4 ms·

> An ENEMY STATE has controlling influence of a widely used social network in the USA. People's minds are influenced by it .. "You are what you eat" holds for w

by lmm 3y ago

> An ENEMY STATE has controlling influence of a widely used social network in the USA. People's minds are influenced by it .. "You are what you eat" holds for what you read/watch and consequently think How are you defining an enemy, and why does it matter whether they're a state or not? There are several domestic entities (governmental and non) that I would consider much bigger threats to me and the people I care about than the PRC government. And if you're not willing to let people read/watch widely and make up their own minds, what good is being a "democracy" or even an independent state at all? If I wanted to only watch state-approved media then I'd move to China.

throwaway290 3y ago
> If I wanted to only watch state-approved media then I'd move to China. Good news, looks like for now you can watch China-approved media without leaving your own country;)
knodi123 3y ago
> There are several domestic entities (governmental and non) that I would consider much bigger threats to me We can address multiple threats at once, and are not compelled to address them in priority order. Any improvement is good. > if you're not willing to let people read/watch widely and make up their own minds This seems a very weak argument. Of course nobody wants to make it illegal to see propaganda. But if you think propaganda doesn't work, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Yes, there are lots of kinds and sources and degrees of propaganda, from every side. But it exists on a spectrum - and when it's being controlled by one country, covertly, for the consumption of another country, with whom you have a tense military standoff, then it's a little more insidious than the "let the people decide!" stance you're advocating.
- lmm 3y ago
  > We can address multiple threats at once, and are not compelled to address them in priority order. Any improvement is good. Not necessarily. A balance of power can be better for us regular folks at the bottom. Frankly I feel safer in a world where there's at least some non-US social media than a world where people who run the US run everything and no-one can call them out. > Of course nobody wants to make it illegal to see propaganda. Then what exactly is this bill aiming for?
  - verdverm 3y ago
    A European social media company would not be facing the same backlash Russia, China, and Iran are at war with the West, the West has not acknowledged it widely yet
    - lmm 3y ago
      > A European social media company would not be facing the same backlash Maybe. Or maybe the US would find some excuse to ban them too. Or the same one - remember the US considers it appropriate to spy on and read the emails of the German chancellor. Conveniently, there isn't any major European social media to compare to.
  - knodi123 3y ago
    > at least some non-US social media That's not the issue, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. It's not the non-US source, it's the governmental control for specific purposes > Then what exactly is this bill aiming for? Not making it illegal to see- just not making it easy for china to do covertly on a broad scale.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > That's not the issue, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. > It's not the non-US source, it's the governmental control for specific purposes Perhaps. Or perhaps it's the US that's being disingenuous, and the real issue is that TikTok threatens what's otherwise a total US dominance of social media. (And note that the national security letter system means that the US has a similar level of governmental control)

by lmm 3y ago

throwaway290 3y ago

> If I wanted to only watch state-approved media then I'd move to China. Good news, looks like for now you can watch China-approved media without leaving your own country;)

knodi123 3y ago

> There are several domestic entities (governmental and non) that I would consider much bigger threats to me We can address multiple threats at once, and are not compelled to address them in priority order. Any improvement is good. > if you're not willing to let people read/watch widely and make up their own minds This seems a very weak argument. Of course nobody wants to make it illegal to see propaganda. But if you think propaganda doesn't work, then I've got a bridge to sell you. Yes, there are lots of kinds and sources and degrees of propaganda, from every side. But it exists on a spectrum - and when it's being controlled by one country, covertly, for the consumption of another country, with whom you have a tense military standoff, then it's a little more insidious than the "let the people decide!" stance you're advocating.

lmm 3y ago
> We can address multiple threats at once, and are not compelled to address them in priority order. Any improvement is good. Not necessarily. A balance of power can be better for us regular folks at the bottom. Frankly I feel safer in a world where there's at least some non-US social media than a world where people who run the US run everything and no-one can call them out. > Of course nobody wants to make it illegal to see propaganda. Then what exactly is this bill aiming for?
- verdverm 3y ago
  A European social media company would not be facing the same backlash Russia, China, and Iran are at war with the West, the West has not acknowledged it widely yet
  - lmm 3y ago
    > A European social media company would not be facing the same backlash Maybe. Or maybe the US would find some excuse to ban them too. Or the same one - remember the US considers it appropriate to spy on and read the emails of the German chancellor. Conveniently, there isn't any major European social media to compare to.
- knodi123 3y ago
  > at least some non-US social media That's not the issue, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. It's not the non-US source, it's the governmental control for specific purposes > Then what exactly is this bill aiming for? Not making it illegal to see- just not making it easy for china to do covertly on a broad scale.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > That's not the issue, and it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. > It's not the non-US source, it's the governmental control for specific purposes Perhaps. Or perhaps it's the US that's being disingenuous, and the real issue is that TikTok threatens what's otherwise a total US dominance of social media. (And note that the national security letter system means that the US has a similar level of governmental control)