6 ms·

> But its perfectly fine for a US company to do it? China blocks facebook/twitter/instagram/pinterest/gmail/wikipedia/twitch and even US newspapers. So clear

> But its perfectly fine for a US company to do it? China blocks facebook/twitter/instagram/pinterest/gmail/wikipedia/twitch and even US newspapers. So clearly they don't think it's okay for a US-company to do it (and are at least an order magnitude stricter about it)...

colejohnson66 2y ago
China doesn't have a constitution like America's. Edit: Obviously, China has a constitution, but the freedoms enumerated there are not the same as those in America's. And those that are enumerated are pointless (like North Korea's constitution). My point is that there's an inherent hypocrisy in saying we're more free than them, but then doing a tit-for-tat retaliatory measure. How can we be more free when we're doing the same things the other side is?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- ok123456 2y ago
  So what? If you believe in liberal values (with a small l), like freedom of speech, you lead by example.
  - AlexandrB 2y ago
    The "example" being banning things for nebulous reasons? If anything this is the US following China's lead in restricting what software their citizens can access.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > If you believe in liberal values (with a small l), like freedom of speech, you lead by example America is ridiculously pro free speech. That doesn’t mean we must then tolerate libel, slander, fraud, false advertising, breach of contract, et cetera because someone screams free speech. The Bill of Rights exists in balances, and the First Amendment is balanced, among other the things, with the nation’s requirement to exist. That doesn’t mean the Congress can ban speech. But it can certainly regulate media properties, including by mandating maximum foreign ownership fractions.
    - greenavocado 2y ago
      > America is ridiculously pro free speech Except for one group of people which have made any criticism of them carry legal consequences
      - ok123456 2y ago
        Yes. They made it illegal even to stop buying their products!
      - BobaFloutist 2y ago
        Oh, which group did you have in mind?
        ok123456 2y ago
        The ones you can't boycott, divest, or sanction and hold a public sector job in many states.
        BobaFloutist 2y ago
        Why won't you say it out loud?
        ok123456 2y ago
        I'm trying not to derail the conversation by saying the state of Israel, and its lobbying apparatus.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > one group of people which have made any criticism of them carry legal consequences Jews? You know we have other federally-protected classes, correct? If you’re referring to Israel, no, there aren’t legal consequences for criticising Israel. Half of the vocal minority of the internet is constantly up in arms about Israel.
        2y ago
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  It does, actually https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- salviati 2y ago
  Are you aware of this Wikipedia page? [0] I think you should motivate why you believe that what is described in that page should not be called "constitution". Or articulate why you believe that thing does not exist. Or at least motivate your statement. Where does it come from? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_China
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  China has a constitution mostly like America’s, freedom of speech, religion, press are enshrined even more strongly than in the American constitution. What China lacks is judicial review and an independent judiciary, so the constitution has no enforcement mechanism, and so is meaningless. The Chinese government as formed has no interest in rule of law.
  - RobotToaster 2y ago
    Not exactly. The Chinese constitution, in addition to endowing rights, also endows obligations. So while you have things like: > Article 35 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. You also have things like: > Article 54 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall have the obligation to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not behave in any way that endangers the motherland’s security, honor or interests.
    - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
      It doesn't matter because the law is completely at the mercy of officials to interpret and enforce. A Chinese court was once asked to clarify contradicting interpretation from officials, and they got seriously beat down for it because it isn't the job of the judiciary to tell the officials how to interpret law. The only way an officials ruling is overturned is if their boss (or someone up the hierarchy) disagrees. Compare this to the Supreme court, which is supposedly in Trump's hands, ruling against Trump twice on this tiktok ban alone (the first to kill his executive order, and the second to not pause the law to wait for him to take office).
mrtksn 2y ago
If US wants to imitate China, they should imitate its industry not its restrictions to freedoms. The ideal world order isn't the one where Chinese can't find out what happened on Tiananmen square and Americans can't find out what happened in Gaza. That's a very shitty arrangement and I am shocked that the Americans are picking that as their future.
- airstrike 2y ago
  Luckily nobody needs TikTok to find out what happened in Gaza.
  - mrtksn 2y ago
    very true, everything started on the seventh and ended thanks to the strength of the new American president and now it’s all fine again as it was before the seventh. no need for political movements or anything, lets concentrate on the more positive things as Musk said.
    - airstrike 2y ago
      Your words, not mine
  - est 2y ago
    The problem is, the world does't need meta/google/twtr either. The bill would eventually backfire US internet companies so bad.
    - airstrike 2y ago
      I don't understand what this has to do with US companies at all. It's about foreign companies.
      - walls 2y ago
        The government makes Meta and Xitter suppress Palestinian content, they can't do that to TikTok, so it's being banned.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
boredpeter 2y ago
[dead]
horrible-hilde 2y ago
I agree with this sentiment. tit-for-tat, also anyone who slams into our infrastructure should pay up for the repairs and the inconvenience.
RobotToaster 2y ago
FWIW facebook was blocked in 2009, after ETIM (East Turkistan Islamic Movement) (allegedly) used it to organise the July Urumqi riots, and facebook refused to follow Chinese law and cooperate with the police to identify the perpetrators. Whatever you think of the law of the PRC, they applied it consistently, Facebook was blocked for doing something that would get any Chinese company shut down. Tiktok is getting blocked in America for doing what American companies do.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Whatever you think of the law of the PRC, they applied it consistently Chinese courts are explicitly subservient to the party.
  - RobotToaster 2y ago
    That doesn't address my point, do you believe the law was applied inconsistently in this case?
  - ok123456 2y ago
    So are American ones, apparently.

