17 ms·

I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence c

by fvv 6y ago

I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, here we are not talking about something like explicit content, or violence censorship which belong to cultural differences, here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class this type of free speech should be guaranteed to anyone and reinforced with the non-violent marginalization of those who struggle to take away fundamental human rights, the ban of a society under the control of this regime is the least I expect from a state that wants to enact these rights. talk about what you want (here you can do it) talk about rights in the west etc ... (here you can do it) there (in china) you are just on another level, compare them if you want .. here you can do it .. but try to go there ..

koheripbal 6y ago
My opinion is that the only realistic solution is a broad offering of many many social media apps, so that people can choose between them.
- xibalba 6y ago
  Wasn't this already "attempted" through the natural mechanics of the free market? Social media seems to tend toward monopoly (or at least oligopoly) due to the extreme realization of the network effect in this industry. Here is a sampling attempts (though I'm sure the graveyard has hundreds if not thousands of members): Friendster, DailyBooth, FriendFeed, Google Buzz, Meerkat, Yik Yak, Vine, Google Plus, MySpace, Path, Orkut, ConnectU, ...
  - Spooky23 6y ago
    Sort of. Networks tend to lead towards natural monopolies. If you were my age, you had AOL IM friends, ICQ friends, Yahoo friends, etc. The US had a phone company at the national level until regulatory bodies made a market.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  Given the realities of network effects and the observed tendency for a small number of social media platforms to dominate the market, this doesn't sound particularly realistic. More choice would indeed be great, but I highly doubt that'll ever happen with a product/service whose entire value proposition depends on everyone choosing the same one.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    We need governments to promote federation, so we can have both choice and network effects. To bad there's far less money in federation---it's "moatlessness" ruins the business proposition---so I don't know who will pay for this lobbying.
- pmontra 6y ago
  Hardly realistic. People go where their friends are. This prevents scattering groups over many different social media. We had them in the 2000s, then only one made it to now (FB). The others that are big now (Instagram/FB, WhatsApp/FB, TikTok) are successful because IMHO are on a different medium so don't directly compete with FB and/or are used by a different demographic (young people don't go where older people are, same as for music.)
rglover 6y ago
Absolutely support this point of view. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
kodablah 6y ago
> I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship "I think the 'free' world should ban software and/or content". Condemn maybe, but it is scary to see such non-free actions encouraged against digital content.
- fvv 6y ago
  being free does not mean that one must be completely helpless, freedom must be defended by those who want to suppress it otherwise it dies
  - kodablah 6y ago
    > freedom must be defended by those who want to suppress it A Freudian typo to be sure, and sadly too representative of those pushing government software/content restrictions.
    - fvv 6y ago
      a translation typo , you can judge who is the censor in your conscience and who is censoring and if he is censoring the censor or is he more censor than who is censored.
- iratewizard 6y ago
  What do you think about the banning of Cuban cigars? Genuine question, not being an ass.
  - kodablah 6y ago
    Myself? Against that particular type of banning, granted I can understand general economic reasoning even though I disagree. Now, banning one single brand of cigars even if they are following the law? Completely against that type of targeted banning, and I would immediately question the motives. Same goes for Huawei or any company/product. You are allowed if you don't break the law. I don't care the origin, I care about the rule of [contestable] law over unilateral action. I may disagree with many laws, but I respect the process much more.
mcny 6y ago
> here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free Expel Spain from the EU. Economic blockade. Whatever it takes. At least the UK held a referendum on Scotland. Fake promises and all but we can't jail dissidents just because they try to form a separate country in today's world.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  For the uninitiated... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_movement
- kome 6y ago
  I know it is completely off-topic AND I know I will be down-voted to death, but it is indeed absolutely shameful what happened in Spain. And we cannot tolerate this in the European Union. Also the European Court of Justice (ECJ) agrees that separatist politicians should not be jailed for their opinions as elected officials: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50808766 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50808766 More info: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/14/spain-imprisonment-catalan-leaders-supreme-cout-jailed-nine https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/14/spain-...
  - hobofan 6y ago
    > Also the European Court of Justice (ECJ) agrees that separatist politicians should not be jailed for their opinions as elected officials: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50808766 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50808766 That's not at all what they said. According to the ECJ, they should have had temporary immunity just for the purpose of taking up their seats as MEPs even though they were on trial for a generic crime. That ruling doesn't have any judgement regarding the legality of separatism, and also wouldn't free them of prison time if found guilty by the Spanish court.
