5 ms·

Nonsense false equivalency. Yes, in terms of implementing secrets & National Security-related spying there is overall parity, with the US probably a bit ahead

by toss1 8y ago

Nonsense false equivalency. Yes, in terms of implementing secrets & National Security-related spying there is overall parity, with the US probably a bit ahead of China & Russia. But in terms of being an average citizen, it is night and day. At least for now, the US is an active open democracy, with a large majority of citizens actively engaged in maintaining the governmental and extra-governmental institutions the maintain democracy, e.g., independent judiciary, co-equal branches of govt, elections, independent journalism, free speech, etc. Even though these are imperfectly implemented and under threat by the current administration (w/increasing evidence of significant compromise by Russia), the US remains overly in the OPEN and FREE column. In contrast, China is a straight-up autocracy, and it is openly working to ensure it's citizens do not even know their own history (e.g., Tiananmen, Tibet) or current news (e.g., Uyghurs), and have no capability to independently either obtain accurate information, or to organize to respond appropriately if they can somehow get it. And of course the spyware topic of this article, where ordinary citizens can get stopped on the street for failure to install. This is little different than "May I see your papers please". Russia is not far behind. To falsely equate these regimes and their surveillance & interference levels is tantamount to propaganda.

adventured 8y ago
> Even though these are imperfectly implemented and under threat by the current administration The current administration is providing one of the greatest demonstrations in US history of just how different the US is from the Russias and Chinas of the world. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of press, is working well given the intensity of the atmosphere in question. There are routine demonstrations against the administration all over the country, they're not being broken up by thousands of government thugs with clubs and guns, which is what you see in Russia, China and Iran. A solid 90% of all media is entirely stacked against the administration. Celebrities are openly calling for the President to be coup'd, killed, or otherwise just 'taken out.' Even the media has joined in on that at times. The so called deep state (a collection of entrenched, powerful bureaucracies within the government) have been openly acting against the administration at every turn. And come the post mid-terms - which clearly the Democrats are going to retake the house in - there are going to be approximately a thousand investigations. Despite the cynics proclamations, and the current cultural insanity (we've seen it before, the late 1960s and 1970s were far worse), the US system is functioning amazingly well. The current administration has accomplished almost nothing of what it would like to do, and will be a lame duck in a few months. In 2 or 6 years, there will be another administration, and that's that. Life will go on, just as it did after LBJ, Nixon or Bush. There's nothing even remotely comparable to this in Russia or China, and there never has been.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > A solid 90% of all media is entirely stacked against the administration. No, it's not. The leading dedicated TV news network with about 45% of they audience of that media form is completely and unabashedly cheerleading for the Administration, and not even trying to pretend otherwise, as are major outlets in every other form of media. The idea that 90% of the media is hostile to, or even just not overtly shilling for, the Administration would be amusing if it didn't derive directly from the persecution-complex reinforcing propaganda those same media shills use to keep people locked into their propaganda bubble.
  - adventured 8y ago
    In fact it is true. Even the liberal media outlets openly acknowledge this is the case, they're not hiding their bias in any manner, they're openly "resisting." The well-known Pew study in the first year of his administration showed that the negative media coverage was 3x that vs the Obama Admin. The positive coverage was 1/5 that of what the Obama Admin saw. It has only gotten worse since then. "News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents" https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage-of-trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage... MSNBC, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, NPR, all talk-show hosts, nearly all journalists (roughly 9 out of 10 vote Democrat to begin with), nearly all celebrities, essentially all of Hollywood - these groups are all as close to universally against Trump as you can get. It's not subtle, it's nearly all-encompassing. Estimating that 90% of media is stacked against the Trump Administration is an understatement.
    - 07d046 8y ago
      That looks like you want presidents to be graded on a curve. Maybe more negative articles have been written about Trump because he's governing in a negative, divisive, chaotic manner and there are countless of examples where he lies or behaves badly that warrant negative coverage.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
There are interesting discussions to be had about the similarities and differences between China and the US, but saying that "the US is an oppressive presence on the internet" is not without merit. All that is left is disagreement on the relative impacts. The reasonable people who make that argument are also the important vocal watchdogs who provide the friction against further abuses of power. They shouldn't be casually dismissed just because there are worse governments in the world.
- toss1 8y ago
  No, it is not merely a difference in degree. It is a wholesale difference in kind/type. NatSec ops constrained by a robust constitution implemented by an elected govt, with different co-equal branches, including a court system with centuries of experience & tradition of protecting privacy of citizens from the beginning -- one of the principles on which is was founded (see 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Ammendments for starters), and a vigorous tradition of free speech and free press is one side. The other is an unelected totalitarian govt with a tradition of actively murdering it's own citizens to consolidate single-party political power, decades (China) or centuries (Russia) of manipulating information to the people, zero free press with active suppression, and active programs in both the civilian and military heirarchy to restrict information and spy on the people. To even remotely equate these systems and the threat they pose to the people is to either 1) deliberately grossly misrepresent the situation, or 2) display profound ignorance of the issues. If you want to recognize that there is a vast difference of type and then go on to discuss how the US might be better about what they do, that can be a fine discussion. But the land of 'they're all the same just different degree' is so far from reality as to render discussion useless.
  - jonathanyc 8y ago
    > NatSec ops constrained by a robust constitution implemented by an elected govt, with different co-equal branches, including a court system with centuries of experience & tradition of protecting privacy of citizens from the beginning -- one of the principles on which is was founded (see 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Ammendments for starters), and a vigorous tradition of free speech and free press is one side. When I think of the FISA court I don’t exactly think of “different co-equal branches, including a court system with centuries of experience & tradition of protecting privacy of citizens from the beginning”. The FISA court is literally a non-adversarial court. I think the US court system is one of the best designed in the world. But please don’t pretend that the well-developed standard court system is anything like the secret and unaccountable national security court system.

