9 ms·

Reddit Protests and China’s Control of American Culture

101 points by theNJR 8y ago

pjc50 8y ago
This seems like another one of those "money is speech and there are no values higher" => "oh no suddenly foreigners are paying huge amounts for speech we don't like" arguments. > Ultimately, if America is no longer the top exporter of culture, what becomes of our identity? Every other country is practically a net importer of American culture. Often to the detriment of their own. So they have had the same questions: is this just a market, or should there be cultural protectionism? Edit: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/france-culture-war-united-states https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/france... "Culture is like chewing-gum, a product like any other." -- Jack Valenti
- therealforsen 8y ago
  the US constitution only applies to US persons. someone living in china doesn't actually have freedom of speech protected by our constitution.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    What if they are the sole owner of a Delaware corporation? The corporation definitely does have free speech rights, per Citizens United.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rlucas 8y ago
      Interesting, sort of a Spolsky-esque "leaky abstraction." It's easy-ish to reason about rights of corporations when they are groups of your own citizens. When you poke through the veil to ultimate beneficial ownership it's a lot less obviously easy to reason about.
    - nostromo 8y ago
      No, corporations do not have rights. The owners of the corporation have rights. If the owners are not citizens, then the corporation they own to not have rights only provided to citizens.
      - pjc50 8y ago
        Could you dig up the bit of the SCOTUS ruling where it says that? Edit: link please?
        nostromo 8y ago
        Citizens United, as you mentioned. Read it -- it's clear that the logic is that corporations are collections of individuals and as such, they have the same speech protections as individuals themselves.
        munk-a 8y ago
        This is not the reason, actually. Laws can apply to different types of actors, it has been traditionally read that "natural persons" are flesh and blood human beings, while "persons" can include organizations, this interpretation is part of how companies can be legally held responsible for their actions and really _really_ regrettable and complex. It is possible that the 1st Amendment text was written prior to the distinction between "persons" and "natural persons" was clear, and that has been argued - but for the time being all "persons" are afforded free speech, including corporations.
        learc83 8y ago
        No, the GP was correct. Read the Citizens United decision. The finding was based on the concept that the rights of the people who make up an organization extend to collective action taken by that organization. The decision had nothing to do with corporations being considered legal persons or the definition of person.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
    - adrianratnapala 8y ago
      It would be a useful test-case. The rationale behind Citizens United type cases is that citizen's free speech rights can be exercised via corporations. But a foreign-owned corporation is a different kettle of fish. It's a bit silly for people to keep railing on Citizens United in particular. That was a group of people made a movie knocking a particular politician. The 1st amendment gives them the right to do this and also to organise themselves to do this. But officials tried to stop them because the law limited such activity by organisations. But there will be lots of real-world cases where the corporation is not a political ginger group. There, the free speech (and free assembly) case becomes much weaker. A fully foreign owned corporation being the most clear case.
  - thaumasiotes 8y ago
    People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad. The legal theory goes that the constitution doesn't protect anyone against government action, but rather restricts what actions the government may take, regardless of who is affected by those actions. By this argument, everyone everywhere has the same freedom of speech under the US constitution that Americans do. It's even the same amendment.
    - pvg 8y ago
      Are (serious) people really making such an argument? It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. Especially since the bit of the constitution in question starts with 'shall make no law'.
      - thaumasiotes 8y ago
        Yes, serious people are really making that argument. > It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. I don't see what you're imagining here. Prohibiting the government from doing something to you is what a right (against the government) is. If the government can't take an action against members of a particular class, then members of that class enjoy the relevant right. If the government can't take an action against anyone, then the class in question is "everyone in the world", and everyone in the world possesses the relevant right.
        pvg 8y ago
        Can you link some serious people making that argument?
        thaumasiotes 8y ago
        Yes, that's easy. It would have been just as easy for you -- it's not like criticism of Trump's policies is hard to find. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180330165631904_Travel%20Ban%203.0%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Final%20Submission%20Version%20.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180... > The Bill of Rights consists largely of structural constraints that limit the power of the federal government > The text of the First Amendment does not limit its applicability based on either territory or citizenship > The original understanding of the Bill of Rights does not set territorial or citizenship status limitations on its applicability > Under the Establishment Clause [doesn't apply to freedom of speech, but the other arguments do] of the First Amendment, the proclamation is unconstitutional and void even as to foreign nationals abroad Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to be so vocally opinionated on a factual issue you're obviously not familiar with?
  - diminoten 8y ago
    Legally yes, morally no. Citizenship doesn't grant/revoke human rights, and freedom of speech is a human right.
    - humanrebar 8y ago
      Yes. The basics in the Declaration if Independence are general statements about what rights all humans are given.
  - munk-a 8y ago
    Nope! It applies to persons, it is not limited to "natural persons" (probably due to an oversight) which is why we have issues with money = speech. It is also not limited to citizens and previous court rulings have upheld access to right protections for "people" or "persons" to non-citizens and even non-residents, whether these rights extend to persons not within the US is more hazy but most rulings have shown that US government entities must not act to violate rights afforded by the constitution/bill of rights to persons overseas... sort of like it was an overseas code of conduct.
    - learc83 8y ago
