5 ms·

I would characterize the biggest difference is that Chinese people are actually aware they are being massively censored, while Americans think they have no cens

I would characterize the biggest difference is that Chinese people are actually aware they are being massively censored, while Americans think they have no censorship.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago
In some ways, you're right, but Americans feel most strongly about the freedom of speech when it comes to specifically political speech, and I think the biggest difference is that I, as an American, can choose to say "I think our President of the United States is a fascist and a criminal and he should be arrested for his crimes" and I am in no way worried that the government will track me down and punish me in any manner, nor will they pressure Hacker News to strike my post. Meanwhile, the Chinese government will literally disappear a billionaire celebrity for saying something mildly critical of the government. That's a prospect that's pretty much anathema to an American way of thinking about freedom. That's not to say that America doesn't have LOTS of problems with censorship. We do. Oodles. Some of it's secret and some if it's blatant and in the open. But China is orders of magnitude worse for political speech.
- chrischen 6y ago
  If you speak freely, and it is not powerful enough to cause any consequences, then are you freely speaking at all? Sounds like a great way to make us feel like we have political power and that our speech has power, when in reality the moment our speech can disrupt the establishment it gets clamped down. One big difference here vs China is that the establishment is a bit more distributed. The people in power here are just as eager to censor as the people in power in China. The only difference is the people in power in China are mostly the people in control of the government. But the one bigger difference is that we only seem to think the government is capable of censorship, when really it's a matter of the people in power.
  - mef 6y ago
    yes, that’s speaking freely without convincing anyone of anything.
  - Cyph0n 6y ago
    As someone who has lived in dictatorships and now lives in the US, I don’t see the point to your (rhetorical?) question at all. I’ve seen firsthand how much more relaxed people become when they don’t need to constantly worry about government informants (I’m from Tunisia). Of course, for the vast majority of people, living in a poor democracy is objectively worse than living in a rich dictatorship.
    - chrischen 6y ago
      I can't speak for Tunisia but people in China generally don't have such worries. I'm really trying to compare two relatively stable governments, with one employing centralized censorship and power preservation and one employing decentralized censorship and power preservation. If you throw say a less well off and also oppressive government then it's a different matter.
      - Cyph0n 6y ago
        Well, your statement was quite general :) My point is that free speech without impact is vastly better than no free speech at all, which is why I don’t see how it even makes sense to ask that question. I think the key point is that free speech is the basic mechanism the public has to make societal or political changes. If speaking or protesting against the government is a crime, it means the public is lacking the basic mechanism to even propose such changes, let alone make them.
  - jorblumesea 6y ago
    Yes? Freedom is speech is not equivalent to complete political equity. Those are separate ideas. You can be in a free, open society and still feel or even be powerless. You can be in a free society and be destitute.
  - hungryhobo 6y ago
    In western countries, speech is free, but the microphones are controlled tightly by a privileged few. Not saying china is better, but just different ways the political elites are controlling the masses
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    Speech in the US is powerful enough to cause consequences, not really sure what you're talking about. The US just changed administrations & congressional leadership twice in 4 years based on nothing more than ballot speech, which involved the humiliating defeat of one of the most well funded "establishment" politicians in favor of a non-politician that made a mockery of establishment practices for 4 years. Congress has representatives reviled by practically all of their colleagues and party management, yet they consistently get re-elected through ballot speech. A series of news reports took down an entire presidency and the whole government couldn't do anything about it. Allegations of sexual misconduct alone have sunk the careers of some of the most respected and powerful figures in multiple industries. Protests & news reporting have directly led to historic civil rights legislation, and more recently: local council votes on police spending measures. Sure, US politicians can be eager to censor but there are political & legal mechanisms that restrict and stop them. There is no such thing for the CCP. I've yet to see any checks on its power or speech about the CCP's atrocities & coverups affect the CCP's permanent leadership.
- jsnk 6y ago
