4 ms·

> at worst, a ban would force us to either adopt China’s censorship technology or create our own equivalent. When india banned tiktok, it was tiktok that activ

by yrdmb 4y ago

> at worst, a ban would force us to either adopt China’s censorship technology or create our own equivalent. When india banned tiktok, it was tiktok that actively enforced the ban. Tiktok bans all indian based IPs. I'm sure they'll do the same if the US bans tiktok. As for censorship, we already have a censorship regime. It's as total, centralized and oppressive as anything we pretend exists in china. > Unlike authoritarian states such as China, the US has a free, uncensored Internet. That's because we invented the Internet and we controlled the commanding heights. We could use the internet and social media to brainwash, foster division and destabilize foreign nations. It's amazing how when another nation gets similar capabilities, we suddenly have a change of heart. Just like when we had a monopoly over nuclear weapons, we had no qualms about using it on innocent civilians. Only when someone else got them, we demanded treaties on nuclear technology, weapons, etc to limit the use of nukes. > Or, at the least, authoritarian government powers like India’s, which could force Internet service providers to censor Internet traffic. India is authoritarian for protecting its national interests? Is the EU authoritarian for completing banning russian news? Are we authoritarian for banning iranian social media accounts? The only thing suspect about india is why they haven't banned facebook, youtube, etc along with tiktok. When india does our bidding, we praise them as the largest democracy in the world. When they don't, they are authoritarian. Hopefully, india gets more and more "authoritarian" and improves the lives of their people.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
klooney 4y ago
Remember the State Department asking Twitter to delay maintenance to not interrupt the Green Revolution? Boy would Congress be pissed about that if the shoe was on the other foot.
scohesc 4y ago
It's honestly amazing the (double-think/double-speak?)/hypocrisy there is. People talk about banning TikTok from the west, and the majority of people immediately compare your idea with actions taken by oppressive governments - though the government cites national security reasons for doing it. "That's what China would do, are you a Chinese sympathizer? I thought the country was founded on free speech - why do you want to restrict it?" - completely ignoring the fact that it's an app designed and influenced by a primarily Chinese company which has a separate algorithm that encourages "bread and circus" type content in the west vs hard-working and industrious content in China. People talk about banning Russian media sources from the west - and the majority of people immediately cheer and welcome such a "well-thought, justified" move it is - while the government cites national security reasons for doing it. "It's justified, we don't want to influence people with disinformation produced by Russian actors and negatively influence our support for Ukraine!" - even though I'm very sure the vast majority of people support Ukraine and the actions of the west to support them, knowing that news agencies literally called "Russia Today" are very likely state owned/controlled/manipulated through various avenues, let alone mentioning the United States having media agencies controlled and influenced by capitalist and (by extension) governmental interests. Both actions at their very base, remove access to consume and contribute to the free-flow of information. Both actions are justified by governments with some vague, wish-wash reason of "national security". It's all in how it's marketed to people by the media and their own governments. I don't know what the correct answer is - there probably isn't a single sole solution to this. My personal opinion is that all large-scale social media websites that have a significant amount of their revenue come from advertising should be outright banned from existing in the west. Doesn't matter who or what they're owned by - just outright banned. The consolidation of social media platforms into "the big #", dominated by advertising and governmental interests, is going to be one of the largest reasons why decentralization is going to only grow in popularity over the coming generations.

by yrdmb 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

klooney 4y ago

Remember the State Department asking Twitter to delay maintenance to not interrupt the Green Revolution? Boy would Congress be pissed about that if the shoe was on the other foot.

scohesc 4y ago

It's honestly amazing the (double-think/double-speak?)/hypocrisy there is. People talk about banning TikTok from the west, and the majority of people immediately compare your idea with actions taken by oppressive governments - though the government cites national security reasons for doing it. "That's what China would do, are you a Chinese sympathizer? I thought the country was founded on free speech - why do you want to restrict it?" - completely ignoring the fact that it's an app designed and influenced by a primarily Chinese company which has a separate algorithm that encourages "bread and circus" type content in the west vs hard-working and industrious content in China. People talk about banning Russian media sources from the west - and the majority of people immediately cheer and welcome such a "well-thought, justified" move it is - while the government cites national security reasons for doing it. "It's justified, we don't want to influence people with disinformation produced by Russian actors and negatively influence our support for Ukraine!" - even though I'm very sure the vast majority of people support Ukraine and the actions of the west to support them, knowing that news agencies literally called "Russia Today" are very likely state owned/controlled/manipulated through various avenues, let alone mentioning the United States having media agencies controlled and influenced by capitalist and (by extension) governmental interests. Both actions at their very base, remove access to consume and contribute to the free-flow of information. Both actions are justified by governments with some vague, wish-wash reason of "national security". It's all in how it's marketed to people by the media and their own governments. I don't know what the correct answer is - there probably isn't a single sole solution to this. My personal opinion is that all large-scale social media websites that have a significant amount of their revenue come from advertising should be outright banned from existing in the west. Doesn't matter who or what they're owned by - just outright banned. The consolidation of social media platforms into "the big #", dominated by advertising and governmental interests, is going to be one of the largest reasons why decentralization is going to only grow in popularity over the coming generations.