5 ms·

If stooping down to their level is the move we make, then we should immediately stop acting as if we are more “free” or democratic than China. You can’t have it

by Cyph0n 2y ago

If stooping down to their level is the move we make, then we should immediately stop acting as if we are more “free” or democratic than China. You can’t have it both ways.

tims33 2y ago
Is allowing them to impose the same kind of restrictions in their US app as they do for their own citizens good for free speech?
talldayo 2y ago
> then we should immediately stop acting as if we are more “free” or democratic than China. This is a histrionic response. America can still be more free and democratic than China while also enforcing a ban on their businesses.
- Cyph0n 2y ago
  Blanket censorship of this kind is not the hallmark of a healthy democracy. This ban is the definition of a slippery slope - this ban may be in your interests, but eventually one will not. What then?
  - talldayo 2y ago
    This isn't blanket censorship, period. Every single user that currently voices their stance, values or opinions can continue to do the exact same thing on any other platform they choose. Just not TikTok, because they are a business owned by an adversarial government that deliberately uses their soapbox to manipulate democratic audiences: https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-rigged-romanian-elections-using-10-million-fake-tiktok-accounts/ https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-rigged-romania... Also don't forget - TikTok has remediation options where they continue to operate in America as an American business instead. They are the ones that refused that and chose censorship. America just forced the choice between eating the cake and having it. Edit: Correct, it is not. The part that is censorship on China's behalf is the enforcement of the Great Firewall and enaction of laws prohibiting citizens from owning or consuming foreign news or entertainment. China's ban on foreign apps could just as well be explained by a desire for better domestic software markets - the same cannot be said for the Firewall. Edit 2: Yes, secession would settle this. China has proven that they cannot be trusted to disseminate information through a state-owned apparatus. If the owner continues to be a government entity, then continuing to let them do "business" is like letting the Trojans wheel in their horse so the citizens can marvel at it.
    - Cyph0n 2y ago
      By the same token, the Chinese ban on US apps is not censorship, correct? So if you accept to cede control we will leave you alone. Blackmail, in other words, exactly like China does it.
      - baq 2y ago
        Feel free to record a 30s video on the topic of Tiananmen Square and post it on X, Facebook and Chinese TikTok. Report back with results in 24h. In the conclusions section, point out the difference between censorship and moderation.
        Cyph0n 2y ago
        How about you record a 30s clip of atrocities committed by the IDF in Gaza and watch how quickly it will be “moderated” into oblivion.
        baq 2y ago
        see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
        Cyph0n 2y ago
        Not at all. I know that Chinese censorship exists. You - or others, lost track since multiple people are involved here - are the one who’s trying to argue that US censorship does not exist, even in light of this TikTok ban. Also, you probably don’t realize this, but censorship and moderation are many times two sides of the same coin - depending on the incentives and factors at play.
        baq 2y ago
        Censorship is very strictly defined as government’s doing. If this isn’t your definition, we aren’t even talking about the same things. I gave you a very concrete example with potentially serious consequences if you’re a Chinese national posting in China vs somebody getting deprioritized on one platform in yours.
tgma 2y ago
You realize it was a representative-democratic process chose to enact TikTok ban, so your statement is literally false on that dimension alone.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  you're implying that these elections are on equal grounds with truthful candidates. I think that's a small part why America has become decreaingly distrustgul of politicians but still vote. Many people on both sides of the aisle have admitted 2024 felt like choosing the least bad candidate.
  - tgma 2y ago
    The root cause of this sort of comment is people often equate the outcome of democracy == good or desirable to them or even the majority, which is not necessarily the case. People can whine about the outcome of a democratic process all they want, which even if done perfectly could be a compromise that is distasteful to all parties but still democratic.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      You'd normally be right. But the US did just have the richest man in the world setup a lottery to buy votes, and walked it back to "oh it was rigged anyway" when called out on it. Any lawsuits is pennies compared to the results. It was subtle before with stuff like Gerrymandering that the layman would never notice. But it's so blatant now that the democratic process is compromised.
      - VectorLock 2y ago
        When he got away with calling the Thai diver "pedo guy" using the "lol jk" defense then he knew he could get away with anything.
  - 2y ago
josephcsible 2y ago
How is "everybody has freedoms except the governments of adversarial foreign countries" not more free than "nobody has freedoms"?
- Cyph0n 2y ago
  You could reasonably argue that, but only for now. The precedent set here opens a can of worms that we should aim to close sooner rather than later. But the mechanism we are using is one and the same - this is essentially the launch of a “Great Firewall of America”, just enforced a bit differently.

by Cyph0n 2y ago

If stooping down to their level is the move we make, then we should immediately stop acting as if we are more “free” or democratic than China. You can’t have it both ways.

tims33 2y ago

Is allowing them to impose the same kind of restrictions in their US app as they do for their own citizens good for free speech?

talldayo 2y ago

> then we should immediately stop acting as if we are more “free” or democratic than China. This is a histrionic response. America can still be more free and democratic than China while also enforcing a ban on their businesses.

