[throwaway290]

Because when a small group of elites with permament term and no elections decides what is allowed and what isn't... and has full control of silencing what's not allowed and any meta discussion about the silencing itself... is different from when an elected government decides it, and then anyone is free to raise a stink on whatever is their version of twitter today without worrying about being disappeared tomorrow

[snapcaster]

It's not an elected government if you're talking about the US. These policies are also all decided by "elites with permanent term and no elections" you realize right?

[throwaway290]

> It's not an elected government if you're talking about the US

If you don't believe US has elections then straighten up your tinfoil hat:)

Maybe you'll say next the earth is flat, if you think people have nothing better to do but to find ways to lie to you.

[snapcaster]

I don't feel like this was a good faith interpretation of my comment. What i'm saying is that in the US and China, censorship is decided by unelected officials. In one case it's CPC in another case it's corporate executives

[throwaway290]

That makes even less sense as a comparison. Sure Instagram censored anti-Trump posts for a day but in case you didn't notice you are free to discuss that without fearing suppression or jail.

[snapcaster]

Come on man why are you doing this? I didn't say censorship was the same in america or china you're just trying to find something to disagree with

[throwaway290]

> Why would China censoring Tiananmen Square/whatever out of their LLMs be anymore harmful to the training process when the US controlled LLMs also censor certain topics, eg "how do I make meth?" or "how do I make a nuclear bomb?".

I was explaining why it is more harmful and thought you were arguing it is not harmful?