7 ms·

In the original comment you responded to, the CCP put a party member in the ByteDance board of directors. The CCP is also known to enforce censoring government

In the original comment you responded to, the CCP put a party member in the ByteDance board of directors. The CCP is also known to enforce censoring government critical speech on their platforms including TikTok. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-how-tiktok-censors-videos-that-do-not-please-beijing https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/sep/25/revealed-... National Intelligence Law also allows the CCP to request from businesses any data unlimited in scope without a warrant or possible recourse. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of... It’s not ideological; one clearly exerts more control than the other, by an order of magnitude. To say the surveillance, censorship, or control on businesses are similar because Google has complied with some government requests (the only evidence _you_ have provided) is naive at best, or disingenuous at worst. Of course the US performs intelligence gathering on its citizens or foreigners for national security. The difference is the scope, oversight, and recourse businesses in the US have.

pphysch 5y ago
> The CCP is also known to enforce censoring government critical speech on their platforms including TikTok. Donald Trump? Jan 6? Julian Assange? Chelsea Manning? There are countless examples of USG censorship. Just because you don't ideologically agree with the victims does not absolve the act of censorship. > National Intelligence Law also allows the CCP to request from businesses any data unlimited in scope without a warrant or possible recourse. Do you really believe that Washington doesn't have this same power? That they will just go "oh well, guess we can't investigate this national security crisis because Google said so". That's clearly ridiculous. Washington has the power and resources to break into datacenters if compelled. > It’s not ideological; one clearly exerts more control than the other, by an order of magnitude. It is clearly ideological (a priori, CCP = bad) and you have not demonstrated that one is vastly more controlling than the other.
- samtheprogram 5y ago
  > Donald Trump? Jan 6? Julian Assange? Chelsea Manning? While I don’t agree with the prosecution of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning was pardoned and censorship of Donald Trump was done by the businesses themselves due to cultural reasons. That had nothing to do with the US Government (of which Donald Trump was running the executive branch at the time). It’s also far different than having all dissent being censored, and as a business being liable for any and all dissent that is not censored on your platform. > Do you really believe that Washington doesn't have this same power? That they will just go "oh well, guess we can't investigate this national security crisis because Google said so". That's clearly ridiculous. Washington has the power and resources to break into datacenters if compelled. That’s pure conjecture. In your words, provide some evidence to dig deeper. Either way, Washington having to break into a domestic data center to get their information is different than the law explicitly stating that all domestic business are a part of the national security apparatus and requiring businesses hand anything over no questions asked — the latter of which is “vastly more controlling than the other”.

pphysch 5y ago

> The CCP is also known to enforce censoring government critical speech on their platforms including TikTok. Donald Trump? Jan 6? Julian Assange? Chelsea Manning? There are countless examples of USG censorship. Just because you don't ideologically agree with the victims does not absolve the act of censorship. > National Intelligence Law also allows the CCP to request from businesses any data unlimited in scope without a warrant or possible recourse. Do you really believe that Washington doesn't have this same power? That they will just go "oh well, guess we can't investigate this national security crisis because Google said so". That's clearly ridiculous. Washington has the power and resources to break into datacenters if compelled. > It’s not ideological; one clearly exerts more control than the other, by an order of magnitude. It is clearly ideological (a priori, CCP = bad) and you have not demonstrated that one is vastly more controlling than the other.

samtheprogram 5y ago
> Donald Trump? Jan 6? Julian Assange? Chelsea Manning? While I don’t agree with the prosecution of Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning was pardoned and censorship of Donald Trump was done by the businesses themselves due to cultural reasons. That had nothing to do with the US Government (of which Donald Trump was running the executive branch at the time). It’s also far different than having all dissent being censored, and as a business being liable for any and all dissent that is not censored on your platform. > Do you really believe that Washington doesn't have this same power? That they will just go "oh well, guess we can't investigate this national security crisis because Google said so". That's clearly ridiculous. Washington has the power and resources to break into datacenters if compelled. That’s pure conjecture. In your words, provide some evidence to dig deeper. Either way, Washington having to break into a domestic data center to get their information is different than the law explicitly stating that all domestic business are a part of the national security apparatus and requiring businesses hand anything over no questions asked — the latter of which is “vastly more controlling than the other”.