Cyph0n 2y ago
Blanket censorship of this kind is not the hallmark of a healthy democracy. This ban is the definition of a slippery slope - this ban may be in your interests, but eventually one will not. What then?
- talldayo 2y ago
  This isn't blanket censorship, period. Every single user that currently voices their stance, values or opinions can continue to do the exact same thing on any other platform they choose. Just not TikTok, because they are a business owned by an adversarial government that deliberately uses their soapbox to manipulate democratic audiences: https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-rigged-romanian-elections-using-10-million-fake-tiktok-accounts/ https://kyivinsider.com/russia-and-china-just-rigged-romania... Also don't forget - TikTok has remediation options where they continue to operate in America as an American business instead. They are the ones that refused that and chose censorship. America just forced the choice between eating the cake and having it. Edit: Correct, it is not. The part that is censorship on China's behalf is the enforcement of the Great Firewall and enaction of laws prohibiting citizens from owning or consuming foreign news or entertainment. China's ban on foreign apps could just as well be explained by a desire for better domestic software markets - the same cannot be said for the Firewall. Edit 2: Yes, secession would settle this. China has proven that they cannot be trusted to disseminate information through a state-owned apparatus. If the owner continues to be a government entity, then continuing to let them do "business" is like letting the Trojans wheel in their horse so the citizens can marvel at it.
  - Cyph0n 2y ago
    By the same token, the Chinese ban on US apps is not censorship, correct? So if you accept to cede control we will leave you alone. Blackmail, in other words, exactly like China does it.
    - baq 2y ago
      Feel free to record a 30s video on the topic of Tiananmen Square and post it on X, Facebook and Chinese TikTok. Report back with results in 24h. In the conclusions section, point out the difference between censorship and moderation.
      - Cyph0n 2y ago
        How about you record a 30s clip of atrocities committed by the IDF in Gaza and watch how quickly it will be “moderated” into oblivion.
        baq 2y ago
        see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
        Cyph0n 2y ago
        Not at all. I know that Chinese censorship exists. You - or others, lost track since multiple people are involved here - are the one who’s trying to argue that US censorship does not exist, even in light of this TikTok ban. Also, you probably don’t realize this, but censorship and moderation are many times two sides of the same coin - depending on the incentives and factors at play.
        baq 2y ago
        Censorship is very strictly defined as government’s doing. If this isn’t your definition, we aren’t even talking about the same things. I gave you a very concrete example with potentially serious consequences if you’re a Chinese national posting in China vs somebody getting deprioritized on one platform in yours.

tgma 2y ago

You realize it was a representative-democratic process chose to enact TikTok ban, so your statement is literally false on that dimension alone.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
johnnyanmac 2y ago
you're implying that these elections are on equal grounds with truthful candidates. I think that's a small part why America has become decreaingly distrustgul of politicians but still vote. Many people on both sides of the aisle have admitted 2024 felt like choosing the least bad candidate.
- tgma 2y ago
  The root cause of this sort of comment is people often equate the outcome of democracy == good or desirable to them or even the majority, which is not necessarily the case. People can whine about the outcome of a democratic process all they want, which even if done perfectly could be a compromise that is distasteful to all parties but still democratic.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    You'd normally be right. But the US did just have the richest man in the world setup a lottery to buy votes, and walked it back to "oh it was rigged anyway" when called out on it. Any lawsuits is pennies compared to the results. It was subtle before with stuff like Gerrymandering that the layman would never notice. But it's so blatant now that the democratic process is compromised.
    - VectorLock 2y ago
      When he got away with calling the Thai diver "pedo guy" using the "lol jk" defense then he knew he could get away with anything.
- 2y ago

josephcsible 2y ago

How is "everybody has freedoms except the governments of adversarial foreign countries" not more free than "nobody has freedoms"?

Cyph0n 2y ago
You could reasonably argue that, but only for now. The precedent set here opens a can of worms that we should aim to close sooner rather than later. But the mechanism we are using is one and the same - this is essentially the launch of a “Great Firewall of America”, just enforced a bit differently.