Why should we emulate the policies of another country if we agree that those policies are wrong and/or harmful? That seems like the exact opposite of what we should do: lead by example by showing how a society without such restriction is better off.
That (emulating CCP policies) is exactly what the US is NOT doing. Instead, the US has chosen to surgically target companies from specific countries (in this case, China) in a sensible, reciprocal reaction.
(I see many posters saying the US should pass legislation like the laws that China has, rather than respond in a surgical, targeted way. Doing so would have far more restricting effects.)
When US imposes tariffs on Canada, we expect Canada to impose reciprocal tariffs on the US; these serve to discourage the original action (US-imposed tariffs), and encourage the free flow of trade. Similarly, reciprocal reactions by India and the US serve the exact goal that you mentioned -- leading by example, discouraging other countries from imposing the same restrictions in non-reciprocal ways, and encouraging the free flow of software/information.
Aren't reciprocal tariffs illegal? First you have to sue in the WTO, and if the ruling is in your favour, you can put in reciprocal tariffs. And if the country takes off their tariffs, they don't have to pay anything back. Eg. The US not paying Canada back on softwood lumber tariffs
Only if there is an agreement in place around it. In the case of the US their tariffs are not part of any agreement and so they can and deserve to suffer reciprocal tariffs.
It's the paradox of tolerance. You can't be tolerant of the intolerant or else they'll take you over (which is exactly what Chinese businesses are doing when we are locked to 0% market share there but their market share here is continuously increasing).
That is a philosophical stance that I choose to believe doesn't necessarily have to come to that conclusion.
You can tolerate the heck out of intolerance... until the intolerance mobilizes and then you put a stop to it. E.g. "I defend the right for you to say bad things about people, but if you harm them or try to restrict their rights, we put a stop to that hard, right now".
Theoretically, if the idea is sufficiently infectious, it could infect enough levels that laws can be passed that change it so that the harm is legal (but never moral); but, I hope that humans will resist long before that.
>"I defend the right for you to say bad things about people, but if you harm them or try to restrict their rights, we put a stop to that hard, right now".
Why tolerate speech whose purpose is to threaten, plan or incite violence, but only ban the violence itself? Surely if all speech is to be considered equal, then intended consequences of all speech should also be considered equal. Speech that can't be acted upon is no different than speech that's been censored.
Preventing a fire by denying it fuel is easier than putting it out afterwards. Likewise, preventing the effects of harmful speech is easier by preventing its spread.
>Theoretically, if the idea is sufficiently infectious, it could infect enough levels that laws can be passed that change it so that the harm is legal (but never moral); but, I hope that humans will resist long before that.
The history of the 20th century would like a word with you after class.
The problem with banning "harmful" speech is creating the justification to ban any speech by labeling it harmful.
You fight harmful speech in the marketplace of ideas, by convincing those who might listen to ignore or counter it. Fighting it by forcibly banning it is just might-makes-right.
> The problem with banning "harmful" speech is creating the justification to ban any speech by labeling it harmful.
Let's rewrite your assertion in more general terms: The problem with banning any "harmful" activity is creating the justification to ban any activity by labeling it "harmful."
Further: The problem with banning "murder" is creating the justification to ban any activity by labeling it "murder."
It's logically consistent, and grammatically coherent. "Harm" is just a word like "murder" that can mean anything we decide it does. But there's nothing about speech within a framework of regulation which makes it more amenable to the slippery slope than any other activity, yet somehow we manage to live in a society where arbitrary activities aren't persecuted as murder, because human beings are capable of exercising judgement and discretion, and of appreciating context and nuance.
Therefore it should be possible to define "harmful" speech in such a way that distinguishes harm from not-harm.
The slope may exist, but it isn't that slippery. And if it gets too slippery, we're perfectly capable of installing a railing.
>You fight harmful speech in the marketplace of ideas, by convincing those who might listen to ignore or counter it.
Do you think that QAnon or anti-vaxxers or white supremacists are unaware of arguments to the contrary of their beliefs? That they only believe what they do because no one has ever engaged them in a debate in the "marketplace of ideas" and convinced them otherwise? If that was all it took, these cancerous memes would not have gotten as big as they have. The majority refuse to be convinced, so you've already lost on that front.
By the time you've laid out your well formed and thoroughly sourced counterargument to whomever you find who actually cares to listen to it, Facebook memes and retweets by the President of the United States have already convinced ten thousand people that Bill Gates created COVID as an excuse to implant mind control chips into the populace so he and the Illuminati can more easily harvest their brain syrum, and the person you tried to debate is now convinced you're a disinfo shill and that Alex Jones was right after all.
You fight harmful speech with both education and regulation.
