3 ms·

Generally or in this specific case? Because in this specific case this is completely in the well regarded tradition of liberalism. If people want to watch TikTo

by roenxi 3y ago

Generally or in this specific case? Because in this specific case this is completely in the well regarded tradition of liberalism. If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not. Similarly, TikTok is allowed to say what it feels is appropriate even if the US government disagrees. If the US polity thinks this is a mistake, they're going to have to persuade their fellows instead of clubbing them into submission. In the worst case scenario we'll be relying on left- and right- wingers to agree on basic facts which should be entertaining viewing. Compromising either of those principles gives a clear in to some people about as evil and even more capable than the Chinese intelligence agencies.

RandomLensman 3y ago
I am not sure that extending the first amendment to what could be foreign adversaries isn't a bit different from a domestic application of the first amendment. I don't know enough of the history, but, for example, did Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan enjoy first amendment rights during WWII in the US? Was that a "thing"?
- causi 3y ago
  Ostensibly the United States Constitution does not grant rights, but only recognizes natural rights, therefore in theory they should apply to any living human, not just Americans.
- roenxi 3y ago
  If you examine the core of that argument you realise that the theory underlying it is that US citizens are more truthful than foreigners. That is a belief that is profoundly at stake with liberal ideals. Not the modern ones, but the whole free-speech-be-good principle. There is absolutely no reason that foreigners should be denied free speech. The point of speech is the more of it happens before we act, the better the results. There is no race or national aspect to that. If Us citizens would listen to foreigners from time to time they might waste less time killing them. I mean, help us all the whole non-English-speaking world doesn't have to be as US enemy. The Chinese are suspicious but they are actually pretty responsible in terms of how they act. People can listen to them and profit from it. Maybe copy some of their ideas around how to run Shenzhen and the other industrial districts. Or, as mentioned, the trade-not-bomb approach to securing oil. Take the USSR. Did it help the USSR citizens if their government stopped them listening to the US? No. And the US remains to this day a staunch enemy of the USSR remnants.
  - mantas 3y ago
    Is it still free speech if it may be a campaign by an enemy? China may prefer to send the West into disarray rather than teach their ways. We need to study China's approach rather than eat up propaganda and twisted media. During cold war US didn't freely allow any USSR propaganda either. Although the late sexual revolution results does remind of 1920s in USSR.
    - roenxi 3y ago
      Something like 10% of US people I've talked to seemed to have a genuine belief that the Trump presidency was a campaign by a foreign enemy. So yes, free speech should be encouraged even then. > During cold war US didn't freely allow any USSR propaganda either. During WWII they rounded up the Japanese. During the cold war they nearly got everyone nuked at least twice. During the wars from 1990->2020 there have been patterns of lies in the justification. Just because something was done doesn't make it a good idea. The cold war would have been safer and led to better outcomes if the US listened to the USSR, and vice versa, at the popular scale. We're still dealing with the fallout insane Russophobia that was engendered in the US halls of power. And had the US had been positioned to step in and help Russia after the fall of the Soviets instead of being caught by surprise mid-war we'd all be in much better shape today. They fumbled the collapse of the Soviet empire pretty badly because they hadn't managed to figure out what was going on on the ground. We're still fighting wars because the US never managed to sit down and make friends with the Russians. If the Saudis were an option, everyone is. The upside of the honest speech is much bigger than whatever downside the propaganda has. The largely unproven and examined downside, I might add; I'm not drawing a case to mind where it was effective and crippling unless there was a superpower using it against someone much smaller.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        How would the US have had more access to people on the ground in the USSR? More spies in country? The reason people "fumbled" after the USSR disintegrated wasn't because the collapse came as a surprise but because the split between using functioning liberal (not in the US political meaning) legal systems outside of Russia for protection while internally in Russia profiting from the lack thereof - I don't think anyone had that split really in their minds when thinking about a new structure there - it was a new phenomenon. People saw what was happening but didn't understand it and the average person on the street there didn't either. Btw., Russia or the USSR made little friends in Europe throughout history, either. I think bold claims that US cold war posture was wrong need a lot more evidence.
- _w1tm 3y ago
  The Office of War Information censored all news during 1942-1945. It’s notable that it was during a declared war. If China and the US were in a war, then TikTok would be blocked in a heartbeat.
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    [dead]
- throwaway4good 3y ago
