Vietnamese Facebook Lures Users With Communist Videogames

[ThreeKneeNick]

Like facebook doesn't forward the information it gathers to the highest bidder, right.

 

[Talvrae]

go.vn sound like a really good target for hackers...
just saying

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

In Communist Vietnam, Conspiracy Theories believe in you!

 

[Gray Monk]

Facebook is the exact same thing but not as blindly obvious, and that is why I deleted my Facebook profile but no-one cares.

 

[matrix3509]

So...it is okay when multinational corporations like Google, Myspace, facebook, Skype, etc., spy on your activities on social websites but when a government of a nation does it it is a different, more evil kind of wrong? As far as I remember the Patriot Act(U.S) is still in place, the Iniciativa contra el Crimen Organizado (Mex) is still in place, France can ban people from wearing "ghost outfits" and is working to rescind citizenships of naturalized citicens, China is still fucking with Tibet while still being somewhat of an ally to the west--where in most countries the government can get into your personal life and tell you who you can and can't marry, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, and America's Army: the videogame is incredibly inocuous, obviously designed to give players a true taste of how action packed and bloodless military life can really be and not at all designed as a recruitment tool based on false advertising.

The way I see it, Vietnam is merely playing catch-up.

I don't see how you can possibly believe these things. The U.S. (and other western governments) may get information from widely visited websites, but the difference is that places like Vietnam, China, and North Korea imprison you if you disagree with a government policy. There is a special document you may or may not be aware of called The Bill of Rights that gives citizens (in the U.S. at least) special rights that people in Communist countries do not have. While, yes, many governments (including the U.S.) are working to take away certain rights, it is still the citizens' duty to make sure they stay as free as possible, and a country with a well laid-out constitution gives the citizens all the tools they need to accomplish this, communism takes away these tools. So yes, when a communist country does this, it is WAY more evil than when a democracy does it, simply because said communist country uses that information to freely ruin peoples lives just for disagreeing with the government.

Oh, and regarding your comment on America's Army: The developers of that game are VERY open about that game being nothing more than a recruiting tool. I played it back before they took off all the fun maps, and they practically beat me over the head with that fact before I ever even downloaded it.

 

[KeyMaster45]

Machiavelli might like your post ( at least when writing for the medici ), but most westerners would prefer their governments stay in power based on principles such as Social contract".
"Social contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed."
magna carta john locke, declaration of independence, etc...
the basis of which assumes the police state never becomes so powerful that it needn't be aware of the needs of it's "consumers".

Anyway, be as snarky as you like, the point is, and was, that something that seemed very communist is actually snaked from us, the bastion of liberty, as it were.

I apologize for the snarkyness, I get a bit cranky as the night wares on.

Also that's kind of a funny observation because I did a term paper on Machiavelli a few years ago. Starting to wonder if some of those ideas rubbed off on me, I'll have to check my stash of notes now.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Eh, it's their country, who am I to judge?
Besides, America's Army/army tried to do almost this exact same thing, only they didn't have a social network... I think.

 

[fulano]

Who said it was okay?
I think inherent in your point tho' is people might expect companies to data mine for sales information ( marketable demographics, etc )- but yes, it is scarier when a gov't does it.

As to the multinationals, if you think the idea of them being stronger than some nations is unique to our time period, I would remind you of the end of medieval era history - the guilds and citizens were able to field better armies than their feudal "lords", and anyone who doesn't think that impacted history probably hasn't thought it through.

That's hardly a fair comparson. For starters, guilds and citizens had no lobbyists; and second, they had nowher enear the same amount of resources at their disposal.

As I said, I submit you have not thought it through... and if you aren't studying medieval history, I may get condescending - it was going to be my major.
I will try to disagree respectfully, esp since I was agreeing with your tone in substance, i think.

Anyway, relatively, the Guilds and banks had GREATER resources ( relative to the nations of the time ), and in fact, some of today's multinationals ARE the old multinationals ( you can get into arguments over who and when and etc that get a little ... controversial, i'd rather stick to the "easy" stuff ).
the com-panis of Italian trade, and the old banks ( after the templars and, yes, Jews ) -
were the first multinationals.
Let's not discuss Switzerland, but understand, those multinationals had resources you simply aren't taking into consideration, and Lobbyists?
How about Popes? ( look up the Medici )
Alderman and all Guilds DID have representatives in levels of government - and if you happen to be english, i ask you to consider the house of commons.