- baxtr 6y ago
  A bit of context would surely help to put this comment into perspective.
awkward 6y ago
It's the paradox of tolerance. How do you tolerate a platform that doesn't conform to your idea of tolerance? How do you distinguish that censorship from, say, Marvel rewriting Doctor Strange to remove Tibet?
- fvv 6y ago
  it is the paradox of those who do not think and think that all things are the same and therefore that a terrorist in america is the same as one in egypt, one in tibet, one in hongkong and one in china, I am not here to explain all these things if you try to change the subject at the moment I don't have time, if you want to talk about something else ok, but I don't have time someone else will answer you, if you talk about other similar things, these things are not the same thing, one sanctioning by means of a ban on a company that censors is not the same as censorship itself. as the incarceration of a person carrying out kidnapping is not the same thing. At least as right and wrong are not the same for most people at least. And even if in some countries right and wrong are reversed, don't believe that even those who live there don't realize it.
- eirini1 6y ago
  I agree with the idea behind the paradox of tolerance, I just find the idea of this being only applied to a chinese-owned company because of things china does somewhat hilarious. America does much worse so its clearly not about morals or anything like that. I really wish that the discussion would more outwardly become "we're banning tiktok because China is our competitor in international geopolitics" so we can all move on with our lives and stop having these dumb discussions.
smel 6y ago
I think every country should ban foreign companies so we can have only national internet ? there is no need for global US companies taking over the world. Nobody trust China and nobody should trust US companies anyway. I live in the supposed "free world" there is no such thing. All over the world there is two classes : dominants and dominated So please don't be so small minded bringing this "free world" propaganda terms here... Peace
phkahler 6y ago
Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it anywhere.
- User23 6y ago
  Congress and state legislatures can and should fix this.
  - pwinnski 6y ago
    Should fix... how? Companies should be compelled to provide a platform for free expression, and forbidden from removing any content, no matter how objectionable? It's unclear to me what you're suggesting.
    - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
      I think it's clear what parent commenter is suggesting. And that no medium if privately owned has the right to moderate itself and must carry any and all speech and productions. Just because it's unreasonable and makes no sense doesn't mean people don't want it or widely support it on HN.
      - ethanwillis 6y ago
        I think the difference is mediums that have reached a certain size and cultural influence that they are effectively modern public forums. If all public discussion is on happening on these private platforms then they a civic duty to not suppress speech. What's happening is people conflate "not suppressing speech" with "supporting hate speech." They don't support anything. They're nothing more at this point than a public space maintained by a private entity. Private entities I'll add that are essentially subsidized by taxpayers due to not meeting their obligations of paying their taxes, and no I'm not talking about minimizing tax obligations[0]. [0] - https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-lawsuit-9-billion-taxes https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-law... And nobody ever said "no matter how objectionable." We still have limits on obscenity.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dhagz 6y ago
> here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class Or, you know, just practicing a certain religion or being from a specific ethnic group[0]. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide
baxtr 6y ago
Sounds like "fight fire with fire". Who defines which part of the world is "free"?
- ISL 6y ago
  The part where you can speak your mind without consequence from the government.
  - sct202 6y ago
    Freedom of speech is not the same in the rest of the world outside of America. Lots of European countries have hate speech laws in place where you can be convicted of crimes for speaking your mind if it's hateful. The EU has been pressuring large tech companies into self complying https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/28/16380526/eu-hate-speech-laws-google-facebook-twitter https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/28/16380526/eu-hate-speech-l... But just the other day, there was a huge post with lots of uproar about how Google was flagging apps like mastodon for having no content standards regarding hate speech.
    - fvv 6y ago
      don't you realize that you are comparing that "hate speech" at EU level of "hate speech" with the possibility of saying free tibet? those are the same thing for you ? why I'm still replying here.. I think that I'm fighting the 50 cent party .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
      - sct202 6y ago
        They're not the same but I don't think that laws from China or Europe or some other country should impact services in America. If we want the same restrictions we can make the laws ourselves.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      Several European countries have bans on racial hatred and Nazi content because of what happened last time Nazis were allowed to promote hatred on an enormous scale: six million people were exterminated in camps, over and above the civilian and military casualties of the war.
