3 ms·

We should have rules that include forbidding any Chinese company from selling SaaS or social media until CCP takes the Great Firewall down. They've made a pari

We should have rules that include forbidding any Chinese company from selling SaaS or social media until CCP takes the Great Firewall down. They've made a pariah internet and they should stay there. Suit you? Suits me.

pjc50 4y ago
What about Russian social media (I think vk got sanctioned but not livejournal)? What about, given the other thread, Qatar? Should Orkut (Brazilian) have been allowed? My point is that the rules should target what it does rather than simply "China=Bad", since that offers a way back into compliance with the rules. However unlikely that actually is.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  > Brazilian Nobody is calling for blanket bans of foreign apps. This is a straw man argument.
- vajrabum 4y ago
  Orkut by the way was created by a Stanford trained engineer at Google. It wasn't Brazilian. Rather it had a Brazilian community.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > What about What about that is that the US congress allocated $500 m for anti-China propaganda in its last budget and all the free, knowledgeable Americans who are littering this thread with their McCarthyist Cold War comments are just taken in with the 'latest thing' from their government propaganda. Nothing more different than how Saddam was the 'greatest threat to civilization' in 2003, or Gaddafi was in 2011 etc etc. And the 'civilization' they are stanning for is the one that kills its people if they cant pay for healthcare. Without even touching how poor are starting to choose euthanasia in Canada instead of being homeless. ... I see this as a way in which Angloamerican denizens direct their frustrations to external 'enemies' by taking their attention away from the problems at home, which they are powerless to fix. They vilify and demean chosen 'enemies', and direct all the criticism that should happen at home towards those enemies. This avoids both alienation from their own society and the pressure to address the problems at home. Long story short, they just avoid cognitive dissonance.
  - yencabulator 4y ago
    > I see this as a way in which Angloamerican denizens direct their frustrations to external 'enemies' by taking their attention away from the problems at home, which they are powerless to fix. They vilify and demean chosen 'enemies', and direct all the criticism that should happen at home towards those enemies. This reminded me of the two-party system...
    - unity1001 4y ago
      > This reminded me of the two-party system... Yes, well spotted - the two party system definitely employs the same mechanic: all the evils are projected out to the 'enemy', and all the wrongs in their own group are ignored. This provides group cohesion and allows them to avoid cognitive dissonance and taking responsibility for the results of their own choices. If there were more than two viable parties, or, god forbid 3-4 viable parties like in many European countries, this would be near impossible to make work. You cant vilify 2-3 other groups as the 'ultimate' evil at the same time...
thesuitonym 4y ago
So your response to the Great Firewall being bad is to... implement one of our own?
- samatman 4y ago
  I see a sharp difference between preventing Chinese IP addresses from accessing whatever they would like, and allowing Chinese corporations to profit from the West's liberty while denying it to their subjects. So, no, that is not my response at all. There is no technology involved in kicking these corporations out of the civilized world, just political will.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    That's because there is one. > preventing Chinese IP addresses from accessing whatever they would like is a technical thing that you can do with computers, and > allowing Chinese corporations to profit from the West's liberty while denying it to their subjects. is nationalistic nonsense that lacks any reference to anything material.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > out of the civilized world Which civilized world.
    - samatman 4y ago
      The.
est 4y ago
How about block .edu access to China in exchange for GFW?

pjc50 4y ago

What about Russian social media (I think vk got sanctioned but not livejournal)? What about, given the other thread, Qatar? Should Orkut (Brazilian) have been allowed? My point is that the rules should target what it does rather than simply "China=Bad", since that offers a way back into compliance with the rules. However unlikely that actually is.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> Brazilian Nobody is calling for blanket bans of foreign apps. This is a straw man argument.
vajrabum 4y ago
Orkut by the way was created by a Stanford trained engineer at Google. It wasn't Brazilian. Rather it had a Brazilian community.
unity1001 4y ago
> What about What about that is that the US congress allocated $500 m for anti-China propaganda in its last budget and all the free, knowledgeable Americans who are littering this thread with their McCarthyist Cold War comments are just taken in with the 'latest thing' from their government propaganda. Nothing more different than how Saddam was the 'greatest threat to civilization' in 2003, or Gaddafi was in 2011 etc etc. And the 'civilization' they are stanning for is the one that kills its people if they cant pay for healthcare. Without even touching how poor are starting to choose euthanasia in Canada instead of being homeless. ... I see this as a way in which Angloamerican denizens direct their frustrations to external 'enemies' by taking their attention away from the problems at home, which they are powerless to fix. They vilify and demean chosen 'enemies', and direct all the criticism that should happen at home towards those enemies. This avoids both alienation from their own society and the pressure to address the problems at home. Long story short, they just avoid cognitive dissonance.
- yencabulator 4y ago
  > I see this as a way in which Angloamerican denizens direct their frustrations to external 'enemies' by taking their attention away from the problems at home, which they are powerless to fix. They vilify and demean chosen 'enemies', and direct all the criticism that should happen at home towards those enemies. This reminded me of the two-party system...
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > This reminded me of the two-party system... Yes, well spotted - the two party system definitely employs the same mechanic: all the evils are projected out to the 'enemy', and all the wrongs in their own group are ignored. This provides group cohesion and allows them to avoid cognitive dissonance and taking responsibility for the results of their own choices. If there were more than two viable parties, or, god forbid 3-4 viable parties like in many European countries, this would be near impossible to make work. You cant vilify 2-3 other groups as the 'ultimate' evil at the same time...

thesuitonym 4y ago

So your response to the Great Firewall being bad is to... implement one of our own?

samatman 4y ago
I see a sharp difference between preventing Chinese IP addresses from accessing whatever they would like, and allowing Chinese corporations to profit from the West's liberty while denying it to their subjects. So, no, that is not my response at all. There is no technology involved in kicking these corporations out of the civilized world, just political will.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  That's because there is one. > preventing Chinese IP addresses from accessing whatever they would like is a technical thing that you can do with computers, and > allowing Chinese corporations to profit from the West's liberty while denying it to their subjects. is nationalistic nonsense that lacks any reference to anything material.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > out of the civilized world Which civilized world.
  - samatman 4y ago
    The.

est 4y ago

How about block .edu access to China in exchange for GFW?