Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by temporalparts 585 days ago
This can't be a serious question.

US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.

They don't want an adversary to have control. Is the distinction not obvious??

1 comments

I'm very serious.

> US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.

I know. That doesn't tell me why China controlling a social media algorithm is inherently any worse from yours or my perspective.

> They don't want an adversary to have control.

Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?

>>> So why is that less of a concern than China controlling a media delivery service?

>> US Government likes US Government control because it's themselves.

> I know. That doesn't tell me why China controlling a social media algorithm is inherently any worse from yours or my perspective.

Why is it less of a concern to you if you control your bank account than if I do?

If we're not making obvious distinctions today, you should give me your bank account credentials, since we're all the same.

>> They don't want an adversary to have control.

> Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?

It is not. I have difficulty imagining your question is not founded on feigned ignorance.

China is an adversary of the US. Some optimistic and naive Western politicians in the 90s thought making them a "primary trade partner" would cause political changes that would eliminate the rivalry. They were wrong, and weakened their countries in the process. That's been clear for like ten years. Now their mistake needs to be dealt with.

> you should give me your bank account credentials, since we're all the same.

How is this comparable to the media you're consuming?

> How is this comparable to the media you're consuming?

If you can't see the point without tedious hand-holding, I can't help you.

You haven't made a point that I can see! I'm actually being genuine here, I don't know where this went off the rails for you exactly, but I would like my questions to be answered.

I'll just copypaste what I said in another thread to be as direct as possible:

I am being told that it's a "concern" but without an explanation. What are the material, concrete harms that can come from China directing the content algo?

> You haven't made a point that I can see!

I made a pretty simple and straightforward analogy, which you didn't get. Maybe you don't get the geopolitical relevance of media control, but I'd really hope you'd understand bank account control. You = the US polity, Me = China, Bank account = something an adversary could harm you by controlling.

> I'm actually being genuine here...but I would like my questions to be answered....

> I am being told that it's a "concern" but without an explanation. What are the material, concrete harms that can come from China directing the content algo?

If you're being truthful, I think you might be at the point where you have to do some basic reading first, because you seem to need more hand-holding and explanation than it's reasonable to expect. You may also have some conceptual deficits that are so basic they come off as feigned.

Large-scale, targeted psychological manipulations of the crowd into liking tyranny, hating democracy and/or each other and so on?
I wonder if once any post goes up that is relevant China's interests, an email goes out from some department in the CCP govt, then hordes of Chinese advocates descend on the comments section, arguing, diverting, obsfucating, and muddying the waters so much that no sensible conclusion can ever be made.
I've been here for years, I just constantly see a lot of talk of harms but no details of what the harms are and it's tiring.
>Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?

Absolutely not. Japan was a primary trade partner going into WW2. The US is actively preparing for wars over Taiwan.

> Is the "adversary" claim not undermined by them being a primary trade partner?

No, because there's more nuance in the world than you seem to suggest.

The gov doesn’t care about your perspective.

trade partner does not exclude adversary. Look at US-Japan trade in the 30s up until just before WW2 when the US decision to embargo exports to Japan (to try to force Japan to stop its occupation of China) led to WW2. It was a pretty quick flip from major trading partner to war.