China holds drill to shut down 'harmful' websites(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
China holds drill to shut down 'harmful' websites
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-40830048
76 comments
I'm curious -- are you a Chinese national? I feel like I keep seeing userXYZ's posting pro-China whataboutism every chance possible.
I really don't think using rhetoric like "whataboutism" as a distraction when someone points out some sort of hypocrisy promotes conversation in any useful way.
I'd agree in general, but I have noticed that particular topics have a way of provoking a lot of comments that do seem 'suspicious'.
I've found that while in practice these comments are often by otherwise somewhat acceptable HN commenters and not shills, they are often noticeably more partisan/controversial/low-quality than their other comments.
Specifically, this seems to happen with discussions that involve particular nation states (India, Turkey, Russia, Serbia, China are at the top of my list), as well as particular topics (gender, Trump, socialism/capitalism, etc.).
While I do agree that pointing this out violates the principle of charity and possibly hurts the conversation, it's still a 'dynamic' that kind of stands out.
EDIT: this is more of a general 'observation', not necessarily applicable to this particular thread.
I've found that while in practice these comments are often by otherwise somewhat acceptable HN commenters and not shills, they are often noticeably more partisan/controversial/low-quality than their other comments.
Specifically, this seems to happen with discussions that involve particular nation states (India, Turkey, Russia, Serbia, China are at the top of my list), as well as particular topics (gender, Trump, socialism/capitalism, etc.).
While I do agree that pointing this out violates the principle of charity and possibly hurts the conversation, it's still a 'dynamic' that kind of stands out.
EDIT: this is more of a general 'observation', not necessarily applicable to this particular thread.
It's curious that you leave the US out of your list of nation states that tend to attract particularly low-effort comments around here. In my experience this is way more pronounced with the US than any other country that's discussed on HN.
Of course any country that's discussed here is likely to attract people from that country who feel they have something to explain or defend, but due to the userbase being predominantly American the bias is very much towards the US, not India, Russia, China or whatever.
Of course any country that's discussed here is likely to attract people from that country who feel they have something to explain or defend, but due to the userbase being predominantly American the bias is very much towards the US, not India, Russia, China or whatever.
But those are all potentially controversial topics and people can get a bit passionate about things especially if they hold an opinion contrary to whatever is considered mainstream.
Especially on topics that have massive media focus. But that's healthy isn't it? Especially in a place like this that has a higher than average level of discussion.
And really so what if someone is actually a paid shill? If they can hold a reasonable discussion to get their point across and perhaps even enlighten me to something I was ignorant of then I welcome them.
In reality I imagine a paid shill would work off of some sort of set of talking points that gets pushed to an entire team but even in this case civil discussion should be able to tear apart what are likely to be fairly weak arguments.
Especially on topics that have massive media focus. But that's healthy isn't it? Especially in a place like this that has a higher than average level of discussion.
And really so what if someone is actually a paid shill? If they can hold a reasonable discussion to get their point across and perhaps even enlighten me to something I was ignorant of then I welcome them.
In reality I imagine a paid shill would work off of some sort of set of talking points that gets pushed to an entire team but even in this case civil discussion should be able to tear apart what are likely to be fairly weak arguments.
In 446 days I've made posts in 3 China-related threads, total. Including this one.
What's your point? Should the BBC which is an independent news organisation just not publish this article?
Independent as in funded by taxes the government collects.
Independence from your source of income is truly impressive. I doubt any other news organ manages it.
Independence from your source of income is truly impressive. I doubt any other news organ manages it.
The UK government doesn't collect the BBC license fee.
Only because the BBC has a special place in the law:
> In 1991, the BBC assumed the role of TV Licensing Authority with responsibility for the collection and enforcement of the licence fee.[5] The BBC is authorised by the Communications Act 2003 to collect and enforce the TV licence fee. Section 363 of the Act makes it against the law to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being broadcast without a TV Licence. Section 365 of the same Act requires the payment of the TV Licence fee to the BBC.
That hardly makes the case the BBC is Fully Independent from the British Government, which is what is being discussed here.
