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.
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This list has a vanishingly small list of exceptions.
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
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]
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/06/european-clear...
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.
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).
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.
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"?
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.
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.