It was just a simple observation. You are reading into things too much. There's no need to be so defensive. Your comment hasn't upset me in the slightest ( rationally or irrationally ) and I sincerely hope you weren't offended by mine.
Do you have regret? Ever asked yourself why did I do drink coffee just before bed. Have you ever played a game and thought if I do this, then my opponent will do that, so maybe I shouldn't do that. Have you ever had a meeting or interview and you went through how to introduce yourself or conduct the interview in your head?
I have a hard time believing that there are people who have no inner dialogue. Especially in modern societies. I think it's something we all do, it's just that we didn't know there was a word for it.
Ever ask yourself, why did I waste so much time on HN or other social media? Then you probably have an inner dialogue.
> After banning TikTok people will naturally start to wonder about regulating Facebook and other social media and this would be a good thing.
It's not 'people' demanding anything. It's the elites. Why would the elites want to ban facebook or any social media they control. Not to mention facebook, reddit, youtube, etc are much older than tiktok.
> Russia is a minor player compared to China, a distraction that was welcomed by China with open arms as it helps divide and weaken the West.
How does that follow? The war united the west, not divide it.
> China is the only one actually capable of influencing the world to embrace despotism and collectivism at the expense of freedom.
You mean china is the one forcing collectivism ( EU ) on europe? What is 'the west' other than collectivism?
So many stupid people watching stupid youtube videos and regurgitating nonsense. You probably have a brain. Try using it sometimes.
The most despotic entities in the world isn't china, it's the US and the EU. The most collectivist entities it the world isn't china, it's 'the west'.
Is china forcing everyone to be like them? Are they exporting communism everywhere? No. Guess who is trying to force everyone to be like them? The west.
It's the same thing as banning. It's banning via a different method. It's more of a ban than china 'banning' US social media for refusing to follow chinese laws within their own country.
For the same reason this post was flagged. Israel. Did you really have to ask? Hard to imagine google workers protesting russia, china or saudi arabia being flagged.
Or they could take the easier and less conspiratorial route and control government by controlling intelligence? Governments act based on intelligence. Intelligence determines who we go to war with, what surveillance measures we need and what constitutes national security.
Why? They are the most spoiled, privileged and entitled group out there. Not only did they force google, facebook, etc to give them preferential treatment in search/algorithm/etc, now they want google, facebook, etc to pay them for the 'privilege' of giving them preferential treatment. Not only do they want google/facebook to send users to their sites, they want google/facebook to pay them for that privilege. The shameless hubris.
> therefore directly tax the platforms and then redistribute the revenue to a fund created by government for news journalism themselves.
No. That's for authoritarian countries like britain and china.
> huge risks of unintended consequence
But government funded news has no risks?
What we need is to break up google/facebook/etc. We need competition in the search, smartphone, social media, etc space. The fundamental problem is that two companies control so much of american mindshare.
> Which is why the south fielded close to a million man army
What does this have to do with the fact that most south vietnamese wanted reunification? You mean governments are able to pay poor men to sign up for wars? Shocking.
So we are agreed that the south vietnamese wanted to vote for reunification and the US renegged on that vote. Nothing else matters. That's the crux of the problem.
> and the north had to murder several hundred thousand south Vietnamese when they won the war?
But most of the south vietnamese military supported the north. Especially towards the end of the war. If your assertion was true, then how evil must the US truly be to allow hundred of thousands of soldiers to be murdered? Oh wait, you are just making shit up. And if the north was murdering hundreds of thousands of south vietnamese soldiers, there would have been an uprising. Oh wait, there was no uprising. Stop making things up.
> They just wanted to reunify peacefully so badly?
Yes. It's why the vietnamese agreed to the partition. They foolishly expected that the US ( the self-proclaimed defender of democracy and freedom ) was negotiating in good faith. Hopefully the vietnamese learned their lesson.
You are outright lying about basic historical facts. Not sure why you expected to get away with it. Especially here.
> Do we need to rethink the idea of global social media platforms? Maybe even the idea of a global internet.
Yes.
> If countries like Brazil or India want to have everything censored
They aren't even the worst. The biggest advocates of censorship on american social media is europe, canada, israel, etc.
> create some subsidiary application solely for people within each of those countries
Or maybe brazil or india should outright ban these platforms and create their own? These countries have their own national tv stations, newspapers, etc? Why don't they have their own twitter, facebook, etc?
If media essentially controls who you vote for, shouldn't india, brazil and every democracy control their own media? Seems to me that a foreign nation controlling so much of your social media is a direct threat to your democracy.
Besides, if we continue on this path of global social media, we would have to censor everything everyone finds offensive. It would be the tyranny of the offended. The worst kind of tyranny.
Democracy works best when the population is dumb, scared and disengaged.
> Without democracy, revolts just result in more revolts because new rulers have no special claim of legitimacy.
No. It works the same way with or without democracy.