4 ms·

All the bickering about the validity of this specific story and the “if you don’t like it don’t ever leave home to go anywhere ever” misses the crux of the issu

All the bickering about the validity of this specific story and the “if you don’t like it don’t ever leave home to go anywhere ever” misses the crux of the issue that these articles are trying to raise: * Do we agree that a law enforcement arm of any country should be allowed to perform warrantless searches of electronic devices? * Do we find it acceptable that persons with critical views are denied entry to countries that profess protection of speech for its citizens? * If we find either of the above objectionable, what should we be doing to stop it? The reality is that this is on the rise, not just in the USA but globally, and we should be having frank discussions on whether this is acceptable or not given its repercussions. For context, despite my critique of an unnamed EMEA government, they’ve happily let me into their country repeatedly to do work for an employer, associate with my colleagues, and perform volunteer work within its borders. On the flip side, I have serious doubts about my ability to enter authoritarian regimes like China because of my outspoken critique of government policies, regardless of my intentions within their borders. This [broader issue] is what we should be discussing, not nuanced specifics over a single incident.

docmars 1y ago
Agreed, and well said. I think everyone's goal is (hopefully) to move away from as many double-standards around these types of incidents as possible, and level the playing field, in favor of liberty / freedom, assuming there will be a few odd anomalies needing special consideration. On paper, this incident could be one of those due to its nature as a border security issue, and I think it's safe to say that most (even those who support ICE) are viewing this as silly and unnecessary, at least in my circles.
bananalychee 1y ago
[flagged]
- Disposal8433 1y ago
  > which is something that actually happens in other countries Yes, but it's (IIRC) that it's so blatantly happening in the Land of the Free World where the first amendment of the constitution is touted as the best law ever written in history.
  - bananalychee 1y ago
    Is it so blatant, or does it just seems like it because of the sheer amount of spin being spun? I can think of a few stories that I think qualify as evidence of overstepping, but I can also think of several from 2021-2024. I don't like it, but none really come close to the level of the UK's speech policing. Reading the comments here you'd think we're worse than China. When it comes to border control, I've looked into several of these outrageous claims, and they consistently omit critical details that point to a valid reason for denial. Being denied entry and then having an overzealous border agent tsk-tsk at your meme is not nearly the same thing as being denied entry or thrown in jail because of it. And now OP primes us to think that the details don't really matter. I think they do, because every conversation on the current administration is now tainted by propaganda (in both directions).
    - smegger001 1y ago
      Difference being I can openly disagree with UK speech laws and call tje prime minister a limp dick and not be denied entry. Where here that is no is ground for denying entry where it wasn't under previous administrations. Can you imagine the outrage had Bush admin banned anyone that mad fun of Dick Channy ?
    - Defenestresque 1y ago
      The first amendment is a good thing overall, but I have honestly never heard of a story of someone attempting to enter the US, someone with no criminal record and from an ally country, just to be forcibly strip-searched at the border. They just tell you that you they are denying you entry and putting you on the next plane back. That being said, we are clearly only getting one side of the story and I'd love to know what _exactly_ that found on his phone, but given how consistent the stories have been (pulled into secondary, forced to unlock personal media under threats of imprisonment, strip search, disappearance for a few days or weeks) I am inclined to move this from the "anecdotes" to "anecdata" to something-very-close-to-data category. If you chose to rebutt this with the "millions of people come in to the US every year with absolutely no problem" I'd like to say that only 0.02 people die by train per 100,000,000 miles travelled. Does that mean I don't want the NTSB to investigate train crashes or that these peoples deaths (and injuries) don't matter because they comprise such a low percentage?* I am extremely sympathetic to his position of his phone automatically downloading media he is sent. My phone's WhatsApp settings came with "auto-download any images people send you to your (local, on-device) gallery" set as default. I also had Google Photos installed, which had the option of "auto back-up any images/videos you store on your phone to your Google Photos account" which I turned on because I break my phones often. The result was that several relatives with questionable (and opposite) political tastes have their memes (think [pollitician x] next to a [hate symbol]" (got it? Good. It's not the one you're thinking of!) automatically stored on my phone and backed up to my Google Photos account, not even accounting for the automatic WhatsApp backup that is stored on my Google Drive account. From previous reporting, the agents plug in the device into a forensic analyzer which dumps out a list of images/videos that were saved (note the distinction between "that you saved" and "that were saved") and use it against you. I can't imagine what it must feel like to arrive here from Norway to go camping and be subject to a strip-search and interrogation because someone you may not even consider a friend sent you some shitty memes a few years ago. Or, in this case, because they found a "anti-JD-vance" meme that even JD vance seems to think is fine? [0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...
