19 ms·

You have a good point. But TikTok is much more risky, and as as such requires much more scrutiny given existing body of knowledge between how chinese social med

You have a good point. But TikTok is much more risky, and as as such requires much more scrutiny given existing body of knowledge between how chinese social media / chat companies such as WeChat enforce government censorship and aid in propagating misinformation. This might be a shock to most people in the western world, but if you go on almost ANY news website in china, the headline news is dedicated to government propaganda. The reality is that Chinese firms and government operates together intimately. Nearly all sizable firms have a party secretary that is involved in board level decisions, and steps in when things get political. You can ponder who has the final say.

ianleeclark 6y ago
> The reality is that Chinese firms and government operates together intimately No, I get this, but here's the thing: YouTube and, more specifically, it's advertisers do everything that you're accusing China of. There are material consequences if YouTube doesn't keep in line. What this means is that a status quo that pleases advertisers will be maintained. It's every bit propaganda as dropping leaflets, but you can't point out a boogeyman pulling the strings.
- pyuser583 6y ago
  The concern is the coordination between Chinese foreign affairs/security services and the commercial sector. For US-based firms, that’s simply not the case. Yes, YouTube needs to make sure Nike is happy. But Nike didn’t just kill two dozen Indian soldiers. Certainly there’s privacy related concerns with US companies - as with Chinese companies. But nobody had accused the DoD of manipulating YouTube search rankings. If the DoD wants to conduct a YouTube propaganda campaign, they can buy advertising like everybody else.
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    I don't know, I still remember how, in a poll before the invasion of Iraq, a majority of Americans though that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 11S attacks.
    - gruez 6y ago
      What are you trying to say here? That the DoD somehow was able to pressure the US media into supporting the Iraq war? Funny how they were able to do that, but wasn't able to get the "MSM" to get off Trump's back during his term.
      - RobertoG 6y ago
        Actually, from my readings I have the perception that the DoD was against the invasion of Iraq. But some elites decided that Iraq was going to be invaded and invaded it was. Now somebody has decided that China is very bad, and here we are discussing how bad they are. Despise that in 1989 they massacred their population literally in the center of their capital, a few years later and until recently the investment in China grow exponentially. But, they are starting to be too powerful, so, they are not funny anymore. Now, we have to block their mobile apps. What happened to Saudi Arabia by the way? Why are not the independent media talking about the relationship with them in the same way they talk about Iran?
        Udik 6y ago
        And why a country that puts snipers to shoot on protesters and is planning the annexation of territory belonging to others (after several other illegal annexations) is the US's best friend?
        alasdair_ 6y ago
        I assume you are talking about Israel? There are quite a few countries that fit this description however.
  - erikerikson 6y ago
    Technically: less the case. Consider past agreements about/agency infiltrations to create backdoors and the like[0] or canary clauses[1] in licenses and why they exist. Still better despite being only a partial mechanism for increasing balance between powers. [0] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > Yes, YouTube needs to make sure Nike is happy. But Nike didn’t just kill two dozen Indian soldiers. Probably not the best company to choose given their history.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    > The concern is the coordination between Chinese foreign affairs/security services and the commercial sector. > For US-based firms, that’s simply not the case. Disingenuous or naive?
- ThrustVectoring 6y ago
  While private corporations also have incentives and private individuals bring their own biases into play, there remain extremely important differences between the capabilities of corporations and states. State actors can effectuate arrests within their own territory, deploy military assets, make territorial claims, conduct assassinations, and generally use their information-gathering and influence to support significantly more violent goals. Like, I get that the milquetoast world advertisers want to live in is some kind of lens that colors the views and opinions presented by their platforms. It's just that the worst that happens from being influenced by it is it that you live a more boring life and consume more product. That's not nearly as worrying as being influenced to hating racial minorities in an attempt to distract from the South China Sea or something.
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > State actors can effectuate arrests within their own territory, deploy military assets, make territorial claims, conduct assassinations, and generally use their information-gathering and influence to support significantly more violent goals. Coca cola sent death squads into South America. > That's not nearly as worrying as being influenced to hating racial minorities in an attempt to distract from the South China Sea or something. I don't know if you've noticed, but there are currently protests going on in America over racist injustice. > It's just that the worst that happens from being influenced by it is it that you live a more boring life and consume more product And how do you think this interacts with the above point?
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      > Coca cola sent death squads into South America. That's an argument against Coca Cola doing business in South America, not against banning an advertising platform in South America.
      - ianleeclark 6y ago
        No, it's actually pointing out the statement I quoted is fundamentally wrong. Private corporations can and have done the same things you accused state actors of doing
- Veen 6y ago
  Here's one difference: the CCP is a totalitarian dictatorship that exerts direct control over Chinese corporations. Youtube, flawed as it is, is not that.
  - foobiekr 6y ago
    This. Why must every single posting on Hacker News that involves China be flooded with whataboutism? It's a recurring thing, not even subtle.
