Why are you so scared of people being allowed to express their political power? Words and rhetoric is how it’s always been. Are you for censoring all political speech? Given the highly partisan nature of the censorship, difficult to not see it being politically motivated.
We are not talking about trump. We are talking about Apple, who is forcing other companies to censor their user’s speech and acting as judge and jury on what is acceptable.
Sure looks anti-competitive when Parler is deleted from all the app stores now doesn’t it? And we have people vocally calling for Cloudflare and AWS to deny them hosting services.
Yes but do you? When Twitter suspends your speech do you have a press office to get your word out? If they dare to do it to the president you think they have any reservations about censoring anyone else?
The relative strengths of the nations help to dictate the terms. Treaty of Nanking was signed after the defeat of the Qing army, you think the terms were favourable to the Qing Emperor?
> For all the non-TSLA holders on HN (there are many) - is there a price at which you will admit TSLA is successful? And if not, what is the reasoning behind why you will forever see TSLA as unsuccessful? Thank you
China has always been an unequal
playing ground for foreign companies. If you want Chinese money, then you get your local Chinese partner company and start the technology transfer.
It’s only fair Chinese companies in America receive some reciprocal treatment.
If they can be forced to change whatever implementation they have by the government then it helps no one. It’s just giving them more information on top of all their existing data they already have on you.
Google and Apple will happily deliver all your information to the government when it becomes their legal obligation.
Are we so naive to believe that if only we adopted their “privacy conscious” solution, there won’t be less privacy focused solutions preferred by the government? Or that their solution won’t be forced to change to meet their legal requirements?
You think that people aren’t already hiding their views because of social consequences? And this is progress? You’d rather that people hid what they really think?
Your entire view handicapped by your inability to see past what is and what is not allowed by law. You seem to think that only legal methods, instead of social or cultural changes are the only way to encourage a culture that values the freedom of speech. You are too shortsighted to see that freedom of speech is both a cultural and legal concept. More importantly, by arguing legal semantics, you don’t seem to understand why freedom of speech is necessary at all. Freedom of speech is merely an implementation detail. Has it never occurred to you to ask “what problem is it trying to solve?”