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 Con
The article you referenced wasn't American elites longing for a Chinese based system.
Sure it was. The New York Times was positively salivating over it. Getting things done! Without that pesky political opposition! This was before Trump...now they're outright authoritarian. Democracy has failed, we let idiots vote while China shuts them out of their political system. One can clearly see why the Chinese one party system is favored by a lot of elites. Everyone saw that earth-shaking article in The Atl [theatlantic.com]
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 conservative positions but don't fully accept more progressive beliefs tend to overflow with cognitive dissonance. I I feel that is very apparent in Goldsmith's opinion article you linked to.
It seems like he is saying China was correct in regulating speech not because he finds that desirable but because that is what even our "free" society is moving towards anyway. So if it is inevitable, might as well jump in the deep end. That doesn't sound like a great argument to me, but to each their own. I only skimmed the article though so I might have missed some nuance.
I'm not sure why you link to Goldsmith's writing as an example of the political elite though. We was a conservative darling who stepped out of the political arena because of his disagreements with what even his own party was doing. If you think the opinion posts of every Ivy League professor can be held up as an example of the beliefs of "the elite," you need to take some time to rethink that philosophy.
The Atlantic is how the elite talk to each other. His article was a clear call for more censorship, which is already very bad. In politics it doesn't matter if they have a D or an R on their jerseys, in the end they're all on the same team. Against us. Like George Carlin said, "It's a club, and you ain't in it."
Optimism is the content of small men in high places.
-- F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Crack Up"
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: (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 Con
Re: (Score:0)
The article you referenced wasn't American elites longing for a Chinese based system.
Sure it was. The New York Times was positively salivating over it. Getting things done! Without that pesky political opposition! This was before Trump...now they're outright authoritarian. Democracy has failed, we let idiots vote while China shuts them out of their political system. One can clearly see why the Chinese one party system is favored by a lot of elites. Everyone saw that earth-shaking article in The Atl [theatlantic.com]
Re:Moderation not censorship (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 conservative positions but don't fully accept more progressive beliefs tend to overflow with cognitive dissonance. I I feel that is very apparent in Goldsmith's opinion article you linked to.
It seems like he is saying China was correct in regulating speech not because he finds that desirable but because that is what even our "free" society is moving towards anyway. So if it is inevitable, might as well jump in the deep end. That doesn't sound like a great argument to me, but to each their own. I only skimmed the article though so I might have missed some nuance.
I'm not sure why you link to Goldsmith's writing as an example of the political elite though. We was a conservative darling who stepped out of the political arena because of his disagreements with what even his own party was doing. If you think the opinion posts of every Ivy League professor can be held up as an example of the beliefs of "the elite," you need to take some time to rethink that philosophy.
Re: (Score:0)