      The person vs. natural persons issue is irrelevant to the Citizens United decision. Free speech being extended to corporations has nothing to do with the legal concept of corporate personhood. Read the decision, it was very explicit. The rights of the people who comprise a group were held to extend to collective action by that group.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  You are mixing up two different groups of people. > money is speech and there are no values higher The people (Federalist Society, etc.) who make this argument are the ones who want Saudi/Russian/Chinese/Israeli/... propaganda to dominate or subvert American discourse (with the same subversive power also granted to homegrown plutocrats), as long as they can take a cut or they perceive the resulting public confusion to advance their ideological agenda. And yes: this is a very short-sighted and dangerous road to travel down, eroding republican norms and civic trust and concentrating power among the unaccountable.
  - antt 8y ago
    This is an incredibly incendiary,shortsighted and ultimately self defeating point of view. People can fundamentally disagree with you without being evil, stupid or duped. One only need to look at how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it as a pithy example of how damaging this way of thinking is.
    - jacobolus 8y ago
      I agree this is incendiary, for the reason that it cuts to the heart of these groups’ deeply contradictory self-image / self-proclaimed values. Nobody likes being told publicly that their actions have led and will continue to lead to serious harm for many people. I didn’t say they were evil or stupid or duped. Just short-sighted and self-interested with a practically anti-republican ideology (though I might also add: often disingenuous in public discussion, and largely unwilling to take public responsibility for the side effects of their discourse and policy). > how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it Universal healthcare was not implemented in the USA because the GOP and allied corporate interests have thrown everything they can against it for 75 years, typically sidelining serious policy debate in favor of slogans and cheap attacks. “Because the USSR has it” has little to do with it, except as a disingenuous excuse.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > This seems like another one of those "money is speech and there are no values higher" = “Money is speech” is a view on the US Constitution that is most frequently cited in that language in the US to rally outrage against it as subversive to democracy and facilitating plutocracy, rather than because it is a popular view.
- rconti 8y ago
  I think you have a fair point, but "money is speech" is considered quite controversial in the US. It's certainly true that American culture >> other culture in popular media, so it's hardly surprising or unfair that others want to influence this to their favor (by which I mean, perhaps, merely reduce US-centric influence).
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    > It's certainly true that American culture >> other culture in popular media What does that mean?
    - mtinkerhess 8y ago
      ">>" can be read as "is much greater / larger than"
      - StavrosK 8y ago
        I know, I'm just not sure what "American culture is much greater than other culture in popular media" means. Greater how? Says who?
        sridca 8y ago
        Other cultures tend to be "americanized" more than the other way around. Just do a Google search for `americanized india` or `americanized china`.
        rconti 8y ago
        Outsized influence relative to population. Popular media has had a greater influence in spreading American culture than other cultures. Says me. Thought it was obvious and conventional wisdom. Feel free to argue the contrary, though.
- mc32 8y ago
  Imagine a Russian oligarch with ties to Putin had bought a sizable share, what do you think the reaction would be? People aren’t concerned by Chinese propaganda or Cultural exports (positive action) so much as concerned by the possibility they could effect censorship on certain topics they’re sensitive about (negative action).
  - diminoten 8y ago
    Why are they concerned about this at all? Tencent doesn't get any say in how Reddit is run, why would they?
    - MultusSalus 8y ago
      That’s what I don’t get. Tencent in particular has seemed like a fairly benevolent investor in Western companies so far, and I don’t see why that would change.
      - theNJR 8y ago
        When viewing this through the lens of Chinese Hollywood investments, it's a slow and often unseen process.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    Why wouldn't the Chinese using media influence to paint themselves in a better light be concerning? Both positive and negative action, as you described them, distort one's view of the world.
  - xster 8y ago
    I think we also need to stop assuming the fiction that Reddit isn't already one of the most heavily and arbitrarily censored sites https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/apu3oz/with_the_recent_chinese_company_tencent_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/apu3oz/with_the...
- iagovar 8y ago
  Althoug I don't like everything that comes from the US, Im grateful for the ideas that I've got to know thanks to US academics. Also because I find US books on topics I like easier to read, in contrast to other fellow euro authors. It my be the style, IDK.
- EpicEng 8y ago
  I don't believe any of the people saying this: >oh no suddenly foreigners are paying huge amounts for speech we don't like Are also saying this: >money is speech and there are no values higher Reddit is very young/liberal and I rarely see e.g. an argument in favor of citizens united. Do you have some examples?
- gerdesj 8y ago
  "Every other country is practically a net importer of American culture." You don't get out much, do you? There is no denying that the US does have quite an influence on a global scale - culturally and otherwise but there is, much, much more going on that the US is nothing to do with. I'm a Brit who grew up in some strange places: one was called West Germany and the other was a series of public/private (that probably does not mean what you think it does) schools in the UK. All the schools I attended in Germany were British and public, except for the modern and comprehensive ones or the primary or secondary ones. I have two employees amongst 25 Brits (Ok, some are English, some are Irish and some are Scots and there are others who don't care, oh and some are Welsh) who are Polish. Their parents lived behind the Iron Curtain. Well that's nice but the world is turning and although English is still one of the lingua franca (oh the irony - franca - French) there are more changes afoot and those who are able to keep pace will "win" and those who can't ... won't. Britain has always been flexible, linguistically. English is an outrageous amalgam of many languages with a simple structure and vocab. that stretches (with a bit of a wobble) across the entire globe. Well, my English is and always has been very flexible - I personally take great delight in flexing my language and frankly torturing it through accent or spelling until it delivers the desired result. Some other Englishs are a bit taut and inflexible. Some are so worried about being associated with "British" that they are starting to sound a bit odd and stultifying - they will fall by the wayside. Tell me about your cultural views, Mr pjc50
