5 ms·
I think it's totally reasonable when it has massive influence over your population and is controlled by a geopolitical adversary. The EU banned Russia Today (c
by chpatrick 2y ago
I think it's totally reasonable when it has massive influence over your population and is controlled by a geopolitical adversary.
The EU banned Russia Today (correctly in my opinion) and that was nothing compared to TikTok. Propaganda isn't free speech.
- parpfish 2y agoI agree that the TikTok shutdown/sale/whatever-it-is is reasonable. But I also agree with the grandfather post that this standard should be applied to all social media. A company that is under the sway of the CCP is an obvious first step, but just because twitter and facebook are American-owned doesn’t mean that geopolitical adversaries can’t use them to control the population too.
- LPisGood 2y agoThe thing is that those companies are very much under the power of American law, so we can (and have) taken less drastic (and less effective, imo) measures to restrict adversaries from using them for propaganda.
- ricardobeat 2y agoAmending the rules to prevent that kind of influence would be reasonable. He is saying thay specifically demanding a sale to the USA is the odd move; it wouldn’t even fix the issue of concentration of power, just shift it to someone else.
- sanderjd 2y agoBut that's not what the law says.
- motorest 2y ago> He is saying thay specifically demanding a sale to the USA is the odd move; it wouldn’t even fix the issue of concentration of power, just shift it to someone else. The problem is that right now the power is yielded by the CCP, which is clearly unacceptable. The problem is not TikTok per se but how a totalitarian regime that has a long track record of actively engaging in espionage and psyops against the US is controlling that platform. Forcing the CCP to sell it's position mitigates or eliminates the impact on the remaining shareholder's interests. The fact that the CCP opts for scorched earth tactics is already telling.
- ricardobeat 2y agoI don't think anyone is arguing that it is acceptable, but that the solution is at odds with a free market economy and values usually upheld by western democracies. A company in Hungary starts manufacturing cars. They become wildly popular in the US. Everyone and their aunt is driving one. Then the US demands a sale for national security reasons. Does that sound reasonable? Instead, you address whatever the security gap is (data privacy, scanning for backdoors, data residency, etc) and enforce compliance. In the case of social media, that would be mandatory tagging of paid content, advertisements, political ads (or prohibition of), along with measures to slow down/limit the dissemination of information so no single person can sway public opinion with the wave of a hand (cough cough X). In many countries, influencers are now subject to advertising rules, as it should be. At some point we'll need to get a grasp on how to do the same for news/opinion pieces. Just dropping the whole thing into 'more reliable hands' without changing any of the rules of the game accomplishes very little.
- ppseafield 2y agoIt need not be someone in the US, just a country which is not one of a few named adversaries. A Singaporean owning company would comply with the law just as well.
- Aerroon 2y agoSo, principles don't matter anymore? It's all about whose side you're on? Because I think all those "unfree" countries think the same thing.
- riehwvfbk 2y agoThese people think that minimum wage "fact checkers" who delete posts that don't agree with their handbook are "freedom", not "censorship". So they think they have principles.
- wrsh07 2y agoThis is an absolutely unhinged take. The US doesn't allow more than 25% foreign ownership of broadcast media. That's not some "free speech" violation. If a foreigner wants to say something, they have many ways to do it. But they don't have those privileged ways.
- Aerroon 2y agoBut would you want the rest of the world to operate the same way? If ycombinator wants to show HN to somebody in Germany then they would have to spin off a company owned by Germans to be able to show HN there? Same for France and the other 170-200 countries in the world. This is obviously an unreasonable way for the internet to work.
- wrsh07 2y agoSorry what? I'm pretty sure HN is accessible in Germany. Are you trying to say there's some utilitarian principle where countries should allow companies from other countries to operate unrestricted? I'm a fan of free trade! That's a good thing! But tolerance is not a moral precept. We don't have to allow companies that report to hostile foreign governments to operate! Even among friendly nations, the European governments are fairly opinionated about how US tech companies are allowed to operate in Europe.
- chpatrick 2y agoWhich principles are we talking about? If everyone under the age of 30 was using an app run by Nazi Germany would you be okay with that? Propaganda is a weapon and no principle says that you should let an enemy army into your country.
- 331c8c71 2y ago> Propaganda isn't free speech. Who decides what is propaganda and what is not? EU commissariat? And propaganda coming from EU is fine I guess?
- chpatrick 2y agoIn this case the democratically elected US Congress.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mr_toad 2y ago> Who decides what is propaganda and what is not? EU commissariat? Like most things in the EU it’s overly complicated, but I think sanctions are decided unanimously by the Council, which in this case would be assembled national ministers of foreign policy or security.
- kaoD 2y ago> Propaganda isn't free speech. If free speech has exceptions it's not free speech. The government will keep adding exceptions.
- konschubert 2y agoAnd if you have free speech without exceptions, foreign actors will see it as a weakness and use it to brain rot your society.
- kaoD 2y agoYeah, the government loves to be the only one that can brain rot their (loved that you used the possessive pronoun!) society. When did the US citizens become so subservient to their government? I thought distrusting the government was American tradition?
- konschubert 2y agoI think we as Europeans would do better if we actually defended against Russia's hybrid warfare. I understand all these principled stances and I do support them ethically, but sometimes you have no choice but to choose the lesser evil.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago> When did the US citizens become so subservient to their government? Technically speaking, they did in 1789. As to the practicality of it, the US government expanded massively from 1900-1950, so maybe during that time period. The FCC was formed in 1972, so on the issue of permissible purveyors of brain rot, maybe then.
- konschubert 2y agoBtw, I used “you” as a reference to the sovereign democracy society, not the government.
- chpatrick 2y agoThis is just the paradox of tolerance, if you allow everything you won't be free for long.
- aprilthird2021 2y agoIn the US propaganda is free speech. We allowed enemies of the US to circulate Communist newspapers in America during the Cold War because we believe the people control the government not the government control the people