4 ms·

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

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).
    - chrischen 6y ago
      > Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech You talking about Parlor or something else? I mean, when people can't use their non-majority social media of choice (whatever the reason stopping them may be), are they really free?
      - themacguffinman 6y ago
        Yes they are really free, freedom is not entitlement to your social media of choice. Americans are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them. They are also free to invent their own social media that doesn't have the same restrictions as the popular ones. The government doesn't interfere with this choice, but platform operators also have the freedom to not associate with certain customers. Parlor is one option, there's also Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, the *chans, etc. There are decentralized networks like Mastodon. Neither the government or social media companies can stop you from choosing any number of social media platforms (or other communication platforms) to speak on. That is simply not the case in China.
        chrischen 6y ago
        > Americans are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them You can swap out "Americans" with "Chinese" and you end up with the exact same thing. "Chinese are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them." So are they now free too?
        themacguffinman 6y ago
        No, that statement would simply be false. China's social media & communication services are monitored and the government forces all platforms to apply censorship or identify dissent, they are certainly not free to say whatever they want. Services that don't adhere to these restrictions are not permitted in the country (like Google). China also pursues dissent beyond its borders. Zoom, a company primarily develops their product in China, actually shutdown meetings with foreign participants because they were related to the Tiananmen massacre. The US FBI has revealed a covert CCP program called Operation Fox Hunt to coerce foreign dissidents into either committing suicide or returning to China's jurisdiction by threatening their family in China. Frankly the difference between the US & China in degree of freedom of speech, both practical and theoretical, is astronomical. The two could not be further apart and even the most glib comparisons don't track.

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).
  - chrischen 6y ago
    > Speech on non-majority social media is still effectively free speech You talking about Parlor or something else? I mean, when people can't use their non-majority social media of choice (whatever the reason stopping them may be), are they really free?
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      Yes they are really free, freedom is not entitlement to your social media of choice. Americans are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them. They are also free to invent their own social media that doesn't have the same restrictions as the popular ones. The government doesn't interfere with this choice, but platform operators also have the freedom to not associate with certain customers. Parlor is one option, there's also Reddit, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, the *chans, etc. There are decentralized networks like Mastodon. Neither the government or social media companies can stop you from choosing any number of social media platforms (or other communication platforms) to speak on. That is simply not the case in China.
      - chrischen 6y ago
        > Americans are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them You can swap out "Americans" with "Chinese" and you end up with the exact same thing. "Chinese are free to speak whatever they want on platforms that are available to them." So are they now free too?
        themacguffinman 6y ago
        No, that statement would simply be false. China's social media & communication services are monitored and the government forces all platforms to apply censorship or identify dissent, they are certainly not free to say whatever they want. Services that don't adhere to these restrictions are not permitted in the country (like Google). China also pursues dissent beyond its borders. Zoom, a company primarily develops their product in China, actually shutdown meetings with foreign participants because they were related to the Tiananmen massacre. The US FBI has revealed a covert CCP program called Operation Fox Hunt to coerce foreign dissidents into either committing suicide or returning to China's jurisdiction by threatening their family in China. Frankly the difference between the US & China in degree of freedom of speech, both practical and theoretical, is astronomical. The two could not be further apart and even the most glib comparisons don't track.