86J8oyZv 6y ago
Given the arrests in Portland, does that mean every country should ban American products?
- deelly 6y ago
  Yep.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  Most countries arrest people who are breaking windows, setting things on fire, engaging in riots after being told to disperse and illegally carrying weapons. All of the people who were arrested were charged and then released (pending bail, recognizance, etc per Washington law). You may feel those actions are just, but being just does not make them legal.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    Flip the script and it’s TikTok just complying with what you see as unjust laws, but they are laws of the CCP nonetheless.
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      Which is why we're banning them using the tool for that situation (a foreign company who is acting in a way unaligned to the interests of US citizens) and not arresting them. We are under no duty to allow the CCP to act within our borders.
      - colejohnson66 6y ago
        Then why are we singling our TikTok? Why not ban any Chinese company from operating within our borders?
        kube-system 6y ago
        TikTok hasn't been singled out. The US has pretty much done the same for all Chinese communication tech that operates in the US: Huawei, ZTE, WeChat.
logicallee 6y ago
>I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, If you feel that strongly about it, why not an invasion theater where America makes a big show of mobilizing and preparing to send its $3 trillion military to invade and overthrow China unless China liberates their NAZI-style concentration camps (1 million uighers) and end their censorship. China's censorship just cost the world about $10 trillion in lockdowns and lost economic activity, specifically when China applied pressure on the WHO to hide news about what was going on in China as China was battling what at that time was an epidemic rather than pandemic. I only ask because your position is a very strong one... >I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship,
spamizbad 6y ago
Well then you're going to be banning a lot of companies. Or you'll be putting a lot of businesses in a position where they have to decide whether they want a relationship with China (growing economy, growing global influence) or the United States (stagnant economy, shrinking global influence).
tboyd47 6y ago
If they would just repeal section 230 already, then the plug would be pulled from all these companies and China would no longer have any influence over what is said on the internet. What we are in is a sort of techno-mercantilism where governments enlist large companies to deliver geopolitical influence in exchange for protection.
- tzs 6y ago
  I fail to see how section 230 affects this it all.
  - tboyd47 6y ago
    The whole debate over free speech online is only happening because 1) content is passing through a bottleneck of only a few companies and 2) those few companies have decided to actively censor the content. These two things could not exist simultaneously without an explicit guarantee of legal protection from the government for online publishers of user content. Without that guarantee of protection it's doubtful that any platform could have grown as large as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or Google without taking a completely hands-off approach to user content (i.e. as a "common carrier"). The threat of litigation would have forced them to pre-emptively moderate all content just like print media and television. In the 1990s Congress decided that it's okay for the internet to operate on different legal rules from the rest of society. They decided that internet companies can make editorial choices about their content freely without being legally held responsible for those choices, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. Online speech is now the domain of Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. and they have free reign over their virtual kingdoms without regard for any other legal system.
thrownaway954 6y ago
"I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship" not gonna happen because of this tiiiiiiiiny thing called money. china has over a billion people. if you want to be in that market, you play by their rules. it's not surprising how people can change their morals with the right dollar amount.
cc23 6y ago
Why do we care if China censors things? Don't US social media companies censor large swaths of content? The reddit bans just happened. You can call it hate speech, but some disagree. Yet those communities and posts were still censored. What is the difference if it's a business or a government doing the censoring?
- zalkota 6y ago
  Reddit should be banned from the US.
yibg 6y ago
I think I'm more OK with a blanket ban. I guess it'd just be an embargo against China. At least it'll be consistent. As it is there is a sense of unfairness I think. TikTok seems to be singled out with ambiguous and hard to pin down "national security" issues. People point to FB and google being blocked in China, but at least the CCP can point to laws they're not complying with. And presumably if FB and google complied with Chinese laws (like Bing), they'd be able to operate there. With TikTok there aren't any laws anyone can point to that they're breaking. For example if there is a law that says social media platforms cannot censor users' content. As it is, this is just giving ammunition to the CCP to point to how unfair the US is being and how the west just wants to keep China and Chinese companies down.
SergeAx 6y ago
What are the difference between state ban and state censorship? Asking for a friend.

