←back to thread

980 points nkcmr | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
toxik ◴[] No.27415754[source]
Chinese originated spam and abuse is so outrageously widespread, I don’t understand why there isn’t a conversation going on about cutting them off from the wider internet. They blocked most of it anyway.
replies(8): >>27415770 #>>27415797 #>>27415801 #>>27416273 #>>27416375 #>>27416773 #>>27416937 #>>27417395 #
wyager ◴[] No.27415770[source]
I would rather have a global network with marginally more spam than a regional network with marginally less.
replies(3): >>27415826 #>>27415879 #>>27416080 #
systemvoltage ◴[] No.27415826[source]
I believe in reciprocity. China has blocked a lot of the western traffic. So, the west should block China. If they open up, we should welcome them with open arms. Similar spirit as some open source licenses - reciprocity creates fairness and increases collaboration, prevents hawks in a population of doves and improves stability.

We are already doing this with trade. The amount of leeway and free lunch China has gotten from the west is insane. I don’t blame China, I blame the west and the rest of the world for not preventing it. Asymmetrical policies are often exploited by capitalism and governments have been caught off guard.

I’m not an Anti-China lunatic. It’s just common sense.

replies(5): >>27415887 #>>27416359 #>>27416704 #>>27417204 #>>27417330 #
yesenadam ◴[] No.27417330[source]
> I believe in reciprocity. China has blocked a lot of the western traffic. So, the west should block China. If they open up, we should welcome them with open arms.

This sounds like a couple of people I've met, who have a philosophy of "treating people the way they treat me". And what if the other person/side also "believes in reciprocity", what happens then? This seems to rely on other people being nice first, and then always treating them how they treated you, imitating their behaviour, like Tit-for-tat[0]—except Tit-for-tat begins by being nice. It's not easy to put my finger on what seems fishy about that strategy, but it doesn't at all seem the easy solution to being fair and just (or whatever word you most prefer here) its proponents seem to think it is.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat (See particularly "Problems" and the next section)

replies(1): >>27418433 #
1. systemvoltage ◴[] No.27418433[source]
One can have a tit-for-tat policies on a geopolitical scale but also excercise forgiveness in most situations in life. I think Tit-for-tat is a terrible strategy on the whole and agree with your philosophical stance - I hope you didn't mean it on the personal level.
replies(1): >>27418780 #
2. yesenadam ◴[] No.27418780[source]
Sorry—you hope I didn't mean what on the personal level?
replies(1): >>27418929 #
3. systemvoltage ◴[] No.27418929[source]
Apologies, I was hoping you didn't mean to judge my personal character from a single data point on China's policy. I think I am pretty forgiving and excercise tolerance because I know when these things are difficult is exactly when it matters the most. Tolerance is the price we pay for freedom and liberty.
replies(1): >>27419844 #
4. yesenadam ◴[] No.27419844{3}[source]
Hehe no, sorry to give you that impression. Thanks for explaining!