6 ms·

There’s a huge difference between a private company banning someone from their platform and a government that has a secret police which takes you away at night

There’s a huge difference between a private company banning someone from their platform and a government that has a secret police which takes you away at night to a labor camp because you didn’t simp for the People’s party.

mysecretaccount 5y ago
This article isn't about labor camps or the CCP's secret police. If you look at the censorship itself, the gap is much more narrow.
- cassonmars 5y ago
  That’s not the point. OP tried to draw a comparison that private enterprises in the US do the same thing — they do not. The false equivalence ends at the point where the CCP actively controls what these companies do in terms of enforcement, and the mass surveillance apparatus is intrinsically linked.
  - mysecretaccount 5y ago
    > That’s not the point. OP tried to draw a comparison that private enterprises in the US do the same thing — they do not. FB/GOOG absolutely do. You may trust the USG or the companies it pressures into this domain of behavior more than the CCP/Xiaomi (or may not - it is not relevant to this point) but the comparison is there.
    - colordrops 5y ago
      It's amazing that people still have their heads in the sand about this when evidence to the contrary comes out regularly, e.g. PRISM, CIA coordination with the LA Times and New York Times, and Biden's press secretary Psaki directly saying they work with social media companies to determine censorship policies.
    - cassonmars 5y ago
      Please cite a source where discussing American historical atrocities on social media gets you whisked away by the secret police.
      - sodality2 5y ago
        Obviously I agree with you, but you could ask a Chinese citizen the same thing and they'd be able to provide no evidence for their own country
        cassonmars 5y ago
        Right, but that’s kind of the irony — the collection of atrocities that stain the tapestry of America’s history are readily accessible, actively acknowledged on repeat on social media (ad infinitum at times, even), and (mostly, depending on locale) even taught in public schools. Trying to even discuss the notion on WeChat could send you to reeducation camps. Here it’s a series of chapters in textbooks.
        AceyMan 5y ago
        Omitting the Native American Genocide, you mean.
        cassonmars 5y ago
        I’m Cherokee. I first learned about the Trail of Tears in public school before I heard about it from my family.
        kcb 5y ago
        Weird this is readily accessible in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_genoc...
        emptysongglass 5y ago
        I first learned of my state, Washington, and the abuses of its Klickitat people in 5th grade and continued to learn of the Native massacres through middle school all the way through to the end of the high school. There's no day in the US where remembering a day equivalent to violently pancaking protestors beneath tank treads (take your pick of our atrocities) was censored everywhere as was the case recently on the day of the Tiananmen Square massacre in China.
franklampard 5y ago
Lol
coldtea 5y ago
I don't see a huge difference. I find it an equally problematic off-sourcing of state functions to corporations, to have as an excuse "but it's not state censorship". -- and this is something that has been commented on, and spread increasingly more, for half a century...
- na85 5y ago
  The difference is that Twitter isn't obligated to provide you a platform to spout Trump conspiracy theories, or whatever, but in most Western countries with the Rule of Law you have a right to not be extrajudicially disappeared by secret police.
  - coldtea 5y ago
    A, the "it's OK when it happens to the bad people, especially on my opposite side of the potitical spectrum" argument. "Trump conspiracy theories": Bad. "WMDs, video with prostitutes in Russia, and the Steele Dossieur": Good. (plus, we'll self-critique ourselves, several years down the line, when it doesn't matter anymore, e.g. after the war was declared, the elections over, etc., so that makes us legit).
    - anders_p 5y ago
      > A, the "it's OK when it happens to the bad people, especially on my opposite side of the potitical spectrum" argument. Nobody was saying anything like that. But go ahead. Have fun with your strawman arguments.
      - raxxorrax 5y ago
        I don't think it is a strawman at all. You don't have to like Trump, not at all actually and I don't say disliking him is unreasonable. That people don't care about being lied to is their problem. Russia is a political adversary, but don't try to convince people you think critically. That would be absolutely ridiculous for anyone part of that discussion. If people dislike impolite statements more than war too, well, just don't argue about morality please or the same ridiculousness continues. I don't think Trump is a good candidate to be president. But his opposition was a laughing stock. Twitter decided they want to join the conspiracies about Russian interference. They are free to do that. But don't complain about other conspiracies either.
ng12 5y ago
What's the difference? Is Xiaomi not afforded the same control as Twitter? The same oft-repeated argument applies: if you don't like it, buy another phone. To note: I think this is abhorrent, and really my point is I wish Twitter didn't censor or editorialize either.