    - uep 6y ago
      You know, as much as I think the whataboutism is trying to draw equivalencies that don't exist and make excuses for other nation states doing bad things, I'm more accepting of it now. As long as it's called out for being that. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but we should always strive to be better. Just because the US could be doing as bad things as China or Russia, doesn't mean it shouldn't be better than it is now.
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      Whataboutism is a cowardly refusal to look inwards.
      - pvelagal 6y ago
        It is self-realization, not whataboutism ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
    - pvelagal 6y ago
      Because China hasn't done anything remotely qualifies them to question to any other country ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
    - Nginx487 6y ago
      We can simply ignore the fact China is a totalitarian communist state, but in this case, we have not to talk about it at all, because literally every decision of CCP has the underlying motivation to weaken the national security of countries it believes to be Chinese enemies.
- stickfigure 6y ago
  These are not even remotely equivalent things. Advertisers are not a homogeneous block. YouTube et al can afford to piss off some advertisers; if they're pissing off all advertisers, the material is probably extremely objectionable to most humans. I challenge you to point out an example of content that has been banned from youtube because it offends advertisers, that you really think the banning of which is a significant issue. There's no shortage of material on YT hypercritical of Goldman "Vampire Squid" Sachs. Whereas there is a long litany of material banned from Chinese networks for obvious political reasons. Furthermore, if you don't like YT's policy, you can use other video sharing sites or even gasp host your own videos. Try doing that in China and see how long it takes for men with guns to show up.
  - xmprt 6y ago
    YouTube's algorithm suppresses LGBTQ content more than usual which is something that most people agree shouldn't be suppressed. At the same time, I don't think it's because advertisers want to suppress the content. I just think it's a bug with YouTube's algorithm.
    - HenryBemis 6y ago
      > YouTube's algorithm suppresses LGBTQ content more than usual Similar story with Tumblr. I had been using Tumblr for a good many years, for non-pornographic use/material (I shoot landscapes and buildings, and I liked the way I could post/group my photos). It pissed me off though when they (Tumblr) clamped down on sexual content, because it really hurt the LGBTQIA+ communities. A similar clamp down on Pinterest also made me drop them equally fast. I don't know what conservative agenda they took on, but there were other ways to "protect the sensitive eyes" of their conservative users, without shutting down freedom of expression.
      - Tiltowait-- 6y ago
        Since when did conservatives use Tumblr? Same reason as Facebook: advertisers don't want their ads shown next to controversial content. As a matter of fact, the LGBTQIA+ communities aren't all about sex, and it's homophobic to say they are.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  YouTube and, more specifically, it's advertisers do everything that you're accusing China of YouTube and its advertisers aren't countries, and aren't engaged in recent, deadly military skirmishes with India.
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    > YouTube and its advertisers aren't countries, and aren't engaged in recent, deadly military skirmishes with India. It might help to read the parent posts I was replying to, but we're talking about the effects of black box algorithms.
    - ChrisLomont 6y ago
      Your initial reply was to this >India is absolutely right in banning TikTok as it is a significant national securities threat. which is exactly why YouTube and China are not equivalent. You're talking about abstract black box algorithms; no one else was.
      - ianleeclark 6y ago
        > As long as the platforms recommendation and ranking algos are a black box, there is no guarantee that China isn’t conducting misinformation campaigns via the platform.
        nodont 6y ago
        There is also no guarantee that Youtube is not manipulating its rankings to make the CCP happy. I think many American companies are too afraid to anger the CCP which has resulted in them filtering content the CCP would be offended by.
        mda 6y ago
        This is absolute nonsense, there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of videos on the subject. Watch a few of them (really not hard to do, just try keywords like Tienanmen or Uighur) and observe the results and your recommendations list later.
- ardy42 6y ago
  >> This might be a shock to most people in the western world, but if you go on almost ANY news website in china, the headline news is dedicated to government propaganda. >> The reality is that Chinese firms and government operates together intimately. Nearly all sizable firms have a party secretary that is involved in board level decisions, and steps in when things get political. You can ponder who has the final say. > No, I get this, but here's the thing: YouTube and, more specifically, it's advertisers do everything that you're accusing China of. There are material consequences if YouTube doesn't keep in line. What this means is that a status quo that pleases advertisers will be maintained. You're basically saying: "YouTube has to please group X, TikTok has please group Y. Since they both have to 'please groups,' they're doing the same things!" That's a flawed comparison, because the the devil is in the details: the relevant differences between group X (YouTube advertisers) and Group Y (the Communist Party of China) get obscured when you're reasoning about such high level abstractions.
- siculars 6y ago
  Here's the thing, all those corporations you suggest are pulling strings and controlling things do not have a nuclear arsenal or national state security operations. There are material consequences if you do not toe the Chinese party line. As in you can pay for that with your freedom or your life.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  YouTube doesn’t have concentration camps.
- rodw 6y ago