- guappa 1y ago
  In which other countries is it happening? Do you have any links to newsreports?
legitster 1y ago
Borders in particular are tricky things. You don't have any legal right to be admitted into a country that doesn't want you, and there is no due process that protects you. Warrants are not really a thing. So it really comes down to how friendly your countries are with each other and how much you are willing to put up with to get entry.
- mingus88 1y ago
  Yeah I am very pro-privacy and don’t agree that this is a choice between requiring warrants at the border or no searches at all. From a practical standpoint it’s completely unworkable to require an actual judge to evaluate every person coming in and out to issue or deny a warrant. The costs alone are staggering.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  That’s how it currently is, but now how it has always been or always will be. Never mistake the present for either the past or the future. That’s what I’m getting at, here. Folks are digging into the details of what’s in front of them instead of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture first.
  - edanm 1y ago
    If the bigger picture includes completely changing the entire way the world works, the way countries work, how humans have always organized themselves, etc, then I think it makes sense that people are not looking at it because it is completely unrealistic and irrelevant. "Let's not discuss this specific government policy, because should governments even exist" is not very interesting.
    - account42 1y ago
      Holy strawman dude. You don't have to abolish the entire concept of governments in order to guarantee basic human rights at border crossings. Countries work out all kinds of shared minimum standards in international agreements. Which is why the guy in the article is wrong: > I don't feel there is any point in contacting the State Department, nor do I think they have any power against such a powerful and strict country as the United States That's exactly what he should have done if things happened as described and the Norwegian government should then take appropriate action.
throw0101c 1y ago
> […] countries that profess protection of speech for its citizens? Not just citizens: AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US. And more generally, the US sees itself—or at least its ideals—as the model people should strive for ("City upon a Hill").
- kcplate 1y ago
  > AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US Mostly correct (depends on which amendment), but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control…so the first amendment doesn’t apply to him.
  - hayst4ck 1y ago
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No where does it say "on US soil" or "for US Citizens," and that is absolutely 100% by design based on the founding fathers philosophy which can be read in the declaration of independence. It states plainly and unqualified "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." This both asserts that there is a freedom of speech that exists outside of the government and that congress shall make no law abridging it. In their philosophy, the government purposefully doesn't grant the right to freedom of speech, because the founding fathers argument was that their, and all people's, natural god given (literally) rights are why they were justified in rebelling against the British government -- that rights exist outside of, and above, the government.
  - throw0101c 1y ago
    > but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control… IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works: you're in US jurisdiction, and governed by US law (including the highest law of the Constitution), when you cross the twelve nautical mile control zone by plane (or boat). * https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone * https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-... > Rasul v. bush and Boumediene v. Bush guaranteed due process for prisoners of Guantanamo; In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court birthright citizenship is stretched to people born to illegal immigrants; Plyer v. doe and Yik Wo v. Hopkins gave 14th equal protection clause; Padilla V. Kentucky gave the right to legal counsel; Bridges v. Wixon (1945): The Supreme Court ruled that a noncitizen could not be deported solely for political speech, affirming that the First Amendment applies to immigrants; United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992): Acknowledged that noncitizens in U.S. custody still have constitutional rights. * https://old.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/comments/1jlfhss/who_does_the_us_constitution_actually_apply_to/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/comments/1jlfhss/who_do...
Izkata 1y ago
> All the bickering about the validity of this specific story I think you're looking at this point the wrong way around: If the people bringing these stories up had good examples, they should use those instead of these questionable ones. Using these stories instead makes it look like the US is doing a good job of not overreaching.
hayst4ck 1y ago
