7 ms·

Chinese Tiktok is forcibly wholesome (by Chinese standards). They do not believe in absolute freedom of speech. Now Americans have just conceded that they don't

by HKH2 2y ago

Chinese Tiktok is forcibly wholesome (by Chinese standards). They do not believe in absolute freedom of speech. Now Americans have just conceded that they don't believe in it either. It's good that we're all on the same page now.

0xBDB 2y ago
If we were all on the same page the US would have reciprocally banned TikTok as soon as China banned Facebook, i.e., before it even existed, and would also ignore its constitutional guarantee of free speech (which the Chinese, like the Soviets, also have believe it or not) and control content on domestic social networks. If we were even more on the same page generally, then the US would put its undesirable ethnic minorities in reeducation camps.
libertine 2y ago
[flagged]
- snapcaster 2y ago
  Holy shit can you people stop with "every point that disagrees with me is a russian propaganda point" are you serious? Can you not conceive of anyone disagreeing with you in good faith without being a state actor? You're literally just declaring a specific kind of speech "not free speech" as if it's a fact and not your arbitrary opinion
  - libertine 2y ago
    I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me, but I was very clear about the point, it wasn't "every point that disagrees with me". Unless you don't think it's relevant to point out that a specific recurring point promoted by and paid for by Russian State media, under the disguise of "conservative free speech"?[0] [0]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/tim-pool-benny-johnson-influencers-russia-disinformation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/tim-...
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      Right, i don't think that's relevant. You see how "bad person has that opinion therefore the opinion is invalid" doesn't lead to any kind of productive conversation right?
      - libertine 2y ago
        I think it's relevant, and that's why I commented to shed some light on it. I never accused anyone of being good or bad, I can't know that. But what I do know is that this angle is used quite often by the same people who push Russian propaganda, like Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson. How would you approach someone who has been misinformed into believing free speech protects foreign state interference and that's ok, for example?
  - ltbarcly3 2y ago
    You should familiarize yourself on what the russian propaganda strategy is and reflect on whether you are amplifying it. Propoganda works on everyone.
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      Look in the mirror, you're the one convinced everyone disagreeing with you is a threat to the empire. Don't worry buddy, the CIA has plenty of propagandists you don't need to carry water for them
      - ltbarcly3 2y ago
        [flagged]
        shlant 2y ago
        > Do they pay you to rabidly shill or are you just that far gone? I am slightly on the side of the OP who originally made the claim but nobody should take anyone who throw's around the "paid shill" line seriously. You really are just labelling people you disagree with. Grow up.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    Instead of attacking the poster with an ad hominem / character assassination, why not provide a counterpoint to their arguments, or ask them why they think it's Russian propaganda (burden of proof is with them after all)?
- Cookingboy 2y ago
  >Deliberately misinforming people, especially under a foreign state payroll, is illegal. First of all if you have any evidence of TikTok engaging in it, you should present it since even our government have said there is no such evidence and that possibility remains hypothetical. Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.
  - libertine 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - Cookingboy 2y ago
      >It is illegal if it is paid for foreign state and undeclared. Good. Because ByteDance has never tried to hide the fact that it's a Chinese company. So that argument wouldn't matter even if there are evidence of them pushing Chinese propaganda.
      - libertine 2y ago
        I think the point isn't that they're trying to hide the fact that it's a Chinese company, but that they control the algorithms that can be used to push undeclared foreign state-sponsored content.
    - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
