| ▲ | zug_zug 14 hours ago |
| > But its perfectly fine for a US company to do it? China blocks facebook/twitter/instagram/pinterest/gmail/wikipedia/twitch and even US newspapers. So clearly they don't think it's okay for a US-company to do it (and are at least an order magnitude stricter about it)... |
|
| ▲ | mrtksn 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| If US wants to imitate China, they should imitate its industry not its restrictions to freedoms. The ideal world order isn't the one where Chinese can't find out what happened on Tiananmen square and Americans can't find out what happened in Gaza. That's a very shitty arrangement and I am shocked that the Americans are picking that as their future. |
| |
| ▲ | SonicScrub 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The ideal world order isn't the one where Chinese can't find out what happened on Tiananmen square and Americans can't find out what happened in Gaza. I don't see how this law banning a social media site brings us at all closer to a world where Americans cannot get access to accurate information about major global conflicts. This is so far down the imagined "slippery slope" as to be absurd. In fact, I'd strongly argue that this law would achieve the opposite. If you're relying on Tik Tok for accurate information like this, then you are opening yourself to echo chambers, biased takes, and outright propaganda. There are many excellent sources out there in America freely available and easily accessible. | | |
| ▲ | mrtksn 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Simple: editorial preferences. Remember how Musk decided that after the elections Twitter will prioritize fun instagram of politics? | | |
| ▲ | SonicScrub 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | If your concern is editorial preference, then wouldn't a social media application explicitly controlled by a State apparatus be a concern? I fail to see how anything going on at Twitter is relevant to what I mentioned. Does Twitter shifting its content priorities somehow make the plethora of excellence sources unavailable? |
|
| |
| ▲ | airstrike 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Luckily nobody needs TikTok to find out what happened in Gaza. | | |
| ▲ | est 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem is, the world does't need meta/google/twtr either. The bill would eventually backfire US internet companies so bad. | | |
| ▲ | mrtksn 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Exactly how I expect things to pan out. Some 10-15 years ago the countries with dictatorships had the idea that they need to control the discussions on internet, now it is the US. I expect it to have cascading effect as Twitter, FB, Instagram etc are all foreign companies with known associations with the US government and intelligence and ban those everywhere fir national security reasons. | |
| ▲ | airstrike 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't understand what this has to do with US companies at all. It's about foreign companies. | | |
| ▲ | mrtksn 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why do you think that Bezos and Zuckerberg have seen the light with the elections if the US government has nothing to do with these private enterprises? Twitter and Meta are foreign everywhere else, everywhere else except China TikTok is foreign as well and apparently they all lick their respective governments. | | |
| ▲ | airstrike 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | And if Twitter and Meta are found to be interfering with national interests in foreign countries and get banned or reeled in due to that, how is that a bad outcome for the world? | | |
| ▲ | mrtksn 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | it is a bad outcome because it means everyone is locked in their propaganda locality and theres no one to break the narrative. IMHO it’s beneficial to have a global network as we are living on a planet with artificial borders. | | |
| ▲ | airstrike 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Less propaganda is always better. Less foreign propaganda doubly so. There's no benefit in a plurality of propaganda. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | walls 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The government makes Meta and Xitter suppress Palestinian content, they can't do that to TikTok, so it's being banned. | | |
| ▲ | airstrike 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is demonstrably false as the discussion about banning TikTok predates the current conflict in Gaza by a long time. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mrtksn 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | very true, everything started on the seventh and ended thanks to the strength of the new American president and now it’s all fine again as it was before the seventh. no need for political movements or anything, lets concentrate on the more positive things as Musk said. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | RobotToaster 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| FWIW facebook was blocked in 2009, after ETIM (East Turkistan Islamic Movement) (allegedly) used it to organise the July Urumqi riots, and facebook refused to follow Chinese law and cooperate with the police to identify the perpetrators. Whatever you think of the law of the PRC, they applied it consistently, Facebook was blocked for doing something that would get any Chinese company shut down. Tiktok is getting blocked in America for doing what American companies do. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Whatever you think of the law of the PRC, they applied it consistently Chinese courts are explicitly subservient to the party. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | colejohnson66 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| China doesn't have a constitution like America's. Edit: Obviously, China has a constitution, but the freedoms enumerated there are not the same as those in America's. And those that are enumerated are pointless (like North Korea's constitution). My point is that there's an inherent hypocrisy in saying we're more free than them, but then doing a tit-for-tat retaliatory measure. How can we be more free when we're doing the same things the other side is? |
| |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | China has a constitution mostly like America’s, freedom of speech, religion, press are enshrined even more strongly than in the American constitution. What China lacks is judicial review and an independent judiciary, so the constitution has no enforcement mechanism, and so is meaningless. The Chinese government as formed has no interest in rule of law. | | |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not exactly. The Chinese constitution, in addition to endowing rights, also endows obligations. So while you have things like:
> Article 35 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration. You also have things like:
> Article 54 Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall have the obligation to safeguard the security, honor and interests of the motherland; they must not behave in any way that endangers the motherland’s security, honor or interests. | | |
| ▲ | seanmcdirmid 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't matter because the law is completely at the mercy of officials to interpret and enforce. A Chinese court was once asked to clarify contradicting interpretation from officials, and they got seriously beat down for it because it isn't the job of the judiciary to tell the officials how to interpret law. The only way an officials ruling is overturned is if their boss (or someone up the hierarchy) disagrees. Compare this to the Supreme court, which is supposedly in Trump's hands, ruling against Trump twice on this tiktok ban alone (the first to kill his executive order, and the second to not pause the law to wait for him to take office). |
|
| |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It does, actually https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20... | | | |
| ▲ | ok123456 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | So what? If you believe in liberal values (with a small l), like freedom of speech, you lead by example. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you believe in liberal values (with a small l), like freedom of speech, you lead by example America is ridiculously pro free speech. That doesn’t mean we must then tolerate libel, slander, fraud, false advertising, breach of contract, et cetera because someone screams free speech. The Bill of Rights exists in balances, and the First Amendment is balanced, among other the things, with the nation’s requirement to exist. That doesn’t mean the Congress can ban speech. But it can certainly regulate media properties, including by mandating maximum foreign ownership fractions. | | |
| ▲ | greenavocado 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | > America is ridiculously pro free speech Except for one group of people which have made any criticism of them carry legal consequences | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > one group of people which have made any criticism of them carry legal consequences Jews? You know we have other federally-protected classes, correct? If you’re referring to Israel, no, there aren’t legal consequences for criticising Israel. Half of the vocal minority of the internet is constantly up in arms about Israel. | | |
| ▲ | ok123456 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | 30+ states have anti-BDS statutes that make it a crime to criticize Israel. | | |
| |
| ▲ | ok123456 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes. They made it illegal even to stop buying their products! | |
| ▲ | BobaFloutist 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh, which group did you have in mind? | | |
| ▲ | ok123456 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | The ones you can't boycott, divest, or sanction and hold a public sector job in many states. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | AlexandrB 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The "example" being banning things for nebulous reasons? If anything this is the US following China's lead in restricting what software their citizens can access. |
| |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | salviati 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you aware of this Wikipedia page? [0]
I think you should motivate why you believe that what is described in that page should not be called "constitution". Or articulate why you believe that thing does not exist. Or at least motivate your statement. Where does it come from? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_China |
|
|
| ▲ | horrible-hilde 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I agree with this sentiment. tit-for-tat, also anyone who slams into our infrastructure should pay up for the repairs and the inconvenience. |
|
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | boredpeter 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
