3 ms·

I'm vaguely mad at the hypocrisy here. We (Americans) complain that other nations try to influence our elections: [0]. But simultaneously, we're trying to inf

I'm vaguely mad at the hypocrisy here. We (Americans) complain that other nations try to influence our elections: [0]. But simultaneously, we're trying to influence their elections / political process! [0]: https://www.semafor.com/article/03/06/2024/us-braces-for-foreign-interference-in-2024-election https://www.semafor.com/article/03/06/2024/us-braces-for-for...

mc32 3y ago
Yes, very much so. Basically, it's not Americans, even, but a vanishingly small subset of Americans who want things _their_ way. People in the "beltway" as they say. Even in other countries. We complain about Russia, Iran or China interfering not only in US elections but we complain when they interfere with our interference in other countries, like Ukraine, Burma or Lebanon, etc. It's not like they are good, but we could be honest about it. As if we have more of a right to interfere than they do.
whatamidoingyo 3y ago
We fund opposition groups and overthrow entire governments for our benefit. It's no secret.
ianhawes 3y ago
Kind of like how we lament China banning Facebook and X (fka Twitter) and talk about how shameful it is to suppress free speech in the PRC but then simultaneously want to ban TikTok in the US.
- snehk 3y ago
  There are various US newspapers that don't show any content in the EU because they don't want to comply with EU privacy laws. These companies are free to comply with the laws and can then show their content. Same with Facebook in China. Imagine a German bar franchise trying to open bars in the US. They cannot sell beer to 16 year olds even though that's how they operate in Germany and that's what they firmly believe in. They'll have to follow US laws and not sell to anyone younger than 21. Now the German bar franchise can say "That's against what we believe freedom to be" and not open shop there but the US is not specifically banning that company from operating in the US.
  - hn_acker 3y ago
    > Imagine a German bar franchise trying to open bars in the US. They cannot sell beer to 16 year olds even though that's how they operate in Germany and that's what they firmly believe in. They'll have to follow US laws and not sell to anyone younger than 21. Now the German bar franchise can say "That's against what we believe freedom to be" and not open shop there but the US is not specifically banning that company from operating in the US. I don't think that your analogy is comparable to the prospective US TikTok ban (ban with the alternative option of a forced sale). In the case of TikTok, the US law will be "if you want to do business with people in the US, don't let a major stakeholder of your company be in a foreign adversary country". That might sound reasonable in some contexts (e.g. computer hardware), but a one-size-fits-all rule that makes a broad assumption of "controlled by foreign adversary = national security threat" (resembles a Great Firewall of China and) overlooks rights that US citizens have to voluntarily use certain services from other countries (especially social media services because of the First Amendment).
gustavus 3y ago
That's just realpolitik. The fact of the matter is that we have recognized that a substantial part of a nations war capability comes from their unity and willingness to prosecute a war. Naturally with the Advent of the Internet and mass communication the weapons to begin to wage war on a populations resolve and unity without kinetic action came into being and are now a battlefront. The TL;DR is that hearts and minds are the new battlefield and technology is the weapons.
- Taikonerd 3y ago
  Sure. And one thing we could say is, "realistically, nations are going to do this. It's cheap and easy and has a lot of upside if they succeed. So we tolerate it." It's like how the international community accepts that the CIA, FSB, MI6, etc, exist -- nobody serious is really objecting to foreign spying in principle. But in that case -- if we were being consistent -- we might find (for example) Russian agents trying to swing the US election, and we would have to shrug: "ah well, everybody does it." And I doubt that's the attitude that our leaders would take!
mort96 3y ago
IMO it doesn't make sense to be angry at the other country that's trying to influence your country's politics, since everyone does that, but it makes sense to be angry at (and electorally punish) the politicians who become the tools which the other country uses to influence politics.
- Taikonerd 3y ago
  I think there are a lot of grey areas there. Like, suppose Candidate X is running for president. They have a lot of real voter support, but some of their advertising was allegedly funded by Russian money. How discredited are they, on a scale from 1 to 10? What if the other candidate was allegedly funded by Chinese money? There's no rule that says only one foreign government at a time can interfere...

mc32 3y ago

Yes, very much so. Basically, it's not Americans, even, but a vanishingly small subset of Americans who want things _their_ way. People in the "beltway" as they say. Even in other countries. We complain about Russia, Iran or China interfering not only in US elections but we complain when they interfere with our interference in other countries, like Ukraine, Burma or Lebanon, etc. It's not like they are good, but we could be honest about it. As if we have more of a right to interfere than they do.

whatamidoingyo 3y ago

We fund opposition groups and overthrow entire governments for our benefit. It's no secret.

ianhawes 3y ago

Kind of like how we lament China banning Facebook and X (fka Twitter) and talk about how shameful it is to suppress free speech in the PRC but then simultaneously want to ban TikTok in the US.

snehk 3y ago
There are various US newspapers that don't show any content in the EU because they don't want to comply with EU privacy laws. These companies are free to comply with the laws and can then show their content. Same with Facebook in China. Imagine a German bar franchise trying to open bars in the US. They cannot sell beer to 16 year olds even though that's how they operate in Germany and that's what they firmly believe in. They'll have to follow US laws and not sell to anyone younger than 21. Now the German bar franchise can say "That's against what we believe freedom to be" and not open shop there but the US is not specifically banning that company from operating in the US.
- hn_acker 3y ago
  > Imagine a German bar franchise trying to open bars in the US. They cannot sell beer to 16 year olds even though that's how they operate in Germany and that's what they firmly believe in. They'll have to follow US laws and not sell to anyone younger than 21. Now the German bar franchise can say "That's against what we believe freedom to be" and not open shop there but the US is not specifically banning that company from operating in the US. I don't think that your analogy is comparable to the prospective US TikTok ban (ban with the alternative option of a forced sale). In the case of TikTok, the US law will be "if you want to do business with people in the US, don't let a major stakeholder of your company be in a foreign adversary country". That might sound reasonable in some contexts (e.g. computer hardware), but a one-size-fits-all rule that makes a broad assumption of "controlled by foreign adversary = national security threat" (resembles a Great Firewall of China and) overlooks rights that US citizens have to voluntarily use certain services from other countries (especially social media services because of the First Amendment).

gustavus 3y ago

That's just realpolitik. The fact of the matter is that we have recognized that a substantial part of a nations war capability comes from their unity and willingness to prosecute a war. Naturally with the Advent of the Internet and mass communication the weapons to begin to wage war on a populations resolve and unity without kinetic action came into being and are now a battlefront. The TL;DR is that hearts and minds are the new battlefield and technology is the weapons.

Taikonerd 3y ago
Sure. And one thing we could say is, "realistically, nations are going to do this. It's cheap and easy and has a lot of upside if they succeed. So we tolerate it." It's like how the international community accepts that the CIA, FSB, MI6, etc, exist -- nobody serious is really objecting to foreign spying in principle. But in that case -- if we were being consistent -- we might find (for example) Russian agents trying to swing the US election, and we would have to shrug: "ah well, everybody does it." And I doubt that's the attitude that our leaders would take!

mort96 3y ago

IMO it doesn't make sense to be angry at the other country that's trying to influence your country's politics, since everyone does that, but it makes sense to be angry at (and electorally punish) the politicians who become the tools which the other country uses to influence politics.

Taikonerd 3y ago
I think there are a lot of grey areas there. Like, suppose Candidate X is running for president. They have a lot of real voter support, but some of their advertising was allegedly funded by Russian money. How discredited are they, on a scale from 1 to 10? What if the other candidate was allegedly funded by Chinese money? There's no rule that says only one foreign government at a time can interfere...