This country was founded on the idea that rights transcend government and that a government cannot grant rights because rights do not come from law, but from human dignity intrinsic to all of us. If rights are derived from human dignity, then a government cannot grant them, it can only protect them. If a government were to grant rights, then they would be privileges and not rights. You can read the American founder's document's which are steeped in this exact and specific language. What we are seeing now is an assault on the idea of rights. This border control action is a salami slicing tactic against the idea of rights itself. To rob others of their dignity... their freedom to express themselves and form their own beliefs and convictions without consequences from the government means that it is no longer a right to have your own opinions and assessments, but instead that is a privilege reserved only for "the protected." Rights exist as a counter-force to tyranny and the entire idea, language, and history of rights exists in the context of when it is justified to break the rules of authoritarian governments and fight tyranny. To call something a right is to say it is worth breaking the law to protect because it exists above law. The declaration of independence is absolutely crystal clear that rights supersede law which is why the founders of America were justified in violating British law and forming a government that protects rights rather than violates them. When you do not protect the rights of others, it is a prelude to losing your own rights because once a right is turned into a privilege for anybody, structurally it has been turned into a privilege for everybody because the "right" is no longer derived from human dignity, but from law. Eventually you will disagree with those in power, and you will come to discover the same techniques used to weaken others rights will weaken your own. There is always a pretext or game to be played. Slavery was made illegal, but prisoners are allowed to be enslaved. Drug law turned people into criminals, which gave the government permission to take away their rights and force them into slave labor, which is a clear moral hazard. Denaturalization is something that can happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights If freedom of speech can only be denied to those who are not protected by state, then the state will figure out how to put you in the class of unprotected people, whether that is foreigner or criminal. By the time you feel at risk of your own rights being violated, you will find yourself and everyone else have been habituated to ask if that specific person's rights should be protected rather than if a right has been violated or if you would feel robbed of your own dignity in that same situation, and the answer will be no, because the cost of answering yes will be too unbearable to acknowledge because doing so both creates a sense of personal responsibility and puts you at mortal risk while simultaneously making you feel alone, since nobody else seems to be provoked enough to act.
soueuls 1y ago
I have traveled extensively to both the US and China (where I did a master degree) several years ago. I did not keep the count of many times I crossed each borders, but I can assure you it was pretty much always easier to get into China than it was to get into the US (and that was before Trump). Chinese authorities are no jokes, but the amount of non sense you need to put up to get into the free land, is very high.
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  I was mentally prepared to be violated at the Chinese border and it was one of the most boring borders I've crossed. I am not sure I was even asked a single question. Meanwhile coming back to America was the worst border I've crossed, the border guard barked at me as if I were a criminal and asked invasive questions in an accusatory manor. I am very white and very American.
throw4573s2 1y ago
> On the flip side, I have serious doubts about my ability to enter authoritarian regimes like China because of my outspoken critique of government policies, regardless of my intentions within their borders. I’ve posted a lot of pro-Taiwan content and not once have I ever been interrogated at the Chinese borders. Many times they don’t even talk to me. Unless you are a well-known and famous agitator, I highly doubt they will even care about you.
- mrtksn 1y ago
  American dystopia is based on total population control: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44354657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44354657 IRL, the dictatorships we have don’t actually control the population that much. As long as it doesn’t create problems for the administration , nobody cares what you talk about..
  - myvoiceismypass 1y ago
    At least the US does not censor Winnie the Pooh... yet (See https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855)
- queenkjuul 1y ago
  In the mind of most Americans, China simply must be worse in every way, despite any evidence they may encounter
- whensean 1y ago
  Yes. Your reply reminds me of a friend of mine who works in the US. Every time he comes back to China, he would neurotically wipe out his phone and computer. Even though he has never encountered border inspections. In fact, in terms of what Westerners "think" China is doing in terms of surveillance, most of it is what China doesn't do, while the US is doing it and there is actual evidence. It's a very black-humored reality. The US is the real bad guy.
anal_reactor 1y ago
> The reality is that this is on the rise, not just in the USA but globally, and we should be having frank discussions on whether this is acceptable or not given its repercussions. Another reality is that people don't actually value personal freedoms, and they happily give that up in exchange for a tiny bit more sense of security. Lots of discussions on this topic assume that westerners believe in freedom of speech, but that's simply not true.