  You're not wrong - and I'm extremely distrustful of the "ends" that commercial interests optimize for - but to be honest I feel like the commercial interests are at least more transparent. Unless or until they approach the scale of a nation-state (and to be fair, many do) it seems like commercial interests are at the very least clear (and arguably market-driven and subject to competition). For a specific if arbitrary example: I don't think Facebook values privacy (or YouTube free speech) but that's a side effect of their primary objective. Maybe it's a distinction without a difference, but it sure feels more sinister when the app is purpose built for privacy-invasion or opinion-manipulation.
- kinghtown 6y ago
  The difference is that in Canada, I’m Canadian, I can say practically anything I want about the government and nothing bad would happen to me. If I were to be crazy and slander Trudeau calling him a pedophile or something I’d be ostracized socially by many people but I wouldn’t end up in jail. If you really want to test equivalencies I challenge you to fly to Beijing and accuse Xi Jinping of that in public and that would be the last anyone would see of you. The police would probably plant drugs on you and put you in a hole. And in Canada, corporations are not exactly actors which perform rigid functions outlined by the government.. the liberals, who are currently in power, don’t have party members sitting at the top of companies whose function is to literally oversee compliance to liberal propaganda. China isn’t quite as bad as western media makes them out to be, I’d argue that in many ways they have been improving and loosening up, but it’s silly to pretend that YouTube is no different than TikTok or that Amazon is no different than Alibaba.
  - JosephWang 6y ago
    > If you really want to test equivalencies I challenge you to fly to Beijing and accuse Xi Jinping of that in public and that would be the last anyone would see of you. The police would probably plant drugs on you and put you in a hole. Free of speech is wrote right on chinese consitution. You could say anything you want unless you are spreading rumors.
- kmonsen 6y ago
  YouTube does simply not send people to concentration camps and torture them for uploading "wrong" videos. They get demonetized. If you don't see the difference I am not sure how to convince you.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Currently, the advertisers seem to be pulling back from "evil" and have done so in the past. So they actually have a good influence, redirecting marketing dollars for "marketing" ( since it looks good on the outside). China doesn't care, they even block Winnie the Pooh.
thowme245 6y ago
> Nearly all sizable firms have a party secretary that is involved in board level decisions, and steps in when things get political. That's scary and still people have the audacity to compare Chinese propaganda outlets with YouTube, Google etc.
baddox 6y ago
> This might be a shock to most people in the western world, but if you go on almost ANY news website in china, the headline news is dedicated to government propaganda. Those people would be even more shocked by the extent to which this is true in the western world as well.
- mda 6y ago
  Is it though? At least you can see different sides, different voices.
  - pphysch 6y ago
    And that is usually enough to placate Westerners. Even if, say, the "different sides" are just different heads of the same snake, which is often the case. The only two political parties in the US, for instance, differ remarkably little in terms of foreign policy and labor rights. Headlines in major US media will virtually never indicate there is any significant room for debate here. The public is satisfied with the false dichotomy of "raise military budget by $100B" vs. "raise military budget by $200B".
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Yet youtube is filled with Marxist and socialist material. Major news networks talked about UBI during the Democrat primaries. We’re talking about what information is available in the US, not which policies have a chance in the current popular opinion.
      - pphysch 6y ago
        > Yet youtube is filled with Marxist and socialist material. YouTube is filled with virtually everything imaginable. Do you have the numbers and relevant comparisons to back this claim?
        kortilla 6y ago
        > YouTube is filled with virtually everything imaginable. That’s the point FFS. I responded to the notion that google only allows fake disagreement by showing two ends of the same snake.
Udik 6y ago
> but if you go on almost ANY news website in china, the headline news is dedicated to government propaganda Well I have news for you... Most of the news about international politics you read in the west are propaganda as well- and it works so well you're about to hit the downvote button in disbelief.
learnstats2 6y ago
Why should India ban a Chinese social media company and not an US social media company, it's a matter of national security? This claim is just xenophobic nonsense.
- djrogers 6y ago
  One is a private corporation in a relatively progressive and free country, the other is a company controlled by an authoritarian nation-state. There's clearly a difference...
  - catalogia 6y ago
    Google is a public company, not that it should matter in this context.
    - microcolonel 6y ago
      AFAIK “public company” is a misnomer shorthand for “publicly-traded company”, it has nothing to do with "public sector" or similar concepts. Publicly-traded companies are still private corporations.
      - edgyquant 6y ago
        It does mean there's a regulated level of transparency force on them
  - cambalache 6y ago
    > One is a private corporation in a relatively progressive and free country, I think he is referring to Google.
- ajinkyapatil 6y ago
  Because one attacked and killed Indian Soldiers, and has a active border dispute with India.
- pvelagal 6y ago
simplify 6y ago
> The reality is that Chinese firms and government operates together intimately In China, the government has more power than corporations. In the US, corporations have more power than the government.
- mensetmanusman 6y ago
  Which FAANG has nukes?
  - taf2 6y ago
    I suppose spacex isn’t part of the fang nor do they have nukes but pretty sure they might just have the best aim :)
  - franklampard 6y ago
    Google's trove of collected personal information comparably powerful as nukes, if released.
    - dnautics 6y ago
      No. It's not remotely close. Please think about what you are saying.
  - simplify 6y ago
    Who controls the military?
DoctorNick 6y ago
>This might be a shock to most people in the western world, but if you go on almost ANY news website in china, the headline news is dedicated to government propaganda. I still can't get over the lack of self-awareness in this post.