  Come on guys. TikTok is not Chinese propaganda - it is a social media with random stuff like YouTube or Instagram. You want to ban it simply because it is succesful and has Chinese owners; not because of some concrete expression of speech that is outside of what it is legal or reasonable.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    How would you know? It certainly isn't random what you see.
  - bmitc 3y ago
    In general, that is a quite naive understanding. Today's warfare is primarily executived via electronics, economics, and ideology. Here is a Russian agent explaining how it works: https://youtu.be/pOmXiapfCs8?si=ntni8_4XUjAkE5CP https://youtu.be/pOmXiapfCs8?si=ntni8_4XUjAkE5CP. Adam Curtis' documentary Hypernormalism also covers this. By the way, this extends to all social media. Whether it's a state or a state's own people, the danger remains the same.
    - throwaway4good 3y ago
      By this logic any other country than the US should ban Facebook and YouTube?
      - Zambyte 3y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_controversies#Incitement_of_human_rights_abuses_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co... Yes that would be ideal. While we're at it, we should ban (or extremely limit) it here in the US too. Edit: also while searching for this I found several similar examples, but this is the one I was familiar with already
      - lupusreal 3y ago
        [dead]
- WrongAssumption 3y ago
  The first amendment isn't a privilege granted to citizens by the government that can be extended to non-citizens. It is a restriction on the powers of the government. The government has no constitutional power to restrict free speech of anybody. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That's the entire text of the first ammendment. No law abridging freedom of speech, period. No law that applies domestically, no law that applies internationally, no law that applies to citizens, no law that applies to non-citizens. No law, at all.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    In that view: How did wartime censorship work? How can there be classified documents when there is nothing you are not allowed to tell the world?
  - rascul 3y ago
    In practice it's just a voluntary guideline.
bmitc 3y ago
> If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not. That's libertarianism. People, in the aggregate, may not possess the tools or knowledge to appropriately make that decision. > In the worst case scenario we'll be relying on left- and right- wingers to agree on basic facts which should be entertaining viewing. Are you not familiar with Hollywood, the entertainment industry at large, and who owns and controls it? It isn't middle America, that's for sure.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  Who, exactly, do you think owns and controls the media?
  - bmitc 3y ago
    It doesn't matter specifically who in this specific context. I replied to a comment worrying about this leading to entertainment being controlled by smallish groups when that's actually already the case. There are just a handful of corporations cntrolling all media in the U.S. Hollywood's nepotism is infamous and keeps on taking foreign money and shooting for foreign markets.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      Bluntly: you don't get to decide whether it matters; a discussion isn't one-way. If you're going to dogwhistle about fifth columns, anybody has a right to ask you who you're winking about.
      - bmitc 3y ago
        I mean, I answered. What are you wanting to know, exactly? What are you getting at? And bluntly, a discussion is a discussion, meaning I can make an argument. If you disagree, then you can make a counter argument instead of arguing meta principles. So are you claiming that U.S. media is not controlled by a small amount of corporations and thus their executives, and that these companies aren't taking on foreign investment and thus looking to appease said foreign investors? What does it matter what the corporation names are in the context of the comment I replied to?
imiric 3y ago
> Because in this specific case this is completely in the well regarded tradition of liberalism. If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not. This argument holds no water when corporations are running platforms that are used to spread disinformation and propaganda, which is tearing the fabric of society apart, and becoming a matter of national security. The effects of propaganda and information warfare are well known[1], and I'm in constant disbelief that these platforms weren't heavily regulated years ago. Practically speaking, there is no difference from US and foreign companies in this matter, as they're all used for this purpose, and should be regulated equally. Though, obviously, it's easier to regulate foreign companies with ties to political adversaries, than local ones the US government is in a symbiotic relationship with. I'm also in disbelief that this is such a controversial matter, and that politicans and the general public (especially on this forum) can't put two and two together and realize that the extreme sociopolitical polarization in the West is a direct consequence of information warfare. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q

by roenxi 3y ago

RandomLensman 3y ago

I am not sure that extending the first amendment to what could be foreign adversaries isn't a bit different from a domestic application of the first amendment. I don't know enough of the history, but, for example, did Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan enjoy first amendment rights during WWII in the US? Was that a "thing"?

