of China.
Order has mostly been restored now, I wonder if that was users upvoting things again or moderation of some sort.
Absolute vote counts are not that high. It would've only taken one or two stragglers to find the thread and turn some comments positive again while pushing others more negative. I wouldn't call that "restoring order", but it's not unexpected either.
How do you see absolute vote counts? I only see that for my own comments (and I have no way of knowing if it is fuzzed/obfuscated for me too).
For negative scores, you can kind of tell based on how grayed out it is. And while there's a lower bound at -4, I don't think HN does any scaling to translate vote counts into the scores it displays to you (but it does when calculating the contribution to total karma, where submission scores count half).
The CCP has several organizations to do online brigading, which are part of their non-military warfare doctrine against the US:
- 50 cent army (mainland civil servants paid per post)
- WeChat messages to adult diaspora and students
- United Front (overseas lobbies.)
You can learn more on the NTD Youtube channels.
In the video, the whistleblower also claims the UN argued in court that it has a right to lie about these activites to its member states.
This is misleading. The UN was responding to China asking if this or that person would be present in this or that event. The people concerned were outside of China and already known to China, and their presence at any event wasn't a secret.
The UN said that they did so for other countries so.
i24news.tv does not seem like a reliable website for the claim in the title, which is probably why they don't substantiate them.
The whistleblower claims otherwise - that providing that information _did_ endanger the speakers or their families. i24news is also not the only one reporting on this:
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1322928964273348610
(Official twitter account of LBC news:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBC_News
)
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1292510/un-human-rights...
https://www.foxnews.com/world/un-human-rights-office-china-d...
I mean, that's literally not what the article says. The article says that she claims that China asks if someone is going to be present at some (public) events, and that the UN confirms or denies.
I don't understand how that can endanger someone moreso than them going to a public event, and the UN claims this is done for other countries too.
Also, the two sources you've given me are a tabloid, and Fox News. They are not anymore credible.
You should watch the accompanying (short) video. The claim is that, knowing ahead of time who will be present, China pressures the speakers into cancelling, which, it is claimed, has worked at least a few times.
> Also, the two sources you've given me are a tabloid, and Fox News. They are not anymore credible.
I provided _three_ additional sources, not two, for a total of four. All reporting on the same whistleblower - a former UN human rights lawyer, so not someone that should be casually dismissed just because you dislike the media broadcasting her claims. But I will humor you, and add yet more sources (though I am sure you will be able to find _something_ objectionable about each):
https://twitter.com/EmmaReillyTweet/status/13214608289698816...
- the whistleblower herself, posting court documents.
https://www.jpost.com/Blogs/Peter-A-Gallo/Universal-Human-Ri...
- _OHCHR was vehemently denying any having done anything wrong in handing over the names of Chinese human rights activists to the Chinese government or the possibility that this may have been a factor in the arrest and subzequent death in custody of a prominent human rights lawyer_
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/congress-probes-cla...
https://www.wionews.com/world/whistleblower-accuses-un-human...
https://whistleblower.org/in-the-news/un-watch-ngo-un-gave-c...
https://unwatch.org/ngo-u-n-gave-china-names-rights-activist...
>
https://twitter.com/EmmaReillyTweet/status/13214608289698816...
- the whistleblower herself, posting court documents.
... related to her wrongful termination complaint, arguing that she shouldn't have been fired for leaking information in 2013. So either those documents are irrelevant except to show why she is a _former_ UN human rights lawyer (evidently her complaint was unsuccessful) or revealing the attendees of events in advance is exactly what she leaked back then, in which case it's a bit suspicious that she suddenly got multiple outlets to report on it only 7 years after the fact.
> I will humor you, and add yet more sources (though I am sure you will be able to find something objectionable about each)
The problem common to all of them is that they're not independent sources, but just different write-ups of the same person's statements, namely that former UN employee. Adding more links isn't the same as adding more information.
> not independent sources, but just different write-ups of the same person's statements
As I explicitly noted. I added them because sudosysgen was complaining about i24news/Fox/Express not being good enough, and not the whistleblower herself.
I was implying that large, reputable outlets did not pick up because they could not corroborate.
I'm not casually dismissing them.
Tell me, if China already knows the names of those people enough to suspect that they will go, and already has control of their families, and they are going to a public event, do you think that they will only threaten doing so if they have certainty they will come?
Because trust me, that is just not how this works. Authoritarian governments, if they decide to act in such ways, will go in contact with you and let you know the consequence of what you will do to your families. There is no need for this endanger anyone, because they already have the name.
On this basis, I agree that the possibility that this was a factor in the arrest of anyone is essentially zero.
Because, for China to ask if someone is going to be on the committee, they must already know about that person, and if they know about that person, they will already do their best to arrest them or threaten them.
Yeah, the kinds of Uyghur organizations likely to lobby at the UN aren't trying to keep secret who their representatives are. E.g. you can just check the World Uyghur Congress' website
https://www.uyghurcongress.org/en/steering-committee/
to get a list of names the Chinese government might be interested in.