> In 1991, the BBC assumed the role of TV Licensing Authority with responsibility for the collection and enforcement of the licence fee.[5] The BBC is authorised by the Communications Act 2003 to collect and enforce the TV licence fee. Section 363 of the Act makes it against the law to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being broadcast without a TV Licence. Section 365 of the same Act requires the payment of the TV Licence fee to the BBC.
That hardly makes the case the BBC is Fully Independent from the British Government, which is what is being discussed here.
Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be.
Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. This is why I like the idea of a (properly funded) public news source, just not as the only source of news.
Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers. This is why I like the idea of a (properly funded) public news source, just not as the only source of news.
> Their money source is as protected from the government as it reasonably can be.
Obviously false.
> Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers.
Or have them run as a non-profit which doesn't accept advertising and instead takes donations from a huge variety of sources, including the people who watch it.
Don't pretend there are no other funding models.
Don't pretend the fact the government has a strong hand in their funding doesn't impact what they consider to be newsworthy.
Obviously false.
> Really, the alternative is you have them beholden to billionaire owners and advertisers.
Or have them run as a non-profit which doesn't accept advertising and instead takes donations from a huge variety of sources, including the people who watch it.
Don't pretend there are no other funding models.
Don't pretend the fact the government has a strong hand in their funding doesn't impact what they consider to be newsworthy.
> Obviously false.
Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny.
That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect.
> Don't pretend there are no other funding models.
I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.
Justify this. The funding is legislated into place in such a way that they are not subject to the whims of a new budget. Removing it would require actually changing the law, which ensures that a government trying to do so is subject to scrutiny.
That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect.
> Don't pretend there are no other funding models.
I didn't. Don't put words in my mouth.
> That seems about as good as you can reasonably expect.
... assuming you want the news to be government-funded and, therefore, government-run.
Some of us see a problem in that.
... assuming you want the news to be government-funded and, therefore, government-run.
Some of us see a problem in that.
Oh? What happens if you refuse to pay it?
What happens if you hack your cable and get free service, then are found out?
There's a difference between actively stealing service and owning a television. It's not like BBC is the only thing available in the UK.
You can own a TV and not pay a TV license, it's not a problem.
In theory that's true. In practice it really isn't.
Yes it is. I have a TV. I don't pay TV license. I don't know how I can prove to you though.
I haven't had a TV license for a few years actually. Never been bothered beyond the occasional letter.
I haven't had a TV license for a few years actually. Never been bothered beyond the occasional letter.
> A document circulating online and attributed to a cyber police unit said the drill had been held "in order to step up online security for the 19th Party Congress and tackle the problem of smaller websites illegally disseminating harmful information"
If true, the Chinese government isn't even pretending this information is "fake" or "untrue", but instead they just find "harmful".
If true, the Chinese government isn't even pretending this information is "fake" or "untrue", but instead they just find "harmful".
I may be wrong, but I don't think they have historically claimed that, generally speaking... they've censored all manner of content that they simply don't like and been pretty unabashed about it. I mean, they may have claimed that certain events didn't happen but that's only tangentially related to their Internet censorship policies.
Considering true information as "harmful" is perfectly normal in Western societies as well (in certain contexts). The U.S. government response to leaks from Chelsea Manning, Snowden, and the leaks flowing right now from the current administration have been similar: "The REAL problem is how damaging this leak is!"
I don't mean to imply that it's an acceptable thing to think, or that the U.S. is as authoritarian as China (it's not by an order of magnitude), but contextualizing this makes it seem less surprising. If we're more alarmed, we should have been this alarmed to begin with. This is the party that spearheaded the Cultural Revolution and erected the Great Firewall... this kind of behavior is very par for the course.
I don't mean to imply that it's an acceptable thing to think, or that the U.S. is as authoritarian as China (it's not by an order of magnitude), but contextualizing this makes it seem less surprising. If we're more alarmed, we should have been this alarmed to begin with. This is the party that spearheaded the Cultural Revolution and erected the Great Firewall... this kind of behavior is very par for the course.
There's a difference between being harmful to an administrative agenda, and harmful to people.
It's one thing to publish a leak detailing corruption which "harms" the agenda and reputation of the criminals engaged in it. Boo on them. "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be."
It's another to publish a leak that reveals identities and plans made in secret, and gets people killed.
