𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

  • 0 Posts
  • 150 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 16th, 2023

help-circle












  • But as far as I know China isn’t taking down Obama-Tigger comparisons. So Chinese netizens are also sticking with the Xi-Pooh comparison (otherwise China wouldn’t bother taking it down anymore), which doesn’t seem to match with what you’re describing as likely intent, nor with who is making the comparisons.

    You seem pretty convinced it’s mostly racist westerners using the meme, but do you have anything other than a gut feeling to back this up? Because the actions of the Chinese government seem to suggest it’s mostly a domestic problem to them. And for those Chinese users it seems to have taken off as a way to avoid the censors (which is now ineffective, and has morphed into a point of principle).



  • The blocking of Winnie the Pooh might seem like a bizarre move by the Chinese authorities but it is part of a struggle to restrict clever bloggers from getting around their country’s censorship.

    First paragraph from your source. China blocks it to prevent bloggers in China from making the comparison (kinda hard for them to block it on Facebook as China does not have control there). That’s also where this meme started.

    I’m also fairly certain that Pooh having yellow fur is mostly just coincidental (it’d be a bit surprising if Chinese citizens created a racist meme against another Chinese man). The offensiveness of the meme is much more related to Pooh being quite dim and just general fatshaming, not racism. That’s not to say you can’t use the meme in a racist way, just that the origins seemingly aren’t racist.





  • Okay, but (if the big ones didn’t enforce it) a home made cert would also stop a man in the middle attack.

    It would not, because the “man in the middle” would simply provide their own, also self-signed certificate, to the client and the client would have no way of verifying that that certificate is not to be trusted. The client is unable to distinguish between your self-signed cert and the attacker’s. That’s why the CA is needed, to verify that the certificate is actually issued by whoever you think it is.

    This is why browsers do not trust self-signed certificates. They can’t verify who that “self” is. Doing away with it is a massive security vulnerability.


  • If he fully takes over your website there’s nothing you can do as a client to detect it. But that’s not the point of the certificate. The certificate is there to ensure you are communicating with the website/server you think you’re communicating with.

    It ensures your communication is safe. In my example, the attacker doesn’t take over your website, he takes over some part of the network infrastructure between your website and the client, thus intercepting all the traffic. There’s a “man in the middle”, e.g. the website is safe, the client is safe, but the communication between them is not. The certificate ensures nobody is impersonating the website by intercepting all the traffic, ensuring the communication.

    If the website does get compromised, the CA has the option to invalidate the certificate at your request, via some verification procedure. Thus it also defends against compromised servers, though it’s not the primary purpose for which they exist.