causi 3y ago
Ostensibly the United States Constitution does not grant rights, but only recognizes natural rights, therefore in theory they should apply to any living human, not just Americans.
roenxi 3y ago
If you examine the core of that argument you realise that the theory underlying it is that US citizens are more truthful than foreigners. That is a belief that is profoundly at stake with liberal ideals. Not the modern ones, but the whole free-speech-be-good principle. There is absolutely no reason that foreigners should be denied free speech. The point of speech is the more of it happens before we act, the better the results. There is no race or national aspect to that. If Us citizens would listen to foreigners from time to time they might waste less time killing them. I mean, help us all the whole non-English-speaking world doesn't have to be as US enemy. The Chinese are suspicious but they are actually pretty responsible in terms of how they act. People can listen to them and profit from it. Maybe copy some of their ideas around how to run Shenzhen and the other industrial districts. Or, as mentioned, the trade-not-bomb approach to securing oil. Take the USSR. Did it help the USSR citizens if their government stopped them listening to the US? No. And the US remains to this day a staunch enemy of the USSR remnants.
- mantas 3y ago
  Is it still free speech if it may be a campaign by an enemy? China may prefer to send the West into disarray rather than teach their ways. We need to study China's approach rather than eat up propaganda and twisted media. During cold war US didn't freely allow any USSR propaganda either. Although the late sexual revolution results does remind of 1920s in USSR.
  - roenxi 3y ago
    Something like 10% of US people I've talked to seemed to have a genuine belief that the Trump presidency was a campaign by a foreign enemy. So yes, free speech should be encouraged even then. > During cold war US didn't freely allow any USSR propaganda either. During WWII they rounded up the Japanese. During the cold war they nearly got everyone nuked at least twice. During the wars from 1990->2020 there have been patterns of lies in the justification. Just because something was done doesn't make it a good idea. The cold war would have been safer and led to better outcomes if the US listened to the USSR, and vice versa, at the popular scale. We're still dealing with the fallout insane Russophobia that was engendered in the US halls of power. And had the US had been positioned to step in and help Russia after the fall of the Soviets instead of being caught by surprise mid-war we'd all be in much better shape today. They fumbled the collapse of the Soviet empire pretty badly because they hadn't managed to figure out what was going on on the ground. We're still fighting wars because the US never managed to sit down and make friends with the Russians. If the Saudis were an option, everyone is. The upside of the honest speech is much bigger than whatever downside the propaganda has. The largely unproven and examined downside, I might add; I'm not drawing a case to mind where it was effective and crippling unless there was a superpower using it against someone much smaller.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      How would the US have had more access to people on the ground in the USSR? More spies in country? The reason people "fumbled" after the USSR disintegrated wasn't because the collapse came as a surprise but because the split between using functioning liberal (not in the US political meaning) legal systems outside of Russia for protection while internally in Russia profiting from the lack thereof - I don't think anyone had that split really in their minds when thinking about a new structure there - it was a new phenomenon. People saw what was happening but didn't understand it and the average person on the street there didn't either. Btw., Russia or the USSR made little friends in Europe throughout history, either. I think bold claims that US cold war posture was wrong need a lot more evidence.
_w1tm 3y ago
The Office of War Information censored all news during 1942-1945. It’s notable that it was during a declared war. If China and the US were in a war, then TikTok would be blocked in a heartbeat.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  [dead]
throwaway4good 3y ago
Come on guys. TikTok is not Chinese propaganda - it is a social media with random stuff like YouTube or Instagram. You want to ban it simply because it is succesful and has Chinese owners; not because of some concrete expression of speech that is outside of what it is legal or reasonable.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  How would you know? It certainly isn't random what you see.
- bmitc 3y ago
  In general, that is a quite naive understanding. Today's warfare is primarily executived via electronics, economics, and ideology. Here is a Russian agent explaining how it works: https://youtu.be/pOmXiapfCs8?si=ntni8_4XUjAkE5CP https://youtu.be/pOmXiapfCs8?si=ntni8_4XUjAkE5CP. Adam Curtis' documentary Hypernormalism also covers this. By the way, this extends to all social media. Whether it's a state or a state's own people, the danger remains the same.
  - throwaway4good 3y ago
    By this logic any other country than the US should ban Facebook and YouTube?
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_controversies#Incitement_of_human_rights_abuses_in_Myanmar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_content_management_co... Yes that would be ideal. While we're at it, we should ban (or extremely limit) it here in the US too. Edit: also while searching for this I found several similar examples, but this is the one I was familiar with already
    - lupusreal 3y ago
      [dead]
WrongAssumption 3y ago
The first amendment isn't a privilege granted to citizens by the government that can be extended to non-citizens. It is a restriction on the powers of the government. The government has no constitutional power to restrict free speech of anybody. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." That's the entire text of the first ammendment. No law abridging freedom of speech, period. No law that applies domestically, no law that applies internationally, no law that applies to citizens, no law that applies to non-citizens. No law, at all.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  In that view: How did wartime censorship work? How can there be classified documents when there is nothing you are not allowed to tell the world?
- rascul 3y ago
  In practice it's just a voluntary guideline.

