3 ms·
Here's a modest proposal. If you do significant business in the PRC or have assets there, that's fine, but you cannot simultaneously own a media or social medi
by perihelions 3y ago
Here's a modest proposal. If you do significant business in the PRC or have assets there, that's fine, but you cannot simultaneously own a media or social media business in the US. I think (very uncertain) this solves the root cause of these problems, the foreign leverage; and it doesn't infringe on constitutional speech rights.
E.g., Apple TV would be compelled to be spun off as independent entity, with no ties to the phone manufacturer. And Elon Musk would be compelled to either sell Twitter/X, or pull Tesla manufacturing out of mainland China. &c.
- trothamel 3y agoOther than the ties to the phone manufacturer - where Apple can use its profits to subsidize the creation of prestige media during the initial creation of its streaming service - would Apple TV exist?
- dabbledash 3y ago"It doesn't infringe on constitutional speech rights." How is that? People who do significant business w the PRC have free speech rights like everyone else.
- perihelions 3y agoAbsolutely agree, but what they don't have is unlimited rights to do business in foreign countries hostile to the US. Am I rationalizing this wrongly? I'm not a lawyer and might genuinely have Dunning-Krugered myself into a corner. There are already established laws about lobbying and influencing US politics as an agent of a foreign government. This looks similar to that: in the one case a foreign government is paying you to speak; in the other case, a foreign government is threatening your assets in their country, with your speech as the demanded condition. Are these not similar?
- guhidalg 3y agoI do not think private citizens should have any restrictions placed upon them for doing business with a country that our government has not sanctioned. I think what you are describing is that PRC offers an enticing deal to many businesses: use Chinese labor to get higher margins on your consumer products. If you criticize the PRC they can hurt your company's bottom line by denying you access to that labor, but your company can still move production to a different country or (gasp) back to the US and figure out how to get higher margins. In that way, China is merely a business partner for private industry. You wouldn't bad-talk a business partner and expect them to continue to do business with you.
- perihelions 3y ago- "If you criticize the PRC they can hurt your company's bottom line by denying you access to that labor, but your company can still move production to a different country" The victim in this scenario isn't the company—it's the US speakers being censored by a foreign dictator, with this company acting as an intermediary. I.e. in this thread, we're not talking about Tim Cook's speech; we're talking about Jon Stewart's speech, and Tim Cook censoring him at the behest of Beijing.
- guhidalg 3y agoI see. It feels ethically wrong to be suppressed by a foreign government through your employers, but I don't think it should be illegal. If it were illegal for your employer to suppress speech on foreign governments, would the PRC have standing to sue you for libel?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- throwaway237289 3y agoI love the infringement on freedom you propose (you can't use your private property or money to own media) in the attempt to prop up a different freedom (speech rights). I also love that you confuse "not being paid to say things" with "banned from saying things". Speech rights aren't even at risk here. But yes, let's infringe on some freedoms.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- thfuran 3y agoThe root cause would be solved by not having business interests in China.