7 ms·

> It’s not comparable to companies operating in western democratic countries. This line made me grin. Ironically enough, YouTube and Facebook also censored the

• fossuser 6y ago
  It’s not because western companies never do the wrong thing (ignoring the specifics of your example). They do and I specifically address this in the long form blog post I linked. They’re not comparable because the western companies are not doing this due to the threat of retaliation from their own government. There’s more nuance here (which I address in that blog post). I wrote that so I wouldn’t have to rewrite the same stuff every time this issue comes up. The reason I said it’s not comparable to companies operating in western democratic countries is because otherwise the first reply every time I write something like this is a false equivalence about how the “<insert western country here> is the same if not worse...” which is just not true.
  • BoorishBears 6y ago
    It really isn't clear what kind of distinction you're trying to make. You replied to a post about companies trying to appease the CCP trying to imply that it's a problem with chinese companies trying to appease the CCP You've just been told western companies are also trying to appease the CCP. How is that not comparable? Somehow not being China-based gives you a pass to play the appeasement game?
    • oefrha 6y ago
      > You've just been told western companies are also trying to appease the CCP. Sorry for having to state the obvious, but I never told them that, and I strongly suspect canceling a speaking engagement of a Palestinian terrorist (designated by the U.S.) after Jewish protests in the U.S. neither appeases nor angers China.
      • BoorishBears 6y ago
        The wording of your comment strongly implies otherwise, it wasn't past the point of being able to edit it I'd strongly suggest doing so for clarity > Ironically enough, YouTube and Facebook also censored the exact same event that sparked this later event. Reads like the Zoom event (later event) mentioned is the same topic as previously censored - But that's fine since Faceboom and Google very commonly _do_ go out of their way to appease the CCP, it'd be silly to imply otherwise when we've got - senators writing to Google about their censorship on behalf of the CCP (https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-demands-google-explain-continued-censorship-criticism-ccp https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawley-demands-google-...) - Google's Chinese ventures trickling down technology to their military (https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3663852 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3663852) - Project Dragonfly... - Facebook formerly attempting to re-enter the Chinese market with additional censorship (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-idUSKBN13I03H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-china-idUSKBN13I...) Facebook tried and failed to appease the CCP for many years: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/10/17/mark-zuckerberg-signals-facebook-wont-return-china-calls-tech/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/10/17/mark-zucke... At the end of the day these companies are behemoths well beyond the point of having things like morals. They'll work with whoever they believe will work with them.
• godelski 6y ago
  This is a weird comparison to make: Leila Khaled vs Tiananmen Square Massacre. While I both don't agree with Khaled and also think that she should have had her event, there's a large difference between canceling someone who is currently advocating for violence and student protestors. Khaled is a self proclaimed freedom fighter who hijacked 2 planes. Tiananmen Square Massacre is students getting shot by their government. I'm not sure how you equate these things unless I am gravely misinformed about Tiananmen Square and it was really a rebel group of students that were freedom fighters advocating and participating in violent actions against the government. As far as I know, that's not the case. Comparing the two removes any actual context between these events. There's this large scale difference. You can't just say because X country isn't perfect that Y country can do whatever they want. Scale matters. Nuance matters. You also can't call country X hypocritical based on people complaining about country Y because, at least in western countries, you'll find those people are often complaining about similar things in their home country X (meaning ideology is consistent). I'll even say that criticizing America is a national past time (and how democracies work, you only improve by finding your flaws).
  • ponker 6y ago
    And this is why free speech (beyond what the First Amendment guarantees) is important. We shouldn't be having Zuckerberg or Pichai's opinion on the relative moral differences between Leila Khaled and the CCP affect what speech we can hear regarding it.
    • godelski 6y ago
      While I'm a big advocator for free speech (I think companies should act like Signal and wash their hands of it), there's a difference between a government censoring an event and a public entity. If strong man Randy Savage wanted to give a public speech on your front lawn, you should have the right to say no because that's your property. You should also be able to say yes. This gets complicated because these online platforms blur the lines between public and private spaces. Objectively they are private spaces because the companies own the "land." But we as users think about them as public spaces because they facilitate similar things to public spaces in the offline world. There'd also be an inherit danger to making those platforms a real public space, controlled by governments (who's!). The case is honestly really messy and we don't need to overly simplify it, we need to solve the problem (as a society) and figure out how to move forward.