ianleeclark 6y ago

> The reality is that Chinese firms and government operates together intimately No, I get this, but here's the thing: YouTube and, more specifically, it's advertisers do everything that you're accusing China of. There are material consequences if YouTube doesn't keep in line. What this means is that a status quo that pleases advertisers will be maintained. It's every bit propaganda as dropping leaflets, but you can't point out a boogeyman pulling the strings.

pyuser583 6y ago
The concern is the coordination between Chinese foreign affairs/security services and the commercial sector. For US-based firms, that’s simply not the case. Yes, YouTube needs to make sure Nike is happy. But Nike didn’t just kill two dozen Indian soldiers. Certainly there’s privacy related concerns with US companies - as with Chinese companies. But nobody had accused the DoD of manipulating YouTube search rankings. If the DoD wants to conduct a YouTube propaganda campaign, they can buy advertising like everybody else.
- RobertoG 6y ago
  I don't know, I still remember how, in a poll before the invasion of Iraq, a majority of Americans though that Saddam Hussein was connected to the 11S attacks.
  - gruez 6y ago
    What are you trying to say here? That the DoD somehow was able to pressure the US media into supporting the Iraq war? Funny how they were able to do that, but wasn't able to get the "MSM" to get off Trump's back during his term.
    - RobertoG 6y ago
      Actually, from my readings I have the perception that the DoD was against the invasion of Iraq. But some elites decided that Iraq was going to be invaded and invaded it was. Now somebody has decided that China is very bad, and here we are discussing how bad they are. Despise that in 1989 they massacred their population literally in the center of their capital, a few years later and until recently the investment in China grow exponentially. But, they are starting to be too powerful, so, they are not funny anymore. Now, we have to block their mobile apps. What happened to Saudi Arabia by the way? Why are not the independent media talking about the relationship with them in the same way they talk about Iran?
      - Udik 6y ago
        And why a country that puts snipers to shoot on protesters and is planning the annexation of territory belonging to others (after several other illegal annexations) is the US's best friend?
        alasdair_ 6y ago
        I assume you are talking about Israel? There are quite a few countries that fit this description however.
- erikerikson 6y ago
  Technically: less the case. Consider past agreements about/agency infiltrations to create backdoors and the like[0] or canary clauses[1] in licenses and why they exist. Still better despite being only a partial mechanism for increasing balance between powers. [0] https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > Yes, YouTube needs to make sure Nike is happy. But Nike didn’t just kill two dozen Indian soldiers. Probably not the best company to choose given their history.
- cambalache 6y ago
  > The concern is the coordination between Chinese foreign affairs/security services and the commercial sector. > For US-based firms, that’s simply not the case. Disingenuous or naive?
ThrustVectoring 6y ago
While private corporations also have incentives and private individuals bring their own biases into play, there remain extremely important differences between the capabilities of corporations and states. State actors can effectuate arrests within their own territory, deploy military assets, make territorial claims, conduct assassinations, and generally use their information-gathering and influence to support significantly more violent goals. Like, I get that the milquetoast world advertisers want to live in is some kind of lens that colors the views and opinions presented by their platforms. It's just that the worst that happens from being influenced by it is it that you live a more boring life and consume more product. That's not nearly as worrying as being influenced to hating racial minorities in an attempt to distract from the South China Sea or something.
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > State actors can effectuate arrests within their own territory, deploy military assets, make territorial claims, conduct assassinations, and generally use their information-gathering and influence to support significantly more violent goals. Coca cola sent death squads into South America. > That's not nearly as worrying as being influenced to hating racial minorities in an attempt to distract from the South China Sea or something. I don't know if you've noticed, but there are currently protests going on in America over racist injustice. > It's just that the worst that happens from being influenced by it is it that you live a more boring life and consume more product And how do you think this interacts with the above point?
