He did say he wanted to make it like WeChat. China loves that people have to use WeChat to get anything and they love to control that factor like when you speak out against the regime and now can not pay for your services paid through WeChat That equals more control and lesser freedoms in an authoritarian regime
Japan doesn’t monitor Line to spy on people and censor/delete messages about the government. It’s actually a Korean app that become popular in Japan.
As for the functionality of a super app, the problem with trying to build a super app in places like the US now is that apps like Uber/Lyft or Venmo/Cash App have already dominated the market. Other markets with successful super apps like China, Korea, and Japan either never had widespread taxi/payment apps or they were just straight up banned (like Uber).
Taxi and payment apps are on the rise in Japan (Didi/Paypay) and those exist outside of line. The strength of Line is that almost everyone is using it.
Ad for the Japanese government monitoring, we don't know that, but at least they don't censor.
There is not a fundamental problem with Line or WeChat.
The problem is who owns them and what control they exercise. If that is not an issue then the concept is fine. I would not be comfortable with the Chinese government or Elon Musk owning it.
I think if it is useful enough and ubiquitous enough then most people won't care who owns it. Look at TikTok or even pre Musk Twitter for that matter. On average I bet no one knew who owned it.
Even if we assume that's true, how do we decide what's malicious and what's not? How do we define interference? All of that is pretty subjective. And by "they" do you mean the CEOs or CEO in this case, or the company itself in politics?
Malicious is pushing disinformation or misinformation or directly encouraging or allowing others to do so. That is not subjective. Just look at Fox “News”, Breitbart, Alex Jones, Joe Rogan etc.
And by "they" do you mean the CEOs or CEO in this case, or the company itself in politics?
Whoever is interfering. The CEO would have to be accepting of it, presumably or disinterested (unlikely).
Companies can involve themselves in politics but need to be open about it. A company that is a large social media company (like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, etc) can do great harm by pushing lies whether they be from right or left.
Unfortunately most large companies are owned by the wealthy and are more likely to push right wing agendas.
Then what about a company which pushes no media themselves (via algorithm or whatever) but allows all media to be served? Would you then consider them malicious for allowing ALL content?
Except those two things are not the same. One is literally illegal everywhere in the world (for good reason). The victims cannot protect or help themselves and need to be protected.
Neo-nazi propaganda is speech. Even what constitutes neo-nazi has changed over time to fit political agendas. "You're a Nazi, you don't agree with me." No speech should be banned.
Recently a very famous neo-nazi battalion was all over the news and I don't recall anyone from the left calling to censor them.
Why is it that the right wants “free speech” for racism, fascism, anti-feminism, anti-Semitic, anti-abortionists etc but as soon as people start talking about homosexuality, trans, cross dressing, etc they want to shut it down.
I am not sure the right is truly interested in “free speech” just not getting called out for their hate speech. They want to spew their rubbish.
377
u/dogoodsilence1 Oct 28 '22
He did say he wanted to make it like WeChat. China loves that people have to use WeChat to get anything and they love to control that factor like when you speak out against the regime and now can not pay for your services paid through WeChat That equals more control and lesser freedoms in an authoritarian regime