[cjdoc29]

On a personal level, yes, I'd be much less concerned with China having my data than my own government.

On a national scale? Well, I certainly do not want an adversary with an interest in overtaking the U.S. have both data and means to manipulate the opinions of its citizens.

[epups]

I see, so America should block and filter content its government judges to be adversarial. Shall we call it the great freedom firewall?

[throwthrowuknow]

Big difference between preventing information getting in vs getting out.

[int_19h]

Is it really? Both look like hallmarks of an authoritarian society to me: you don't want your subjects to have access to any information that might lead them to inconvenient questions, and you also don't want your subjects to smuggle out information that contradicts official reports.

[throwthrowuknow]

Depends on the information, do you want to open source the manufacturing process for hydrogen bombs?

[unity1001]

> with an interest in overtaking the U.S. have both data and means to manipulate the opinions of its citizens

How is that any different from the US itself. People seem to have forgotten the WMD lie...

[unethical_ban]

One is my government, one is a hostile government. Why do you suggest they are the same? Why do you imply I approve of the US doing it too?

Your argument leans on whataboutism.

[infamouscow]

It seems that you may not be fully informed about the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, often referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act. This significant piece of legislation aimed to shield American citizens from being influenced by propaganda disseminated by organizations such as the CIA.

In 2012, the act was updated to accommodate the prevalence of the Internet, and has led to an increase in the spread of government propaganda. Individuals who unwittingly perpetuate these false narratives may inadvertently be contributing to the deterioration of the Western world, all for the benefit of a select few who manipulate situations for their personal gain.

It's essential to recognize that remaining ignorant on such matters is not acceptable. We must strive to educate ourselves and be critical of the information we consume. If this is your first exposure to the Smith-Mundt Act, it may be time to reflect on whether you have been misled in the past.

Also, "whataboutism" only serves to stifle meaningful conversation and hinder our ability to understand different perspectives. To foster a healthy exchange of ideas, we must commit to evaluating arguments based on their merits, rather than resorting to discrediting tactics that have been employed by evil political parties you think you're against.

[unethical_ban]

If you ever have conversation with people in meat space and wonder why they don't listen to your incredible wisdom, consider that sounding like a condescending, well, I can't say it on HN.

Being condescending does not help you win arguments.

After I got past your tone, I saw you completely ignored the part where I said my disapproval of Chinese spyware does not imply approval of American spyware.

EDIT- Let the record show that infamouscow substantially edited their remarks above without noting it. The tone was indeed condescending and referred to me as a marionette.

[infamouscow]

I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives.

If one chooses not to actively participate in the exchange of ideas, it may lead to a perception that the informed individuals are being condescending, when in reality they're sharing knowledge and perspectives.

[unethical_ban]

You edited your original post to be more acceptable, didn't acknowledge it, then doubled down on implying I don't want to engage. Shame on you.

I'm eager to exchange ideas, but it's important to engage with those who are genuinely interested in constructive dialogue and are open to considering different perspectives.

I am willing and able to debate the nature of all governments and to acknowledge history. I don't enjoy sarcasm, snide remarks, and unacknowledged bad faith edits.

[Jochim]

To be honest, the hostility appears to be coming from one side in particular...

[unity1001]

> One is my government, one is a hostile government. Why do you suggest they are the same?

Your government was the one kidnapping its own citizens through 'rendition flights' totally outside the legal apparatus and holding and torturing them whenever it wanted. It still does that.

Your government has power over you. Not China. If you would be concerned about 'opinion manipulation', there is still the open issue of the Iraqi WMDs lie and the entire false reality created by that very government of yours and its private sector extensions. If you are not worried about that, you would have no grounds to be worried about 'hostile' governments.

And what does 'hostile' even mean? You think that China or any other country cares about what you do as a singular American? And their hostility is toward you, the random American in god knows where in the US and not instead towards your government that is openly, explicitly, directly saying that it is targeting China in total violation of the international laws? Are you aware that any such threat or open admission of intent of economic or actual warfare from a country that can follow up those threats gives a legitimate casus belli against the targeted country and triggers the Article 51 of the UN convention?

Its amazing how the Americans think that they have anything in common with their government and establishment and they literally claim shared interest...

> whataboutism

There is nothing wrong about 'whataboutism'. Those who make moral, legal, ethical accusations have to provide an objective framework for their accustion. You cant just smear others while your own side does even worse things than what you accuse others of. Without an objective framework, any kind of moral accusation becomes a mere smear.

Chinese government does not have the power to abduct you without telling anyone, hold you in an undisclosed location for however long it wants without telling anyone. The US president does. No other president and government in the world has that kind of openly legislated power. Not even any secret service anywhere has been given that power. And yet you worry about 'other governments'.

This behavior pattern seems more like projecting the troubles at home to abroad to avoid cognitive dissonance than any actual concern...

[Mountain_Skies]

Or the COVID lies, but most aren't willing to admit they got fooled again like they did with WMDs.

[palata]

Cambridge Analytica and Trump 2016? I think they leveraged US companies.