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    > Coca cola sent death squads into South America. That's an argument against Coca Cola doing business in South America, not against banning an advertising platform in South America.
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      No, it's actually pointing out the statement I quoted is fundamentally wrong. Private corporations can and have done the same things you accused state actors of doing
Veen 6y ago
Here's one difference: the CCP is a totalitarian dictatorship that exerts direct control over Chinese corporations. Youtube, flawed as it is, is not that.
- foobiekr 6y ago
  This. Why must every single posting on Hacker News that involves China be flooded with whataboutism? It's a recurring thing, not even subtle.
  - uep 6y ago
    You know, as much as I think the whataboutism is trying to draw equivalencies that don't exist and make excuses for other nation states doing bad things, I'm more accepting of it now. As long as it's called out for being that. Maybe I'm too optimistic, but we should always strive to be better. Just because the US could be doing as bad things as China or Russia, doesn't mean it shouldn't be better than it is now.
  - ianleeclark 6y ago
    Whataboutism is a cowardly refusal to look inwards.
    - pvelagal 6y ago
      It is self-realization, not whataboutism ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
  - pvelagal 6y ago
    Because China hasn't done anything remotely qualifies them to question to any other country ! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_mainland_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma...
  - Nginx487 6y ago
    We can simply ignore the fact China is a totalitarian communist state, but in this case, we have not to talk about it at all, because literally every decision of CCP has the underlying motivation to weaken the national security of countries it believes to be Chinese enemies.
stickfigure 6y ago
These are not even remotely equivalent things. Advertisers are not a homogeneous block. YouTube et al can afford to piss off some advertisers; if they're pissing off all advertisers, the material is probably extremely objectionable to most humans. I challenge you to point out an example of content that has been banned from youtube because it offends advertisers, that you really think the banning of which is a significant issue. There's no shortage of material on YT hypercritical of Goldman "Vampire Squid" Sachs. Whereas there is a long litany of material banned from Chinese networks for obvious political reasons. Furthermore, if you don't like YT's policy, you can use other video sharing sites or even gasp host your own videos. Try doing that in China and see how long it takes for men with guns to show up.
- xmprt 6y ago
  YouTube's algorithm suppresses LGBTQ content more than usual which is something that most people agree shouldn't be suppressed. At the same time, I don't think it's because advertisers want to suppress the content. I just think it's a bug with YouTube's algorithm.
  - HenryBemis 6y ago
    > YouTube's algorithm suppresses LGBTQ content more than usual Similar story with Tumblr. I had been using Tumblr for a good many years, for non-pornographic use/material (I shoot landscapes and buildings, and I liked the way I could post/group my photos). It pissed me off though when they (Tumblr) clamped down on sexual content, because it really hurt the LGBTQIA+ communities. A similar clamp down on Pinterest also made me drop them equally fast. I don't know what conservative agenda they took on, but there were other ways to "protect the sensitive eyes" of their conservative users, without shutting down freedom of expression.
    - Tiltowait-- 6y ago
      Since when did conservatives use Tumblr? Same reason as Facebook: advertisers don't want their ads shown next to controversial content. As a matter of fact, the LGBTQIA+ communities aren't all about sex, and it's homophobic to say they are.
reaperducer 6y ago
YouTube and, more specifically, it's advertisers do everything that you're accusing China of YouTube and its advertisers aren't countries, and aren't engaged in recent, deadly military skirmishes with India.
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > YouTube and its advertisers aren't countries, and aren't engaged in recent, deadly military skirmishes with India. It might help to read the parent posts I was replying to, but we're talking about the effects of black box algorithms.
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    Your initial reply was to this >India is absolutely right in banning TikTok as it is a significant national securities threat. which is exactly why YouTube and China are not equivalent. You're talking about abstract black box algorithms; no one else was.
    - ianleeclark 6y ago