      Facebook, instagram and youtube have been used to manipulate elections way before tiktok, that’s not the reason it’s being banned.
  - ltbarcly3 2y ago
    There are several studies thwt strongly imply TikTok pushes an agenda.
    - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
      Which ones? Can you link some or provide the right search queries to find these? Without substantiating your claim with links / references, this is an empty "appeal to authority" argument, aka weasel words.
- hnpolicestate 2y ago
  This is a very common McCarthyite propaganda point, and I think it's important that we deconstruct it. We presumably live in a Democracy but this democracies voters cannot be trusted to read, view or engage with content that might undercut the preferred narratives of the mother country. Therefore, anyone arguing for this right must be under the communist spell or worse on the payroll. Low IQ tbh
  - libertine 2y ago
    In Democracies, there are laws in place to protect voters. Here's very simple example to help you understand this: if you have someone on a foreign state payroll, they have to disclose they're being paid for by a foreign state, and people have the right to know that.[0] You have the example of Tenet Media being paid by Russia Today to hire American right-wing influencers to promote Russian talking points, covertly - that's illegal.[0] It just looks like people have a fundamental misunderstanding of a very basic concept about what Free Speech is. Free Speech isn't the freedom to dupe voters, because voters may have the capacity to discern misinformation from information. Even if you go by your caustic remark, yes, a lot of voters can't discern misinformation. That's why there are laws in place. [0]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/12/guerrilla-projects-russia-revels-in-us-allegations-of-media-warfare https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/12/guerrilla-projects-...
shlant 2y ago
why does nobody know what freedom of speech is anymore...
- hnpolicestate 2y ago
  I have the freedom to read what I want. You're telling me I don't. If you support making it impossible for me to access Tik Tok. This isn't about freedom of speech.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of access to information though (idk if that's in any laws). That said, the basis of freedom of speech and information is that you will not get in trouble for accessing tiktok and co; it does not mean the US government or whoever has to make it easy for you. "Not illegal" does not mean "accessible". For example, a court ruled that it's legal to sell and trade digital purchases like games on Steam, but that does not mean Steam has to make it possible to transfer games to other people. Anyway, there's ways and means around getting tiktok from the app stores - especially thanks to efforts in European law that force both Apple and Android to open up their platforms so that consumers can do what they want with their devices.
  - evoke4908 2y ago
    > I have the freedom to read what I want. You're telling me I don't You don't. This is not a legally protected right in any US jurisdiction. Period. > This isn't about freedom of speech Correct, because this isn't speech and "freedom of speech" does not mean what you think it does. The right to freedom of speech enumerated in the US constitution is generally interpreted to mean that the government cannot punish its citizens for speaking out against the government. That's really all you're guaranteed. This has nothing to do with censorship, and in fact censorship in general is quite accepted in US law. You quite plainly do not have the right to unrestricted access to any information you want. No law even suggests that. Just for starters, we regularly ban books at the state level. In some places, you can be arrested for possessing certain materials. Perfectly constitutional. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say or print anything with no consequences. See libel. Freedom of speech does not mean you can read or posses any information you want. See classified materials, state secrets, illegal materials such as CSAM. Freedom of speech means that the government can't put three generations of your family in a concentration camp because you tweeted once that the president sucks.
unethical_ban 2y ago
Chinese citizens cannot express political opinions contrary to the whims of the CCP. Do not equate whatever perceived limits the US has with China's limits on free expression.
- HKH2 2y ago
  Let's see what else becomes a matter of 'national security'.

