"... but it’s not incumbent on any platform to provide the megaphone for lunatic fringe conspiracy theories grounded in fantasyland."
Here's the thing. I understand why that's a common position, but I still disagree with it. When any entity is SO MUCH a part of public discourse that politicians using it can't legally block anyone, that's …
"... but it’s not incumbent on any platform to provide the megaphone for lunatic fringe conspiracy theories grounded in fantasyland."
Here's the thing. I understand why that's a common position, but I still disagree with it. When any entity is SO MUCH a part of public discourse that politicians using it can't legally block anyone, that's a part of the public square. And part of being the public square means allowing crazy people to use it sometimes. That's just the cost of doing business. We may not like it that Facebook or Twitter have become a significant political platforms. I don't. I hardly ever use either, especially for anything related to politics. But a huge number of people do. That's where we are, and we're going to have to figure out how to deal with it.
As far as China, I plead ignorance. I have a decent handle on the technical aspects of Chinese censorship, but the social and legal ones, not so much. I wouldn't know where to begin making a comparison.
....because what “happens” is a distraction. My thesis is that nothing is happening, and that’s the problem. That FB and Twitter are now the platform for world governance discourse is enervating, as it’s neither politics or discourse. It’s a distraction. I have a very good handle on censorship in the PRC. On the front end, it is a maddening and restrictive environment on more levels than I care to describe. Once one gets past this sort of surface issue, something else happens, and it’s surprisingly elegant and exposes a lot of what is best about humans. That does not make me a proponent of totalitarian governments, but it does make me understand that limitations can sometimes lead to good things. This is anathema to a too broad swath of Americans, and it is our loss. I never imagined I would write something like the preceding, but a little experience in other environments can change one’s perspective. That folks put so much emphasis on the vacuity of FB and Twitter is the problem, not all the other stuff that seems to be at the crux of this thread.
So... you're saying that government surveillance and censorship on a massive scale leading to people being jailed or simply disappearing for what they say online is a *good* thing? You'll have to explain that one to me.
I’ll explain it as far as clarifying that’s not what I said. Your question exemplifies the problem with online discourse. Read my comment again, maybe a couple times, then think about it for a while, and don’t imagine I’m saying anything more than what the words on the screen are saying.
So, you're just going to say China's censorship is "surprisingly elegant and exposes a lot of what is best about humans", and leave it at that? Then you propose that "it is our loss" that such censorship is "anathema to a too broad swath of Americans". Forgive me for having a hard time understanding that you're not being supportive of the PRC's censorship and surveillance state, beyond the "front end" annoyance of dealing with it. As one of those Americans to whom this sort of thing is, indeed, anathema, I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say. I'm not inside your head.
So, I asked you to explain. Like, for starters, maybe you can elaborate on the surprising elegance of the system and how it exposes a lot of what is best about humans. That is not at all obvious to those of us who *don't* "have a very good handle on censorship in the PRC."
Otherwise, your message just comes off as a puff-piece for Chinese censorship and a longing to have it implemented here.
OK. If you can’t grasp the underlying message in my commentary, then it’s a puff piece for Chinese censorship. The second part... about my longing to have it implemented here....is your projecting something onto me. OK. Lots of people like to establish in their own minds what other folks longings are, or might be. It never interested me much.
What is interesting about limitations is they sometimes lead to things not immediately imagined. American’s general ideas about censorship are simplistic and reflective of entitlement. We’re the victims of our own pretensions.
"... but it’s not incumbent on any platform to provide the megaphone for lunatic fringe conspiracy theories grounded in fantasyland."
Here's the thing. I understand why that's a common position, but I still disagree with it. When any entity is SO MUCH a part of public discourse that politicians using it can't legally block anyone, that's a part of the public square. And part of being the public square means allowing crazy people to use it sometimes. That's just the cost of doing business. We may not like it that Facebook or Twitter have become a significant political platforms. I don't. I hardly ever use either, especially for anything related to politics. But a huge number of people do. That's where we are, and we're going to have to figure out how to deal with it.
