371–380 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't know we had apps back in the days of the Cold War.
Don't be naive, you know what I'm talking about. Do you think the USA and it's allies allowed Soviet companies to run amok during the Cold War? What we're watching unfold now is way more complicated, and will be way more protracted, than the Cold War was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate to say it, but the terrific first amendment in the US only applies to the government. Companies and individuals can kick you out for saying things they dont like. There are laws against certain kinds of discrimination by companies, but those are not the first amendment. Just wanted to clarify that so we dont pretend companies are upholding constitutional rights on a regional basis. They are not accountable to it…
I have come to disagree with the sentiment. The constitution prevents congress from restricting free speech because it is a document written about what congress can and cannot do, not because the authors wanted to argue that restricting freedom of speech was a job that should be left to individuals and businesses. It is only in response to someone mistakenly arguing to assert their 1st amendment rights in a context w…
Try walking into a restaurant and wailing on about Trump.
In 'Western Democracies' we also value private spaces and the ability for private groups to make their own rules.
Freedom of expression does not apply to YouTube in the 'Liberal Democratic' sense.
1) Private businesses can make rules for the content they want to have up.
2) In public you can do mostly as you please. Nobody can take down your website unless you're doing something specifically illegal.
3) If we want to ban other countries stuff because they are totalitarians, we can do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have come to disagree with the sentiment. The constitution prevents congress from restricting free speech because it is a document written about what congress can and cannot do, not because the authors wanted to argue that restricting freedom of speech was a job that should be left to individuals and businesses. It is only in response to someone mistakenly arguing to assert their 1st amendment rights in a context w…
"In liberal democracies we value freedom of expression." Try walking into a restaurant and wailing on about Trump. In 'Western Democracies' we also value private spaces and the ability for private groups to make their own rules. Freedom of expression does not apply to YouTube in the 'Liberal Democratic' sense. 1) Private businesses can make rules for the content they want to have up. 2) In public you can do mostly as…
It does, just in that YouTube is the possessor of the right, not the restricted governing party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But when the private companies overshadow government, there is no competition to take your business to. If Facebook has all my friends, I have to choose my principles or my friends. So far principles won for me but not many can do that offering. And my friends are slowly coming around again :)
Almost as if government regulation relating to monopolies and "too big to fail" corporations actually means something? Maybe a competent government would actually advocate and enforce laws to stop one company controlling your life.
I must be missing something because I cannot imagine why everyone is so tolerant of companies having nation-state level ability to ruin lives, and to routinely face no consequences when they do so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of the guy who taught his girlfriends dog to raise it's paw when it saw hitler talking or when it heard the phrase "heil hitler". He did it as a joke and put the video on youtube and ended up going to jail over it. Which I very strongly disagree with. It was perhaps in poor taste, but hurt no one.
It happened in Germany, where he went to jail, because he regularly showed forbidden Nazi insignia as well as regularly doing the Hitler salute and shouting "Sieg Heil" - all of which is forbidden by law in Germany. Especially after he was already on probation for earlier transgressions against these laws. He did not go to jail because he "only" teached his dog (it was actually his dog) a poor taste trick.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh they care. A lot. They care about anything that gives them access to western data so that's just wrong. They care quite a lot about TikTok as it provides a potential backdoor (given that the CCP defacto owns bytedance) That's the problem.
The sources I'm familiar with (mostly the FT) claim otherwise. See for example: https://www.ft.com/content/0c42dc7c-b927-477a-90b7-a202bbe4b... Or also this: https://www.ft.com/content/61988d2d-4c95-4a35-8273-d6980af04...
I love FT and I subscribe to the paper but I see more anti-trump sentiment than an actual argument there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employers have the right to hire or not hire whomever they want barring discrimination against protected classes, based on whatever criteria they want to consider relevant. "Person who said a stupid thing on the internet" is not a protected class. A Twitter mob doesn't have any objective power to prevent anyone from finding employment. They do, however, have free speech rights which include the right to communicate w…
And this singular issue may be the genesis of the rebirth of unions in a modern context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But when the private companies overshadow government, there is no competition to take your business to. If Facebook has all my friends, I have to choose my principles or my friends. So far principles won for me but not many can do that offering. And my friends are slowly coming around again :)
Almost as if government regulation relating to monopolies and "too big to fail" corporations actually means something? Maybe a competent government would actually advocate and enforce laws to stop one company controlling your life.
Or say you live in a small town with one grocery store, and they don't like your BLM tshirt so one day they ban you. Private company, they can do that. But now where do you buy food?
Or your Brand X car breaks down, but Brand X decides they don't want you in any Brand X dealerships anymore, but the problem is your car needs a specific diagnostic tool only available to Brand X dealers.
The examples are endless
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. My understanding is that ByteDance has tried to maintain some distance with the Chinese government in the past, but this pressure from the US essentially forces it to reverse course. It's antithetical to the US's purported objective of promoting a more liberalized market economy in China (though I suppose that was never something this administration really cared about).
Maybe it's a next level play the more hardline authoritarian China becomes the easier it is to rally the domestic population to be anti-Chinese in all matters. Remember when terrorists created sectarian violence in Iraq for the sole purpose of inciting ethnic conflict? I wouldn't have believed it was possible even 5 years ago in the U.S. but now who knows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition? If the CEO of TikTok says he doesn't want "free Tibet" on his platform because he wants to be on good terms with China, not because China specifically told him to censor it, is that his freedom?
> What's to stop the companies from claiming they just happen to want to remove the speech of their own volition? The fact that they would have no choice if they were subject to China's jurisdiction. You can't choose to do something you're being forced to do, therefore if you do it, it wasn't your choice.
Wouldn't the reverse be true in the US? Assume that actually supported China's radical opinions, while being subject to US jurisdiction - wouldn't they be forced out of business? Isn't that what's going on now?
> You can't choose to do something you're being forced to do, therefore if you do it, it wasn't your choice.