ALL the european powers I am aware of ended up selling lordships to businessmen who had more money than them -
and last but not least, i wasn't joking - not just in Italian, but as commerce became important in Europe, burghers began to be able to field armies that could stand up to and handily defeat the feudal lords.
People talk about guns, but there's more to it than that. ( actually, guns SUCKED for quite a while - the key to defeating heavy cavalry was well-disciplined footmen, which require consider professionalism that implies $ )
* edit * and later, when guns sucked less, people started realizing they could stand up to national armies with conscripts and 1/2 the world revolted *

In fact, historically speaking, the nation-states of today are BETTER OFF economically than the medieval era states were relative to commercial interests - partially BECAUSE the fall of medieval powers created stronger nation-states by negating the distribution of power through feudalism ( magna charta ; for example, recognizes this ).
It wouldn't be much longer' til the actual kings became as disempowered as their lords had.

Anyway, forgive my pedantics;
the point is, and was, multinationals having considerable influence is no new thing.
* edit: India Trading Company vs. Emperor of China *

Where there's money, there tends to be evil...
I think you asked if it's any less evil if a gov't spies on us than a company; and that was the real point...
and my response was/is, here in the west, we expect our government to be protecting us from such dastardliness...

and i said it in italics, b/c I agree with your example sof how frightening our Gov't acts towards it's own citizens.
Are you by chance familiar with John Locke, not to mention Machiavelli?

Did you notice I mentioned resources? I'm not arguing with you about what you talk about, but rather about the far reaching consequences the new versions of what you speak of actually have. You can draw similes between today's lobbyists and their previous incarnations, but, again, the far reaching consequences are vastly different. Today we have anti-science groups backed either by billionaire corporations (anti climate change), or stupid heads of state(Richard Nixon and the war on drugs), and that affects us all in the world at large. And since they shape policy, they have become, in practice, effective arms of the government.

I'm not getting conspiratorial here. It's just how those people work.

While the format, the organizational structure, may remain largely the same, the consequences are multiplied. That's what I was getting at. And that's why, while it is absolutely fucking reprehensible what Vietnam is doing, it is not a special kind of evil. It is just the same kind with a different coat of paint.

So...it is okay when multinational corporations like Google, Myspace, facebook, Skype, etc., spy on your activities on social websites but when a government of a nation does it it is a different, more evil kind of wrong? As far as I remember the Patriot Act(U.S) is still in place, the Iniciativa contra el Crimen Organizado (Mex) is still in place, France can ban people from wearing "ghost outfits" and is working to rescind citizenships of naturalized citicens, China is still fucking with Tibet while still being somewhat of an ally to the west--where in most countries the government can get into your personal life and tell you who you can and can't marry, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, and America's Army: the videogame is incredibly inocuous, obviously designed to give players a true taste of how action packed and bloodless military life can really be and not at all designed as a recruitment tool based on false advertising.

The way I see it, Vietnam is merely playing catch-up.

I don't see how you can possibly believe these things. The U.S. (and other western governments) may get information from widely visited websites, but the difference is that places like Vietnam, China, and North Korea imprison you if you disagree with a government policy. There is a special document you may or may not be aware of called The Bill of Rights that gives citizens (in the U.S. at least) special rights that people in Communist countries do not have. While, yes, many governments (including the U.S.) are working to take away certain rights, it is still the citizens' duty to make sure they stay as free as possible, and a country with a well laid-out constitution gives the citizens all the tools they need to accomplish this, communism takes away these tools. So yes, when a communist country does this, it is WAY more evil than when a democracy does it, simply because said communist country uses that information to freely ruin peoples lives just for disagreeing with the government.

Oh, and regarding your comment on America's Army: The developers of that game are VERY open about that game being nothing more than a recruiting tool. I played it back before they took off all the fun maps, and they practically beat me over the head with that fact before I ever even downloaded it.

