3 ms·

> The difference is that in china the connection to the state is much more clearer I think this is more of a reflection of the structure of the ruling classes:

> The difference is that in china the connection to the state is much more clearer I think this is more of a reflection of the structure of the ruling classes: in the West, they are not aggregated behind a single entity, while they are in China. And so their actions are naturally more disconnected from the political regime(s) in the West. Thinking about it more, the "West" itself is composed of culturally distinct blocks ("countries", often with very different background); China itself is much more unified in this regard. There are, as you said in another comment, insidious forms of censorship in the West. But they are far from reaching the same degree of intensity than in China. We have yet to see a Western politician displaying a level of immaturity comparable to Xi's[0], when it comes to censorship. Furthermore, the fact that China relies on "hard" techniques of censorship doesn't prevent it from using "softer", insidious approaches too[1]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Winnie-the-Pooh_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Winnie-the-Pooh_... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party

rosmax_1337 3y ago
I think your analysis as to why the west is different from china in this regard is correct. And while you say that they are far from reaching the same degree of intensity, I say that I disagree. But to elaborate much further would lead to unnecessary flames. Certainly large block of oppositional parties and thoughts are allowed to spread, but those large blocks all fall within the more or less same [insert-state-ideology] group anyway which the west adheres to. And anyone who does not fall within that ideology is in fact censored just as harshly as china censors things. This is also a fairly recent development, up to as early as 2015 the internet landscape did not look this way.
- mbivert 3y ago
  > I say that I disagree. But to elaborate much further would lead to unnecessary flames. It's almost impossible to reach a consensus on such complex issues: we all have different sources of information, sensibilities, biais, etc. Polite discussions with discordant point of views is pretty much the best we can hope to achieve. > This is also a fairly recent development, up to as early as 2015 the internet landscape did not look this way. For the sake of completeness, those kind of techniques have been successfully set into motion in the West as early as WWI[0][1]. This[2] was posted here recently: it was essentially "public" knowledge by 1949, well understood by educated classes. That's to say, it's not really surprising to see the Internet used in this manner. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays [2]: https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

rosmax_1337 3y ago

I think your analysis as to why the west is different from china in this regard is correct. And while you say that they are far from reaching the same degree of intensity, I say that I disagree. But to elaborate much further would lead to unnecessary flames. Certainly large block of oppositional parties and thoughts are allowed to spread, but those large blocks all fall within the more or less same [insert-state-ideology] group anyway which the west adheres to. And anyone who does not fall within that ideology is in fact censored just as harshly as china censors things. This is also a fairly recent development, up to as early as 2015 the internet landscape did not look this way.

mbivert 3y ago
> I say that I disagree. But to elaborate much further would lead to unnecessary flames. It's almost impossible to reach a consensus on such complex issues: we all have different sources of information, sensibilities, biais, etc. Polite discussions with discordant point of views is pretty much the best we can hope to achieve. > This is also a fairly recent development, up to as early as 2015 the internet landscape did not look this way. For the sake of completeness, those kind of techniques have been successfully set into motion in the West as early as WWI[0][1]. This[2] was posted here recently: it was essentially "public" knowledge by 1949, well understood by educated classes. That's to say, it's not really surprising to see the Internet used in this manner. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays [2]: https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/