by fvv 6y ago

koheripbal 6y ago

My opinion is that the only realistic solution is a broad offering of many many social media apps, so that people can choose between them.

xibalba 6y ago
Wasn't this already "attempted" through the natural mechanics of the free market? Social media seems to tend toward monopoly (or at least oligopoly) due to the extreme realization of the network effect in this industry. Here is a sampling attempts (though I'm sure the graveyard has hundreds if not thousands of members): Friendster, DailyBooth, FriendFeed, Google Buzz, Meerkat, Yik Yak, Vine, Google Plus, MySpace, Path, Orkut, ConnectU, ...
- Spooky23 6y ago
  Sort of. Networks tend to lead towards natural monopolies. If you were my age, you had AOL IM friends, ICQ friends, Yahoo friends, etc. The US had a phone company at the national level until regulatory bodies made a market.
EForEndeavour 6y ago
Given the realities of network effects and the observed tendency for a small number of social media platforms to dominate the market, this doesn't sound particularly realistic. More choice would indeed be great, but I highly doubt that'll ever happen with a product/service whose entire value proposition depends on everyone choosing the same one.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  We need governments to promote federation, so we can have both choice and network effects. To bad there's far less money in federation---it's "moatlessness" ruins the business proposition---so I don't know who will pay for this lobbying.
pmontra 6y ago
Hardly realistic. People go where their friends are. This prevents scattering groups over many different social media. We had them in the 2000s, then only one made it to now (FB). The others that are big now (Instagram/FB, WhatsApp/FB, TikTok) are successful because IMHO are on a different medium so don't directly compete with FB and/or are used by a different demographic (young people don't go where older people are, same as for music.)

rglover 6y ago

Absolutely support this point of view. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

kodablah 6y ago

> I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship "I think the 'free' world should ban software and/or content". Condemn maybe, but it is scary to see such non-free actions encouraged against digital content.

fvv 6y ago
being free does not mean that one must be completely helpless, freedom must be defended by those who want to suppress it otherwise it dies
- kodablah 6y ago
  > freedom must be defended by those who want to suppress it A Freudian typo to be sure, and sadly too representative of those pushing government software/content restrictions.
  - fvv 6y ago
    a translation typo , you can judge who is the censor in your conscience and who is censoring and if he is censoring the censor or is he more censor than who is censored.
iratewizard 6y ago
What do you think about the banning of Cuban cigars? Genuine question, not being an ass.
- kodablah 6y ago
  Myself? Against that particular type of banning, granted I can understand general economic reasoning even though I disagree. Now, banning one single brand of cigars even if they are following the law? Completely against that type of targeted banning, and I would immediately question the motives. Same goes for Huawei or any company/product. You are allowed if you don't break the law. I don't care the origin, I care about the rule of [contestable] law over unilateral action. I may disagree with many laws, but I respect the process much more.

mcny 6y ago

> here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free Expel Spain from the EU. Economic blockade. Whatever it takes. At least the UK held a referendum on Scotland. Fake promises and all but we can't jail dissidents just because they try to form a separate country in today's world.

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
For the uninitiated... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_independence_movement
kome 6y ago
I know it is completely off-topic AND I know I will be down-voted to death, but it is indeed absolutely shameful what happened in Spain. And we cannot tolerate this in the European Union. Also the European Court of Justice (ECJ) agrees that separatist politicians should not be jailed for their opinions as elected officials: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50808766 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50808766 More info: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/14/spain-imprisonment-catalan-leaders-supreme-cout-jailed-nine https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/14/spain-...
- hobofan 6y ago
  > Also the European Court of Justice (ECJ) agrees that separatist politicians should not be jailed for their opinions as elected officials: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50808766 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50808766 That's not at all what they said. According to the ECJ, they should have had temporary immunity just for the purpose of taking up their seats as MEPs even though they were on trial for a generic crime. That ruling doesn't have any judgement regarding the legality of separatism, and also wouldn't free them of prison time if found guilty by the Spanish court.
baxtr 6y ago
A bit of context would surely help to put this comment into perspective.

