This is done by private companies. So it is moderation not censorship. So, please stop calling the employees doing this censors. They are moderators. Or something...
If the company is in bed with the government, does it make a difference? When there's no meaningful space between corporate power and government power, it doesn't make much difference whether the guy silencing your dissent is Mark Zuckerberg or William Barr. We already have a system whereby independent candidates run for office and can't get their message out for being shadow banned, and the corporatist candidates are always the number one trending subject. How are we any better than China?
At least China is honest and open about having a one-party system. They think it's best for them and is a model for the world. And to be honest, a lot of American elites are looking longingly at their system, such as the New York Times. [nytimes.com] The Chinese system gets things done, and would never yield an invalid result like Trump or Brexit. One can see the attraction.
The article you referenced wasn't American elites longing for a Chinese based system. The author was simply saying even the Chinese system is better than a system where only one party is trying to make meaningful improvements. When even centrist policies such as universal health-care are spun as liberal left wing ideas, the US government is essentially in a dead-lock.
It has been this way for decades, with very little meaningful legislation since the 60's. From 1865 - 1971 there were 14 amendments to the Constitution, or about one every 7.5 years. Since then there has been one amendment, and it was only to regulate Congressional salaries. A new territory was admitted as a US State every 4.5 years from 1791 to 1959, but not a single one for over 60 years now even with Puerto Rico and DC as obvious candidates for inclusion. These are just two of the many strong indicators of the gridlock in the US political system.
The US is in need of a "New Deal" level of change, mostly because it has stalled for over 50 years. Perhaps this is just part of the inevitable decline of any nation which reaches hegemony, without a strong driver for change along with the illusion of superiority which blinds them until it's too late. As a US citizen, though, I hope not.
Well I certainly don't agree with much of what Jack Goldsmith wrote in that article. It is fairly common for me to agree with a bit of Goldsmith's opinions but disagree with a lot, which makes sense to me since he was a rising conservative star until he came at odds with the Bush administration over what he felt was abuses of power (that is a severe over-generalization of his beliefs, but I believe is mostly accurate). I think the opinions and beliefs of conservatives who are at odds with the most extreme c
Do you suffer painful hallucination?
-- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda
Moderation not censorship (Score:4, Interesting)
This is done by private companies. So it is moderation not censorship. So, please stop calling the employees doing this censors. They are moderators. Or something...
Re: (Score:0, Troll)
If the company is in bed with the government, does it make a difference? When there's no meaningful space between corporate power and government power, it doesn't make much difference whether the guy silencing your dissent is Mark Zuckerberg or William Barr. We already have a system whereby independent candidates run for office and can't get their message out for being shadow banned, and the corporatist candidates are always the number one trending subject. How are we any better than China?
At least Chi
Re:Moderation not censorship (Score:2)
At least China is honest and open about having a one-party system. They think it's best for them and is a model for the world. And to be honest, a lot of American elites are looking longingly at their system, such as the New York Times. [nytimes.com] The Chinese system gets things done, and would never yield an invalid result like Trump or Brexit. One can see the attraction.
The article you referenced wasn't American elites longing for a Chinese based system. The author was simply saying even the Chinese system is better than a system where only one party is trying to make meaningful improvements. When even centrist policies such as universal health-care are spun as liberal left wing ideas, the US government is essentially in a dead-lock.
It has been this way for decades, with very little meaningful legislation since the 60's. From 1865 - 1971 there were 14 amendments to the Constitution, or about one every 7.5 years. Since then there has been one amendment, and it was only to regulate Congressional salaries. A new territory was admitted as a US State every 4.5 years from 1791 to 1959, but not a single one for over 60 years now even with Puerto Rico and DC as obvious candidates for inclusion. These are just two of the many strong indicators of the gridlock in the US political system.
The US is in need of a "New Deal" level of change, mostly because it has stalled for over 50 years. Perhaps this is just part of the inevitable decline of any nation which reaches hegemony, without a strong driver for change along with the illusion of superiority which blinds them until it's too late. As a US citizen, though, I hope not.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I certainly don't agree with much of what Jack Goldsmith wrote in that article. It is fairly common for me to agree with a bit of Goldsmith's opinions but disagree with a lot, which makes sense to me since he was a rising conservative star until he came at odds with the Bush administration over what he felt was abuses of power (that is a severe over-generalization of his beliefs, but I believe is mostly accurate). I think the opinions and beliefs of conservatives who are at odds with the most extreme c