- anders_p 5y ago
  > What's the difference? Is Xiaomi not afforded the same control as Twitter? No. Of course not. How can you honestly believe, that a smartphone producer controlling what you can access _on the internet_, is the same thing, as an online platform having a say in what happens on _their_ platform? That's completely absurd.
  - ng12 5y ago
    I really don't understand how it's any different. If I sell you a phone why should I be obligated to allow you to do _anything_ on it? Not to mention there's already an extremely strong precedent for suppliers controlling what you are allowed do on your phone (see: iOS and the App Store). If you don't like it don't buy my phones. Again, I'm largely playing devil's advocate here. I'd much rather live in a world where we stop saying "but it's a private company" as a catch-all.
    - anders_p 5y ago
      Again, I think you are being completely absurd. If you sell me a phone, and then deny me the right to use it as phone, then you are breaking the law. At least where I live. I would be able to demand a refund, and the Company could be penalized for lying about what they sell. You are being absurd. Also, private businesses should always be able to enforce their rules on their platform/property, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes like ethnicities, genders, sexualities, etc. Otherwise you could just shit on the floor of a restaurant, and they could do nothing about it. Again, you are being absurd.
      - piaste 5y ago
sennight 5y ago
The US government has long outsourced legally questionable things to "private" companies (corporations are actually a government invention). But in the last year it has gotten extremely bold about it - holding press conferences where in they bragged about directing Facebook on which accounts to censor for "misinformation". Obviously government censorship, and obviously illegal - despite the chorus of "actually" from people rushing in with their index fingers raised. The point shouldn't be "your bad behavior justifies my bad behavior", it should be this: folks in the valley ceded the moral high ground in the pursuit of short term political interests. There is a cost associated with that, which can be paid in many different ways. The right way would be acknowledging the mistake and a rededication to first principles... but obviously that isn't going to happen. Instead, hypocrites will be forced to perform mental gymnastics in order to preserve their working model of the world without admitting fault - it is exhausting, ineffective, and soul crushing... but they'll do it.
thr0w72594 5y ago
You mean private companies that have government-enabled monopolies and work together to shut people out of interacting in society, all while getting ban-lists from NGOs funded by billionaires? I'd rather have the oppressive government, which ostensibly creates rules to benefit the country as a whole, than be ruled by the whims of a network of billionaires.
- anders_p 5y ago
  > I'd rather have the oppressive government, which ostensibly creates rules to benefit the country as a whole, Oh, you sweet summer child.
- nine_k 5y ago
  > oppressive government, which ostensibly creates rules to benefit the country as a whole One can hope. But counter-examples abound.
rndgermandude 5y ago
It's true that companies normally have no way to really severely sanction you, unless they are in cahoots with governments (plenty of examples of that in history), or unless you consider closing your accounts and banning you is a severe punishment (in this day and age losing your online accounts - or worse bank accounts and such - can indeed have severe effects on your personal and professional life, but it still isn't the same as throwing you in prison). But the broad societal effect of companies censoring things is more or less the same whether they did that on their own or were instructed by the government. What prevents this a little right now is that we do not have a truly monopolistic landscape in that matter, at least when it comes to online services. You basically need facebook and google and twitter (and tiktok) to all decide on a certain topic to become non-grata to effectively censor a topic enough to vanish it from most public discussion (small services will populate only by people interested in the topic, but the way to "get the message out" will be gone). The governments are more effective by forcing all the big players into compliance. Regardless, the threat of big companies looks very real to me. and the trend goes to big companies consolidating their power more and more. It's also good to remember there are companies more powerful than FAANG from the perspective of (specific groups of) regular citizens: banks, credit card companies, ISPs, utility companies, health insurers and other insurers, the company that sells you "copyrighted and patented" seed or DRM-enabled tractors, home owners associations, potentially your own employer, to name a few.
DocTomoe 5y ago
Last time I checked, Xiaomi was a private company. Sure, they may have done this with government influence, but that's something not unheard of in the west. This whole discussion reminds me of the "our blessed homeland" cartoon: https://twitter.com/vrk100/status/1231211141218500608 https://twitter.com/vrk100/status/1231211141218500608

mysecretaccount 5y ago

This article isn't about labor camps or the CCP's secret police. If you look at the censorship itself, the gap is much more narrow.