docmars 1y ago

Agreed, and well said. I think everyone's goal is (hopefully) to move away from as many double-standards around these types of incidents as possible, and level the playing field, in favor of liberty / freedom, assuming there will be a few odd anomalies needing special consideration. On paper, this incident could be one of those due to its nature as a border security issue, and I think it's safe to say that most (even those who support ICE) are viewing this as silly and unnecessary, at least in my circles.

bananalychee 1y ago

[flagged]

Disposal8433 1y ago
> which is something that actually happens in other countries Yes, but it's (IIRC) that it's so blatantly happening in the Land of the Free World where the first amendment of the constitution is touted as the best law ever written in history.
- bananalychee 1y ago
  Is it so blatant, or does it just seems like it because of the sheer amount of spin being spun? I can think of a few stories that I think qualify as evidence of overstepping, but I can also think of several from 2021-2024. I don't like it, but none really come close to the level of the UK's speech policing. Reading the comments here you'd think we're worse than China. When it comes to border control, I've looked into several of these outrageous claims, and they consistently omit critical details that point to a valid reason for denial. Being denied entry and then having an overzealous border agent tsk-tsk at your meme is not nearly the same thing as being denied entry or thrown in jail because of it. And now OP primes us to think that the details don't really matter. I think they do, because every conversation on the current administration is now tainted by propaganda (in both directions).
  - smegger001 1y ago
    Difference being I can openly disagree with UK speech laws and call tje prime minister a limp dick and not be denied entry. Where here that is no is ground for denying entry where it wasn't under previous administrations. Can you imagine the outrage had Bush admin banned anyone that mad fun of Dick Channy ?
  - Defenestresque 1y ago
    The first amendment is a good thing overall, but I have honestly never heard of a story of someone attempting to enter the US, someone with no criminal record and from an ally country, just to be forcibly strip-searched at the border. They just tell you that you they are denying you entry and putting you on the next plane back. That being said, we are clearly only getting one side of the story and I'd love to know what _exactly_ that found on his phone, but given how consistent the stories have been (pulled into secondary, forced to unlock personal media under threats of imprisonment, strip search, disappearance for a few days or weeks) I am inclined to move this from the "anecdotes" to "anecdata" to something-very-close-to-data category. If you chose to rebutt this with the "millions of people come in to the US every year with absolutely no problem" I'd like to say that only 0.02 people die by train per 100,000,000 miles travelled. Does that mean I don't want the NTSB to investigate train crashes or that these peoples deaths (and injuries) don't matter because they comprise such a low percentage?* I am extremely sympathetic to his position of his phone automatically downloading media he is sent. My phone's WhatsApp settings came with "auto-download any images people send you to your (local, on-device) gallery" set as default. I also had Google Photos installed, which had the option of "auto back-up any images/videos you store on your phone to your Google Photos account" which I turned on because I break my phones often. The result was that several relatives with questionable (and opposite) political tastes have their memes (think [pollitician x] next to a [hate symbol]" (got it? Good. It's not the one you're thinking of!) automatically stored on my phone and backed up to my Google Photos account, not even accounting for the automatic WhatsApp backup that is stored on my Google Drive account. From previous reporting, the agents plug in the device into a forensic analyzer which dumps out a list of images/videos that were saved (note the distinction between "that you saved" and "that were saved") and use it against you. I can't imagine what it must feel like to arrive here from Norway to go camping and be subject to a strip-search and interrogation because someone you may not even consider a friend sent you some shitty memes a few years ago. Or, in this case, because they found a "anti-JD-vance" meme that even JD vance seems to think is fine? [0] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/deaths-by-transportation-mode/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics...
guappa 1y ago
In which other countries is it happening? Do you have any links to newsreports?

