241–250 of 769 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China soft invades minds of Western people under disguise of “freedom of speech”.
[flagged]
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/5/pd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well if that's the problem, then maybe address that, perhaps by teaching people critical thinking skills? But teaching people to ask critical questions risks unraveling the fabric of American capitalism ("Hey why is it that the government spends more on healthcare per capita than any other OECD country but with markedly worse outcomes?", "How can we call ourselves the greatest nation on Earth when we are simultaneous…
> But teaching people to ask critical questions risks How long will it take to do it on a meaningful scale, all while “free-thinkers” (read Chinese and Russian bots) beat the drum of “they’re brainwashing you”?
However, that requires an education system that can be easily updated, and widely rolled out, without being shotgunned by anyone who has already lost their critical thinking ability, who may be in a position in government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is probably not what videos the platform hosts itself (as long as those are legal themselves), but having the recommendation algorithm controlled by a foreign power. Maybe taking over the recommendations algorithm (or banning any kind of algorithmic feed other than chronogical) would have sparked less concerns. But changing the algorithm to make it less addictive would probably effectively kill the platfo…
> Maybe taking over the recommendations algorithm (or banning any kind of algorithmic feed other than chronogical) would have sparked less concerns. Literally all they had to do was sell the CCPs stake in the company to anybody not in the CCP and they were unwilling to do that, opting to burn the whole company down instead. If they did that one thing all this would be avoided.
Reciprocity is key. Google and Facebook and most Western web services are blocked in China. If that is the case, then there should be no complaint with blocking Bytedance/other Chinese apps in the West.
So… if China mistreats their citizens, reciprocity says we must mistreat ours? You don’t fight censorship with censorship. That doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory thought. You fight censorship with openness. As soon as you find yourself arguing that you have no choice but to engage in the same behaviors you claim to dislike, you have literally become the enemy.
China's level of internet control and censorship does seem to rise to the level of mistreatment (in that they control and shape access to information, in ways that further the interests of state propaganda), but denying Chinese companies (and the Chinese government) market access to American consumers in some spheres seems fine. It's never been a two-way street with China, and I think we should be engaging in a bit of protectionism when it comes to allowing or not allowing Chinese companies to operate here.
If the US government were suppressing particular views or discussion of some topics (as the Chinese government does to their own citizens), then I would be alarmed. But that's not what's happening here; if the TikTok ban goes through, US citizens' free speech rights will not be meaningfully impacted, as there are other platforms that can and will carry the same content.
Banning a foreign company from doing business in your country isn't automatically censorship. There's nuance.
(And beyond all this, I do worry about the Chinese government using TikTok as a platform to influence Western citizens' thought, culture, and politics, for their own purposes. If they're not doing it already, I'd be astonished.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol… you must be new here. When has ANY digital initiative gone right the first time from any Australian government. The last time they tried censorship (aka Stephen Conroy) it was thwarted by a 15 year old and abandoned. Let’s not even talk about their current piracy website ban where all you need to do is point DNS to someone non-Australian.
I'm pretty aware of how inept our government is at these policies, and their surveillance state tendencies (eg undisclosed facial recognition testing at flinder street station). But at this point i think a malicious australian government is less of a threat to the public and our way of life and emotional prosperity than social media.
Not to mention their KYC regulations led to the Optus disaster, by forcing telecoms to store PII longer than necessary.
Your position is that everyone in Australia should have their PII exposed because parental responsibility belongs with the state, as parents shouldn't be trusted to parent. It is an absolute CERTAINTY that the ID mandate will be mismanaged and be a security catastrophe.
Don't forget Australian Parliament House was hacked as well.
But this time it'll be different, right? Your position is especially egregious because it is a global ID mandate (and it'll be totally ineffective as a 10 year old can figure out a VPN).
This is one of the things in my lifetime that gives me the most optimism, alongisde the IRA Bill. as someone in Australia who strongly supports our recent U16 ban, I hope META gets removed/broken up for you guys soon after, at least for underage users. I'm 22 and often wish I had never been born into a world with social media, with the belief that it is one of the worst things we have ever made as a species. I know t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has nothing to do with speech.
So banning a public square has nothing to do with free speech? "A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with AU's U16 ban is that it's going to end up being a de facto real ID requirement for any Australian to communicate online. And also, how many of us on this site were able to learn and grow because they got online as teenagers and learned things? It would have been much, much better to regulate out the worst features of social media platforms for everyone than to pass a Bill that nobody knows how to imp…
The success rates for MOOCs is usually lower than 5%. MOOCs were the holy grail - free, Quality, any time, education. And it still had single digit pass rates. ———- The people who are self motivated to learn, are probably people who move entire fields forward. They are likely very happy while learning. It’s an important part of human survival and existence. We can and should optimize for it. We are going to waste ene…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don’t fight censorship with censorship. That doesn’t stand up to even the most cursory thought. You fight censorship with openness. Can you explain this better without the assumption that it is self-evident?
Sure. If censorship is wrong, then it is wrong. If censorship is just fine, the n it is just fine. It is the height of hypocrisy to engage in censorship in the name of stamping out censorship. It feels like a tautology because the opposing viewpoint is a very simple hypocrisy. If you don’t like something, don’t do it.
This isn't like China where the government bans any services they can't control, and directs the services that they can control to suppress any information they don't want people talking about.