awkward 6y ago

It's the paradox of tolerance. How do you tolerate a platform that doesn't conform to your idea of tolerance? How do you distinguish that censorship from, say, Marvel rewriting Doctor Strange to remove Tibet?

fvv 6y ago
it is the paradox of those who do not think and think that all things are the same and therefore that a terrorist in america is the same as one in egypt, one in tibet, one in hongkong and one in china, I am not here to explain all these things if you try to change the subject at the moment I don't have time, if you want to talk about something else ok, but I don't have time someone else will answer you, if you talk about other similar things, these things are not the same thing, one sanctioning by means of a ban on a company that censors is not the same as censorship itself. as the incarceration of a person carrying out kidnapping is not the same thing. At least as right and wrong are not the same for most people at least. And even if in some countries right and wrong are reversed, don't believe that even those who live there don't realize it.
eirini1 6y ago
I agree with the idea behind the paradox of tolerance, I just find the idea of this being only applied to a chinese-owned company because of things china does somewhat hilarious. America does much worse so its clearly not about morals or anything like that. I really wish that the discussion would more outwardly become "we're banning tiktok because China is our competitor in international geopolitics" so we can all move on with our lives and stop having these dumb discussions.

smel 6y ago

I think every country should ban foreign companies so we can have only national internet ? there is no need for global US companies taking over the world. Nobody trust China and nobody should trust US companies anyway. I live in the supposed "free world" there is no such thing. All over the world there is two classes : dominants and dominated So please don't be so small minded bringing this "free world" propaganda terms here... Peace

phkahler 6y ago

Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it anywhere.

User23 6y ago
Congress and state legislatures can and should fix this.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  Should fix... how? Companies should be compelled to provide a platform for free expression, and forbidden from removing any content, no matter how objectionable? It's unclear to me what you're suggesting.
  - x86_64Ubuntu 6y ago
    I think it's clear what parent commenter is suggesting. And that no medium if privately owned has the right to moderate itself and must carry any and all speech and productions. Just because it's unreasonable and makes no sense doesn't mean people don't want it or widely support it on HN.
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      I think the difference is mediums that have reached a certain size and cultural influence that they are effectively modern public forums. If all public discussion is on happening on these private platforms then they a civic duty to not suppress speech. What's happening is people conflate "not suppressing speech" with "supporting hate speech." They don't support anything. They're nothing more at this point than a public space maintained by a private entity. Private entities I'll add that are essentially subsidized by taxpayers due to not meeting their obligations of paying their taxes, and no I'm not talking about minimizing tax obligations[0]. [0] - https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-lawsuit-9-billion-taxes https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/19/21144291/facebook-irs-law... And nobody ever said "no matter how objectionable." We still have limits on obscenity.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dhagz 6y ago

> here we are talking about not being put in jail because you say publicly that tibet should be free. or because you try to report abuse and suppression of the ruling class Or, you know, just practicing a certain religion or being from a specific ethnic group[0]. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide

baxtr 6y ago

Sounds like "fight fire with fire". Who defines which part of the world is "free"?

ISL 6y ago
The part where you can speak your mind without consequence from the government.
- sct202 6y ago
  Freedom of speech is not the same in the rest of the world outside of America. Lots of European countries have hate speech laws in place where you can be convicted of crimes for speaking your mind if it's hateful. The EU has been pressuring large tech companies into self complying https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/28/16380526/eu-hate-speech-laws-google-facebook-twitter https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/28/16380526/eu-hate-speech-l... But just the other day, there was a huge post with lots of uproar about how Google was flagging apps like mastodon for having no content standards regarding hate speech.
  - fvv 6y ago
    don't you realize that you are comparing that "hate speech" at EU level of "hate speech" with the possibility of saying free tibet? those are the same thing for you ? why I'm still replying here.. I think that I'm fighting the 50 cent party .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
    - sct202 6y ago
      They're not the same but I don't think that laws from China or Europe or some other country should impact services in America. If we want the same restrictions we can make the laws ourselves.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Several European countries have bans on racial hatred and Nazi content because of what happened last time Nazis were allowed to promote hatred on an enormous scale: six million people were exterminated in camps, over and above the civilian and military casualties of the war.

