China will look for something to retaliate
might not be able to get my butter chicken anymore :(
#guangzhouproblems
India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
651–660 of 847 posts
Re: India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
#652Re: India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
#653India is absolutely right in banning TikTok as it is a significant national securities threat. As long as the platforms recommendation and ranking algos are a black box, there is no guarantee that China isn’t conducting misinformation campaigns via the platform. At the very least, the government should audit the algos and make sure China can’t arbitrarily alter ranking results.
Well technically China did it first. China banned tons of foreign apps or websites because "significant national securities threat"
Re: India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
#654Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you forget a detail. Nation state, or any state, are sovereign. If the national community agrees on something, it's all that matter. We don't have to abide by other countries standards on everything especially if we dont like it. Im thinking as a French I had to fight a lot with free speech absolutists abroad, while at home we're quite okay with selective censorship... it sounds scary to an American sometimes…
The idea that restrictions in human liberty are subject to when "a national community agrees on something" is laughable at best and evil at worst.
But who draws the "human liberty" line? Where and how does "human liberty" and "individual liberty" intersect? Is the Non Aggression Principle the doctrine on this? Or something more progressive that helps ensure minority rights? Some other option entirely?
Liberty and humanism are topics built on millennia of context and nuance. Blanket statements like yours, while passionate, risk being so reductionist that they distract from the important substance of the conversation.
Re: India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
#655mega censorship!
Re: India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
#656Earlier quoted context omitted.
Foreign propaganda broadcast and pushed by a hostile foreign government isn't protected speech. Not sure why anyone would need to say that out loud, but here we are. 2020, going hard.
This argument can be used to ban all foreign press. It's nonsense, but unfortunately common in 2020.
Please tell me how that argument could be applied to the UK's press, or Canada's, or any country in the EU's, or Australia's...
Re: India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
#657Considering the recent crisis that's brewing between the two, it's a rational move for India to not let China get more intelligence data so easily.
From a humanitarian point of view, everyone in the world should uninstall these apps as they help collecting data for censorship in China [1].
Also, apart from being a spyware, TikTok is simply a dangerous app which brings much harm to society [2].
[1] - https://citizenlab.ca/2020/05/we-chat-they-watch/
[2] - https://nypost.com/2020/02/13/the-dumb-dangerous-challenges-....
Re: India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
#658India is absolutely right in banning TikTok as it is a significant national securities threat. As long as the platforms recommendation and ranking algos are a black box, there is no guarantee that China isn’t conducting misinformation campaigns via the platform. At the very least, the government should audit the algos and make sure China can’t arbitrarily alter ranking results.
I doubt they can audit close source software.
Re: India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
#659Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not an American. I am an Indian. Stop assuming stuff. And who better to know about expansionism than Indians? We have been colonized multiple times in the past. We know the exact difference between expansion and invasion. An invasion can turn into colonization if the oppressing party annexes territory and sets up a Government of its own against the interests of the people. US hasn't annexed Afghanistan and Iraq.…
> And who better to know about expansionism than Indians? We have been colonized multiple times in the past. Sure, we can agree that USA's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was not "colonization" technically, in the 1800s sense of the term. However, what else would you call all out war, military occupation, hanging the president of the country, etc.? BTW, occupation continues until this day, in both of these nations.…
> China has a similar idea with the "One China" rule, and how it basically does not consider Taiwan to be it's own nation. Except, unlike India, it's quite clear than China is willing to invade Taiwan at some point in time (unclear when, but the tensions will never cease).
I can understand China's fascination with Taiwan under One China principle. But this One China principle doesn't extend to South China Sea or the artificial islands it created. Nor does it extend to China Occupied Ladakh. This is where their principle falls apart and becomes expansionist. They even claim Arunachal Pradesh in India to be theirs when the people of Arunachal Pradesh have since ancient times always had affinity with Indians than with Chinese.
> Have you read about the history of the U.S in the 1800s? Manifest Destiny may not have been written into the constitution, but it was absolutely the policy of many leaders of the U.S in that era, and calling it "a cultural thing" actually dumbs down what is an extremely powerful idea behind the forming of the U.S as a nation.
True. But that was 1800s and this is 2020. Times have changed. People change. Politics change. What was true then is not necessarily true now. USA had slavery in the 1800s too. Doesn't mean it follows the same policies now. We need to understand that Democratic Nations always undergo changes. The Obama era is distinct from the Trump era which in turn is distinct from the Bush era. That is the beauty of Democracy! So what US was in the 1800s isn't going to be the same in 2020s.
> However, what else would you call all out war, military occupation, hanging the president of the country, etc.? BTW, occupation continues until this day, in both of these nations.
Define "occupation". Having an army base in the country is not "occupation" by any means. If that is considered occupation then what would you say when India sent its Army (called the Indian Peace Keeping Force) to Sri Lanka to fight the LTTE terrorists in the Sri Lankan Civil War? We had our Army stationed there for years (1987 to 1990) until it was called back! The LTTE terrorists consider it an invasion. They assassinated our Prime Minister in response. So yeah, this was not occupation neither was when US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Was it an invasion? Yes it was! There is no doubt about it. But to call it "occupation" is stretching it to be honest with you.
US has an army base in Japan, South Korea and Australia. So is US occupying Japan, South Korea or Australia?
Re: India bans TikTok, WeChat, and dozens of other Chinese apps
#660Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that restrictions in human liberty are subject to when "a national community agrees on something" is laughable at best and evil at worst.
But who draws the "human liberty" line? Where and how does "human liberty" and "individual liberty" intersect? Is the Non Aggression Principle the doctrine on this? Or something more progressive that helps ensure minority rights? Some other option entirely? Liberty and humanism are topics built on millennia of context and nuance. Blanket statements like yours, while passionate, risk being so reductionist that they di…
It's for the same reasons that amending constitutions require more buy-in than just changing laws.
You can establish things that you think are "very important" in a society, and make it much harder to change than other things.
Of course, if everyone thinks you're the king of France, you're the king of France. But establishing rules to counterbalance the state's monopoly on violence and making those be pretty strong protections within the framework of laws helps establish the norms!
Everything has an asterisk in these kinds of conversation. I think most people can understand the relative difference in values between "people should have a right to assemble and speak their mind" and "people should be able to park on the left side of this street on weekends"