I'm sorry, but you overvalue the role of constitutions, and even throw in there bits about the evil of Communism, etc., etc. Apparently you didn't know that Communist nations had constitutions too which were very similar to the ones we have now. It was just that their governments were incredibly corrupt, kinda like in lots of the countries we have now. Sorry but that's it for me.

As for the America's army bit, did you even know that the violence is toned down and the action maxed out? Of course you did, it's a videogame, you downloaded it. All I'm arguing about is that it is false advertising.

 

[Badger Kyre]

I apologize for the snarkyness, I get a bit cranky as the night wears on.

Also that's kind of a funny observation because I did a term paper on Machiavelli a few years ago. Starting to wonder if some of those ideas rubbed off on me, I'll have to check my stash of notes now.

thanks, and in return, I apologize for getting increasingly defensive and grouchy because of the tendency of people to troll or pull the hitler card ( reducto ad absurdum ) to any idea - the point being, we all get rubbed a bit raw by the bad nettiquette until we over-react.

As to Machi, a point i wanted to make, if you noticed the other post, is that Mach. ( and you probably did more research than I, so I hope you bear me out on this ) has a bit of an unfair reputation because of The Prince - which was written after his defeat by the Medici..
Yet, as I see it, he is not entirely pulling a 180 here - he has moved from city-states to an almost Platonic "philosopher-king" in the form of a prince - yet in both cases, he is looking for a way to save Italy ( or Florence ) from threats ... when the city-states of Italy cannot accomplish this with mercenaries, perhaps a prince can unite them.

I say this now because the ends justifying the means, or not, is what people mean when they say Machiavellian - but it is not entirely fair.
For what it's worth, if I recall the prince correctly, he more or less says a Prince that has to disarm his people has in effect already lost...

 

[Badger Kyre]

Did you notice I mentioned resources? I'm not arguing with you about what you talk about, but rather about the far reaching consequences the new versions of what you speak of actually have. You can draw similes between today's lobbyists and their previous incarnations, but, again, the far reaching consequences are vastly different. Today we have anti-science groups backed either by billionaire corporations (anti climate change), or stupid heads of state(Richard Nixon and the war on drugs), and that affects us all in the world at large. And since they shape policy, they have become, in practice, effective arms of the government.

I'm not getting conspiratorial here. It's just how those people work.

While the format, the organizational structure, may remain largely the same, the consequences are multiplied. That's what I was getting at. And that's why, while it is absolutely fucking reprehensible what Vietnam is doing, it is not a special kind of evil. It is just the same kind with a different coat of paint.

First in; last out.. as another poster pointed out, the fact that the vietnamese govt can back it up overtly, is a key difference. On the sister thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.236853-Why-are-people-scared-of-data-mining] the same issue was brought up, in the west, it's not, can they lock yo up for dissent, it's, how far do we trust them.

And to me this is a sticky issue because there is a legitimate security concern, yet giving a gov't nay more power is also a legitimate concern.

I think especially in that commercial interests may have too much influence in the government ( the Roman republic became an oligarchy and so was rife with corruption that threatened it's power base ), this remains a concern.

I still think you completely mis-understand the significance of Medieval histroy -which in many ways is the change to a merchantile power base - the Medici, in fact, underwrote the Renaissance as we know it.
I assert to you that the old merchantile interests were even MORE powerful, and the world we live in is a RESULT of those consequences.
today, the concern is, lobbyists can influence and enough money can buy an election through advertisement.
but the old concern was, money could literally buy nobility and positions in the various parliaments and councils.

And the example of the East India Company, who were forbidden to sell Heroin to the subjects of the chinese emperor?
They in effect TOOK Hong Kong and crushed his emperor's navy.

That's a lot of consequence ( although it's not medieval, it s very much a result of changes in English power structures going back to wool merchants & etc ).
The comparison today would be, there are countries that if they socialize and confiscate the property of MultiNationals, could face a Halliburton or ( what's Blackwater now ? ) that could field mercenary forces most nations simply could not stand against.

Anyway, that's the short version of what I was going to say ...
but what's more important than my minor disagreements over history ( or your disagreement with me regarding the results of the rise of merchantilism and it's results in the modern world ) or Aaron Burr and Alex Hamilton;

and yes, I thought we agreed, the only difference between the local surveillance and the one VN is trying, is the degree of salesmanship and subtlety.