cassonmars 5y ago
That’s not the point. OP tried to draw a comparison that private enterprises in the US do the same thing — they do not. The false equivalence ends at the point where the CCP actively controls what these companies do in terms of enforcement, and the mass surveillance apparatus is intrinsically linked.
- mysecretaccount 5y ago
  > That’s not the point. OP tried to draw a comparison that private enterprises in the US do the same thing — they do not. FB/GOOG absolutely do. You may trust the USG or the companies it pressures into this domain of behavior more than the CCP/Xiaomi (or may not - it is not relevant to this point) but the comparison is there.
  - colordrops 5y ago
    It's amazing that people still have their heads in the sand about this when evidence to the contrary comes out regularly, e.g. PRISM, CIA coordination with the LA Times and New York Times, and Biden's press secretary Psaki directly saying they work with social media companies to determine censorship policies.
  - cassonmars 5y ago
    Please cite a source where discussing American historical atrocities on social media gets you whisked away by the secret police.
    - sodality2 5y ago
      Obviously I agree with you, but you could ask a Chinese citizen the same thing and they'd be able to provide no evidence for their own country
      - cassonmars 5y ago
        Right, but that’s kind of the irony — the collection of atrocities that stain the tapestry of America’s history are readily accessible, actively acknowledged on repeat on social media (ad infinitum at times, even), and (mostly, depending on locale) even taught in public schools. Trying to even discuss the notion on WeChat could send you to reeducation camps. Here it’s a series of chapters in textbooks.
        AceyMan 5y ago
        Omitting the Native American Genocide, you mean.
        cassonmars 5y ago
        I’m Cherokee. I first learned about the Trail of Tears in public school before I heard about it from my family.
        kcb 5y ago
        Weird this is readily accessible in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Native_American_genoc...
        emptysongglass 5y ago
        I first learned of my state, Washington, and the abuses of its Klickitat people in 5th grade and continued to learn of the Native massacres through middle school all the way through to the end of the high school. There's no day in the US where remembering a day equivalent to violently pancaking protestors beneath tank treads (take your pick of our atrocities) was censored everywhere as was the case recently on the day of the Tiananmen Square massacre in China.

franklampard 5y ago

Lol

coldtea 5y ago

I don't see a huge difference. I find it an equally problematic off-sourcing of state functions to corporations, to have as an excuse "but it's not state censorship". -- and this is something that has been commented on, and spread increasingly more, for half a century...

na85 5y ago
The difference is that Twitter isn't obligated to provide you a platform to spout Trump conspiracy theories, or whatever, but in most Western countries with the Rule of Law you have a right to not be extrajudicially disappeared by secret police.
- coldtea 5y ago
  A, the "it's OK when it happens to the bad people, especially on my opposite side of the potitical spectrum" argument. "Trump conspiracy theories": Bad. "WMDs, video with prostitutes in Russia, and the Steele Dossieur": Good. (plus, we'll self-critique ourselves, several years down the line, when it doesn't matter anymore, e.g. after the war was declared, the elections over, etc., so that makes us legit).
  - anders_p 5y ago
    > A, the "it's OK when it happens to the bad people, especially on my opposite side of the potitical spectrum" argument. Nobody was saying anything like that. But go ahead. Have fun with your strawman arguments.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      I don't think it is a strawman at all. You don't have to like Trump, not at all actually and I don't say disliking him is unreasonable. That people don't care about being lied to is their problem. Russia is a political adversary, but don't try to convince people you think critically. That would be absolutely ridiculous for anyone part of that discussion. If people dislike impolite statements more than war too, well, just don't argue about morality please or the same ridiculousness continues. I don't think Trump is a good candidate to be president. But his opposition was a laughing stock. Twitter decided they want to join the conspiracies about Russian interference. They are free to do that. But don't complain about other conspiracies either.

ng12 5y ago

What's the difference? Is Xiaomi not afforded the same control as Twitter? The same oft-repeated argument applies: if you don't like it, buy another phone. To note: I think this is abhorrent, and really my point is I wish Twitter didn't censor or editorialize either.

