81–90 of 304 posts
I don't get why you are acting so surprised. In Capitalism the only point is to make money, that's all there is. If siding with human rights helps make money they will side with human rights, if genocide helps make even more money they will side with genocide. As long as Capitalism is the main economic system this will always be only about the profits.
I don't get why you are acting so surprised. In Capitalism the only point is to make money, that's all there is. If siding with human rights helps make money they will side with human rights, if genocide helps make even more money they will side with genocide. As long as Capitalism is the main economic system this will always be only about the profits.
I disagree. It's a matter of priorities. It's totally possible for a capitalist society to prioritize things like human rights, etc. over profits through political and social means.
I think the main issue here is that capitalist institutions and capitalist thinking are ascendent (in the US at least) while rival political and social institutions and modes of thought that could keep it in check are being hollowed out and weakened.
What are the odds this will teach the American left that censorship is not a good thing and lead them to stop demanding Google, Twitter, and Facebook ban every user who wants to reduce immigration? 1%? 0%?
That's not even a thing.
I wonder how long until China extends its social credit system (or a form of it) to people outside China... and what companies play along?
Failure to walk away from the show over this has lost the writers any moral high ground they might have once held.
No. This kind of thing is far more effective. I'd probably have never even heard about this unless they'd stayed and gone on-air with a notice like this.
If they walked they'd have been replaced and new writers would have made substitute content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you seriously think they should've cancelled a series they've been working on for the past decade due to 120 seconds of content? Let me be the first to say I'm glad the writers didn't do that. If you watch the show, you'll quickly discover that the writers have been given an immense amount of creative freedom. The Good Fight makes a lot of strong political statements that I don't think would fly on many other plat…
>The Good Fight makes a lot of strong political statements that I don't think would fly on many other platforms. Such as?
• A story on how large media companies use broad copyright laws to exploit independent artists.
• Multiple stories on data surveillance and privacy.
• Stories depicting injustices in the immigration court system.
By the way, the episode containing the censored segment also had a woman explaining how she was tortured by the Chinese government.
There's nothing on The Good Fight that would be off limits in, say, HBO's Last Week Tonight, but there's plenty I was surprised to see in a CBS drama.
What are the odds this will teach the American left that censorship is not a good thing and lead them to stop demanding Google, Twitter, and Facebook ban every user who wants to reduce immigration? 1%? 0%?
I don't get why you are acting so surprised. In Capitalism the only point is to make money, that's all there is. If siding with human rights helps make money they will side with human rights, if genocide helps make even more money they will side with genocide. As long as Capitalism is the main economic system this will always be only about the profits.
> As long as Capitalism is the main economic system this will always be only about the profits. I disagree. It's a matter of priorities. It's totally possible for a capitalist society to prioritize things like human rights, etc. over profits through political and social means. I think the main issue here is that capitalist institutions and capitalist thinking are ascendent (in the US at least) while rival political a…
I believe that is what most people would call socialism. When taken at its root idea anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said they had complete freedom of the press on US matters? Individuals have a right to that total freedom, whether they choose to exercise that right it totally up to them. US news stations regularly "hold back" on things to appease the US government, choose not to exercise their total freedom. Why should we expect them to treat China's government any differently? There is a difference between government censorsh…
> News corporations know that they must maintain good relations if they want future access. Sometimes that means holding back on things they know would anger a government. This is pretty much the opposite of what I would expect out of a journalist. What good is all that "access" if you're just publishing approved content? Wasn't the relevant quote was something like "Journalism is printing what someone else does not…
"Publish and be damned" will quickly lead to you having no-one willing to speak to you.
(Imagine someone who immediately told everyone any secrets they learnt. How long would people tolerate that?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As long as Capitalism is the main economic system this will always be only about the profits. I disagree. It's a matter of priorities. It's totally possible for a capitalist society to prioritize things like human rights, etc. over profits through political and social means. I think the main issue here is that capitalist institutions and capitalist thinking are ascendent (in the US at least) while rival political a…
> It's totally possible for a capitalist society to prioritize things like human rights, etc. over profits through political and social means. I believe that is what most people would call socialism. When taken at its root idea anyway.
No, it could also be the society's moral system. For instance, take a hypothetical capitalist society where the shame and stigma of violating human rights is very strong. A business owner there would likely refuse to violate them even if it's very profitable, because doing so would make him a pariah, no "socialism" required.