[kypro]

> The Internet cannot remain free if we allow governments to use their power to control narratives and suppress the truth. US-based Social media companies are not ideal judges, but at least they publish their methodology.

Would it be too cynical to suggest the only reason they're doing this is because they don't operate in mainland China? Do you think they would write a report like this if they found the US government trying to push a pro-democracy narrative into China instead?

This puts them on the right side of US regulators where as exposing a US propaganda campaign, not so much. It's not about truth, or what's morally right, it's about money.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Do you think they would write a report like this if they found the US government trying to push a pro-democracy narrative into China instead?

Yes.

It might be framed differently. But besides being something that can be uncovered by a myriad of legal mechanisms (FOIA, state AG suits, sunshine laws, et cetera), it would almost certainly emerge in quarterly risk factor disclosures around political retribution.

[Canada]

> Do you think they would write a report like this if they found the US government trying to push a pro-democracy narrative into China instead?

Yes, they would. No doubt about it.

> This puts them on the right side of US regulators where as exposing a US propaganda campaign, not so much.

Which regulator do you think would object to such a revelation?

> It's not about truth, or what's morally right, it's about money.

Yeah, that's often true, but if it's true that Hong Kongers living under a system where due process is respected is also what's good for "money", then "money" and what's morally right happen to be aligned this time.

[liuliu]

Hong Kong has independent jurisdiction system. So yes, they are living under a system where due process is respected.

[Canada]

What's that worth to Hong Kongers when they can simply be renditioned to Beijing?

Does it make sense to you why Americans were extremely upset when the US government did that to people in foreign countries during the Bush administration?

[liuliu]

First, they cannot be renditioned. That's what this protest is about.

Yes. It is upset. It is also upsetting that the U.S. actually have limited due process as well (thus, can forfeit the asset without due process). There are practical reasons why, but it is still ideologically upsetting.

[Canada]

Late reply, sorry.

My understanding is that the now suspended new law would make it legal for Beijing to have a person taken from Hong Kong with nothing more than the signoff of the CE, who is basically Beijing's appointee. It's my opinion that there is no due process in PRC, so it's effectively making Hong Kongers subject to renditioning.

I agree that civil forfeiture as practiced for the last 20 years in the United States is wrong and needs to stop. The US government does some horribly unjust things, sometimes for decades without being checked. Few commentors on this web site would deny that. It's very important that governments don't get away with criminalizing dissent otherwise it's even more difficult to stop other excesses and abuses.

[sword_smith]

> Would it be too cynical to suggest the only reason they're doing this is because they don't operate in mainland China? Do you think they would write a report like this if they found the US government trying to push a pro-democracy narrative into China instead?

Excellent point. Snowden's revelations show that US tech companies have been threatened to comply with the three-letter agencies' demands. The US govenrment already has a lot of leverage over these companies, so they don't need to use these more primitive methods.