3 ms·
Sorry for more confusion. I think the Chinese situation is bad. But that was not my point. The point was that a government is the entity to protect, enable and
by berkes 6y ago
Sorry for more confusion.
I think the Chinese situation is bad. But that was not my point. The point was that a government is the entity to protect, enable and allow free speech; a private entity is not.
The Chinese example shows that when a government does not allow, or protect free speech, the private entity cannot solve it either. Google cannot enable free speech in China:
only the Chinese government could do that.
I used this example to show that relying on private entities to protect freedom is not a very good one: you need a government that enables them; even if "enabling" means "not interfering" or "pulling back".
- mcv 6y ago> "The point was that a government is the entity to protect, enable and allow free speech; a private entity is not." This is true in the ideal case. In practice, governments don't always enable and protect free speech. Even the idea that governments should do this is fairly recent, and constantly under attack. > "Google cannot enable free speech in China" This is true. But Google can warn people when free speech is under attack. And some companies do have a habit of fighting for free speech. In the end, there is no single entity that can and should bear the entire responsibility of protecting free speech; it's up to everybody.