colejohnson66 2y ago

China doesn't have a constitution like America's. Edit: Obviously, China has a constitution, but the freedoms enumerated there are not the same as those in America's. And those that are enumerated are pointless (like North Korea's constitution). My point is that there's an inherent hypocrisy in saying we're more free than them, but then doing a tit-for-tat retaliatory measure. How can we be more free when we're doing the same things the other side is?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ok123456 2y ago
So what? If you believe in liberal values (with a small l), like freedom of speech, you lead by example.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  The "example" being banning things for nebulous reasons? If anything this is the US following China's lead in restricting what software their citizens can access.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > If you believe in liberal values (with a small l), like freedom of speech, you lead by example America is ridiculously pro free speech. That doesn’t mean we must then tolerate libel, slander, fraud, false advertising, breach of contract, et cetera because someone screams free speech. The Bill of Rights exists in balances, and the First Amendment is balanced, among other the things, with the nation’s requirement to exist. That doesn’t mean the Congress can ban speech. But it can certainly regulate media properties, including by mandating maximum foreign ownership fractions.
  - greenavocado 2y ago
    > America is ridiculously pro free speech Except for one group of people which have made any criticism of them carry legal consequences
    - ok123456 2y ago
      Yes. They made it illegal even to stop buying their products!
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      Oh, which group did you have in mind?
      - ok123456 2y ago
        The ones you can't boycott, divest, or sanction and hold a public sector job in many states.
        BobaFloutist 2y ago
        Why won't you say it out loud?
        ok123456 2y ago
        I'm trying not to derail the conversation by saying the state of Israel, and its lobbying apparatus.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > one group of people which have made any criticism of them carry legal consequences Jews? You know we have other federally-protected classes, correct? If you’re referring to Israel, no, there aren’t legal consequences for criticising Israel. Half of the vocal minority of the internet is constantly up in arms about Israel.
      - 2y ago
RobotToaster 2y ago
It does, actually https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
salviati 2y ago
Are you aware of this Wikipedia page? [0] I think you should motivate why you believe that what is described in that page should not be called "constitution". Or articulate why you believe that thing does not exist. Or at least motivate your statement. Where does it come from? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_China
seanmcdirmid 2y ago
China has a constitution mostly like America’s, freedom of speech, religion, press are enshrined even more strongly than in the American constitution. What China lacks is judicial review and an independent judiciary, so the constitution has no enforcement mechanism, and so is meaningless. The Chinese government as formed has no interest in rule of law.
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  Not exactly. The Chinese constitution, in addition to endowing rights, also endows obligations. So while you have things like: > Article 35 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. You also have things like: > Article 54 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall have the obligation to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not behave in any way that endangers the motherland’s security, honor or interests.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    It doesn't matter because the law is completely at the mercy of officials to interpret and enforce. A Chinese court was once asked to clarify contradicting interpretation from officials, and they got seriously beat down for it because it isn't the job of the judiciary to tell the officials how to interpret law. The only way an officials ruling is overturned is if their boss (or someone up the hierarchy) disagrees. Compare this to the Supreme court, which is supposedly in Trump's hands, ruling against Trump twice on this tiktok ban alone (the first to kill his executive order, and the second to not pause the law to wait for him to take office).

mrtksn 2y ago

If US wants to imitate China, they should imitate its industry not its restrictions to freedoms. The ideal world order isn't the one where Chinese can't find out what happened on Tiananmen square and Americans can't find out what happened in Gaza. That's a very shitty arrangement and I am shocked that the Americans are picking that as their future.

airstrike 2y ago
Luckily nobody needs TikTok to find out what happened in Gaza.
- mrtksn 2y ago
  very true, everything started on the seventh and ended thanks to the strength of the new American president and now it’s all fine again as it was before the seventh. no need for political movements or anything, lets concentrate on the more positive things as Musk said.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    Your words, not mine
- est 2y ago
  The problem is, the world does't need meta/google/twtr either. The bill would eventually backfire US internet companies so bad.
  - airstrike 2y ago
    I don't understand what this has to do with US companies at all. It's about foreign companies.
    - walls 2y ago
      The government makes Meta and Xitter suppress Palestinian content, they can't do that to TikTok, so it's being banned.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

boredpeter 2y ago

[dead]

horrible-hilde 2y ago

I agree with this sentiment. tit-for-tat, also anyone who slams into our infrastructure should pay up for the repairs and the inconvenience.

RobotToaster 2y ago

FWIW facebook was blocked in 2009, after ETIM (East Turkistan Islamic Movement) (allegedly) used it to organise the July Urumqi riots, and facebook refused to follow Chinese law and cooperate with the police to identify the perpetrators. Whatever you think of the law of the PRC, they applied it consistently, Facebook was blocked for doing something that would get any Chinese company shut down. Tiktok is getting blocked in America for doing what American companies do.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Whatever you think of the law of the PRC, they applied it consistently Chinese courts are explicitly subservient to the party.
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  That doesn't address my point, do you believe the law was applied inconsistently in this case?
- ok123456 2y ago
  So are American ones, apparently.