  - komali2 8y ago
    >You don't get out much, do you? >(that probably does not mean what you think it does) >Tell me about your cultural views, Mr pjc50 Do you think the usage of this tone assisted your argument? On that note, what's your argument?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - kome 8y ago
    Just a brit can be in complete denial about the amount of cultural and linguistic imperialism of America over Europe. I don't know about the rest of the world, but here American cultural influence is strong. Too strong, if you ask me.
tivert 8y ago
It might not be a bad idea to to set up media ownership rules that exclude entities that are based-in or controlled by non-democratic regimes.
- ian0 8y ago
  I think thats pretty common practice - Though if your outside the US you may have to swap "non-democratic" with whatever term is locally used to drum up opposition against another country. Eg "foriegn agents" [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-media-restrictions/russias-putin-signs-foreign-agents-media-law-idUSKBN1DP0I2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-media-restrict...
- boomskats 8y ago
  Ignoring the oversimplification aspect for a moment, would that not be quite ironic from a philosophical standpoint?
  - flatline 8y ago
    It's a well-known paradox [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    - deogeo 8y ago
      According to that 'paradox', tolerant societies could never evolve from intolerant ones.
      - hannasanarion 8y ago
        That is a complete non-sequitur. Free societies need to oppose those who would destroy their freedoms. How does that have any bearing whatsoever on whether free societies can be established?
        deogeo 8y ago
Barrin92 8y ago
I have trouble what to make of the article. Mainly because it itself points out the central hypocrisy. The US is just as interested in spreading its values by means of entertainment media as any other country on the world, it just had more money in recent history than anyone else. And with countries like China or India having a larger market, what does America want to do? Not let them invest in the US, accepting that different viewpoints will be expressed? Declare them invalid? One of the positions that Americans broadly have always held is that when ideas are exchanged, the people overall can figure out what the good ideas are and what the bad ideas are, that's in fact the basic assumption behind liberal democracy. So if these Chinese cultural exports are just propaganda and all around awful, surely Americans will figure it out. If there's something to them, and they're genuinely valuable and give a different perspective, then it would be bad to try to suppress them. So by liberal democracies own standards, I find myself puzzled by the flat-out fear of foreign cultural imports.
- tivert 8y ago
  > So by liberal democracies own standards, I find myself puzzled by the flat-out fear of foreign cultural imports. The fear isn't so much about "cultural imports," but foreign control of cultural institutions. That control can be used to export different kinds of government censorship and other illiberal practices.
  - door5 8y ago
    The United States has done this for decades. Why do you think China blocks Google, Facebook, et al? The exact same reason. The difference is the US is substantially richer and more powerful than China is.
- newen 8y ago
  I don't think "Americans will figure out that something is propaganda" is a reasonable position to take. After all Russian propaganda via the internet was very effective, look at the 2016 election, and native American military propaganda is hugely effective.
  - 8y ago
bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
The comparison to Chinese influence in Hollywood is pretty apt. The point being, the Chinese companies don’t need board seats to exert influence.
endofcapital 8y ago
I've been a part of a lot of acquisitions, and a lot of investment rounds. The stakeholders always want to start stirring the pot sooner or later. Maybe you get a year or two of being left alone, but eventually, it always happens.
- tru3_power 8y ago
  Could you elaborate a little? I have no doubt this happens but I’m fascinated in the nuances of how it happens(changing the flag from China to NK for example). Or is it more overt? (Do this or x, y, and z)
tomglynch 8y ago
That image at the top is just cringeworthy.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Agreed. If anyone has been paying the slightest bit of attention, the reddit snoo is driving the tank.
ShorsHammer 8y ago
Breaking news: The world's 2nd biggest economy now employs the same soft power techniques as worlds largest economy. World's largest economy is shocked and outraged.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  China isn't just a large economy. If it was the European Union buying interest in Reddit, nobody would bat an eye, because Europe shares America's values of freedom, rights, and equality as cornerstones of society, arguably moreso. China is a repressive one-party state where dissidents are regularly silenced by imprisonment or "disappearing", citizens are ranked for party loyalty the same way Americans are ranked in economic creditworthiness, and ethnic minorities are imprisoned in concentration camps. They are the last people we want to be running prominent public forums.
  - ShorsHammer 8y ago
    China is a terrible country to be a minority or dissident. But then again so is much of the world, even developed countries, only a few decades ago to be a black person in the US was horrendous even though the country itself was incredibly wealthy, and while most of China was living in extreme poverty. This attitude of "but we are better" reeks of an adult abusing a child because they can't run as fast. Take Singapore for example: consistently ranks in the top of quality of life, yet an incredibly dangerous place to practice dissent. China is trying to emulate that model.[0] There's big investments from the Middle East in other social media platforms and I'm yet to see any of them clamping down on content criticising the Saudis. > because Europe shares America's values of freedom Interesting take. We certainly look and speak similarly, but there's plenty of differences. Regarding healthcare and education policies who do you think Europe is more similar to: the US or China? Regarding censorship who do you think is closer again? European states regularly demand removal of social media content, prohibit news outlets reporting certain stories and imprison people for speech that would be clearly protected in the US. [1][2] In the UK and Australia there are defamation laws that will bankrupt people for simply stating a provably true fact.[3] The right to bear arms is virtually non-existent, especially for handguns and assault rifles. The 4th amendment is likewise barely applicable in most Western countries, though sadly that seems to be the case in the US too nowadays. Things like racial discrimination and LBGT rights certainly are similar. Workers rights too, though I'd call that more a function of national wealth rather than culture. > ethnic minorities are imprisoned [4] I'd like to put to you a hypothetical situation where a large region of the USA has a majority Muslim population which has been waging a low level terror campaign for 3 decades? What do you think the response would be? It certainly wouldn't be pretty, the US has no qualms about killing US citizens in assassinations without trial.