legitster 1y ago

Borders in particular are tricky things. You don't have any legal right to be admitted into a country that doesn't want you, and there is no due process that protects you. Warrants are not really a thing. So it really comes down to how friendly your countries are with each other and how much you are willing to put up with to get entry.

mingus88 1y ago
Yeah I am very pro-privacy and don’t agree that this is a choice between requiring warrants at the border or no searches at all. From a practical standpoint it’s completely unworkable to require an actual judge to evaluate every person coming in and out to issue or deny a warrant. The costs alone are staggering.
stego-tech 1y ago
That’s how it currently is, but now how it has always been or always will be. Never mistake the present for either the past or the future. That’s what I’m getting at, here. Folks are digging into the details of what’s in front of them instead of stepping back and looking at the bigger picture first.
- edanm 1y ago
  If the bigger picture includes completely changing the entire way the world works, the way countries work, how humans have always organized themselves, etc, then I think it makes sense that people are not looking at it because it is completely unrealistic and irrelevant. "Let's not discuss this specific government policy, because should governments even exist" is not very interesting.
  - account42 1y ago
    Holy strawman dude. You don't have to abolish the entire concept of governments in order to guarantee basic human rights at border crossings. Countries work out all kinds of shared minimum standards in international agreements. Which is why the guy in the article is wrong: > I don't feel there is any point in contacting the State Department, nor do I think they have any power against such a powerful and strict country as the United States That's exactly what he should have done if things happened as described and the Norwegian government should then take appropriate action.

throw0101c 1y ago

> […] countries that profess protection of speech for its citizens? Not just citizens: AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US. And more generally, the US sees itself—or at least its ideals—as the model people should strive for ("City upon a Hill").

kcplate 1y ago
> AIUI the various US Constitution Amendments apply to everyone with-in the US Mostly correct (depends on which amendment), but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control…so the first amendment doesn’t apply to him.
- hayst4ck 1y ago
  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. No where does it say "on US soil" or "for US Citizens," and that is absolutely 100% by design based on the founding fathers philosophy which can be read in the declaration of independence. It states plainly and unqualified "make no law abridging the freedom of speech." This both asserts that there is a freedom of speech that exists outside of the government and that congress shall make no law abridging it. In their philosophy, the government purposefully doesn't grant the right to freedom of speech, because the founding fathers argument was that their, and all people's, natural god given (literally) rights are why they were justified in rebelling against the British government -- that rights exist outside of, and above, the government.
- throw0101c 1y ago
  > but technically this guy didn’t cross into the US yet since he hadn’t cleared customs and border control… IANAL, but I don't think that's how it works: you're in US jurisdiction, and governed by US law (including the highest law of the Constitution), when you cross the twelve nautical mile control zone by plane (or boat). * https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone * https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-zone https://www.aclu.org/documents/constitution-100-mile-border-... > Rasul v. bush and Boumediene v. Bush guaranteed due process for prisoners of Guantanamo; In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 decision, the Supreme Court birthright citizenship is stretched to people born to illegal immigrants; Plyer v. doe and Yik Wo v. Hopkins gave 14th equal protection clause; Padilla V. Kentucky gave the right to legal counsel; Bridges v. Wixon (1945): The Supreme Court ruled that a noncitizen could not be deported solely for political speech, affirming that the First Amendment applies to immigrants; United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1992): Acknowledged that noncitizens in U.S. custody still have constitutional rights. * https://old.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/comments/1jlfhss/who_does_the_us_constitution_actually_apply_to/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Askpolitics/comments/1jlfhss/who_do...