  I'm not as sure if China or US is worse about political speech anymore. In US, the government may not come for you like China. But in US, there are multi-national corporations, NGOs, think tanks, activist groups, social media mob who can just as effectively and "humanely" strip your power, influence and livelihood just as well as Chinese government can. Also at least with China, rules are pretty black and white. Don't mess with the Chinese government's received view. However in US, it's ever-changing goal post, where opinions, jokes, scientific studies which were mainstream just a couple of years ago can potentially get you fired, bank account closed, socially shunned and be labeled with all kinds of things. Is US actually better about freedom of speech than China in practice culturally?
  - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
    Yes, the US is actually better about freedom of speech than China in practice. To give you a negative example, a significant number of people organized a literal coup attempt, largely in the open, via social media, and nothing happened to them until they actually stormed the US Capitol building, after which some of them were arrested. Large media companies with massive audiences broadcast divisive lies accusing the current President of being illegitimate due a fraudulent election. It is completely legal, and the government has taken no action to stop them. Meanwhile, Jack Ma issued mild criticism of the Chinese government's financial regulation policies and promptly disappeared. And you're comparing that to "cancel culture?" Yes, the US is actually better about freedom of speech than China.
    - chrischen 6y ago
      That coup attempted happened because the powers at hand missed it. In the aftermath Parlor is shut down, and the powers at hand would never allow such a thing to happen again. So at best you can say the censorship apparatus in the US is less effective, but still present. And yes, the US government didn't do the censorship, but rather the private platforms that wield the power did so.
      - orisho 6y ago
- dfadsadsf 6y ago
  A Russian meets up with an American. "We have freedom of speech," the Russian says. "I can post that Russian elections are falsified on social media." "What's the big deal?" asks the American. "I too can write that Russian elections are falsified on social media." Original: https://youtu.be/gNXpa0M-UdY https://youtu.be/gNXpa0M-UdY
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    Since when was it not possible or legal to write that American elections were falsified on social media? This joke itself seems to be based on the recent wave of loud & public accusations that the American elections are falsified. I guess Twitter/Facebook independently banned some of it, are those companies now considered to be the whole of social media?
    - chrischen 6y ago
      That’s like asking if the Republican and Democratic parties now considered to be the whole of US government? The answer is in practice yes, and neither of those two private organizations operate democratically (they operate based on seniority, and can create arbitrary rules like super delegate voting).
      - themacguffinman 6y ago
        Well no, in practice Facebook/Twitter constitute a majority of the social media market (~75% IIRC) but it isn't a mutually exclusive share like the two parties that occupy fixed seats in the US government. Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech; Unlike the governments in China & Russia, Facebook & Twitter can't do anything to stop your speech from reaching even their users if their users choose to listen to your speech because users aren't locked into using one social media platform. Aside about the two parties: yes the two parties don't operate democratically, but they don't need to for the system to be democratic. Ultimately the voters choose and parties are held accountable for whatever actions they take. If a party subverts the will of voters, it will lose votes, or worse case scenario the parties die (eg. the Whig party, which was a major party).
mhh__ 6y ago
If you are trying to say they are the same in magnitude then the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes to mind.
- chrischen 6y ago
  Magnitudes will always be different, but also irrelevant. If a system allows censorship to happen magnitudes of censorship will shift depending on the threat to established power. If powers are threatened you bet they will leverage more or less censorship to preserve their power as the situation demands. So a more stable society will enjoy more censorship, and a less stable one may employ more, but that is constantly shifting and pointless to compare. What is important to compare is the awareness of the participants that the system isn't fundamentally different (both systems allow for censorship, and actively employ it to control and preserve power). The problem isn't where this is more or less censorship, it's that in America we're taught that censorship, propaganda, and such dystopian tools are something unique to the Soviet Union, communists, China, etc, when really it's a universal tool employed by everyone from Donald Trump's office to Kellog's cereal commercials, and yes, the Communist Party of China. Yea sure, we have a million news outlets and China maybe has one, but if these tools are employed by those in power to preserve their power then you can be the people here in power employ them too. At the end of the day our million news outlets don't matter if 99% of the power is concentrated in 1%. It creates an illusion that there is independence when really the only thing matter is who has power and is in control, because they can rally these "independent" players when needed.