Somewhere in the middle are leaks like yesterday's transcripts of Trump talking to Australia and Mexico: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/austra... Perhaps world leaders should be able to speak together confidentially, and perhaps these transcripts will 'harm' people in the future when politicians are less able to communicate frankly because the conversations are public.
It's one thing to publish a leak detailing corruption which "harms" the agenda and reputation of the criminals engaged in it. Boo on them. "That which can be destroyed by the truth should be."
It's another to publish a leak that reveals identities and plans made in secret, and gets people killed.
Somewhere in the middle are leaks like yesterday's transcripts of Trump talking to Australia and Mexico: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/austra... Perhaps world leaders should be able to speak together confidentially, and perhaps these transcripts will 'harm' people in the future when politicians are less able to communicate frankly because the conversations are public.
The government made no serious attempt to censor the contents of leaks once leaked. Once the papers get their hands on something, it becomes public. The "censorship" activity here is to identify, punish, and deter people in positions of privileged access to "black" information who transfer it to the public domain, not people in the "clear" world who repeat that information.
The press still publishes the information and the government generally doesn't get to censor it.
The government is free to try and stop leaks. That's not the same thing as censorship.
The level of secrecy a government operates under is a massive issue, but it's not the same one.
> this kind of behavior is very par for the course.
That doesn't mean we should normalize it.
The government is free to try and stop leaks. That's not the same thing as censorship.
The level of secrecy a government operates under is a massive issue, but it's not the same one.
> this kind of behavior is very par for the course.
That doesn't mean we should normalize it.
What is the Chinese state going to do about the 'harmful' information that is encoded in various blockchains, Bitcoin's[1] being one example?
[1]: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z4k73w/someone-pu...
[1]: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z4k73w/someone-pu...
What You See Is All There Is
If the lion share of people can't see it, it doesn't exist.
If the lion share of people can't see it, it doesn't exist.
In the west, its the corporations that decide what content is considered "harmful" and remove it. Ex: youtube, patreon, twitter, etc.
Any forum that doesn't censor at least some content is abused until it either starts censoring or becomes unusable.
The key difference is that you're allowed to make your own platform and set whatever rules you like
The key difference is that you're allowed to make your own platform and set whatever rules you like
What about shadow regulation where government regulators censor information they legally cannot censor for 1st amendment issues but de facto can by increasing their regulatory levers on companies to stand up to state level censorship
> The key difference is that you're allowed to make your own platform and set whatever rules you like
But can you really? What if suddenly Google decides your platform is producing fake news?
But can you really? What if suddenly Google decides your platform is producing fake news?
There's a tremendous difference between private companies deciding what to do with their own platforms, and the government dictating what all companies must do with their platforms.
Imagine a scenario if Facebook decides to censor content based on their political stance. That potentially impacts 2B people. The worst case impact of Chinese censoring 1.4B. Again, I am comparing worst cases, I know.
And as we know Facebook was actively doing exactly that.
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp...
And as we know Facebook was actively doing exactly that.
http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-supp...
Well, the difference is still there. You can switch to a different social network without too much difficulty (you miss out on that platform, but that's as far as the cost goes); You can't just declare yourself as part of a different country without actually up and moving there, changing your job, getting the new place, and rebuilding most of your connections, and potentially learn a new language depending on where you move.
[deleted]
Except that people can just leave facebook and go use something else if they don't like it.
Don't get me wrong, I am deeply disturbed by the level on control facebook (and google) exhibit over news, information, the internet. But it's a fundamentally different thing then the government doing it.
Don't get me wrong, I am deeply disturbed by the level on control facebook (and google) exhibit over news, information, the internet. But it's a fundamentally different thing then the government doing it.
I remember one of the wiki leaks releases from last year implied that google/Facebook had the capability to shift political opinion by selecting what people are exposed to.
When the government does this I think it's actually less harmful because people are aware the government wants to manipulate opinion.
The capability to individually tailor propaganda like is already done with advertising is much worse I think.
When the government does this I think it's actually less harmful because people are aware the government wants to manipulate opinion.
The capability to individually tailor propaganda like is already done with advertising is much worse I think.
Not as much as you'd think. Companies like Google and Facebook have government contracts and even if they didn't it would be trivially easy for the administrative state to attack them with tax or anti-trust law.