86J8oyZv 6y ago

Given the arrests in Portland, does that mean every country should ban American products?

deelly 6y ago
Yep.
vorpalhex 6y ago
Most countries arrest people who are breaking windows, setting things on fire, engaging in riots after being told to disperse and illegally carrying weapons. All of the people who were arrested were charged and then released (pending bail, recognizance, etc per Washington law). You may feel those actions are just, but being just does not make them legal.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  Flip the script and it’s TikTok just complying with what you see as unjust laws, but they are laws of the CCP nonetheless.
  - vorpalhex 6y ago
    Which is why we're banning them using the tool for that situation (a foreign company who is acting in a way unaligned to the interests of US citizens) and not arresting them. We are under no duty to allow the CCP to act within our borders.
    - colejohnson66 6y ago
      Then why are we singling our TikTok? Why not ban any Chinese company from operating within our borders?
      - kube-system 6y ago
        TikTok hasn't been singled out. The US has pretty much done the same for all Chinese communication tech that operates in the US: Huawei, ZTE, WeChat.

logicallee 6y ago

>I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship, If you feel that strongly about it, why not an invasion theater where America makes a big show of mobilizing and preparing to send its $3 trillion military to invade and overthrow China unless China liberates their NAZI-style concentration camps (1 million uighers) and end their censorship. China's censorship just cost the world about $10 trillion in lockdowns and lost economic activity, specifically when China applied pressure on the WHO to hide news about what was going on in China as China was battling what at that time was an epidemic rather than pandemic. I only ask because your position is a very strong one... >I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship,

spamizbad 6y ago

Well then you're going to be banning a lot of companies. Or you'll be putting a lot of businesses in a position where they have to decide whether they want a relationship with China (growing economy, growing global influence) or the United States (stagnant economy, shrinking global influence).

tboyd47 6y ago

If they would just repeal section 230 already, then the plug would be pulled from all these companies and China would no longer have any influence over what is said on the internet. What we are in is a sort of techno-mercantilism where governments enlist large companies to deliver geopolitical influence in exchange for protection.

tzs 6y ago
I fail to see how section 230 affects this it all.
- tboyd47 6y ago
  The whole debate over free speech online is only happening because 1) content is passing through a bottleneck of only a few companies and 2) those few companies have decided to actively censor the content. These two things could not exist simultaneously without an explicit guarantee of legal protection from the government for online publishers of user content. Without that guarantee of protection it's doubtful that any platform could have grown as large as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, or Google without taking a completely hands-off approach to user content (i.e. as a "common carrier"). The threat of litigation would have forced them to pre-emptively moderate all content just like print media and television. In the 1990s Congress decided that it's okay for the internet to operate on different legal rules from the rest of society. They decided that internet companies can make editorial choices about their content freely without being legally held responsible for those choices, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. Online speech is now the domain of Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. and they have free reign over their virtual kingdoms without regard for any other legal system.

thrownaway954 6y ago

"I think that free world should ban every company that comply with china censorship" not gonna happen because of this tiiiiiiiiny thing called money. china has over a billion people. if you want to be in that market, you play by their rules. it's not surprising how people can change their morals with the right dollar amount.

cc23 6y ago

Why do we care if China censors things? Don't US social media companies censor large swaths of content? The reddit bans just happened. You can call it hate speech, but some disagree. Yet those communities and posts were still censored. What is the difference if it's a business or a government doing the censoring?

zalkota 6y ago
Reddit should be banned from the US.

yibg 6y ago

I think I'm more OK with a blanket ban. I guess it'd just be an embargo against China. At least it'll be consistent. As it is there is a sense of unfairness I think. TikTok seems to be singled out with ambiguous and hard to pin down "national security" issues. People point to FB and google being blocked in China, but at least the CCP can point to laws they're not complying with. And presumably if FB and google complied with Chinese laws (like Bing), they'd be able to operate there. With TikTok there aren't any laws anyone can point to that they're breaking. For example if there is a law that says social media platforms cannot censor users' content. As it is, this is just giving ammunition to the CCP to point to how unfair the US is being and how the west just wants to keep China and Chinese companies down.

SergeAx 6y ago

What are the difference between state ban and state censorship? Asking for a friend.