4 ms·

This is a cost of liberty, as is disagreeable speech, anti-government literature, etc. Opponents of those have long cried "we're getting abused" to stifle such

This is a cost of liberty, as is disagreeable speech, anti-government literature, etc. Opponents of those have long cried "we're getting abused" to stifle such things. One hopes your attitude towards reciprocity stops at software. "we should treat Chinese [NOUN] the exact same way that China treats American [NOUN]" is a scary Mad Lib.

eganist 6y ago
Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example. If China and other governments are intolerant of our content, code, and signals, why should we be tolerant of theirs?
- samthecoy 6y ago
  This is a misapplication of Popper's tolerance paradox. You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals".
  - eganist 6y ago
    > You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals". Took me a few reads to understand your point of contention, but I'm pretty sure I described it accurately. Their intolerance of our products over whatever concerns they have justifies our intolerance of their products for the same.
  - zwaps 6y ago
    We-Chat and TikTok are without argument tools of an oppressive regime and therefore constitute intolerance one needs not tolerate, both conceptually and as products. Is the USA the right regime to morally champion this cause? It the real reason for these bans even remotely associated with this moral objective? I'll leave that up to the reader. But: with what's happening at the behest of the people who ultimately and directly control the censorship and data of these applications, there is no further difficulty in applying "intolerance to intolerance" in this case.
- mola 6y ago
  Then why did was offshoring to an intolerant regime was seen as legitimate since the 90s? Only when it started to hurt a few deep american pockets was this talk about intolerant regime became an issue.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    Maybe that was a mistake and we shouldn't be doing it anymore? That doesn't justify not addressing the issue going forward.
- sbmthakur 6y ago
  > Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example. The same can be applied to software and algorithms. These cannot be allowed to perpetuate evil practices in the name of liberty.[1] I don't see a problem when apps doing that get banned. Though I do understand that people will differ on how to do that. 1. https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/
refurb 6y ago
This is economic liberty, not freedom of speech. Are you saying if the US puts a tariff on aluminum from Canada we’re not holding ourselves up to our ideals of freedom?
- Klinky 6y ago
  I think we should spell out our trade policies and not have them be at the whim of the executive branch to do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like, while trying to extort a cut of the profits.
jariel 6y ago
No, it's not at all. Also - WeChat is a legit threat even outside the bounds of security. Game Theory: 'True Free Trade' - everyone gets 10 points 'All Borders Closed' - everyone gets 0 points 'One side opens, one side closed' - the closed side gets 20 points, the open side 5 Somewhat like a prisoner's dilemma. Finally - there is hardly an argument to be made with 'open' or 'freedom' on platforms that are completely controlled, censored, used as tools of suppression and authoritarianism.

eganist 6y ago

Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example. If China and other governments are intolerant of our content, code, and signals, why should we be tolerant of theirs?

samthecoy 6y ago
This is a misapplication of Popper's tolerance paradox. You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals".
- eganist 6y ago
  > You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals". Took me a few reads to understand your point of contention, but I'm pretty sure I described it accurately. Their intolerance of our products over whatever concerns they have justifies our intolerance of their products for the same.
- zwaps 6y ago
  We-Chat and TikTok are without argument tools of an oppressive regime and therefore constitute intolerance one needs not tolerate, both conceptually and as products. Is the USA the right regime to morally champion this cause? It the real reason for these bans even remotely associated with this moral objective? I'll leave that up to the reader. But: with what's happening at the behest of the people who ultimately and directly control the censorship and data of these applications, there is no further difficulty in applying "intolerance to intolerance" in this case.
mola 6y ago
Then why did was offshoring to an intolerant regime was seen as legitimate since the 90s? Only when it started to hurt a few deep american pockets was this talk about intolerant regime became an issue.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  Maybe that was a mistake and we shouldn't be doing it anymore? That doesn't justify not addressing the issue going forward.
sbmthakur 6y ago
> Not sure I agree with this. Intolerance of intolerance is a hallmark of a tolerant society, and we see it everywhere with bans against inciteful speech — if we're to use that example. The same can be applied to software and algorithms. These cannot be allowed to perpetuate evil practices in the name of liberty.[1] I don't see a problem when apps doing that get banned. Though I do understand that people will differ on how to do that. 1. https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/ https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/

refurb 6y ago

This is economic liberty, not freedom of speech. Are you saying if the US puts a tariff on aluminum from Canada we’re not holding ourselves up to our ideals of freedom?

Klinky 6y ago
I think we should spell out our trade policies and not have them be at the whim of the executive branch to do whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like, while trying to extort a cut of the profits.

jariel 6y ago

No, it's not at all. Also - WeChat is a legit threat even outside the bounds of security. Game Theory: 'True Free Trade' - everyone gets 10 points 'All Borders Closed' - everyone gets 0 points 'One side opens, one side closed' - the closed side gets 20 points, the open side 5 Somewhat like a prisoner's dilemma. Finally - there is hardly an argument to be made with 'open' or 'freedom' on platforms that are completely controlled, censored, used as tools of suppression and authoritarianism.