As far as China, I plead ignorance. I have a decent handle on the technical aspects of Chinese censorship, but the social and legal ones, not so much. I wouldn't know where to begin making a comparison.
....because what “happens” is a distraction. My thesis is that nothing is happening, and that’s the problem. That FB and Twitter are now the platform for world governance discourse is enervating, as it’s neither politics or discourse. It’s a distraction. I have a very good handle on censorship in the PRC. On the front end, it is a maddening and restrictive environment on more levels than I care to describe. Once one gets past this sort of surface issue, something else happens, and it’s surprisingly elegant and exposes a lot of what is best about humans. That does not make me a proponent of totalitarian governments, but it does make me understand that limitations can sometimes lead to good things. This is anathema to a too broad swath of Americans, and it is our loss. I never imagined I would write something like the preceding, but a little experience in other environments can change one’s perspective. That folks put so much emphasis on the vacuity of FB and Twitter is the problem, not all the other stuff that seems to be at the crux of this thread.
So... you're saying that government surveillance and censorship on a massive scale leading to people being jailed or simply disappearing for what they say online is a *good* thing? You'll have to explain that one to me.
I’ll explain it as far as clarifying that’s not what I said. Your question exemplifies the problem with online discourse. Read my comment again, maybe a couple times, then think about it for a while, and don’t imagine I’m saying anything more than what the words on the screen are saying.
So, you're just going to say China's censorship is "surprisingly elegant and exposes a lot of what is best about humans", and leave it at that? Then you propose that "it is our loss" that such censorship is "anathema to a too broad swath of Americans". Forgive me for having a hard time understanding that you're not being supportive of the PRC's censorship and surveillance state, beyond the "front end" annoyance of dealing with it. As one of those Americans to whom this sort of thing is, indeed, anathema, I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say. I'm not inside your head.
So, I asked you to explain. Like, for starters, maybe you can elaborate on the surprising elegance of the system and how it exposes a lot of what is best about humans. That is not at all obvious to those of us who *don't* "have a very good handle on censorship in the PRC."
Otherwise, your message just comes off as a puff-piece for Chinese censorship and a longing to have it implemented here.
OK. If you can’t grasp the underlying message in my commentary, then it’s a puff piece for Chinese censorship. The second part... about my longing to have it implemented here....is your projecting something onto me. OK. Lots of people like to establish in their own minds what other folks longings are, or might be. It never interested me much.
What is interesting about limitations is they sometimes lead to things not immediately imagined. American’s general ideas about censorship are simplistic and reflective of entitlement. We’re the victims of our own pretensions.
So, you refuse to elaborate or engage, preferring instead to just fire off a few snarky ad-hominems. Fine. Have a nice day.
“Snarky”.....adjective: snarky; comparative adjective: snarkier. sharply critical; cutting; snide.
“Ad Hominem”..... adjective: ad hominem
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
Misapplication of language is a problem nowadays. No snark, no argument against any individual or group here.
“Nonsequitur” noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
It’s not entirely surprising that Matt’s article, which is a bundle of nonsequiturs, should spawn an entire conversation devoted to them.
Kurt, it's pretty hard to misread Matt.
Meaning what? As to the content of the article, it may be the worst thing he’s written. Every writer runs some duds. Matt owns this one.
Meaning that you are a stupid fool.
You are promoting the CCP's insatiable appetite for TOTAL control and doing a rather poor job of it.
Really, man. Stay in China next time.
You seem like a confused asshole and you expect people to debate nicely with you?
How can you prop up China's methods?
You're probably paid to do so, or you're doing so from a prison cell in some dungeon.
Or.. you're just a stupid troll.
I discounted your ignorance at "graceful" when describing the "PRC" -really, the CCP, and you've gone off the rails since.
Go soak your head.