[5] Given the prison population in Iraq and Afghanistan during wartime and the horrors[6] found there, it's perhaps a case of walking in their shoes for a day. Democracy won't solve this, the majority of people in China support what's happening in Xinjiang. Anti-muslim sentiment is incredibly common. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/introduction-the-singapore-model-and-chinas-neoauthoritarian-dream/2ED7A22E42E1D9E2CA3A116047C8D58D/core-reader https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-19/free-speech-in-europe-isn-t-what-americans-think https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-19/free-s... > To Americans, the idea of the government forcing social media to censor posts may seem to resemble China’s internet censorship. Such legislation wouldn’t just be unconstitutional; it would be almost unthinkable. [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/17/europes-free-speech-apocalypse-is-already-here-france-germany-spain/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/17/europes-free-speech-apo... > Google, Facebook, and Twitter announced in December that they would work to delete anti-migrant sentiments voiced on their networks within 24 hours of request [3] https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation... > if what you said was true but not considered by the court to be in the public interest, you can be successfully sued for defamation [4] https://reason.com/archives/2015/04/16/can-the-president-kill-americans https://reason.com/archives/2015/04/16/can-the-president-kil... > he was within eyesight in Yemen of about 12 Yemeni intelligence agents and four CIA agents, all of whom collectively could have arrested him. He was not engaged in any unlawful behavior. He was unarmed and sitting at an outdoor cafe with a friend and his teenage son and the son's friend. All four, Americans all, were murdered by the drones dispatched from Virginia. [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison [6] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/28/us/mass-incarceration-five-key-facts/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/28/us/mass-incarceration-fiv... > nearly 2.2 million adults were held in America's prisons... nearly half of all inmates are locked up for drug charges...African-Americans continue to make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population
quotz 8y ago
Reddit and all other companies should really reconsider taking chinese money.....
aj7 8y ago
The number-1-zeroth-order-term-in-the-Taylor-expansion characteristic of Chinese culture is Han racial superiority. So how the hell is Chinese culture “vying” for cultural leadership when it is intrinsically exclusionist? Now censorship, propaganda, etc., as well covered in the article — now you’re talking.
- theNJR 8y ago
  I haven't read about Han racial superiority before. Any book or article suggestions? This Economist[1] article seems like a good starting point. [1]https://outline.com/34FXDU https://outline.com/34FXDU
- newen 8y ago
  Really? Politically correct Chinese culture seem to emphasize multiculturalism, from me going to Chinese shows and such held in the US and Singapore.
abledon 8y ago
Leisure time on internet 90% of my friends spend their time with: - Riot Games - League of Legends - Supercell - Clash of Clans - Reddit (while waiting for games to load... riding bus.. work etc). This acquisition will make 100% of their content Chinese owned !
voltagex_ 8y ago
I didn't realise Tencent owned so much of Epic. I wonder what that means for the game industry at large given the huge push for the Epic store. Could we see the same effects we've seen in Hollywood?
dmix 8y ago
> The threat of Chinese censorship was feeling all too real on a site that had historically embraced the extremes of free speech. Any active Reddit user with non-left leaning political views will most certainly find this assertion amusing at a minimum. In a similar vein I'd almost rather buy an Huawei phone over an American one because I don't care about China's interests nor live there, so I don't fear them censoring my posts or kicking my door down over some innocuous statement I made online. And for those who think that won't ever happen in the west the UK has already done 2am night raids over a person's tweets. But most redditor's didn't put up a similar fuss over a real life example of the thing they fear from China because he was a (legitimately) douchey right winger who didn't fit into their ideological bubble. In practice I'd bet far more regular North American and European Reddit users will be banned and have posts deleted for not sharing (by mainstream western standards) the pretty radical left political world-views that is popular on that site's communities - which of course are world-views I see nothing wrong with, people can believe anything they want. I don't know where I'm going with this other than to say I hope we in the tech community stand against all forms of censorship, not just the one's that fit into their particular pet ideologies. There's plenty of history and literature since the 17th century enlightenment that anything less is a very dangerous path.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Yea. Historically is the context there. Even when presented with examples of censorship on reddit, the users completely ignore it. But... the Chinese come in, and now the possibility of censorship is a big deal. ffs... they seem to only be able to see slightly past their own noses.
  - theNJR 8y ago
    I meant Aaron Swartz historic. Current Reddit censorship (and really censorship on all the major platforms) is very different.
simplecomplex 8y ago
Are the investors actually making Reddit censor or is this just the latest xenophobic rage bait? America sure loves its China/Russia scaremongering.
- theNJR 8y ago
  The crux of the article is around the 'investors making' anyone do anything. It doesn't really work like that.
solotronics 8y ago
is there an uncensored version of reddit thats any good?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jorblumesea 8y ago
I think a lot of people are missing the point. China is not an open and free society. It has hundreds of thousands of ethnic in concentration camps and is known to kidnap dissidents and silence opposition. It has implemented a social credit system purely for establishing party loyalty. It's hard to imagine a country so against and anathema to Western ideals. Let's put it in historical context, should we have allowed Franco, Mussolini or Hitler to have significant sway over US media and opinions at the time? How different might the world be now, had we allowed unchecked totalitarianism to spread its ideas before WW2? We are approaching similar stakes now, where a country that is vehemently against everything we stand for is trying to influence us. We need to appreciate the severity of Chinese investment and not pretend like they are just another investor.