      > As long as the platforms recommendation and ranking algos are a black box, there is no guarantee that China isn’t conducting misinformation campaigns via the platform.
      - nodont 6y ago
        There is also no guarantee that Youtube is not manipulating its rankings to make the CCP happy. I think many American companies are too afraid to anger the CCP which has resulted in them filtering content the CCP would be offended by.
        mda 6y ago
        This is absolute nonsense, there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of videos on the subject. Watch a few of them (really not hard to do, just try keywords like Tienanmen or Uighur) and observe the results and your recommendations list later.
ardy42 6y ago
>> This might be a shock to most people in the western world, but if you go on almost ANY news website in china, the headline news is dedicated to government propaganda. >> The reality is that Chinese firms and government operates together intimately. Nearly all sizable firms have a party secretary that is involved in board level decisions, and steps in when things get political. You can ponder who has the final say. > No, I get this, but here's the thing: YouTube and, more specifically, it's advertisers do everything that you're accusing China of. There are material consequences if YouTube doesn't keep in line. What this means is that a status quo that pleases advertisers will be maintained. You're basically saying: "YouTube has to please group X, TikTok has please group Y. Since they both have to 'please groups,' they're doing the same things!" That's a flawed comparison, because the the devil is in the details: the relevant differences between group X (YouTube advertisers) and Group Y (the Communist Party of China) get obscured when you're reasoning about such high level abstractions.
siculars 6y ago
Here's the thing, all those corporations you suggest are pulling strings and controlling things do not have a nuclear arsenal or national state security operations. There are material consequences if you do not toe the Chinese party line. As in you can pay for that with your freedom or your life.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
YouTube doesn’t have concentration camps.
rodw 6y ago
You're not wrong - and I'm extremely distrustful of the "ends" that commercial interests optimize for - but to be honest I feel like the commercial interests are at least more transparent. Unless or until they approach the scale of a nation-state (and to be fair, many do) it seems like commercial interests are at the very least clear (and arguably market-driven and subject to competition). For a specific if arbitrary example: I don't think Facebook values privacy (or YouTube free speech) but that's a side effect of their primary objective. Maybe it's a distinction without a difference, but it sure feels more sinister when the app is purpose built for privacy-invasion or opinion-manipulation.
kinghtown 6y ago
The difference is that in Canada, I’m Canadian, I can say practically anything I want about the government and nothing bad would happen to me. If I were to be crazy and slander Trudeau calling him a pedophile or something I’d be ostracized socially by many people but I wouldn’t end up in jail. If you really want to test equivalencies I challenge you to fly to Beijing and accuse Xi Jinping of that in public and that would be the last anyone would see of you. The police would probably plant drugs on you and put you in a hole. And in Canada, corporations are not exactly actors which perform rigid functions outlined by the government.. the liberals, who are currently in power, don’t have party members sitting at the top of companies whose function is to literally oversee compliance to liberal propaganda. China isn’t quite as bad as western media makes them out to be, I’d argue that in many ways they have been improving and loosening up, but it’s silly to pretend that YouTube is no different than TikTok or that Amazon is no different than Alibaba.
- JosephWang 6y ago
  > If you really want to test equivalencies I challenge you to fly to Beijing and accuse Xi Jinping of that in public and that would be the last anyone would see of you. The police would probably plant drugs on you and put you in a hole. Free of speech is wrote right on chinese consitution. You could say anything you want unless you are spreading rumors.
kmonsen 6y ago
YouTube does simply not send people to concentration camps and torture them for uploading "wrong" videos. They get demonetized. If you don't see the difference I am not sure how to convince you.
NicoJuicy 6y ago
Currently, the advertisers seem to be pulling back from "evil" and have done so in the past. So they actually have a good influence, redirecting marketing dollars for "marketing" ( since it looks good on the outside). China doesn't care, they even block Winnie the Pooh.