They'll do what the government wants them to do, as long as it doesn't threaten the bottom line.
They'll do what the government wants them to do, as long as it doesn't threaten the bottom line.
Really, is there?
I was born in a communist country and when I was a kid, there was a joke:
In the socialistic countries, the government owns the businesses. In capitalist countries, it's the other way around.
Think about it a little, and then apply your argument again.
I was born in a communist country and when I was a kid, there was a joke:
In the socialistic countries, the government owns the businesses. In capitalist countries, it's the other way around.
Think about it a little, and then apply your argument again.
In the US, if you don't like some company's content policies, you can, with a bit of effort, start your own company. (Whether it can generate revenue enough to support itself is a separate problem.)
In China, if you don't like the government's policies, you can try starting your own government. Good luck.
In China, if you don't like the government's policies, you can try starting your own government. Good luck.
Starting your own youtube/facebook-like platform with all it's network effects is similar to starting your own government.
Youtube/facebook won't throw you in jail for creating a competitor. The government will usually take exception to you trying to start your own government on their land.
In the US if you don't like your internet provider you can shut up and keep paying because the government helped them get a localized monopoly. Google can swing regulators from "anti-trust" to "it's all good they said they would fix it". Lobbyists write legislation.
The level of corporate control in the US is disturbingly high. Ultimately they are weaker than the federal government.
The level of corporate control in the US is disturbingly high. Ultimately they are weaker than the federal government.
What do you feel that difference to be?
If I make a website and put in a comment section, I'm well within my rights to curate it and prune content I don't subjectively find positive.
If the government comes in and tells me to delete comments because they don't like them, that's a WHOLE other ball game.
If the government comes in and tells me to delete comments because they don't like them, that's a WHOLE other ball game.
When the government blames you for "spreading terrorism" without explicitly telling you what to delete, what happens then?
How about when they tell you to play ball or they're cancelling their contracts with you, which will ultimately destroy your company? (Similarly, when they insinuate that you'll receive contracts if you're compliant -- and your rival might if they're compliant instead.)
It's not (and has never been) do whatever you want with your company, once you reach a certain size. In fact, I don't think most of us actually want that. (Also, arguably, your comment section is a public accommodation and you're legally requires not to discriminate on certain bases.)
I'm not implying that the US is the same as China in this regard -- I'm pointing out that they US does regulate content in an authoritarian way, they simply vest that authority in private lobbying groups and exercise it via back-channel deals.
I find that worse than the open authoritarianism with an obvious source of blame, even if it's a "milder" authoritarianism in terms of effects.
How about when they tell you to play ball or they're cancelling their contracts with you, which will ultimately destroy your company? (Similarly, when they insinuate that you'll receive contracts if you're compliant -- and your rival might if they're compliant instead.)
It's not (and has never been) do whatever you want with your company, once you reach a certain size. In fact, I don't think most of us actually want that. (Also, arguably, your comment section is a public accommodation and you're legally requires not to discriminate on certain bases.)
I'm not implying that the US is the same as China in this regard -- I'm pointing out that they US does regulate content in an authoritarian way, they simply vest that authority in private lobbying groups and exercise it via back-channel deals.
I find that worse than the open authoritarianism with an obvious source of blame, even if it's a "milder" authoritarianism in terms of effects.
If you were to put Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech on your website, the government can force you to take it down under copyright law. Both the US and China censor free speech, they just do it differently.
Dr. Kings descendents are free to publish it as much as they want. I can say Donald Trump is an asshole without a shred of honesty or character and not risk arrest.
It remains that in a country which brags of its freedom of speech you could be arrested for replaying the words of a civil rights activist who was assasinated 50 years ago.
"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
"When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."
I can buy a domain and host whatever unpopular opinion I want to.
Unless, of course, you host an opinion that is so unpopular it has been declared unlawful (say, with regards to child porn or advertising assasination services or something). In that case you would soon discover that any society censors certain opinions. It's just that the Chinese government has a different opinion than most westerners about which opinions are intolerable.
You can call for legalizing CASM all you want. You just can't host it. The US protects political oppinion.
Not if your hosting company or ISP takes you down. Same as when Youtube/Facebook remove your content.
