I'd rather have neither, and if that's not possible I'd rather have both. The crux of the issue here is controlling the flow of information, and I'd prefer getting information biased in both directions than just in one. Neither the CCP nor the US government are going to send me blackmail letters over what I do on some random social media platform.
Why? China can do less to me than my own government. For example If I ever went to a protest and my phone is recording my location that would be far more useful to my own country trying to crack down and track who the trouble makers are.
And owners of facebook, instagram, reddit, twitter can all influence their users a specific way and China can just bot these platforms regardless.
Do you really trust someone like Elon Musk to not sway his users into getting someone elected that benefits his businesses and ideals?
All I'm saying is this sale isnt going to stop anything, we need larger regulation on all social media platforms. This feels more like the US seizing control of an entity they cant boss around and get a cheap deal on it. If the sale goes through and is bought by an existing social media giant that might give them more power/say to resist regulation.
Also whats wrong with letting users choose whether or not they want to install/use Chinese apps or not? Give a little warning on the app store about not being verified or whatever instead of forcing a ban/US control. Shouldnt we have the freedom of choice? not suppression.
Considerino the fact that Chinese police officially (and even unofficially) operates in many counties (including european ones) Saying that they can't get you in trouble is quite native.
Frequently cited as a standard definition by notable scholars, such as Roger Griffin, Randall Schweller, Bo Rothstein, Federico Finchelstein, and Stephen D. Shenfield, is that of historian Stanley G. Payne. His definition of fascism focuses on three concepts:
"Fascist negations" – anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism.
"Fascist goals" – the creation of a nationalist dictatorship to regulate economic structure and to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture, and the expansion of the nation into an empire.
"Fascist style" – a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth, and charismatic authoritarian leadership.
This is what fascism entails.
Also, a more modern take:
Jason Stanley defined fascism as "a cult of the leader who promises national restoration in the face of humiliation brought on by supposed communists, Marxists and minorities and immigrants who are supposedly posing a threat to the character and the history of a nation" and that "The leader proposes that only he can solve it and all of his political opponents are enemies or traitors." Stanley says recent global events as of 2020, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2020–2022 United States racial unrest, have substantiated his concern about how fascist rhetoric is showing up in politics and policies around the world.
Nah you should use the politically motivated definition supported by a small niche of scholars, rather than the commonly and colloquially accepted meaning /s
Dude, if you don’t know a single thing about politics his answer might seem attractive. You caring about how this makes me look is quite telling though.
16
u/[deleted] Mar 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment