3 ms·

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 liter

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
  But why did they miss it? I believe they did so because this kind of speech is not unusual. So even though it was out in the open, likely reported many times as people do on social platforms - it was missed because it was regarded as people saying extreme thngs but not going to act on them. In other words, there's a lot of this kind of speech in modern times, but it doesn't get censored and so actually dangerous speech gets missed. And then they actually went through with it - so many private organizations took action. And yet, the government did not force their hand.
  - chrischen 6y ago
    Well the guy in charge of monitoring security and being ahead of this stuff was fired. So I’d assume if we had been tolerant before we won’t be so tolerant of this speech in the future.
jsnk 6y ago
It seems rather naive to believe that Jack Ma disappeared due to mild criticism of the Chinese government's financial regulation policies. ANT group has financial network power that can challenge the Chinese government's control over the country. In the future, if the power is unchecked now, it definitely can challenge the Chinese government. I am not casting a judgement whether that's right or wrong that a company has power like that. I'm just denying that Jack Ma's insignificant comment is what got him in trouble. What got Jack Ma in trouble is truly existential threat ANT group may pose down the future when a single entity fully controls financial activities of the entire Chinese population. Compare to that, a bunch of idiots storming the capital building, is just that. A bunch of idiots storming the physical building. It's no threat. American regime barely was tickled by such an incident. It's embarrassing, but nothing significant will come out of it other than amazing leverage for the left to use. So props to that. In comparison, Jack Ma and the ANT group's current and future influence in China is actually significant, lasting and potent, that can even rival Chinese government.

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
But why did they miss it? I believe they did so because this kind of speech is not unusual. So even though it was out in the open, likely reported many times as people do on social platforms - it was missed because it was regarded as people saying extreme thngs but not going to act on them. In other words, there's a lot of this kind of speech in modern times, but it doesn't get censored and so actually dangerous speech gets missed. And then they actually went through with it - so many private organizations took action. And yet, the government did not force their hand.
- chrischen 6y ago
  Well the guy in charge of monitoring security and being ahead of this stuff was fired. So I’d assume if we had been tolerant before we won’t be so tolerant of this speech in the future.

jsnk 6y ago

It seems rather naive to believe that Jack Ma disappeared due to mild criticism of the Chinese government's financial regulation policies. ANT group has financial network power that can challenge the Chinese government's control over the country. In the future, if the power is unchecked now, it definitely can challenge the Chinese government. I am not casting a judgement whether that's right or wrong that a company has power like that. I'm just denying that Jack Ma's insignificant comment is what got him in trouble. What got Jack Ma in trouble is truly existential threat ANT group may pose down the future when a single entity fully controls financial activities of the entire Chinese population. Compare to that, a bunch of idiots storming the capital building, is just that. A bunch of idiots storming the physical building. It's no threat. American regime barely was tickled by such an incident. It's embarrassing, but nothing significant will come out of it other than amazing leverage for the left to use. So props to that. In comparison, Jack Ma and the ANT group's current and future influence in China is actually significant, lasting and potent, that can even rival Chinese government.