But China never wants to hurt anyone, I read it on the internet. So, if they collect our data, it must be to help us be better people, because that’s all China wants. Everyone to be happy, with sunshine and rainbows all day long. I bet they’ll make unicorns too, and we can all be happy together.
nice try, .ml user
And now replace your statement with the US, matches perfectly, isn’t it?
Only US corps can sell US people info, Chinese corps can’t…
The U.S. lawmakers say ByteDance may be using the app to collect data on Americans and pass it on to the Chinese government. The app’s algorithms also are capable of influencing public opinion in the United States, where the platform has about 150 million users
That’s not a selling data concern.
It’s the same Meta, Twitter, Reddit and all west centralized social media are doing but instead of be working for communists they are working for fascists.
I know this is what-about-ism but I really wish we cared half as much about Meta having already destabilized the last two presidential elections.
Same here. Generally, I really hate the whataboutism people hop to, but in this case they literally crafted a bill for one company/set of specific companies… they could have easily made it more wide ranging and solved multiple issues with one bill. I feel the “but these others are also doing it and you should have thought about that” is valid criticism of this bill.
China isn’t communist.
That’s kind of the no true Christian argument. China is Communist in some ways, like it has a “Communist” party that knows best what’s good for the people. Clearly according to communist doctrine, automatically and unavoidably leading to a authoritarian government, that has happened in ALL communist countries.
This reminds me of a famous quote from Karl Marx:
“If you call yourself a communist, you must be a communist”
In a way yes. Except other communists will always complain that any attempt of implementing communism isn’t true communism, because they always fail.
But people who favor democracy, have less trouble identifying that communism doesn’t really work, and accept it as communism despite the failures of actually living up to the ideals.
The current communist regime in China came to power through a communist revolution by the people, at what point exactly did it fail to be communist?I think your problem is assuming that just because a revolution is led by a person who purports to be communist, therefore the new regime established by that person must also be communist, even after almost a hundred years of political evolution. Just because they put “The People’s X” on everything doesn’t mean that any of it is actually operating in a way which upholds any of the ideals of communism as described by Marx.
China is an authoritarian capitalist oligarchy. There’s some state intervention for welfare, but honestly not that much more than a country like the US (eg. both have for-profit healthcare, both have a pretty jingoist/exploitative attitude toward other countries, both have a prison-industrial complex, both have rampant wealth inequality).
I hear ya man. It really gets my goat when people say the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea isn’t a Democratic Republic. Like, it’s right there in the name.
Strawman argument, that clearly shows you don’t get the no true Christian fallacy.
Not at all. My statement simply pointed out a common mistake many people make when misusing the “No True Scotsman” or “appeal to purity” fallacy, as you did. This fallacy occurs when there is no clear, objective definition available, or when someone dismisses a valid counterexample.
That’s why, since you have a clear definition in mind of what a Democratic Republic is, you immediately recognized the misuse of the term in North Korea’s case, and thus wouldn’t argue that stating it isn’t truly a Democratic Republic constitutes a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The same reasoning applies to China and Communism.
Communism is a political, social, and economic ideology advocating for the replacement of private ownership and profit-based economies with a classless system of communal ownership. However, China has actively promoted private entrepreneurship and foreign investment, fostering the growth of a private sector. Therefore, China cannot be considered Communist.
The definition of Communism can be tested and evaluated. China’s policies diverge from this definable concept, thus it doesn’t fall under the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Edit: I just read further down, and realized you actually believe the only criteria for being part of a group is calling yourself as such.
“If you call yourself a communist, you must be a communist”
In a way yes… accept it as communism despite the failures of actually living up to the ideals.
So… yeah, you honestly just don’t understand the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. But you do have a fun definition, by which the claim that North Korea is a Democratic Republic is affirmed. After all, if you call yourself a Democratic Republic, “in a way yes” you are.
Yea, isn’t it just “media is capable of influencing public opinion in the United States”? Lots of news about Nazi stuff on twitter so I doubt this law is about protecting the social fabric of the U.S.
If you replace government with authorities it’s basically the same. US authorities also buy information from tech companies, which has been very clearly revealed on several occasions, where police buy information that would be illegal to set up the surveillance to get themselves. Obviously when police and intelligence services do it, it’s practically the same as the government. It’s just weird to claim the “government” can do it, because of course they can. Just like USA has made regulation that American companies can’t claim secrecy on things they have on servers in EU, if a court or authorities ask for it, despite EU regulation makes it illegal to pass on outside EU.
No doubt USA is in the wrong too on this issue, whether China is worse IDK.
American censorship at its finest
Censorship in this case would be banning short form videos, not a platform they can be hosted on.