101 points by theNJR 8y ago

This seems like another one of those "money is speech and there are no values higher" => "oh no suddenly foreigners are paying huge amounts for speech we don't like" arguments. > Ultimately, if America is no longer the top exporter of culture, what becomes of our identity? Every other country is practically a net importer of American culture. Often to the detriment of their own. So they have had the same questions: is this just a market, or should there be cultural protectionism? Edit: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/france-culture-war-united-states https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/france... "Culture is like chewing-gum, a product like any other." -- Jack Valenti

therealforsen 8y ago
the US constitution only applies to US persons. someone living in china doesn't actually have freedom of speech protected by our constitution.
- pjc50 8y ago
  What if they are the sole owner of a Delaware corporation? The corporation definitely does have free speech rights, per Citizens United.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rlucas 8y ago
    Interesting, sort of a Spolsky-esque "leaky abstraction." It's easy-ish to reason about rights of corporations when they are groups of your own citizens. When you poke through the veil to ultimate beneficial ownership it's a lot less obviously easy to reason about.
  - nostromo 8y ago
    No, corporations do not have rights. The owners of the corporation have rights. If the owners are not citizens, then the corporation they own to not have rights only provided to citizens.
    - pjc50 8y ago
      Could you dig up the bit of the SCOTUS ruling where it says that? Edit: link please?
      - nostromo 8y ago
        Citizens United, as you mentioned. Read it -- it's clear that the logic is that corporations are collections of individuals and as such, they have the same speech protections as individuals themselves.
        munk-a 8y ago
        This is not the reason, actually. Laws can apply to different types of actors, it has been traditionally read that "natural persons" are flesh and blood human beings, while "persons" can include organizations, this interpretation is part of how companies can be legally held responsible for their actions and really _really_ regrettable and complex. It is possible that the 1st Amendment text was written prior to the distinction between "persons" and "natural persons" was clear, and that has been argued - but for the time being all "persons" are afforded free speech, including corporations.
        learc83 8y ago
        No, the GP was correct. Read the Citizens United decision. The finding was based on the concept that the rights of the people who make up an organization extend to collective action taken by that organization. The decision had nothing to do with corporations being considered legal persons or the definition of person.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
  - adrianratnapala 8y ago
    It would be a useful test-case. The rationale behind Citizens United type cases is that citizen's free speech rights can be exercised via corporations. But a foreign-owned corporation is a different kettle of fish. It's a bit silly for people to keep railing on Citizens United in particular. That was a group of people made a movie knocking a particular politician. The 1st amendment gives them the right to do this and also to organise themselves to do this. But officials tried to stop them because the law limited such activity by organisations. But there will be lots of real-world cases where the corporation is not a political ginger group. There, the free speech (and free assembly) case becomes much weaker. A fully foreign owned corporation being the most clear case.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  People are arguing that a ban on Muslim immigration violates the first amendment rights of foreigners living abroad. The legal theory goes that the constitution doesn't protect anyone against government action, but rather restricts what actions the government may take, regardless of who is affected by those actions. By this argument, everyone everywhere has the same freedom of speech under the US constitution that Americans do. It's even the same amendment.
  - pvg 8y ago
    Are (serious) people really making such an argument? It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. Especially since the bit of the constitution in question starts with 'shall make no law'.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      Yes, serious people are really making that argument. > It's trivial to make an argument about what a government can't do without necessarily bestowing broad rights on people the US constitution does not directly apply to. I don't see what you're imagining here. Prohibiting the government from doing something to you is what a right (against the government) is. If the government can't take an action against members of a particular class, then members of that class enjoy the relevant right. If the government can't take an action against anyone, then the class in question is "everyone in the world", and everyone in the world possesses the relevant right.
      - pvg 8y ago
        Can you link some serious people making that argument?
        thaumasiotes 8y ago
        Yes, that's easy. It would have been just as easy for you -- it's not like criticism of Trump's policies is hard to find. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180330165631904_Travel%20Ban%203.0%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Final%20Submission%20Version%20.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-965/41835/20180... > The Bill of Rights consists largely of structural constraints that limit the power of the federal government > The text of the First Amendment does not limit its applicability based on either territory or citizenship > The original understanding of the Bill of Rights does not set territorial or citizenship status limitations on its applicability > Under the Establishment Clause [doesn't apply to freedom of speech, but the other arguments do] of the First Amendment, the proclamation is unconstitutional and void even as to foreign nationals abroad Can you explain why you think it's a good idea to be so vocally opinionated on a factual issue you're obviously not familiar with?
- diminoten 8y ago
  Legally yes, morally no. Citizenship doesn't grant/revoke human rights, and freedom of speech is a human right.
  - humanrebar 8y ago
    Yes. The basics in the Declaration if Independence are general statements about what rights all humans are given.
- munk-a 8y ago
  Nope! It applies to persons, it is not limited to "natural persons" (probably due to an oversight) which is why we have issues with money = speech. It is also not limited to citizens and previous court rulings have upheld access to right protections for "people" or "persons" to non-citizens and even non-residents, whether these rights extend to persons not within the US is more hazy but most rulings have shown that US government entities must not act to violate rights afforded by the constitution/bill of rights to persons overseas... sort of like it was an overseas code of conduct.
  - learc83 8y ago
    The person vs. natural persons issue is irrelevant to the Citizens United decision. Free speech being extended to corporations has nothing to do with the legal concept of corporate personhood. Read the decision, it was very explicit. The rights of the people who comprise a group were held to extend to collective action by that group.
jacobolus 8y ago