by toss1 8y ago

adventured 8y ago

> Even though these are imperfectly implemented and under threat by the current administration The current administration is providing one of the greatest demonstrations in US history of just how different the US is from the Russias and Chinas of the world. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of press, is working well given the intensity of the atmosphere in question. There are routine demonstrations against the administration all over the country, they're not being broken up by thousands of government thugs with clubs and guns, which is what you see in Russia, China and Iran. A solid 90% of all media is entirely stacked against the administration. Celebrities are openly calling for the President to be coup'd, killed, or otherwise just 'taken out.' Even the media has joined in on that at times. The so called deep state (a collection of entrenched, powerful bureaucracies within the government) have been openly acting against the administration at every turn. And come the post mid-terms - which clearly the Democrats are going to retake the house in - there are going to be approximately a thousand investigations. Despite the cynics proclamations, and the current cultural insanity (we've seen it before, the late 1960s and 1970s were far worse), the US system is functioning amazingly well. The current administration has accomplished almost nothing of what it would like to do, and will be a lame duck in a few months. In 2 or 6 years, there will be another administration, and that's that. Life will go on, just as it did after LBJ, Nixon or Bush. There's nothing even remotely comparable to this in Russia or China, and there never has been.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> A solid 90% of all media is entirely stacked against the administration. No, it's not. The leading dedicated TV news network with about 45% of they audience of that media form is completely and unabashedly cheerleading for the Administration, and not even trying to pretend otherwise, as are major outlets in every other form of media. The idea that 90% of the media is hostile to, or even just not overtly shilling for, the Administration would be amusing if it didn't derive directly from the persecution-complex reinforcing propaganda those same media shills use to keep people locked into their propaganda bubble.
- adventured 8y ago
  In fact it is true. Even the liberal media outlets openly acknowledge this is the case, they're not hiding their bias in any manner, they're openly "resisting." The well-known Pew study in the first year of his administration showed that the negative media coverage was 3x that vs the Obama Admin. The positive coverage was 1/5 that of what the Obama Admin saw. It has only gotten worse since then. "News Coverage Of Trump More Negative Than For Other Presidents" https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage-of-trump-more-negative-than-for-other-presidents https://www.npr.org/2017/10/02/555092743/study-news-coverage... MSNBC, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, Bloomberg, NPR, all talk-show hosts, nearly all journalists (roughly 9 out of 10 vote Democrat to begin with), nearly all celebrities, essentially all of Hollywood - these groups are all as close to universally against Trump as you can get. It's not subtle, it's nearly all-encompassing. Estimating that 90% of media is stacked against the Trump Administration is an understatement.
  - 07d046 8y ago
    That looks like you want presidents to be graded on a curve. Maybe more negative articles have been written about Trump because he's governing in a negative, divisive, chaotic manner and there are countless of examples where he lies or behaves badly that warrant negative coverage.

thaumaturgy 8y ago

There are interesting discussions to be had about the similarities and differences between China and the US, but saying that "the US is an oppressive presence on the internet" is not without merit. All that is left is disagreement on the relative impacts. The reasonable people who make that argument are also the important vocal watchdogs who provide the friction against further abuses of power. They shouldn't be casually dismissed just because there are worse governments in the world.

toss1 8y ago
No, it is not merely a difference in degree. It is a wholesale difference in kind/type. NatSec ops constrained by a robust constitution implemented by an elected govt, with different co-equal branches, including a court system with centuries of experience & tradition of protecting privacy of citizens from the beginning -- one of the principles on which is was founded (see 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Ammendments for starters), and a vigorous tradition of free speech and free press is one side. The other is an unelected totalitarian govt with a tradition of actively murdering it's own citizens to consolidate single-party political power, decades (China) or centuries (Russia) of manipulating information to the people, zero free press with active suppression, and active programs in both the civilian and military heirarchy to restrict information and spy on the people. To even remotely equate these systems and the threat they pose to the people is to either 1) deliberately grossly misrepresent the situation, or 2) display profound ignorance of the issues. If you want to recognize that there is a vast difference of type and then go on to discuss how the US might be better about what they do, that can be a fine discussion. But the land of 'they're all the same just different degree' is so far from reality as to render discussion useless.
- jonathanyc 8y ago
  > NatSec ops constrained by a robust constitution implemented by an elected govt, with different co-equal branches, including a court system with centuries of experience & tradition of protecting privacy of citizens from the beginning -- one of the principles on which is was founded (see 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Ammendments for starters), and a vigorous tradition of free speech and free press is one side. When I think of the FISA court I don’t exactly think of “different co-equal branches, including a court system with centuries of experience & tradition of protecting privacy of citizens from the beginning”. The FISA court is literally a non-adversarial court. I think the US court system is one of the best designed in the world. But please don’t pretend that the well-developed standard court system is anything like the secret and unaccountable national security court system.