It is in their right to bow to pressure from outside, from players bigger than you. After all, they are companies, they can do whatever they want, right?
It is in their right to bow to pressure from outside, from players bigger than you. After all, they are companies, they can do whatever they want, right?
so you can buy a domain and host unpopular opinion like supporting KKK? that is pretty bad, it is the complete opposite being "free".
Does that argument fly anymore when corporations are so much more powerful than most nations?
FB and google both have a larger population than china. Censorship by FB or Google is far more harmful/effective than whatever the chinese government does.
Also, would we support corporations right to censor if they were censoring content we disagreed with? Imagine if FB/Youtube/Verizon/etc started censoring lgbt content. Would we still use the "private companies" can do whatever they want argument?
Given how powerful many companies are ( especially monopolistic companies like FB/GOOG ) maybe it's time corporations are required to protect free speech like corporations are required to protect the rights of minorities/disabled/etc.
FB and google both have a larger population than china. Censorship by FB or Google is far more harmful/effective than whatever the chinese government does.
Also, would we support corporations right to censor if they were censoring content we disagreed with? Imagine if FB/Youtube/Verizon/etc started censoring lgbt content. Would we still use the "private companies" can do whatever they want argument?
Given how powerful many companies are ( especially monopolistic companies like FB/GOOG ) maybe it's time corporations are required to protect free speech like corporations are required to protect the rights of minorities/disabled/etc.
> Does that argument fly anymore when corporations are so much more powerful than most nations?
Anymore? Corporations were radically more powerful in the past than they are today.
US Steel, the railroads, Standard Oil, JP Morgan they were all more powerful than the US Government a little over a century ago. Rockefeller all by himself was financially more powerful than the US Government; he actually bailed out the government, a concept entirely impossible today. Contrast that with Gates or Bezos, they're not even pikers by comparison to the US Govt and Federal Reserve. Just one month of the recent QE program from the Fed is about equal to the richest person in the US.
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are all a joke compared to the power of the Federal Government in all possible regards. Alibaba, Baidu etc are a joke compared to the power of the Communist Party in China; the CCP can destroy or seize those corporations any day of the week.
Even mighty Samsung isn't more powerful than the South Korean Government - as recently demonstrated - and it's a rather extreme example. Turns out the guns give you a very solid upper-hand, even when you're equivalent in size to 13% of your nation's GDP.
Anymore? Corporations were radically more powerful in the past than they are today.
US Steel, the railroads, Standard Oil, JP Morgan they were all more powerful than the US Government a little over a century ago. Rockefeller all by himself was financially more powerful than the US Government; he actually bailed out the government, a concept entirely impossible today. Contrast that with Gates or Bezos, they're not even pikers by comparison to the US Govt and Federal Reserve. Just one month of the recent QE program from the Fed is about equal to the richest person in the US.
Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon and Apple are all a joke compared to the power of the Federal Government in all possible regards. Alibaba, Baidu etc are a joke compared to the power of the Communist Party in China; the CCP can destroy or seize those corporations any day of the week.
Even mighty Samsung isn't more powerful than the South Korean Government - as recently demonstrated - and it's a rather extreme example. Turns out the guns give you a very solid upper-hand, even when you're equivalent in size to 13% of your nation's GDP.
I disagree that corporations are more powerful than nations, because FB and google can't compel you to do anything.
If I opt out of google, then I miss out on google's services. If I "opt out" of my country's laws, I go to prison.
Google censorship only controls what people say on google. Government censorship can control what their citizens say anywhere.
If I opt out of google, then I miss out on google's services. If I "opt out" of my country's laws, I go to prison.
Google censorship only controls what people say on google. Government censorship can control what their citizens say anywhere.
> I disagree that corporations are more powerful than nations, because FB and google can't compel you to do anything.
Not directly but they could get the government to act on their behalf. Also, I'd say FB, GOOGL are more powerful than most nations. I don't think monaco or luxemburg are more powerful than FB or GOOGL.
> If I opt out of google, then I miss out on google's services. If I "opt out" of my country's laws, I go to prison.
But if corporations can get the government to make the laws. Also, if your job requires you to have a facebook account or an internet connection and FB or AT&T "ban" you, that could be damaging to you.