bmitc 3y ago

> If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not. That's libertarianism. People, in the aggregate, may not possess the tools or knowledge to appropriately make that decision. > In the worst case scenario we'll be relying on left- and right- wingers to agree on basic facts which should be entertaining viewing. Are you not familiar with Hollywood, the entertainment industry at large, and who owns and controls it? It isn't middle America, that's for sure.

woodruffw 3y ago
Who, exactly, do you think owns and controls the media?
- bmitc 3y ago
  It doesn't matter specifically who in this specific context. I replied to a comment worrying about this leading to entertainment being controlled by smallish groups when that's actually already the case. There are just a handful of corporations cntrolling all media in the U.S. Hollywood's nepotism is infamous and keeps on taking foreign money and shooting for foreign markets.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    Bluntly: you don't get to decide whether it matters; a discussion isn't one-way. If you're going to dogwhistle about fifth columns, anybody has a right to ask you who you're winking about.
    - bmitc 3y ago
      I mean, I answered. What are you wanting to know, exactly? What are you getting at? And bluntly, a discussion is a discussion, meaning I can make an argument. If you disagree, then you can make a counter argument instead of arguing meta principles. So are you claiming that U.S. media is not controlled by a small amount of corporations and thus their executives, and that these companies aren't taking on foreign investment and thus looking to appease said foreign investors? What does it matter what the corporation names are in the context of the comment I replied to?

imiric 3y ago

> Because in this specific case this is completely in the well regarded tradition of liberalism. If people want to watch TikTok movies, it is up to their judgement whether that is a good idea or not. This argument holds no water when corporations are running platforms that are used to spread disinformation and propaganda, which is tearing the fabric of society apart, and becoming a matter of national security. The effects of propaganda and information warfare are well known[1], and I'm in constant disbelief that these platforms weren't heavily regulated years ago. Practically speaking, there is no difference from US and foreign companies in this matter, as they're all used for this purpose, and should be regulated equally. Though, obviously, it's easier to regulate foreign companies with ties to political adversaries, than local ones the US government is in a symbiotic relationship with. I'm also in disbelief that this is such a controversial matter, and that politicans and the general public (especially on this forum) can't put two and two together and realize that the extreme sociopolitical polarization in the West is a direct consequence of information warfare. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1EA2ohrt5Q