Comment on NewsBreak: Most downloaded US news app has Chinese roots and 'writes fiction' using AI
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 3 months agoIt regularly uses descriptors like “Chinese roots” and “engineers based/born in China” and just leaves them hanging. On it’s own, being from China is superfluous information…unless the reader has a bias against things from China. Ties to the Chinese govt/CCP is a separate matter entirely, and if that’s the connection they’re making they should just say that.
It would be no different from talking about Isreal’s war crimes, but instead of saying “X party is affiliated with Isreal’s govt” you just said “jews”.
Ilandar@aussie.zone 3 months ago
“Chinese roots” was a sub-heading. Did you read the paragraphs underneath? As for why it matters that the application and its employees are from China - pay closer attention to international relations between the US and China. The US banned Huawei because it was concerned about the influence of the CCP on the company and is in the process of banning an extremely popular mobile application currently (TikTok) because it has links to China. The US and China are major foes within the Pacific region: look at America’s behaviour around the issues of Taiwan and AUKUS. That is the important context you seem to have overlooked here.
The most popular news application in the US having links to China is highly relevant when the two nations see each other as antagonists on the global stage, when the US has a recent history of banning popular Chinese products and services because of a purported or real link to the CCP, and when the services themselves are being used to spread misinformation and, potentially, disinformation.
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
Yes, the examples I cited were used multiple times. And yes, I am aware of national news in the US concerning China, it was not overlooked context.
The relevant context you might be overlooking are the Red Scare and Japanese internment. It’s not the first time the US has had the looming threat of international espionage, and it’s also not the first time that using a person’s/company’s nationality to infer their true intentions was misguided.
It is not an outrageous thing to say: being Chinese does not make you a CCP operative.
To quote the article,
To echo the sentiments above, most of the article is great journalism. The Chinese job listings, the former connection to Yidian, their use of AI and statements from Pearlstine. All important info to see reported. I just wish they would stop saying “China” or “Chinese” as shorthand for “CCP”. All I can hear is Trump annunciating CHYAI-NA.
I wish the best for the Chinese. I want Chinese people to feel safe when living abroad, without their govt breathing down their neck. I want China to prosper ethically and sustainably.
Ilandar@aussie.zone 3 months ago
I think you’re imparting your own biases on the article here. The reporting on the “Chinese roots” of the company is provided as context for the reader because, as I explained above, China’s alleged influence over American society and politics is very relevant at the moment - regardless of whether you agree that it is happening. As far as I know, there was also zero evidence provided by the US government of CCP-guided interference by Huawei or TikTok, yet it moved ahead with bans anyway. Particularly within the context of the reasoning for banning TikTok, NewsBreak’s connections to China are extremely relevant. Note, in particular, this line from the article:
You accuse the outlet/journalist/editor of xenophobia and quote their findings of zero links to the CCP as evidence of this, but I would argue that this is actually evidence of the complete opposite. They are doing their best to provide a balanced view of the situation by reporting the lack of connections in contrast to the allegations or implications. If they actually had a genuine xenophobic intention with this reporting, there would be absolutely zero reason to include that line.
The article doesn’t state or imply that, though. What it does do is provide information to the reader that is, again, relevant because of the current situation in US politics where you do have politicians alleging or implying that being Chinese, even ethnically, equates to being a CCP operative.
This is standard in the field of international relations, though. We always use the name of the country or the capital city of the country when referring to it on the international stage. You are suggesting that we should refer to China as “the CCP”, the USA as “the Democrats”, Australia as “Labor”, etc. That is obviously an extremely confusing and illogical way of presenting information to a global audience.
I think the fact that you are so concerned about how Trump might hijack this type of balanced reporting is a massive tell that you are not reading it impartially. You are approaching it from the position of “the West has an anti-China bias” (a position I don’t necessarily disagree with) and are then trying to link the dots between the information provided in the article and your world view. You need to understand that reporting facts, that may be parroted in bad faith by political groups and their supporters to reach an inaccurate/unsupported conclusion, is not the same as an opinion piece where the objective is to emotionally manipulate the reader or lead them to a particular conclusion. Reuters has an extremely good reputation for highly factual and unbiased reporting and there is nothing in this report to suggest otherwise.
teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
There were a couple decades of direct evidence that Huawei was cooperating with the CCP.
Disinformation on TikTok and data collection via the app are both well documented, but doesn’t seem any different from other social media platforms. The TikTok ban seems mostly politically motivated to me. I suspect whatever happens, their lawyers will fight it and win, until the govt finally cracks down on data collection in general, and we finally get something like GDPR.
No, I’m saying we should refer to the CCP as the CCP, and China as China. My last paragraph was intended to highlight the difference, but perhaps you didn’t read that far.
The rest of your comment is ad hominem, which doesn’t interest me.