5 ms·

So China is right, there is no other way to maintain social stability other than to control speech.

thatguy0900 6y ago
Or that there's no way to maintain social stability while optimizing other people's speech for maximum engagement and profitability.
hi5eyes 6y ago
its hilarious that chinese state media are on twitter using this to prove how their harshly authoritarian measures are justified
ReedJessen 6y ago
This is what Youtube's actions convey to me. They believe that China is doing the right thing with their censorship actions.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
I think we have to bite that bullet. I wouldn't quite characterize it as "China is right" - there's no plausible claim that social stability will be threatened by Winnie the Pooh, he's banned just because Xi Jinping doesn't want to be made fun of. But the vision of a future where anyone can say anything to an arbitrarily large audience is, I think, going to have to be buried.
- colordrops 6y ago
  They believe disrespect for their leader is bad for social stability. Even if it weren't perceived that way, and it was understood as the petty reaction that it is, it's still just an abuse of an existing censorship system. And most items that are censored are seen as important to national stability. Just like how NSA spying was justified for national security purposes, you see people abusing the system and spying on ex lovers. The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy.
- bootstamping 6y ago
  "The vision of a future where an arbitrarily large number of people can read any book they choose is going to have to be buried."
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's a big sacrifice! I'm not denying that.
- dumb1224 6y ago
  er....what? There are tons of Winnie products in China..... https://www.taobao.com/list/product/%E7%BB%B4%E5%B0%BC%E7%86%8A.htm https://www.taobao.com/list/product/%E7%BB%B4%E5%B0%BC%E7%86...
- mixedCase 6y ago
  Yes absolutely we should let the powerful people set limits to how much we're allowed to express our thoughts and to whom. I'm sure there will be no violence since nobody will fight to their death fighting against that, after all it's never happened before let alone for smaller restrictions on people's freedom. Wow, the past, what a good thing it was without the Internet acting as a megaphone, certainly no revolutions nor wars for independence.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tzs 6y ago
The world is analog, not digital, although many on HN forget this probably due to working with computers so much. There are an infinite number of positions between China-style full control of speech and, say Parler or Voat style "anything goes including things such as calling for killing all the n__g__s and k_k_s and f_g___s". Most systems that attempt to do useful work require some kind of friction or impedance or damping. I've seen nothing that suggests that information systems are any different.
- colordrops 6y ago
  You are making the same fallacy you are putting forward - assuming that the system is mechanical and just needs tuning with "impedance or damping". This fails to take into account the fact that the people in positions to make decisions on control of speech have vested interests and are even often extremely wealthy sociopaths.

Or that there's no way to maintain social stability while optimizing other people's speech for maximum engagement and profitability.

hi5eyes 6y ago

its hilarious that chinese state media are on twitter using this to prove how their harshly authoritarian measures are justified

ReedJessen 6y ago

This is what Youtube's actions convey to me. They believe that China is doing the right thing with their censorship actions.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

I think we have to bite that bullet. I wouldn't quite characterize it as "China is right" - there's no plausible claim that social stability will be threatened by Winnie the Pooh, he's banned just because Xi Jinping doesn't want to be made fun of. But the vision of a future where anyone can say anything to an arbitrarily large audience is, I think, going to have to be buried.

colordrops 6y ago
They believe disrespect for their leader is bad for social stability. Even if it weren't perceived that way, and it was understood as the petty reaction that it is, it's still just an abuse of an existing censorship system. And most items that are censored are seen as important to national stability. Just like how NSA spying was justified for national security purposes, you see people abusing the system and spying on ex lovers. The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy.
bootstamping 6y ago
"The vision of a future where an arbitrarily large number of people can read any book they choose is going to have to be buried."
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  It's a big sacrifice! I'm not denying that.
dumb1224 6y ago
er....what? There are tons of Winnie products in China..... https://www.taobao.com/list/product/%E7%BB%B4%E5%B0%BC%E7%86%8A.htm https://www.taobao.com/list/product/%E7%BB%B4%E5%B0%BC%E7%86...
mixedCase 6y ago
Yes absolutely we should let the powerful people set limits to how much we're allowed to express our thoughts and to whom. I'm sure there will be no violence since nobody will fight to their death fighting against that, after all it's never happened before let alone for smaller restrictions on people's freedom. Wow, the past, what a good thing it was without the Internet acting as a megaphone, certainly no revolutions nor wars for independence.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tzs 6y ago

The world is analog, not digital, although many on HN forget this probably due to working with computers so much. There are an infinite number of positions between China-style full control of speech and, say Parler or Voat style "anything goes including things such as calling for killing all the n__g__s and k_k_s and f_g___s". Most systems that attempt to do useful work require some kind of friction or impedance or damping. I've seen nothing that suggests that information systems are any different.

colordrops 6y ago
You are making the same fallacy you are putting forward - assuming that the system is mechanical and just needs tuning with "impedance or damping". This fails to take into account the fact that the people in positions to make decisions on control of speech have vested interests and are even often extremely wealthy sociopaths.