You are mixing up two different groups of people. > money is speech and there are no values higher The people (Federalist Society, etc.) who make this argument are the ones who want Saudi/Russian/Chinese/Israeli/... propaganda to dominate or subvert American discourse (with the same subversive power also granted to homegrown plutocrats), as long as they can take a cut or they perceive the resulting public confusion to advance their ideological agenda. And yes: this is a very short-sighted and dangerous road to travel down, eroding republican norms and civic trust and concentrating power among the unaccountable.
- antt 8y ago
  This is an incredibly incendiary,shortsighted and ultimately self defeating point of view. People can fundamentally disagree with you without being evil, stupid or duped. One only need to look at how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it as a pithy example of how damaging this way of thinking is.
  - jacobolus 8y ago
    I agree this is incendiary, for the reason that it cuts to the heart of these groups’ deeply contradictory self-image / self-proclaimed values. Nobody likes being told publicly that their actions have led and will continue to lead to serious harm for many people. I didn’t say they were evil or stupid or duped. Just short-sighted and self-interested with a practically anti-republican ideology (though I might also add: often disingenuous in public discussion, and largely unwilling to take public responsibility for the side effects of their discourse and policy). > how universal healthcare was not implemented in the US because the USSR had it Universal healthcare was not implemented in the USA because the GOP and allied corporate interests have thrown everything they can against it for 75 years, typically sidelining serious policy debate in favor of slogans and cheap attacks. “Because the USSR has it” has little to do with it, except as a disingenuous excuse.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> This seems like another one of those "money is speech and there are no values higher" = “Money is speech” is a view on the US Constitution that is most frequently cited in that language in the US to rally outrage against it as subversive to democracy and facilitating plutocracy, rather than because it is a popular view.
rconti 8y ago
I think you have a fair point, but "money is speech" is considered quite controversial in the US. It's certainly true that American culture >> other culture in popular media, so it's hardly surprising or unfair that others want to influence this to their favor (by which I mean, perhaps, merely reduce US-centric influence).
- StavrosK 8y ago
  > It's certainly true that American culture >> other culture in popular media What does that mean?
  - mtinkerhess 8y ago
    ">>" can be read as "is much greater / larger than"
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      I know, I'm just not sure what "American culture is much greater than other culture in popular media" means. Greater how? Says who?
      - sridca 8y ago
        Other cultures tend to be "americanized" more than the other way around. Just do a Google search for `americanized india` or `americanized china`.
      - rconti 8y ago
        Outsized influence relative to population. Popular media has had a greater influence in spreading American culture than other cultures. Says me. Thought it was obvious and conventional wisdom. Feel free to argue the contrary, though.
mc32 8y ago
Imagine a Russian oligarch with ties to Putin had bought a sizable share, what do you think the reaction would be? People aren’t concerned by Chinese propaganda or Cultural exports (positive action) so much as concerned by the possibility they could effect censorship on certain topics they’re sensitive about (negative action).
- diminoten 8y ago
  Why are they concerned about this at all? Tencent doesn't get any say in how Reddit is run, why would they?
  - MultusSalus 8y ago
    That’s what I don’t get. Tencent in particular has seemed like a fairly benevolent investor in Western companies so far, and I don’t see why that would change.
    - theNJR 8y ago
      When viewing this through the lens of Chinese Hollywood investments, it's a slow and often unseen process.
- deogeo 8y ago
  Why wouldn't the Chinese using media influence to paint themselves in a better light be concerning? Both positive and negative action, as you described them, distort one's view of the world.
- xster 8y ago
  I think we also need to stop assuming the fiction that Reddit isn't already one of the most heavily and arbitrarily censored sites https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/apu3oz/with_the_recent_chinese_company_tencent_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/apu3oz/with_the...
iagovar 8y ago
Althoug I don't like everything that comes from the US, Im grateful for the ideas that I've got to know thanks to US academics. Also because I find US books on topics I like easier to read, in contrast to other fellow euro authors. It my be the style, IDK.
EpicEng 8y ago
I don't believe any of the people saying this: >oh no suddenly foreigners are paying huge amounts for speech we don't like Are also saying this: >money is speech and there are no values higher Reddit is very young/liberal and I rarely see e.g. an argument in favor of citizens united. Do you have some examples?
gerdesj 8y ago
"Every other country is practically a net importer of American culture." You don't get out much, do you? There is no denying that the US does have quite an influence on a global scale - culturally and otherwise but there is, much, much more going on that the US is nothing to do with. I'm a Brit who grew up in some strange places: one was called West Germany and the other was a series of public/private (that probably does not mean what you think it does) schools in the UK. All the schools I attended in Germany were British and public, except for the modern and comprehensive ones or the primary or secondary ones. I have two employees amongst 25 Brits (Ok, some are English, some are Irish and some are Scots and there are others who don't care, oh and some are Welsh) who are Polish. Their parents lived behind the Iron Curtain. Well that's nice but the world is turning and although English is still one of the lingua franca (oh the irony - franca - French) there are more changes afoot and those who are able to keep pace will "win" and those who can't ... won't. Britain has always been flexible, linguistically. English is an outrageous amalgam of many languages with a simple structure and vocab. that stretches (with a bit of a wobble) across the entire globe. Well, my English is and always has been very flexible - I personally take great delight in flexing my language and frankly torturing it through accent or spelling until it delivers the desired result. Some other Englishs are a bit taut and inflexible. Some are so worried about being associated with "British" that they are starting to sound a bit odd and stultifying - they will fall by the wayside. Tell me about your cultural views, Mr pjc50
- komali2 8y ago
  >You don't get out much, do you? >(that probably does not mean what you think it does) >Tell me about your cultural views, Mr pjc50 Do you think the usage of this tone assisted your argument? On that note, what's your argument?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kome 8y ago
  Just a brit can be in complete denial about the amount of cultural and linguistic imperialism of America over Europe. I don't know about the rest of the world, but here American cultural influence is strong. Too strong, if you ask me.