by HKH2 2y ago

0xBDB 2y ago

If we were all on the same page the US would have reciprocally banned TikTok as soon as China banned Facebook, i.e., before it even existed, and would also ignore its constitutional guarantee of free speech (which the Chinese, like the Soviets, also have believe it or not) and control content on domestic social networks. If we were even more on the same page generally, then the US would put its undesirable ethnic minorities in reeducation camps.

libertine 2y ago

[flagged]

snapcaster 2y ago
Holy shit can you people stop with "every point that disagrees with me is a russian propaganda point" are you serious? Can you not conceive of anyone disagreeing with you in good faith without being a state actor? You're literally just declaring a specific kind of speech "not free speech" as if it's a fact and not your arbitrary opinion
- libertine 2y ago
  I'm not sure if you meant to reply to me, but I was very clear about the point, it wasn't "every point that disagrees with me". Unless you don't think it's relevant to point out that a specific recurring point promoted by and paid for by Russian State media, under the disguise of "conservative free speech"?[0] [0]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/tim-pool-benny-johnson-influencers-russia-disinformation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/05/tim-...
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    Right, i don't think that's relevant. You see how "bad person has that opinion therefore the opinion is invalid" doesn't lead to any kind of productive conversation right?
    - libertine 2y ago
      I think it's relevant, and that's why I commented to shed some light on it. I never accused anyone of being good or bad, I can't know that. But what I do know is that this angle is used quite often by the same people who push Russian propaganda, like Tim Pool, Dave Rubin, and Benny Johnson. How would you approach someone who has been misinformed into believing free speech protects foreign state interference and that's ok, for example?
- ltbarcly3 2y ago
  You should familiarize yourself on what the russian propaganda strategy is and reflect on whether you are amplifying it. Propoganda works on everyone.
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    Look in the mirror, you're the one convinced everyone disagreeing with you is a threat to the empire. Don't worry buddy, the CIA has plenty of propagandists you don't need to carry water for them
    - ltbarcly3 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - shlant 2y ago
        > Do they pay you to rabidly shill or are you just that far gone? I am slightly on the side of the OP who originally made the claim but nobody should take anyone who throw's around the "paid shill" line seriously. You really are just labelling people you disagree with. Grow up.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Instead of attacking the poster with an ad hominem / character assassination, why not provide a counterpoint to their arguments, or ask them why they think it's Russian propaganda (burden of proof is with them after all)?
Cookingboy 2y ago
>Deliberately misinforming people, especially under a foreign state payroll, is illegal. First of all if you have any evidence of TikTok engaging in it, you should present it since even our government have said there is no such evidence and that possibility remains hypothetical. Secondly no, it's not illegal to spread misinformation, no matter the motive. The First Amendment absolutely guarantees that right.
- libertine 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Cookingboy 2y ago
    >It is illegal if it is paid for foreign state and undeclared. Good. Because ByteDance has never tried to hide the fact that it's a Chinese company. So that argument wouldn't matter even if there are evidence of them pushing Chinese propaganda.
    - libertine 2y ago
      I think the point isn't that they're trying to hide the fact that it's a Chinese company, but that they control the algorithms that can be used to push undeclared foreign state-sponsored content.
  - sabbaticaldev 2y ago
    Facebook, instagram and youtube have been used to manipulate elections way before tiktok, that’s not the reason it’s being banned.
- ltbarcly3 2y ago
  There are several studies thwt strongly imply TikTok pushes an agenda.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    Which ones? Can you link some or provide the right search queries to find these? Without substantiating your claim with links / references, this is an empty "appeal to authority" argument, aka weasel words.
hnpolicestate 2y ago
This is a very common McCarthyite propaganda point, and I think it's important that we deconstruct it. We presumably live in a Democracy but this democracies voters cannot be trusted to read, view or engage with content that might undercut the preferred narratives of the mother country. Therefore, anyone arguing for this right must be under the communist spell or worse on the payroll. Low IQ tbh
- libertine 2y ago
  In Democracies, there are laws in place to protect voters. Here's very simple example to help you understand this: if you have someone on a foreign state payroll, they have to disclose they're being paid for by a foreign state, and people have the right to know that.[0] You have the example of Tenet Media being paid by Russia Today to hire American right-wing influencers to promote Russian talking points, covertly - that's illegal.[0] It just looks like people have a fundamental misunderstanding of a very basic concept about what Free Speech is. Free Speech isn't the freedom to dupe voters, because voters may have the capacity to discern misinformation from information. Even if you go by your caustic remark, yes, a lot of voters can't discern misinformation. That's why there are laws in place. [0]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/12/guerrilla-projects-russia-revels-in-us-allegations-of-media-warfare https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/12/guerrilla-projects-...

shlant 2y ago

why does nobody know what freedom of speech is anymore...

hnpolicestate 2y ago
I have the freedom to read what I want. You're telling me I don't. If you support making it impossible for me to access Tik Tok. This isn't about freedom of speech.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of access to information though (idk if that's in any laws). That said, the basis of freedom of speech and information is that you will not get in trouble for accessing tiktok and co; it does not mean the US government or whoever has to make it easy for you. "Not illegal" does not mean "accessible". For example, a court ruled that it's legal to sell and trade digital purchases like games on Steam, but that does not mean Steam has to make it possible to transfer games to other people. Anyway, there's ways and means around getting tiktok from the app stores - especially thanks to efforts in European law that force both Apple and Android to open up their platforms so that consumers can do what they want with their devices.
- evoke4908 2y ago
  > I have the freedom to read what I want. You're telling me I don't You don't. This is not a legally protected right in any US jurisdiction. Period. > This isn't about freedom of speech Correct, because this isn't speech and "freedom of speech" does not mean what you think it does. The right to freedom of speech enumerated in the US constitution is generally interpreted to mean that the government cannot punish its citizens for speaking out against the government. That's really all you're guaranteed. This has nothing to do with censorship, and in fact censorship in general is quite accepted in US law. You quite plainly do not have the right to unrestricted access to any information you want. No law even suggests that. Just for starters, we regularly ban books at the state level. In some places, you can be arrested for possessing certain materials. Perfectly constitutional. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say or print anything with no consequences. See libel. Freedom of speech does not mean you can read or posses any information you want. See classified materials, state secrets, illegal materials such as CSAM. Freedom of speech means that the government can't put three generations of your family in a concentration camp because you tweeted once that the president sucks.

unethical_ban 2y ago

Chinese citizens cannot express political opinions contrary to the whims of the CCP. Do not equate whatever perceived limits the US has with China's limits on free expression.

HKH2 2y ago
Let's see what else becomes a matter of 'national security'.