> Google censorship only controls what people say on google. Government censorship can control what their citizens say anywhere.
In another way. Google censorship censors you on google on earth. Government censorship only controls you within a nation's borders. You could argue that google's censorship is global while a government's censorship is local.
When it comes to large transnational monopolies like GOOG and FB, in many ways their censorship is far more damaging and dangerous. Even more so when you consider the influence large monopolies have over governments and laws.
Whatever your views, it's a very interest topic.
Not directly but they could get the government to act on their behalf. Also, I'd say FB, GOOGL are more powerful than most nations. I don't think monaco or luxemburg are more powerful than FB or GOOGL.
> If I opt out of google, then I miss out on google's services. If I "opt out" of my country's laws, I go to prison.
But if corporations can get the government to make the laws. Also, if your job requires you to have a facebook account or an internet connection and FB or AT&T "ban" you, that could be damaging to you.
> Google censorship only controls what people say on google. Government censorship can control what their citizens say anywhere.
In another way. Google censorship censors you on google on earth. Government censorship only controls you within a nation's borders. You could argue that google's censorship is global while a government's censorship is local.
When it comes to large transnational monopolies like GOOG and FB, in many ways their censorship is far more damaging and dangerous. Even more so when you consider the influence large monopolies have over governments and laws.
Whatever your views, it's a very interest topic.
>> Does that argument fly anymore when corporations are so much more powerful than most nations?
They're not. The government has the power to stop them at any time and if they don't want to go that far can easily put pressure on them. Just look at the whole 'fake news' thing in the last year and the fact that companies have had to respond to that in quite a major way.
They're not. The government has the power to stop them at any time and if they don't want to go that far can easily put pressure on them. Just look at the whole 'fake news' thing in the last year and the fact that companies have had to respond to that in quite a major way.
> Would we still use the "private companies" can do whatever they want argument?
At some point I would think you would run into anti-discrimination laws, but short of that sure do what you want.
I'm free to say to those users "hey, come post here my lgbt brothers/sisters/anything in between. Come post here liberals who are pissed off about the actions of facebook/google".
Whereas if I said something against the government of china they would just toss me in prison or have me killed.
At some point I would think you would run into anti-discrimination laws, but short of that sure do what you want.
I'm free to say to those users "hey, come post here my lgbt brothers/sisters/anything in between. Come post here liberals who are pissed off about the actions of facebook/google".
Whereas if I said something against the government of china they would just toss me in prison or have me killed.
It's not tremendous at all. If a PAC gives millions to a social network to minimize opposition viewpoints, then there isn't much difference at all with what China is doing. The only variance is economic.
Yes but that's irrelevant for this article. You're trying to move the discussion away from the authoritarianism of the Chinese government and distract by discussing Western corporations.
I'd disagree. I find it relevant. Both countries are censoring, but use different means to achieve that. It's a global problem that needs a global solution.
Are UK journalists still gagged under threat of imprisonment[1] from reporting on the memo where Bush and Blair discussed bombing Al Jazeera?[2]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor–Keogh_official_secr...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O%27Connor–Keogh_official_secr...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo
Show me a website with more than a thousand or so regular users and absolutely no content moderation, and I'll show you a horrible cesspit.
It is a bad trend, and thoughtful American writers like Glenn Greenwald have written strongly against it. But the idea a government censoring the internet is a more extreme, less arguable perversion of human cooperation...
These are private sites. That's not censorship. Use a competitor or create your own site if you don't like their policies. Current cloud pricing makes hosting a pretty high volume site cost less than 25 dollars a month.
If you don't like it then use a different site. Corporate entities have zero obligation to allow you to use their platform for whatever you want.
Try making a death threat against POTUS.
I think we can all assume that threats of violence and bodily harm are not and should not be covered by the 1st amendment. Only using the US eccentric amendment as an example.
There's a pretty large difference in response to non-credible threats against POTUS Vs very credible threats against even ex-wives.
One sees huge amounts of state power used to investigate and prosecute; the other not so much, even though a significant number of people are murdered by current of former partners.
One sees huge amounts of state power used to investigate and prosecute; the other not so much, even though a significant number of people are murdered by current of former partners.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...