Hacker News Reader

Comment by axiom | Hacker News Reader

The difference between the first example and the second is the difference between the defensive use of force and the initiation of force.

Disney has a monopoly on the use of Mickey Mouse because they created it and because the spent billions building the brand. That brand is their property, just like a house or a car might be.

The Chinese government arbitrarily declares ownership of other people's minds, and insists they have the right to determine what kinds of thoughts they should be allowed to have.

It's the difference between me shooting a burglar who breaks into my house, versus me walking into someone elses house and shooting them. Yeah both involve violence, but it's not hard to see why one is wrong, while the other is at least understandable.

View on HN

I think the Chinese government only arbitrarily declares that as they own the internet connections in their country, they can decide what information is allowed to flow through them, and they decide such which is in their best interest.

That's still a tad short from declaring ownership of other people's minds.

Sidetracking: Say you are Bose, and use commercials and tech-speak extensively to convince people that your speakers sound heavenly. Is that trying to control people's minds? Brand building, especially when it is more than just making people aware of your product, is a form of mind control.

But I can ignore the Bose advert and choose to look at any other manufacturer of audio equipment. The Chinese government claims the right to make that choice for the people. Very effective mind control.

Yeah but what gives the Chinese government the right to control the internet connections in the country?

Even if it happens to be the case that all of the infrastructure was built with government funds - those funds were taxed away from citizens.

But that's a moot point - the Chinese government is not shy about declaring that they are trying to be a moral police. Their intent is pretty explicitly to control what information people are allowed to see.

Now, suppose a private company like AOL decided to filter their customers' internet connections - is that censorship? Absolutely not. Because you can switch to a different provider. If you're a Chinese citizen you can't switch governments (or avoid being arrested for disallowed speech.) Only the government has a monopoly on the use of force.

The Chinese people give the Chinese government that right, and apparently a lot of them give it willingly since they are willing to trade freedom for stability.

Some Chinese people apparently give the government that right, but not all. People are individuals, not a single unit. And since they are not free to speak, you can't really tell how many want to give up freedom.

> and apparently a lot of them give it willingly

No, it was given unaware, or you can't really do anything about it.

Does Disney really have a monopoly on Mickey Mouse? Then explain this (NSFW) South Park clip: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/221275.

We make distinctions between copyright, physical property, and even personal safety. Analogies that attempt to blur the lines don't seem very helpful. Couldn't one say that Disney "arbitrarily declares ownership of other people's minds" in expecting protection because they "spent billions building the brand"?

Parody/satire is an exception to the rule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com