Always found it weird to see governments paying for PR consultants.
It's like : I give you tax money to do a good job, but you spend it to convince me that you're doing a good job instead of actually delivering getting shit done.
Since it's an executable like that, this would also allow you to put it in /usr/local/bin (or wherever you keep bins) and call it from anywhere in your shell with 'taoup'
Leto is talking to Paul, and he is talking about either a region or a chemical process that is important for the production of film stock. then he sardonically says something like, (paraphrasing):
"Film stock is very important. we have the finest propaganda offices. The people must learn how well I govern them. How would they know if we didn't tell them?"
he means it sarcastically, but propaganda is important to keep useful people on the planet and to win the general populace over. Leto knows he's backed into a corner on Arrakis and he's focusing on what he can.
I also could only find the part i posted originally online, its not one of the more frequent quotes from the book.
I was planning to visit Hong Kong before this began but won't now for the foreseeable future due to the actions of the governments of HK and China. I want to visit China too but the rapid development of their omnipresent surveillance state has me putting those plans off presumably forever, which is a shame as I am fascinated by Chinese history and culture.
I'm currently in Hong Kong (planning to leave in December). Honestly if you want to come as a tourist I can't see you'll face any problems. Just be sensible and you'll be safe.
Unless you don't want to fund the economy of Hong Kong through tourism because you disagree with politics of its government and China. In which case, fair enough, really. I'm avoiding pro-China companies as much as possible myself. Although obviously the necessities of living do get a little in the way of that.
I would say it still worth a visit to see it first hand. Protest and civil disobedience normally occurred during the weekend. r/HongHong even has a link to a Google Calendar on all the events that are going to happen.
You should visit China just to see the scale. 20 cities larger then NYC. Just one example, Tokyo's bullet train station has 4 tracks Shanghai's has 24. Also make sure to visit the country side and see how many people need to be helped out of poverty.
Thanks for your suggestions. I have to admit I enjoy nature over man-made achievements but I would appreciate visiting China's mills of industry in addition to absorbing the local culture and cuisines throughout the nation (food is perhaps most accessible and direct experience of local culture?)
The chinese government showed restraint and maturity in acts (if not in grandstanding) and the HK gov is slowly shifting to serving its people rather than ask them to serve it.
The protesters are now a minority and extreme to the point any win ends up "not enough", I for one am seeing it as a milestone for China's shift toward democracy.
Visit or don't, but HK has a unique history, from its troubled beginning as a british colony to its difficult chinese integration. We prefer to slowly build it compromise by compromise rather than shun any sign of progress in the name of absolutism.
> Visit or don't, but HK has a unique history, from its troubled beginning as a british colony to its difficult chinese integration. We prefer to slowly build it compromise by compromise rather than shun any sign of progress in the name of absolutism.
This statement makes me really curious to understand your point of view: From your perspective, is this what HK people in general (not just the protesters) want? When you say progress, progress for whom, and toward what end? What is the goal of integrating HK into China, or what is the expected benefit for the Chinese people and for Hong Kong people? I am not from China or HK, so I don't really have a great understanding of what people in either place think.
> the government wanted a firm to "address negative perceptions in key markets overseas to maintain confidence in Hong Kong"
It seems like the point of this particular exercise wasn't to convince citizens of anything, but rather to convince people that want to do business in HK that it is still a good idea. This definitely seems premature to the point of being stupid and massively tone-deaf, but does not seem especially ill-intentioned.
There's quite a few crowd funding campaigns by protestors that have raised millions of dollars. They were able to buy full page ads in major international newspapers.
Well, I can understand the need to publicize stuff that might not go unnoticed. But I definitely scratched my head at how the US postal service was doing major, ostentatious sponsorships of cyclists on the Tour de France, and was like, "uh, are people really not aware that the Post Office is a thing?"
Edit: Side note, I remember a slashdot thread from a while back that mentioned the "Word of Mouth Marketing Association", and someone was like, "um, what? Isn't the whole point of word-of-mouth marketing that it's not organized by some committee, top-down?"
You shouldn't need marketing when the "customer" has no other option but to deal with you. If you legitimately don't suck then the customer will figure it out through their experience (because they have to deal with you). Hiring PR firms to gaslight the public is not something a decent government does.
> If you legitimately don't suck then the customer will figure it out through their experience (because they have to deal with you).
This isn't true. Most people in the US, for instance, never have to deal with the justice system. They have no idea whether it sucks or not, and their opinions are largely shaped by both positive and negative PR.
I'm a potential HK customer (it always seemed like an interesting place to visit). My employer is a potential HK customer (HK could be a location for an office). We have many other options than HK.
> According to the brief, published in the PR industry paper The Holmes Report, the government wanted a firm to "address negative perceptions in key markets overseas to maintain confidence in Hong Kong"
Some amount of PR is IMHO also appropriate internally to inform people about things that are happening/available if they aren't otherwise well-known.
Parent is saying they are a customer shopping for holiday/business destinations and they decided to to do business with HK. In other words, HK just lost a sale.
This is just pure pedantry, because your whole argument would become null if the parent said "potential customer" instead of "customer".
I would consider it null already, given that the parent described their situation very explicitly, and it is clear as day that the situation implied "potential" in "customer".
Usually, a government's diplomatic arm (e.g. US Department of State) serves as their "international PR" function. So yes, governments do "pay" for PR, it's just done by their own employees most of the time.
Hong Kong is a special case as they're not a separate country, so China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs handles all their diplomacy for them (for better and for worse).
Often policies don't matter as much as how you promote it. China and Singapore are two places that promote their policies in a way that makes people at home patriotic and many people overseas jealous.
There was an article here on HN about Singapore a few days ago and I was relieved to see that not everyone in the comments is buying it.
It has come full circle; the PR industry was created to apply the principles of government propaganda in corporations, but propaganda isn't cool anymore, so they have to hire the PR firms.
In a dictatorship, you give them tax money because they said so, and they’ll do whatever the hell they want with it, because they aren’t accountable to you in any way.
Also to pay for retirement, roads and safety. Dictatorships have many shapes, they're not all corrupt to the core so much they tax-enslave their people.
Singapore and HK, for example, have very low taxes.
Sure, but GP was making a statement about the “purpose” of their tax money. Without accountability, the purpose is whatever the government wants, not what citizens want. That might be roads, but it could well be PR firms.
It's like : I give you tax money to do a good job, but you spend it to convince me that you're doing a good job instead of actually delivering getting shit done.