I would characterize the biggest difference is that Chinese people are actually aware they are being massively censored, while Americans think they have no censorship.

CobrastanJorji 6y ago

In some ways, you're right, but Americans feel most strongly about the freedom of speech when it comes to specifically political speech, and I think the biggest difference is that I, as an American, can choose to say "I think our President of the United States is a fascist and a criminal and he should be arrested for his crimes" and I am in no way worried that the government will track me down and punish me in any manner, nor will they pressure Hacker News to strike my post. Meanwhile, the Chinese government will literally disappear a billionaire celebrity for saying something mildly critical of the government. That's a prospect that's pretty much anathema to an American way of thinking about freedom. That's not to say that America doesn't have LOTS of problems with censorship. We do. Oodles. Some of it's secret and some if it's blatant and in the open. But China is orders of magnitude worse for political speech.

chrischen 6y ago
If you speak freely, and it is not powerful enough to cause any consequences, then are you freely speaking at all? Sounds like a great way to make us feel like we have political power and that our speech has power, when in reality the moment our speech can disrupt the establishment it gets clamped down. One big difference here vs China is that the establishment is a bit more distributed. The people in power here are just as eager to censor as the people in power in China. The only difference is the people in power in China are mostly the people in control of the government. But the one bigger difference is that we only seem to think the government is capable of censorship, when really it's a matter of the people in power.
- mef 6y ago
  yes, that’s speaking freely without convincing anyone of anything.
- Cyph0n 6y ago
  As someone who has lived in dictatorships and now lives in the US, I don’t see the point to your (rhetorical?) question at all. I’ve seen firsthand how much more relaxed people become when they don’t need to constantly worry about government informants (I’m from Tunisia). Of course, for the vast majority of people, living in a poor democracy is objectively worse than living in a rich dictatorship.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    I can't speak for Tunisia but people in China generally don't have such worries. I'm really trying to compare two relatively stable governments, with one employing centralized censorship and power preservation and one employing decentralized censorship and power preservation. If you throw say a less well off and also oppressive government then it's a different matter.
    - Cyph0n 6y ago
      Well, your statement was quite general :) My point is that free speech without impact is vastly better than no free speech at all, which is why I don’t see how it even makes sense to ask that question. I think the key point is that free speech is the basic mechanism the public has to make societal or political changes. If speaking or protesting against the government is a crime, it means the public is lacking the basic mechanism to even propose such changes, let alone make them.
- jorblumesea 6y ago
  Yes? Freedom is speech is not equivalent to complete political equity. Those are separate ideas. You can be in a free, open society and still feel or even be powerless. You can be in a free society and be destitute.
- hungryhobo 6y ago
  In western countries, speech is free, but the microphones are controlled tightly by a privileged few. Not saying china is better, but just different ways the political elites are controlling the masses
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Speech in the US is powerful enough to cause consequences, not really sure what you're talking about. The US just changed administrations & congressional leadership twice in 4 years based on nothing more than ballot speech, which involved the humiliating defeat of one of the most well funded "establishment" politicians in favor of a non-politician that made a mockery of establishment practices for 4 years. Congress has representatives reviled by practically all of their colleagues and party management, yet they consistently get re-elected through ballot speech. A series of news reports took down an entire presidency and the whole government couldn't do anything about it. Allegations of sexual misconduct alone have sunk the careers of some of the most respected and powerful figures in multiple industries. Protests & news reporting have directly led to historic civil rights legislation, and more recently: local council votes on police spending measures. Sure, US politicians can be eager to censor but there are political & legal mechanisms that restrict and stop them. There is no such thing for the CCP. I've yet to see any checks on its power or speech about the CCP's atrocities & coverups affect the CCP's permanent leadership.
jsnk 6y ago