anders_p 5y ago
> What's the difference? Is Xiaomi not afforded the same control as Twitter? No. Of course not. How can you honestly believe, that a smartphone producer controlling what you can access _on the internet_, is the same thing, as an online platform having a say in what happens on _their_ platform? That's completely absurd.
- ng12 5y ago
  I really don't understand how it's any different. If I sell you a phone why should I be obligated to allow you to do _anything_ on it? Not to mention there's already an extremely strong precedent for suppliers controlling what you are allowed do on your phone (see: iOS and the App Store). If you don't like it don't buy my phones. Again, I'm largely playing devil's advocate here. I'd much rather live in a world where we stop saying "but it's a private company" as a catch-all.
  - anders_p 5y ago
    Again, I think you are being completely absurd. If you sell me a phone, and then deny me the right to use it as phone, then you are breaking the law. At least where I live. I would be able to demand a refund, and the Company could be penalized for lying about what they sell. You are being absurd. Also, private businesses should always be able to enforce their rules on their platform/property, as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes like ethnicities, genders, sexualities, etc. Otherwise you could just shit on the floor of a restaurant, and they could do nothing about it. Again, you are being absurd.
    - piaste 5y ago

sennight 5y ago

The US government has long outsourced legally questionable things to "private" companies (corporations are actually a government invention). But in the last year it has gotten extremely bold about it - holding press conferences where in they bragged about directing Facebook on which accounts to censor for "misinformation". Obviously government censorship, and obviously illegal - despite the chorus of "actually" from people rushing in with their index fingers raised. The point shouldn't be "your bad behavior justifies my bad behavior", it should be this: folks in the valley ceded the moral high ground in the pursuit of short term political interests. There is a cost associated with that, which can be paid in many different ways. The right way would be acknowledging the mistake and a rededication to first principles... but obviously that isn't going to happen. Instead, hypocrites will be forced to perform mental gymnastics in order to preserve their working model of the world without admitting fault - it is exhausting, ineffective, and soul crushing... but they'll do it.

thr0w72594 5y ago

You mean private companies that have government-enabled monopolies and work together to shut people out of interacting in society, all while getting ban-lists from NGOs funded by billionaires? I'd rather have the oppressive government, which ostensibly creates rules to benefit the country as a whole, than be ruled by the whims of a network of billionaires.

anders_p 5y ago
> I'd rather have the oppressive government, which ostensibly creates rules to benefit the country as a whole, Oh, you sweet summer child.
nine_k 5y ago
> oppressive government, which ostensibly creates rules to benefit the country as a whole One can hope. But counter-examples abound.

rndgermandude 5y ago

It's true that companies normally have no way to really severely sanction you, unless they are in cahoots with governments (plenty of examples of that in history), or unless you consider closing your accounts and banning you is a severe punishment (in this day and age losing your online accounts - or worse bank accounts and such - can indeed have severe effects on your personal and professional life, but it still isn't the same as throwing you in prison). But the broad societal effect of companies censoring things is more or less the same whether they did that on their own or were instructed by the government. What prevents this a little right now is that we do not have a truly monopolistic landscape in that matter, at least when it comes to online services. You basically need facebook and google and twitter (and tiktok) to all decide on a certain topic to become non-grata to effectively censor a topic enough to vanish it from most public discussion (small services will populate only by people interested in the topic, but the way to "get the message out" will be gone). The governments are more effective by forcing all the big players into compliance. Regardless, the threat of big companies looks very real to me. and the trend goes to big companies consolidating their power more and more. It's also good to remember there are companies more powerful than FAANG from the perspective of (specific groups of) regular citizens: banks, credit card companies, ISPs, utility companies, health insurers and other insurers, the company that sells you "copyrighted and patented" seed or DRM-enabled tractors, home owners associations, potentially your own employer, to name a few.

DocTomoe 5y ago

Last time I checked, Xiaomi was a private company. Sure, they may have done this with government influence, but that's something not unheard of in the west. This whole discussion reminds me of the "our blessed homeland" cartoon: https://twitter.com/vrk100/status/1231211141218500608 https://twitter.com/vrk100/status/1231211141218500608