4 ms·

I don't mind the CCP's paternal approach to platform content and I don't find it unethical for a company to comply with them. I don't live my day worried that

I don't mind the CCP's paternal approach to platform content and I don't find it unethical for a company to comply with them. I don't live my day worried that people won't discuss one event from 30 years ago without reprisal. I understand that the idea of a public sector entity being a parent is a line in the sand, but it doesn't offend me that it is done - over there - and that some companies - over here - create a user experience that is congruent with that. I find the user experience pretty pleasant. The simple reality is that not every topic is about whats happening on the other side of the Gobi desert, or what happened 30 years ago. There are just other things to talk about and it is more normal to compartmentalize this sentiment, instead of conflating every action occurring in China with things grimmest things that party did. Because we don't do that anywhere else.

mdorazio 6y ago
"paternal approach" is the most ridiculously white washed term I've heard used for the CCP's historical information practices... ever.
- vmception 6y ago
  their paternal approach covers much more than censoring strife.
toxik 6y ago
Right, so you basically reject the ideals of the enlightenment. This is very unusual among western peoples because we have seen what that leads to. Rejection of these ideals is essentially the bedrock under which the tripartite pact was formed during WWII. No, I think standing up for the right to integrity and autonomy for the individual is worth more than some economic output. Let the CCP pretend otherwise, I am sure humanity is made up of individuals, not masses to be herded like so much cattle.
- vmception 6y ago
  > This is very unusual among western peoples Yes, I've noticed. The primary nuance with China is the contradiction created in their constitution. Their need - and historical rationale from various civil wars and stalemates - to "uphold territorial unity" is an element that undermines all the other articles in their constitution. The consolidation of control and single party exacerbates that, but there is primarily an inability of the courts to rule against this aspect of the constitution in support of other aspects of the constitution that would support free speech and other freedoms of association. Outside of China, we have a caricature of what people there care about, and it is simply not accurate. Outside of China, we act like everyone is a victim, imagining they are all oppressed in their ability to speak about or learn more about a military massacre. But that's simply not the case. The government keeps everything "rated PG", it spends most of its paternal energy doing that, and its pretty successful at doing that, the outcome is pretty benign and people support that. This is the expectation people have from their government, this is the social contract there. Many corporate walled gardens are the same, and service providers work inside of those walled gardens, this doesn't make the service provider unethical. I think it is disingenuous to be automatically offended just because a public sector entity acts this way.
  - srtjstjsj 6y ago
    Is disingenuous to claim that people believe and consent something when it's been illegal (violently prohibited) to even discuss that thing for over a generation. That's the same logic that says someone fed a roofie consented to their rape. Apple doesn't have the ability to imprison and execute me if they blaspheme in their garden. The Chinese Communist Party doesn't deserve it either. The "social contract" isn't a contract when it's imposed one-sidey by a violent, hypocritical power.
    - vmception 6y ago
      That’s correct, it is also true that most people aren’t worried about that and can live their lives in a “rated PG” environment Using platforms which fit that mold We shouldnt be vicariously offended on every topic that happens to involve the government of China

mdorazio 6y ago

"paternal approach" is the most ridiculously white washed term I've heard used for the CCP's historical information practices... ever.

vmception 6y ago
their paternal approach covers much more than censoring strife.

toxik 6y ago

Right, so you basically reject the ideals of the enlightenment. This is very unusual among western peoples because we have seen what that leads to. Rejection of these ideals is essentially the bedrock under which the tripartite pact was formed during WWII. No, I think standing up for the right to integrity and autonomy for the individual is worth more than some economic output. Let the CCP pretend otherwise, I am sure humanity is made up of individuals, not masses to be herded like so much cattle.

vmception 6y ago
> This is very unusual among western peoples Yes, I've noticed. The primary nuance with China is the contradiction created in their constitution. Their need - and historical rationale from various civil wars and stalemates - to "uphold territorial unity" is an element that undermines all the other articles in their constitution. The consolidation of control and single party exacerbates that, but there is primarily an inability of the courts to rule against this aspect of the constitution in support of other aspects of the constitution that would support free speech and other freedoms of association. Outside of China, we have a caricature of what people there care about, and it is simply not accurate. Outside of China, we act like everyone is a victim, imagining they are all oppressed in their ability to speak about or learn more about a military massacre. But that's simply not the case. The government keeps everything "rated PG", it spends most of its paternal energy doing that, and its pretty successful at doing that, the outcome is pretty benign and people support that. This is the expectation people have from their government, this is the social contract there. Many corporate walled gardens are the same, and service providers work inside of those walled gardens, this doesn't make the service provider unethical. I think it is disingenuous to be automatically offended just because a public sector entity acts this way.
- srtjstjsj 6y ago
  Is disingenuous to claim that people believe and consent something when it's been illegal (violently prohibited) to even discuss that thing for over a generation. That's the same logic that says someone fed a roofie consented to their rape. Apple doesn't have the ability to imprison and execute me if they blaspheme in their garden. The Chinese Communist Party doesn't deserve it either. The "social contract" isn't a contract when it's imposed one-sidey by a violent, hypocritical power.
  - vmception 6y ago
    That’s correct, it is also true that most people aren’t worried about that and can live their lives in a “rated PG” environment Using platforms which fit that mold We shouldnt be vicariously offended on every topic that happens to involve the government of China