3 ms·
Well, in practice, there is not much difference. The same freedom that allows the media to criticize legitimate concerns when it comes to the government also a
by AntiImperialist 6y ago
Well, in practice, there is not much difference.
The same freedom that allows the media to criticize legitimate concerns when it comes to the government also allows hostile foreign interests to amplify minor issues or manufacture fake ones to take down the government and install one that they can control from the outside, often to the detriment of the country and the citizens. So, my theory is that the countries that will succeed over the next decades are the ones which can protect themselves from foreign influence, by kicking out foreign interest groups, "aid" agencies, investments, apps, "news" sites etc. which India is doing. The obvious side effect will be that legitimate concerns and legitimate organizations which are detrimental to the establishment will also be suppressed. But I don't think there is a way to not do that.
- mulmen 6y agoDidn't the WHO literally do a house call to the entire country of India in their ultimately successful quest to eradicate smallpox? I wouldn't rush to condemn international aid. You put scare quotes around both aid and news. Neither of these things are inherently bad. Misinformation is the threat, not simply foreign information. Government control of media is not a remedy to misinformation. In fact it is frequently a source. You seem to be espousing an isolationist strategy but the genie is out of the bottle. Any country that tries to pull back from the rest of the world will suffer in comparison.
- AntiImperialist 6y agoAny country that tries to pull back from the rest of the world will suffer in comparison. Well, China has greatly benefited from doing exactly that. They greatly regulate and control foreign influence while they exert their influence every where they can. India is a big rival and they have been funding everything from the Naxalites (the underground Indian communist organization) to mainstream parties, organizations, media, universities... whatever they can which gives them political advantage.
- mulmen 6y agoSure, that's actually a very good point with regard to the CCP's great firewall in the context of economic prosperity. It remains to be seen how well that works long term. I wouldn't ask for the same treatment myself.
- AntiImperialist 6y agoRegardless of what certain individuals want, ignoring inevitable outcomes don't fare well for them. For example, like Yuval Noah Harari mentions in Sapiens, agriculture was not necessarily good for individuals. But since it allowed long term storage of food (in the form of grains), it allowed for stable habitats which grew into cities and nation states. There were still tribal people for a long time (there still are) who didn't adopt the technology but they were increasingly at the mercy of those on the other side. We've seen the same with other technologies, like powerful weapons in the last centuries. I think, in the new information age, we're headed to a similar trajectory with this new set of propaganda methods and defenses. Those who don't incorporate these new technologies into their systems will be at the mercy of those who do.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoChina doesn't have a isolation strategy, they have a control strategy: foreigners that follow their rules are very welcome, as opposed to simply banned from visiting. Its strange to call a country with a clearl export focus "isolationist".
- AntiImperialist 6y agoI don't think we disagree. Isolation is an essential part of it. If they didn't have isolation to begin with, they wouldn't be able to control anything.
- SiempreViernes 6y agoI guess I don't understand what meaning you put into "isolation" then.