[jamieb]

Why buy a computer from a company that has ties to the US government, an authoritarian government that supports dictators in Africa, the Middle-East, South America, and East Asia, including torture, drug smuggling, misogyny, and has itself engaged in abduction, detention without trial, and in relation to this case, illegal interception of communications?

[fown9]

1.) Which US computer company has ties to US government? Literally owned by the government?

2.) How is US government authoritarian? Have you actually lived in a country that has no elected representative?

[fnordfnordfnord]

1.) Lenovo isn't owned by the CCP.

2.) In the way that a company can be compelled to comply with an order from the government, including the requirement that the company may not disclose to anyone the nature of that order or the gag order, and that there is effectively no way to challenge such orders in a court of law.

>Have you actually lived in a country that has no elected representative?

Yes. What difference is that supposed to make?

[JadeNB]

> 1.) Which US computer company has ties to US government? Literally owned by the government?

But Lenovo isn't owned by the Chinese government, either.

> 2.) How is US government authoritarian? Have you actually lived in a country that has no elected representative?

The existence of more dictatorial countries doesn't mean the US isn't authoritarian—it is a spectrum rather than a dichotomy.

[joshuapants]

You would have to really flex the definition of authoritarian to include the US, to the point of making the word uselessly broad.

[JadeNB]

The OED says:

> Favourable to or characterized by obedience to authority as opposed to personal liberty; strict, dictatorial.

It's certainly reasonable to argue about whether this actually applies; but I don't think that it represents a useless dilution of the word to think that it might. (Well, not 'dictatorial', but the rest of it.)

[Jtsummers]

I'd like to hear that argument and not just the assertion that it is arguable.

[JadeNB]

Actually I meant by

> It's certainly reasonable to argue about whether this actually applies

literally that it is reasonable to argue, i.e., that neither position is obviously irrefutably true; and also I think I've created enough of a de-rail already here; but, if I had to make an argument for authoritarianism, I think that I would claim that the concept of free-speech zones instantly implies, for some parts of US government at some times, more respect for authority than personal liberty.

[dTal]

You know, you can have "elected" "representatives" and still be authoritarian. You can make sure the ballot only has people you like on it, you can ignore what the representatives have to say, you can lie to the representatives so their decisions are compromised, you can restrict the flow of information to the electorate so their decisions are compromised... All of the above happen in the US. Hell, China has elected representatives - they're just all from the same party.

"Don't blame me - I voted for Kodos." - Homer J. Simpson.