>Fighting it by forcibly banning it is just might-makes-right.
No, it just means that a marketplace of ideas can still have standards and be a marketplace. A marketplace without rules is inevitably overrun by bad actors, charlatans and snake oil salesmen.
As a society, at least in the United States, we've decided that the free flow of ideas is more important than creating censor or ban lists for ideas. It goes hand in hand, in particular, with freedom of religion, a core tenant of the United States.
This list has a vanishingly small list of exceptions.
The fact that the list of exceptions exists at all implies that the US recognizes the paradox of tolerance, it just happens that the bar for intolerable speech in the US is lower than elsewhere. But American freedom of speech still doesn't meet the bar you set in your earlier comment. I'm still not allowed to stand on a soapbox at the town square and organize a mob to kill the President.
blocking chinese apps is not emulating chinsese government, emulating would be blocking all apps that are not made in US. Right now China is abusing the free trade and US is well with-in its rights to block these apps
This isn't a very convincing argument. Sure, the US allows apps from other countries, but those other countries governments are owned by the US. When the US wants something, they'll bend over backwards to give it to them.
The more apt comparison would be for the US to block all apps made by countries that aren't subservient to the US. Eg. Apps from North Korea, Iran, china, Russia, etc
>>>When the US wants something, they'll bend over backwards to give it to them.
You mean like this? "A special clearing house designed to allow European companies that trade with Iran to bypass newly reimposed US sanctions will be set up in Europe within months, possibly in France or Germany." [1]
I don't recall the USA beating down doors of political dissidents and hauling them off. Do you have some articles you'd like to point me at? Of course they're spying on us. That is an orthogonal problem.
I don’t know what to say other than that the world doesn’t work that way. When agreements are made there are mutual obligations. If the US doesn’t mind China protecting its industries by blocking American companies, then they have no incentive to let up on their restrictions. Expecting them to explicitly go against their own interests only because the US “leads by example” is ridiculously naive.
Those policies are not harmful to china. They are harmful to us. The free market isn't an end in and of itself. Similarly tiktoks removal from the American market is not harmful to america... Just china
It will become harmful for the Internet because it sets a precedent and other countries might follow with similar actions protecting their markets from foreign apps. For example, here in Russia Yandex would be very happy if Google had been banned from Russian market.
See, this is part of the problem, constantly trying to change what things are outside of our borders.
Bringing Freedom to Iraq, and Democracy to Afghanistan, etc.
The first question to be asked should be 'How is this affecting Americans and their rights' and not how 'this didn't seem to work in China.' Especially seeing the ban applies only to the US.
You can't both say "china is wrong in its policies so it's eye for an eye" AND "it's a good policy".
What you're saying there in this reply is essentially that every country should just close itself off to the rest of the world and operate on its own technologically. I don't believe this is a point of you held by the majority, not even would I believe you if you told me you hold this view (since I've seen your posts before and I don't think this is something you think).
The policies are harmful, and reciprocal policies are good policies. I don't think this is inconsistent. It's just like how US imposing tariffs on Canadian aluminum is harmful, but Canada reciprocating with its own tariffs is definitely good policy -- otherwise there would be no economic incentive for the US to stop its tariffs.
Canada reciprocating protects the free flow of trade by discouraging further tariffs. Similarly, here, India and the US reciprocating protects the free flow of software/information by discouraging CCP bans.
I hold the view that some nationalistic policies are in the best interest of the United States, and I communicate this in writing to policy makers I interface with.
You know that's the political equivalent of saying "I hold the view that it's good that other people have to give me stuff and I don't have to give anything back"?
Most negotiations in life are obtaining as much of what you desire with providing as little in return possible. If you don't have your own interests at heart, no one else will. How you approach geopolitical interactions with each country is going to vary, but that's the gist. With that said, I believe we have differing belief systems, and nothing productive will come from continuing the discussion. I expressed my viewpoint to demonstrate it exists (which is a contrarian view in the HN echo chamber).
EDIT: (throttled by HN, can't reply to below comment)
> what are you doing regularly posting (in dissent) in a community that, in your own words, holds a globally contrarian view to yours?
I enjoy the interactions and discussions. I'm not winning hearts and minds but I don't pretend it matters.
If you believe that two people with different belief systems discussing can't achieve anything, what are you doing regularly posting (in dissent) in a community that, in your own words, holds a globally contrarian view to yours?
Also I'm not necessarily shooting down the policy, truthfully it's one of those things where I don't feel comfortable having an opinion because it's such a complex subject. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of this attitude, treating every other country on earth like dirt and being all pikachu-shocked-face when it happens to you.
Maybe it's a contrarian attitude here because most of the non-US world is sick of this american exclusionism bullshit. I sure am.