I'm not as sure if China or US is worse about political speech anymore. In US, the government may not come for you like China. But in US, there are multi-national corporations, NGOs, think tanks, activist groups, social media mob who can just as effectively and "humanely" strip your power, influence and livelihood just as well as Chinese government can. Also at least with China, rules are pretty black and white. Don't mess with the Chinese government's received view. However in US, it's ever-changing goal post, where opinions, jokes, scientific studies which were mainstream just a couple of years ago can potentially get you fired, bank account closed, socially shunned and be labeled with all kinds of things. Is US actually better about freedom of speech than China in practice culturally?
- CobrastanJorji 6y ago
  Yes, the US is actually better about freedom of speech than China in practice. To give you a negative example, a significant number of people organized a literal coup attempt, largely in the open, via social media, and nothing happened to them until they actually stormed the US Capitol building, after which some of them were arrested. Large media companies with massive audiences broadcast divisive lies accusing the current President of being illegitimate due a fraudulent election. It is completely legal, and the government has taken no action to stop them. Meanwhile, Jack Ma issued mild criticism of the Chinese government's financial regulation policies and promptly disappeared. And you're comparing that to "cancel culture?" Yes, the US is actually better about freedom of speech than China.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    That coup attempted happened because the powers at hand missed it. In the aftermath Parlor is shut down, and the powers at hand would never allow such a thing to happen again. So at best you can say the censorship apparatus in the US is less effective, but still present. And yes, the US government didn't do the censorship, but rather the private platforms that wield the power did so.
    - orisho 6y ago
dfadsadsf 6y ago
A Russian meets up with an American. "We have freedom of speech," the Russian says. "I can post that Russian elections are falsified on social media." "What's the big deal?" asks the American. "I too can write that Russian elections are falsified on social media." Original: https://youtu.be/gNXpa0M-UdY https://youtu.be/gNXpa0M-UdY
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  Since when was it not possible or legal to write that American elections were falsified on social media? This joke itself seems to be based on the recent wave of loud & public accusations that the American elections are falsified. I guess Twitter/Facebook independently banned some of it, are those companies now considered to be the whole of social media?
  - chrischen 6y ago
    That’s like asking if the Republican and Democratic parties now considered to be the whole of US government? The answer is in practice yes, and neither of those two private organizations operate democratically (they operate based on seniority, and can create arbitrary rules like super delegate voting).
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      Well no, in practice Facebook/Twitter constitute a majority of the social media market (~75% IIRC) but it isn't a mutually exclusive share like the two parties that occupy fixed seats in the US government. Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech; Unlike the governments in China & Russia, Facebook & Twitter can't do anything to stop your speech from reaching even their users if their users choose to listen to your speech because users aren't locked into using one social media platform. Aside about the two parties: yes the two parties don't operate democratically, but they don't need to for the system to be democratic. Ultimately the voters choose and parties are held accountable for whatever actions they take. If a party subverts the will of voters, it will lose votes, or worse case scenario the parties die (eg. the Whig party, which was a major party).

mhh__ 6y ago

If you are trying to say they are the same in magnitude then the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" comes to mind.

chrischen 6y ago
Magnitudes will always be different, but also irrelevant. If a system allows censorship to happen magnitudes of censorship will shift depending on the threat to established power. If powers are threatened you bet they will leverage more or less censorship to preserve their power as the situation demands. So a more stable society will enjoy more censorship, and a less stable one may employ more, but that is constantly shifting and pointless to compare. What is important to compare is the awareness of the participants that the system isn't fundamentally different (both systems allow for censorship, and actively employ it to control and preserve power). The problem isn't where this is more or less censorship, it's that in America we're taught that censorship, propaganda, and such dystopian tools are something unique to the Soviet Union, communists, China, etc, when really it's a universal tool employed by everyone from Donald Trump's office to Kellog's cereal commercials, and yes, the Communist Party of China. Yea sure, we have a million news outlets and China maybe has one, but if these tools are employed by those in power to preserve their power then you can be the people here in power employ them too. At the end of the day our million news outlets don't matter if 99% of the power is concentrated in 1%. It creates an illusion that there is independence when really the only thing matter is who has power and is in control, because they can rally these "independent" players when needed.