←back to thread

Bypass DeepSeek censorship by speaking in hex

(substack.com)
755 points MedadNewman | 8 comments | 31 Jan 25 19:41 UTC | HN request time: 1.602s | source | bottom
Show context
kelseyfrog ◴[31 Jan 25 20:28 UTC] No.42891543[source]▶
Tiananmen Square has become a litmus test for Chinese censorship, but in a way, it's revealing. The assumption is that access to this information could influence Chinese public opinion — that if people knew more, something might change. At the very least, there's a belief in that possibility.

Meanwhile, I can ask ChatGPT, "Tell me about the MOVE bombing of 1985," and get a detailed answer, yet nothing changes. Here in the US, we don’t even hold onto the hope that knowing the truth could make a difference. Unlike the Chinese, we're hopeless.

replies(15): >>42891592 #>>42891610 #>>42891615 #>>42891655 #>>42891720 #>>42891811 #>>42891830 #>>42891837 #>>42891888 #>>42891958 #>>42891971 #>>42892113 #>>42892224 #>>42892244 #>>42893394 #
IncreasePosts ◴[31 Jan 25 20:50 UTC] No.42891811[source]▶
The MOVE bombing was action taken by a city police department.

And what was the result?

- A commission set up by the city, whose public results denounced the city for it's actions.

- a public apology from the mayor

- a federal lawsuit that found the city liable for excessive force and the city forced to pay millions to the victims

- a federal lawsuit forcing the city to pay millions of dollars to people who were made homeless by the events.

- another formal public apology from the city

Okay, now can you tell me what public actions the Chinese government took to atone for Tiananmen square?

> Here in the US, we don’t even hold onto the hope that knowing the truth could make a difference

How many other times after the move bombing did a city bomb out violent criminals in a densely packed neighborhood?

Your argument is just absolutely ridiculous. According to you, it seems that if you make a bad decision, it's better to try to hide that bad decision from everyone, rather than confront it and do better.

replies(2): >>42891940 #>>42891955 #
skyyler ◴[31 Jan 25 21:01 UTC] No.42891940[source]▶
You're arguing with parent assuming that they've equated the brutality of these actions.

>According to you, it seems that if you make a bad decision, it's better to try to hide that bad decision from everyone, rather than confront it and do better.

They didn't say that at all. Consider reading their comment with more contemplative thought.

replies(2): >>42891975 #>>42892002 #
1. IncreasePosts ◴[31 Jan 25 21:06 UTC] No.42892002[source]▶
No, I am not assuming they equated the brutality. Please feel free to make a specific point instead of just saying "You read it poorly".

OP finished their post with:

> Meanwhile, I can ask ChatGPT, "Tell me about the MOVE bombing of 1985," and get a detailed answer, yet nothing changes. Here in the US, we don’t even hold onto the hope that knowing the truth could make a difference. Unlike the Chinese, we're hopeless.

Everything I wrote in my post was in reference to this point.

"yet nothing changes" -> "How many other times after the move bombing did a city bomb out violent criminals in a densely packed neighborhood?"

"we don’t even hold onto the hope that knowing the truth could make a difference" -> I listed all of the actions that went from "knowing the truth" to "making a difference". Would any of those things have happened if knowledge of the events was suppressed among the population, in the manner that Tiananmen square was?

replies(1): >>42892064 #
2. skyyler ◴[31 Jan 25 21:11 UTC] No.42892064[source]▶
>"yet nothing changes" -> "How many other times after the move bombing did a city bomb out violent criminals in a densely packed neighborhood?"

How many times since 1989 has the chinese communist party rolled tanks over a crowded city square during a student protest in Beijing's main square?

I can tell what you're doing here and I think I'll refuse to engage.

Have a nice weekend.

replies(2): >>42892303 #>>42892617 #
3. IncreasePosts ◴[31 Jan 25 21:28 UTC] No.42892303[source]▶
That's hard to tell. How would even know if the system is good enough at censoring? How many things have happened in Tibet or Xinjiang that we have no idea of?What would our understanding of Tiananmen square have been if a few western reporters weren't present for the events?

"There was a protest and everyone was told to go home"

Yes, it should be pretty clear what I'm doing: pushing back that on the idea that a heavily censored society is actually healthier than an uncensored or less censored one.

4. JumpCrisscross ◴[31 Jan 25 21:53 UTC] No.42892617[source]▶
> How many times since 1989 has the chinese communist party rolled tanks over a crowded city square during a student protest in Beijing's main square

Uh, Hong Kong [1][2].

Also, in case you're being serious, the problem in Tiananmen wasn't tanks rolling into the city. It was the Army gunning down children [3].

[1] https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/disappearing-children-of-h...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causeway_Bay_Books_disappearan...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...

replies(1): >>42892905 #
5. skyyler ◴[31 Jan 25 22:16 UTC] No.42892905{3}[source]▶
Did they use tanks in Hong Kong?
replies(1): >>42893049 #
6. JumpCrisscross ◴[31 Jan 25 22:28 UTC] No.42893049{4}[source]▶
> Did they use tanks in Hong Kong?

This is sort of like arguing America has solved redlining because mortgage bankers aren't doing it with a red marker.

replies(1): >>42895220 #
7. skyyler ◴[01 Feb 25 02:57 UTC] No.42895220{5}[source]▶
Well, it’s more like saying America has solved police brutality because they aren’t bombing civilians anymore.
replies(1): >>42896160 #
8. JumpCrisscross ◴[01 Feb 25 06:18 UTC] No.42896160{6}[source]▶
> it’s more like saying America has solved police brutality because they aren’t bombing civilians anymore

Correct. These statements are all wrong. But magnitude matters. Haiti and Monaco aren’t homicidal twins because both have >1 murders.