3 ms·

> There isn't any reason in the abstract to think that Chinese propaganda is any worse than US propaganda. China is (at best) a frenemy of the US. Allowing a r

by drdec 1y ago

> There isn't any reason in the abstract to think that Chinese propaganda is any worse than US propaganda. China is (at best) a frenemy of the US. Allowing a rival to push propaganda onto your children is foolhardy. It has nothing to do with whether Chinese propaganda is worse than US propaganda.

roenxi 1y ago
> Allowing a rival to push propaganda onto your children is foolhardy. I don't recall historical instances where that was a major problem. The closest analogue would be the cold war, where US propaganda successfully got the USSR to switch to democracy (a move that, ultimately, was to the benefit of the people). The Soviet counter-propaganda was ultimately unconvincing and everyone agrees that Communism was a disaster - even the people who lived in communist communities as children. It is too hard to come up with a 20- or 30-year propaganda campaign that has meaningful impacts, the results are fundamentally unclear because everyone will have different policies in 30 years. If anyone knew how to reliably change societies through propaganda we'd already be using that technique in the west to align everyone to capitalism instead of having the constant socialist regressions that keep cropping up. Propaganda is effective for specific political decisions in the short term when targeted at adults. Over the longer term it has impacts that are hard to foresee and impossible to control, for good or ill. > It has nothing to do with whether Chinese propaganda is worse than US propaganda. It sounds important when you phrase it like that. Why listen to worse propaganda?
- sanderjd 1y ago
  > > Allowing a rival to push propaganda onto your children is foolhardy. > I don't recall historical instances where that was a major problem. This is truly laughable. We would have never let the German government own ABC in the 1930s, for obvious reasons. And the Chinese government would never let a US company own any of their influential media networks. I always feel like this argument has a "doth protest too much" feel to it.
  - roenxi 1y ago
    The decisions in the 1930s led to the most bloody and meaningless breakdown of communications in human history. One of the outcomes was the UN being set up by people saying, loosely speaking, "gee, we should listen to each others political stance more". I myself wouldn't cite the media policy in the decade prior to WWII as a success since it is hard to find a worse failure. Besides; that has nothing to do with children. The Nazis didn't last an entire generation. They weren't trying to propagandise children, they targeted adults. > And the Chinese government would never let a US company own any of their influential media networks. Again, Chinese media policy is an example of bad policy - I would advocate doing the opposite of them in that sphere. They're authoritarians. We want to intentionally copy their industrial policies after careful consideration.
    - sanderjd 1y ago
      Nations being unwilling to allow their rivals to own their domestic media has literally nothing to do with that. The UN and is state diplomacy, not media policy. One has nothing to do with the other. Also: > They weren't trying to propagandise children, they targeted adults. I'm not sure I've ever read a more historically illiterate statement.
      - roenxi 1y ago
        > The UN and is state diplomacy, not media policy. One has nothing to do with the other. If you don't believe state diplomacy is related to propaganda, then I think I should be even more insistent about asking what, exactly, do you feel the Chinese are supposed to do here? They're going to swoop in, "influence" everyone, and then it will have no impact on US-China relations. Maybe you believe it will have a huge impact on industrial policy? (Possibly resulting in the US adopting a policy of outsourcing production to China? I might ask in a more mischievous mood). > I'm not sure I've ever read a more historically illiterate statement. That isn't the strongest argument I've seen today. bobthepanda's point still seems accurate - you haven't nailed down specific concerns, as far as I can see you've just identified that Nazis were foreign and China is untrustworthy [0] ergo the Chinese can't own a US media company. I'm not even convinced that is the wrong outcome, but the concern doesn't seem to be principled to much as you're just abstractly worried about foreign views without much reference to what they are or what impact they'll have. [0] I see an irony here - the Nazis were implacably opposed to the Chinese communists on at least two ideological points - the Communism and the Chineseness.

by drdec 1y ago

roenxi 1y ago

> Allowing a rival to push propaganda onto your children is foolhardy. I don't recall historical instances where that was a major problem. The closest analogue would be the cold war, where US propaganda successfully got the USSR to switch to democracy (a move that, ultimately, was to the benefit of the people). The Soviet counter-propaganda was ultimately unconvincing and everyone agrees that Communism was a disaster - even the people who lived in communist communities as children. It is too hard to come up with a 20- or 30-year propaganda campaign that has meaningful impacts, the results are fundamentally unclear because everyone will have different policies in 30 years. If anyone knew how to reliably change societies through propaganda we'd already be using that technique in the west to align everyone to capitalism instead of having the constant socialist regressions that keep cropping up. Propaganda is effective for specific political decisions in the short term when targeted at adults. Over the longer term it has impacts that are hard to foresee and impossible to control, for good or ill. > It has nothing to do with whether Chinese propaganda is worse than US propaganda. It sounds important when you phrase it like that. Why listen to worse propaganda?

sanderjd 1y ago
> > Allowing a rival to push propaganda onto your children is foolhardy. > I don't recall historical instances where that was a major problem. This is truly laughable. We would have never let the German government own ABC in the 1930s, for obvious reasons. And the Chinese government would never let a US company own any of their influential media networks. I always feel like this argument has a "doth protest too much" feel to it.
- roenxi 1y ago
  The decisions in the 1930s led to the most bloody and meaningless breakdown of communications in human history. One of the outcomes was the UN being set up by people saying, loosely speaking, "gee, we should listen to each others political stance more". I myself wouldn't cite the media policy in the decade prior to WWII as a success since it is hard to find a worse failure. Besides; that has nothing to do with children. The Nazis didn't last an entire generation. They weren't trying to propagandise children, they targeted adults. > And the Chinese government would never let a US company own any of their influential media networks. Again, Chinese media policy is an example of bad policy - I would advocate doing the opposite of them in that sphere. They're authoritarians. We want to intentionally copy their industrial policies after careful consideration.
  - sanderjd 1y ago
    Nations being unwilling to allow their rivals to own their domestic media has literally nothing to do with that. The UN and is state diplomacy, not media policy. One has nothing to do with the other. Also: > They weren't trying to propagandise children, they targeted adults. I'm not sure I've ever read a more historically illiterate statement.
    - roenxi 1y ago
      > The UN and is state diplomacy, not media policy. One has nothing to do with the other. If you don't believe state diplomacy is related to propaganda, then I think I should be even more insistent about asking what, exactly, do you feel the Chinese are supposed to do here? They're going to swoop in, "influence" everyone, and then it will have no impact on US-China relations. Maybe you believe it will have a huge impact on industrial policy? (Possibly resulting in the US adopting a policy of outsourcing production to China? I might ask in a more mischievous mood). > I'm not sure I've ever read a more historically illiterate statement. That isn't the strongest argument I've seen today. bobthepanda's point still seems accurate - you haven't nailed down specific concerns, as far as I can see you've just identified that Nazis were foreign and China is untrustworthy [0] ergo the Chinese can't own a US media company. I'm not even convinced that is the wrong outcome, but the concern doesn't seem to be principled to much as you're just abstractly worried about foreign views without much reference to what they are or what impact they'll have. [0] I see an irony here - the Nazis were implacably opposed to the Chinese communists on at least two ideological points - the Communism and the Chineseness.