Comment by jacooper | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacooper | Hacker News Reader

If the US goverment truly has plans to censor/control American social media at will, Then all of their arguments against Tiktok lose meaning.

The whole argument is that China can influence TikTok to change content to hide truths and harm other nations, which is soon going to apply to the US too, if not already.

imagine if the US removed anything against the Apartheid state(Facebook already does this, any news showing what's actually happening in occupied Palestine is removed), or if it does another invasion and it removes any reports going against the Governments story?

The difference is the U.S. has never been challenged in tech and influence, and now they have and they don't like it, they don't like to live under the mercy of another country with its own interest that doesn't match with the US.

Truly, the US is finally getting a taste of its own medicine.

With all of that said, I can't deny that the US would still be probably better than China in freedom of speech.

> The whole argument is that China can influence TikTok to change content to hide truths and harm other nations, which is soon going to apply to the US too, if not already.

Well, presumably the US government's argument would be that China can influence content to harm the United States, whereas the US government would only influence content to help the United States (pinky swear!).

I do agree with you that the ability of a government to censor at a large scale is likely to be bad for the people under that government's jurisdiction and the people of the world, even if that government is acting competently in its own self-interest.

However, it's not that odd for a government to be concerned about a foreign government exerting an influence on its citizens that it also wants to exert on its own citizens. As a crude example, it wouldn't be that odd for the US government to be very concerned if China started conscripting US citizens into military service, even though the US government has the ability to do that. Even if you believe that all military conscription is bad, it's hardly a notable "double standard."

> Well, presumably the US government's argument would be that China can influence content to harm the United States, whereas the US government would only influence content to help the United States (pinky swear!).

Correct.

But that's from the view point of the US only.

The US isn't going against Tiktok only locally, it wants to remove it world wide because of Chinese influence.

The US can influence local content how it likes, they have their own rules and its totally fine IMO.

The issue is controlling global content, which is what they are accusing China of, and what they really want to do if not already have been doing.

> I do agree with you that the ability of a government to censor at a large scale is likely to be bad for the people under that government's jurisdiction and the people of the world, even if that government is acting competently in its own self-interest.

I think this is obvious.

My point is that the US is mad at Tiktok because the CCP can do it, yet now the US wants to also control all content on its platforms and wants the world to see it as something totally different to what China can do.

Its basically, "it's OK for us, we are good, but not for them, they are the Baddies!!!"

> My point is that the US is mad at Tiktok because the CCP can do it, yet now the US wants to also control all content on its platforms and wants the world to see it as something totally different to what China can do.

> Its basically, "it's OK for us, we are good, but not for them, they are the Baddies!!!"

Yeah, it seems like we agree, except that I just wouldn't call it a double standard, because the US government is pretty clear that it does claim that it's "the good guys" and that China (or insert other historical nation state with a less-than-great relationship with the US) is "the bad guys." The US government isn't trying to make some principled claim about liberalism and the appropriate role of nation states domestically and on the global stage. It's just literally saying that it's the best nation state and that it should be responsible for and in control of a lot of global affairs. I don't agree, but I just don't characterize the problem as a double standard.

Why are you framing this as a hypothetical scenario? They’re already doing it, and have been doing it.

>There is also a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use. At the time of writing, the “content request system” at facebook.com/xtakedowns/login is still live. DHS and Meta, the parent company of Facebook, did not respond to a request for comment. The FBI declined to comment.

> Why are you framing this as a hypothetical scenario? They’re already doing it, and have been doing it.

I framed it as something hypothetical because it hasn't happened yet, they haven't censored something international, at least AFAIK.

It’s already happening. What makes you think otherwise? It says so right there that they have this throttling system. You really think they designed this system and it’s never been used before?

I edited the comment to make it clear that its possible they are already doing this.

Also I'm taking about international discussions, not them throttling local news/"misinfo".

Because if they middle in international topics, then they are doing exactly what they are accusing China of doing, And is IMO a much bigger thing than fighting local "misinfo"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com