3 ms·

Going for a tit-for-tat with China on censorship is so hypocritical for the US it undermines its entire global persona.

by jchook 2y ago

TeaBrain 2y ago
What would be the offended principle that makes going tit-for-tat with China "hypocritical"?
surfaceofthesun 2y ago
I disagree with the hypocrisy argument. The US government tried to clamp down on Covid misinformation during a pandemic, with a declared emergency and there was pushback that was adjudicated by the Supreme Court [1]. The US does plenty of sketchy shit, but it has nothing on the surveillance state imposed by the CCP, nor is it empowered to suppress information in the same manner. The CCP’s censorship is so heavy handed that others have tried to weaponize it, as discussed recently here: Tokyo University Used "Tiananmen Square" Keyword to Block Chinese Admissions [2]. ——— [1] - https://hms.harvard.edu/news/whats-stake-us-supreme-court-case-misinformation https://hms.harvard.edu/news/whats-stake-us-supreme-court-ca... [2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42355586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42355586
- krainboltgreene 2y ago
  I did a FIOA request on myself and got back data. I’m no one. The US also spread COVID antivax information.
t-3 2y ago
Nobody outside NATO buys the whole "Mr Justice F. Eagle" shtick anyway though. People inside the US have been raised on anti-China for hundreds of years (yellow journalism never died) and are ready to accept anything to stop the "bad guys" from winning.
- jimkleiber 2y ago
  Very few countries have any power to control external influence on a social media platform. They don't have much ability to create or distribute a local solution so they have to import one. So when you say those outside NATO don't buy the whole shtick, part of that is they don't have the luxury to do so. They almost have to import such things or just not have them.
  - t-3 2y ago
    People don't buy the shtick because they've been getting their resources stolen, their people bombed, and their governments couped over and over and over again, not because they don't have their own home-grown social media (pretty much everywhere does, it's just not as popular and doesn't make as much money). Pretty hard to believe in the pure heart and good intentions of Uncle Sam by looking at his behavior during the Cold War era or the unipolar moment (ie. within living memory).
    - jimkleiber 2y ago
      I think it's actually harder to believe in bad intentions of people than good intentions. The former makes me miserable, the latter makes me grateful. So yes, the US government has done a lot that has hurt other people, it has also done a lot that has helped other people. I think we choose whether we want to believe people care about us or don't. I choose to believe they do.
- w0de0 2y ago
  Hundreds of years! A feat for a nation only 250 years old. Particularly considering the panic about Chinese immigration - the first real anti-China event in US history - dates to the latter half of the 1800s. Also, the “yellow” in “yellow journalism” != the slur “yellow” as in “yellow peril.” And finally, your conclusion - “[Americans] are ready to accept anything to stop the ‘bad guys’” - would still be a parochial ignorance, as well as ironically biased, even were it not so shakily premised.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  not really true, the china bad all-out propagandizing is actually pretty recent

Going for a tit-for-tat with China on censorship is so hypocritical for the US it undermines its entire global persona.

by jchook 2y ago

Going for a tit-for-tat with China on censorship is so hypocritical for the US it undermines its entire global persona.

TeaBrain 2y ago

What would be the offended principle that makes going tit-for-tat with China "hypocritical"?

surfaceofthesun 2y ago

I disagree with the hypocrisy argument. The US government tried to clamp down on Covid misinformation during a pandemic, with a declared emergency and there was pushback that was adjudicated by the Supreme Court [1]. The US does plenty of sketchy shit, but it has nothing on the surveillance state imposed by the CCP, nor is it empowered to suppress information in the same manner. The CCP’s censorship is so heavy handed that others have tried to weaponize it, as discussed recently here: Tokyo University Used "Tiananmen Square" Keyword to Block Chinese Admissions [2]. ——— [1] - https://hms.harvard.edu/news/whats-stake-us-supreme-court-case-misinformation https://hms.harvard.edu/news/whats-stake-us-supreme-court-ca... [2] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42355586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42355586

krainboltgreene 2y ago
I did a FIOA request on myself and got back data. I’m no one. The US also spread COVID antivax information.

t-3 2y ago

Nobody outside NATO buys the whole "Mr Justice F. Eagle" shtick anyway though. People inside the US have been raised on anti-China for hundreds of years (yellow journalism never died) and are ready to accept anything to stop the "bad guys" from winning.

jimkleiber 2y ago
Very few countries have any power to control external influence on a social media platform. They don't have much ability to create or distribute a local solution so they have to import one. So when you say those outside NATO don't buy the whole shtick, part of that is they don't have the luxury to do so. They almost have to import such things or just not have them.
- t-3 2y ago
  People don't buy the shtick because they've been getting their resources stolen, their people bombed, and their governments couped over and over and over again, not because they don't have their own home-grown social media (pretty much everywhere does, it's just not as popular and doesn't make as much money). Pretty hard to believe in the pure heart and good intentions of Uncle Sam by looking at his behavior during the Cold War era or the unipolar moment (ie. within living memory).
  - jimkleiber 2y ago
    I think it's actually harder to believe in bad intentions of people than good intentions. The former makes me miserable, the latter makes me grateful. So yes, the US government has done a lot that has hurt other people, it has also done a lot that has helped other people. I think we choose whether we want to believe people care about us or don't. I choose to believe they do.
w0de0 2y ago
Hundreds of years! A feat for a nation only 250 years old. Particularly considering the panic about Chinese immigration - the first real anti-China event in US history - dates to the latter half of the 1800s. Also, the “yellow” in “yellow journalism” != the slur “yellow” as in “yellow peril.” And finally, your conclusion - “[Americans] are ready to accept anything to stop the ‘bad guys’” - would still be a parochial ignorance, as well as ironically biased, even were it not so shakily premised.
whimsicalism 2y ago
not really true, the china bad all-out propagandizing is actually pretty recent