tivert 8y ago

It might not be a bad idea to to set up media ownership rules that exclude entities that are based-in or controlled by non-democratic regimes.

ian0 8y ago
I think thats pretty common practice - Though if your outside the US you may have to swap "non-democratic" with whatever term is locally used to drum up opposition against another country. Eg "foriegn agents" [1]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-media-restrictions/russias-putin-signs-foreign-agents-media-law-idUSKBN1DP0I2 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-media-restrict...
boomskats 8y ago
Ignoring the oversimplification aspect for a moment, would that not be quite ironic from a philosophical standpoint?
- flatline 8y ago
  It's a well-known paradox [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
  - deogeo 8y ago
    According to that 'paradox', tolerant societies could never evolve from intolerant ones.
    - hannasanarion 8y ago
      That is a complete non-sequitur. Free societies need to oppose those who would destroy their freedoms. How does that have any bearing whatsoever on whether free societies can be established?
      - deogeo 8y ago

Barrin92 8y ago

I have trouble what to make of the article. Mainly because it itself points out the central hypocrisy. The US is just as interested in spreading its values by means of entertainment media as any other country on the world, it just had more money in recent history than anyone else. And with countries like China or India having a larger market, what does America want to do? Not let them invest in the US, accepting that different viewpoints will be expressed? Declare them invalid? One of the positions that Americans broadly have always held is that when ideas are exchanged, the people overall can figure out what the good ideas are and what the bad ideas are, that's in fact the basic assumption behind liberal democracy. So if these Chinese cultural exports are just propaganda and all around awful, surely Americans will figure it out. If there's something to them, and they're genuinely valuable and give a different perspective, then it would be bad to try to suppress them. So by liberal democracies own standards, I find myself puzzled by the flat-out fear of foreign cultural imports.

tivert 8y ago
> So by liberal democracies own standards, I find myself puzzled by the flat-out fear of foreign cultural imports. The fear isn't so much about "cultural imports," but foreign control of cultural institutions. That control can be used to export different kinds of government censorship and other illiberal practices.
- door5 8y ago
  The United States has done this for decades. Why do you think China blocks Google, Facebook, et al? The exact same reason. The difference is the US is substantially richer and more powerful than China is.
newen 8y ago
I don't think "Americans will figure out that something is propaganda" is a reasonable position to take. After all Russian propaganda via the internet was very effective, look at the 2016 election, and native American military propaganda is hugely effective.
- 8y ago

bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago

The comparison to Chinese influence in Hollywood is pretty apt. The point being, the Chinese companies don’t need board seats to exert influence.

endofcapital 8y ago

I've been a part of a lot of acquisitions, and a lot of investment rounds. The stakeholders always want to start stirring the pot sooner or later. Maybe you get a year or two of being left alone, but eventually, it always happens.

tru3_power 8y ago
Could you elaborate a little? I have no doubt this happens but I’m fascinated in the nuances of how it happens(changing the flag from China to NK for example). Or is it more overt? (Do this or x, y, and z)

tomglynch 8y ago

That image at the top is just cringeworthy.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
Agreed. If anyone has been paying the slightest bit of attention, the reddit snoo is driving the tank.

ShorsHammer 8y ago

Breaking news: The world's 2nd biggest economy now employs the same soft power techniques as worlds largest economy. World's largest economy is shocked and outraged.

hannasanarion 8y ago
China isn't just a large economy. If it was the European Union buying interest in Reddit, nobody would bat an eye, because Europe shares America's values of freedom, rights, and equality as cornerstones of society, arguably moreso. China is a repressive one-party state where dissidents are regularly silenced by imprisonment or "disappearing", citizens are ranked for party loyalty the same way Americans are ranked in economic creditworthiness, and ethnic minorities are imprisoned in concentration camps. They are the last people we want to be running prominent public forums.
- ShorsHammer 8y ago
  China is a terrible country to be a minority or dissident. But then again so is much of the world, even developed countries, only a few decades ago to be a black person in the US was horrendous even though the country itself was incredibly wealthy, and while most of China was living in extreme poverty. This attitude of "but we are better" reeks of an adult abusing a child because they can't run as fast. Take Singapore for example: consistently ranks in the top of quality of life, yet an incredibly dangerous place to practice dissent. China is trying to emulate that model.[0] There's big investments from the Middle East in other social media platforms and I'm yet to see any of them clamping down on content criticising the Saudis. > because Europe shares America's values of freedom Interesting take. We certainly look and speak similarly, but there's plenty of differences. Regarding healthcare and education policies who do you think Europe is more similar to: the US or China? Regarding censorship who do you think is closer again? European states regularly demand removal of social media content, prohibit news outlets reporting certain stories and imprison people for speech that would be clearly protected in the US. [1][2] In the UK and Australia there are defamation laws that will bankrupt people for simply stating a provably true fact.[3] The right to bear arms is virtually non-existent, especially for handguns and assault rifles. The 4th amendment is likewise barely applicable in most Western countries, though sadly that seems to be the case in the US too nowadays. Things like racial discrimination and LBGT rights certainly are similar. Workers rights too, though I'd call that more a function of national wealth rather than culture. > ethnic minorities are imprisoned [4] I'd like to put to you a hypothetical situation where a large region of the USA has a majority Muslim population which has been waging a low level terror campaign for 3 decades? What do you think the response would be? It certainly wouldn't be pretty, the US has no qualms about killing US citizens in assassinations without trial.[5] Given the prison population in Iraq and Afghanistan during wartime and the horrors[6] found there, it's perhaps a case of walking in their shoes for a day. Democracy won't solve this, the majority of people in China support what's happening in Xinjiang. Anti-muslim sentiment is incredibly common. [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/introduction-the-singapore-model-and-chinas-neoauthoritarian-dream/2ED7A22E42E1D9E2CA3A116047C8D58D/core-reader https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/arti... [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-19/free-speech-in-europe-isn-t-what-americans-think https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2017-03-19/free-s... > To Americans, the idea of the government forcing social media to censor posts may seem to resemble China’s internet censorship. Such legislation wouldn’t just be unconstitutional; it would be almost unthinkable. [2] https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/17/europes-free-speech-apocalypse-is-already-here-france-germany-spain/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/17/europes-free-speech-apo... > Google, Facebook, and Twitter announced in December that they would work to delete anti-migrant sentiments voiced on their networks within 24 hours of request [3] https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation.html https://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/dissent/documents/defamation... > if what you said was true but not considered by the court to be in the public interest, you can be successfully sued for defamation [4] https://reason.com/archives/2015/04/16/can-the-president-kill-americans https://reason.com/archives/2015/04/16/can-the-president-kil... > he was within eyesight in Yemen of about 12 Yemeni intelligence agents and four CIA agents, all of whom collectively could have arrested him. He was not engaged in any unlawful behavior. He was unarmed and sitting at an outdoor cafe with a friend and his teenage son and the son's friend. All four, Americans all, were murdered by the drones dispatched from Virginia. [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison [6] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/28/us/mass-incarceration-five-key-facts/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/28/us/mass-incarceration-fiv... > nearly 2.2 million adults were held in America's prisons... nearly half of all inmates are locked up for drug charges...African-Americans continue to make up a disproportionate amount of the prison population