thowme245 6y ago

> Nearly all sizable firms have a party secretary that is involved in board level decisions, and steps in when things get political. That's scary and still people have the audacity to compare Chinese propaganda outlets with YouTube, Google etc.

baddox 6y ago

> This might be a shock to most people in the western world, but if you go on almost ANY news website in china, the headline news is dedicated to government propaganda. Those people would be even more shocked by the extent to which this is true in the western world as well.

mda 6y ago
Is it though? At least you can see different sides, different voices.
- pphysch 6y ago
  And that is usually enough to placate Westerners. Even if, say, the "different sides" are just different heads of the same snake, which is often the case. The only two political parties in the US, for instance, differ remarkably little in terms of foreign policy and labor rights. Headlines in major US media will virtually never indicate there is any significant room for debate here. The public is satisfied with the false dichotomy of "raise military budget by $100B" vs. "raise military budget by $200B".
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Yet youtube is filled with Marxist and socialist material. Major news networks talked about UBI during the Democrat primaries. We’re talking about what information is available in the US, not which policies have a chance in the current popular opinion.
    - pphysch 6y ago
      > Yet youtube is filled with Marxist and socialist material. YouTube is filled with virtually everything imaginable. Do you have the numbers and relevant comparisons to back this claim?
      - kortilla 6y ago
        > YouTube is filled with virtually everything imaginable. That’s the point FFS. I responded to the notion that google only allows fake disagreement by showing two ends of the same snake.

Udik 6y ago

> but if you go on almost ANY news website in china, the headline news is dedicated to government propaganda Well I have news for you... Most of the news about international politics you read in the west are propaganda as well- and it works so well you're about to hit the downvote button in disbelief.

learnstats2 6y ago

Why should India ban a Chinese social media company and not an US social media company, it's a matter of national security? This claim is just xenophobic nonsense.

djrogers 6y ago
One is a private corporation in a relatively progressive and free country, the other is a company controlled by an authoritarian nation-state. There's clearly a difference...
- catalogia 6y ago
  Google is a public company, not that it should matter in this context.
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    AFAIK “public company” is a misnomer shorthand for “publicly-traded company”, it has nothing to do with "public sector" or similar concepts. Publicly-traded companies are still private corporations.
    - edgyquant 6y ago
      It does mean there's a regulated level of transparency force on them
- cambalache 6y ago
  > One is a private corporation in a relatively progressive and free country, I think he is referring to Google.
ajinkyapatil 6y ago
Because one attacked and killed Indian Soldiers, and has a active border dispute with India.
pvelagal 6y ago

simplify 6y ago

> The reality is that Chinese firms and government operates together intimately In China, the government has more power than corporations. In the US, corporations have more power than the government.

mensetmanusman 6y ago
Which FAANG has nukes?
- taf2 6y ago
  I suppose spacex isn’t part of the fang nor do they have nukes but pretty sure they might just have the best aim :)
- franklampard 6y ago
  Google's trove of collected personal information comparably powerful as nukes, if released.
  - dnautics 6y ago
    No. It's not remotely close. Please think about what you are saying.
- simplify 6y ago
  Who controls the military?

DoctorNick 6y ago

>This might be a shock to most people in the western world, but if you go on almost ANY news website in china, the headline news is dedicated to government propaganda. I still can't get over the lack of self-awareness in this post.