|
|
|
|
|
by throw10920
1456 days ago
|
|
Yup. As a trivial example, the US neither has a "misinformation control agency" like Roskomnadzor, nor requires companies to implement real-time monitoring+censorship of restricted language into their communication products (a la China [1]). Comparisons between these tyrannical governments and the US fall somewhere between "ignorant" and "willfully deceitful". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_China |
|
But aside from that, the US government happily pressures companies with unrelated retribution for not following orders. Instead of an agency that has staff, process, records, etc. you get threats directed at particular people e.g. this regulatory judgment at company X that you own will go against you if you don't do this thing that we've press released that we're asking company Y that you own to do. Or your contracts get dropped.
It's like the US justice system in general, where they'll do things like making you plead guilty to something in order to keep your sister's children from being taken away.
Is that preferable? Are you seriously saying that you still want this stuff to be done, but you hate that it's done above board, in public?
Misinformation warriors criticize this stuff in other countries while simultaneously supporting it here. They've also started saying "false equivalence" together over the past year (maybe an influential book or blog?) which for them means that censorship is good in the US because we only censor bad things, but censorship is bad when our enemies do it because they censor good things. You can pair it with "whataboutism" which has also changed in meaning - it used to mean that someone answered your criticism of something (Soviet business freedoms) with a completely unrelated charge against you (that you are an apartheid state.) Now it means that when you criticize Russia for invading another country, when they criticize you for invading another country that's "whataboutism" because they're the bad guys and we're the good guys.
These arguments wouldn't convince children if laid bare rather than being paired with accusations that you're probably a Russian or Chinese spy if you disagree with them, and that eventually they'll come for you and give you what you deserve.
> fall somewhere between "ignorant" and "willfully deceitful".
I mean, this is a threat, right?