Izkata 1y ago

> All the bickering about the validity of this specific story I think you're looking at this point the wrong way around: If the people bringing these stories up had good examples, they should use those instead of these questionable ones. Using these stories instead makes it look like the US is doing a good job of not overreaching.

hayst4ck 1y ago

This country was founded on the idea that rights transcend government and that a government cannot grant rights because rights do not come from law, but from human dignity intrinsic to all of us. If rights are derived from human dignity, then a government cannot grant them, it can only protect them. If a government were to grant rights, then they would be privileges and not rights. You can read the American founder's document's which are steeped in this exact and specific language. What we are seeing now is an assault on the idea of rights. This border control action is a salami slicing tactic against the idea of rights itself. To rob others of their dignity... their freedom to express themselves and form their own beliefs and convictions without consequences from the government means that it is no longer a right to have your own opinions and assessments, but instead that is a privilege reserved only for "the protected." Rights exist as a counter-force to tyranny and the entire idea, language, and history of rights exists in the context of when it is justified to break the rules of authoritarian governments and fight tyranny. To call something a right is to say it is worth breaking the law to protect because it exists above law. The declaration of independence is absolutely crystal clear that rights supersede law which is why the founders of America were justified in violating British law and forming a government that protects rights rather than violates them. When you do not protect the rights of others, it is a prelude to losing your own rights because once a right is turned into a privilege for anybody, structurally it has been turned into a privilege for everybody because the "right" is no longer derived from human dignity, but from law. Eventually you will disagree with those in power, and you will come to discover the same techniques used to weaken others rights will weaken your own. There is always a pretext or game to be played. Slavery was made illegal, but prisoners are allowed to be enslaved. Drug law turned people into criminals, which gave the government permission to take away their rights and force them into slave labor, which is a clear moral hazard. Denaturalization is something that can happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturalization#Human_rights If freedom of speech can only be denied to those who are not protected by state, then the state will figure out how to put you in the class of unprotected people, whether that is foreigner or criminal. By the time you feel at risk of your own rights being violated, you will find yourself and everyone else have been habituated to ask if that specific person's rights should be protected rather than if a right has been violated or if you would feel robbed of your own dignity in that same situation, and the answer will be no, because the cost of answering yes will be too unbearable to acknowledge because doing so both creates a sense of personal responsibility and puts you at mortal risk while simultaneously making you feel alone, since nobody else seems to be provoked enough to act.

soueuls 1y ago

I have traveled extensively to both the US and China (where I did a master degree) several years ago. I did not keep the count of many times I crossed each borders, but I can assure you it was pretty much always easier to get into China than it was to get into the US (and that was before Trump). Chinese authorities are no jokes, but the amount of non sense you need to put up to get into the free land, is very high.

hayst4ck 1y ago
I was mentally prepared to be violated at the Chinese border and it was one of the most boring borders I've crossed. I am not sure I was even asked a single question. Meanwhile coming back to America was the worst border I've crossed, the border guard barked at me as if I were a criminal and asked invasive questions in an accusatory manor. I am very white and very American.

throw4573s2 1y ago

> On the flip side, I have serious doubts about my ability to enter authoritarian regimes like China because of my outspoken critique of government policies, regardless of my intentions within their borders. I’ve posted a lot of pro-Taiwan content and not once have I ever been interrogated at the Chinese borders. Many times they don’t even talk to me. Unless you are a well-known and famous agitator, I highly doubt they will even care about you.

mrtksn 1y ago
American dystopia is based on total population control: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44354657 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44354657 IRL, the dictatorships we have don’t actually control the population that much. As long as it doesn’t create problems for the administration , nobody cares what you talk about..
- myvoiceismypass 1y ago
  At least the US does not censor Winnie the Pooh... yet (See https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855)
queenkjuul 1y ago
In the mind of most Americans, China simply must be worse in every way, despite any evidence they may encounter
whensean 1y ago
Yes. Your reply reminds me of a friend of mine who works in the US. Every time he comes back to China, he would neurotically wipe out his phone and computer. Even though he has never encountered border inspections. In fact, in terms of what Westerners "think" China is doing in terms of surveillance, most of it is what China doesn't do, while the US is doing it and there is actual evidence. It's a very black-humored reality. The US is the real bad guy.

anal_reactor 1y ago

> The reality is that this is on the rise, not just in the USA but globally, and we should be having frank discussions on whether this is acceptable or not given its repercussions. Another reality is that people don't actually value personal freedoms, and they happily give that up in exchange for a tiny bit more sense of security. Lots of discussions on this topic assume that westerners believe in freedom of speech, but that's simply not true.