quotz 8y ago

Reddit and all other companies should really reconsider taking chinese money.....

aj7 8y ago

The number-1-zeroth-order-term-in-the-Taylor-expansion characteristic of Chinese culture is Han racial superiority. So how the hell is Chinese culture “vying” for cultural leadership when it is intrinsically exclusionist? Now censorship, propaganda, etc., as well covered in the article — now you’re talking.

theNJR 8y ago
I haven't read about Han racial superiority before. Any book or article suggestions? This Economist[1] article seems like a good starting point. [1]https://outline.com/34FXDU https://outline.com/34FXDU
newen 8y ago
Really? Politically correct Chinese culture seem to emphasize multiculturalism, from me going to Chinese shows and such held in the US and Singapore.

abledon 8y ago

Leisure time on internet 90% of my friends spend their time with: - Riot Games - League of Legends - Supercell - Clash of Clans - Reddit (while waiting for games to load... riding bus.. work etc). This acquisition will make 100% of their content Chinese owned !

voltagex_ 8y ago

I didn't realise Tencent owned so much of Epic. I wonder what that means for the game industry at large given the huge push for the Epic store. Could we see the same effects we've seen in Hollywood?

dmix 8y ago

> The threat of Chinese censorship was feeling all too real on a site that had historically embraced the extremes of free speech. Any active Reddit user with non-left leaning political views will most certainly find this assertion amusing at a minimum. In a similar vein I'd almost rather buy an Huawei phone over an American one because I don't care about China's interests nor live there, so I don't fear them censoring my posts or kicking my door down over some innocuous statement I made online. And for those who think that won't ever happen in the west the UK has already done 2am night raids over a person's tweets. But most redditor's didn't put up a similar fuss over a real life example of the thing they fear from China because he was a (legitimately) douchey right winger who didn't fit into their ideological bubble. In practice I'd bet far more regular North American and European Reddit users will be banned and have posts deleted for not sharing (by mainstream western standards) the pretty radical left political world-views that is popular on that site's communities - which of course are world-views I see nothing wrong with, people can believe anything they want. I don't know where I'm going with this other than to say I hope we in the tech community stand against all forms of censorship, not just the one's that fit into their particular pet ideologies. There's plenty of history and literature since the 17th century enlightenment that anything less is a very dangerous path.

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
Yea. Historically is the context there. Even when presented with examples of censorship on reddit, the users completely ignore it. But... the Chinese come in, and now the possibility of censorship is a big deal. ffs... they seem to only be able to see slightly past their own noses.
- theNJR 8y ago
  I meant Aaron Swartz historic. Current Reddit censorship (and really censorship on all the major platforms) is very different.

simplecomplex 8y ago

Are the investors actually making Reddit censor or is this just the latest xenophobic rage bait? America sure loves its China/Russia scaremongering.

theNJR 8y ago
The crux of the article is around the 'investors making' anyone do anything. It doesn't really work like that.

solotronics 8y ago

is there an uncensored version of reddit thats any good?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

jorblumesea 8y ago

I think a lot of people are missing the point. China is not an open and free society. It has hundreds of thousands of ethnic in concentration camps and is known to kidnap dissidents and silence opposition. It has implemented a social credit system purely for establishing party loyalty. It's hard to imagine a country so against and anathema to Western ideals. Let's put it in historical context, should we have allowed Franco, Mussolini or Hitler to have significant sway over US media and opinions at the time? How different might the world be now, had we allowed unchecked totalitarianism to spread its ideas before WW2? We are approaching similar stakes now, where a country that is vehemently against everything we stand for is trying to influence us. We need to appreciate the severity of Chinese investment and not pretend like they are just another investor.