this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
1002 points (95.7% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
558 readers
704 users here now
A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.
RULES:
1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.
2 No Trolling
3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.
4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.
5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.
6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc.
founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What makes me think that American companies are easy to police for American government than Chinese companies? It seems a bit of a weird question in that of course that's the case. If they want they can raid their HQ, they can (and probably do) have a relationship with these companies in intelligence gathering and law enforcement level. Companies are more willing to follow your rules if the repercussions are more severe, with their workers, hq and so on being in the US.
It's obvious that there's a better ability to control and police the company, but it's different whether they do use that ability.
"we could totally police American companies, it's just that we don't because they own all our politicians".
I'm glad we're on the same page.
Don't go around assuming everyone is American
There's a a lot of laws binding those companies and then there's everything going on behind closed doors which people aren't told about. I'm sure they're already doing a lot of policing when it comes to narrative, data, all that sort of things. Why they let Russians act so freely, I'm not sure, I think there might've been an ideological or political reason behind that.
It's like how American movies and shows are pushing certain narratives. I doubt there's need for any laws and public acts to make it so, rather it's just understood and things happen behind closed doors. How much the US can control foreign, especially say Chinese media productions, of course it's going to be less capable of doing that.
Trump for example has bullied social media companies to do as he says without official acts, just threats and fear of possible action. Easier to bully local companies than foreign ones.
I think you can sum our sides of the argument up with: who do you think is in charge - Trump or Elon?
Are we still arguing about if the American government has a better ability to control local or foreign companies?
The ability and the will are two entirely different things.
Right, and that was brought up very early on by me, but the argument was about ability
Ability is immaterial if you don't have the will to exercise it.
It's like I'm talking with a golden retriever
I'm not sure why you keep pursuing this circular debate. My entire point has been it doesn't matter if it's a foreign app or not if the government has no desire to control domestic social media due to the fact that the billionaires who own it are directly responsible for electing said government.
You keep bringing up the ability to bring them to heel like it's in any way relevant when I've seen no evidence of meta or X in any way being forced to moderate their platforms - in fact the opposite has been proven abundantly true in the last 10 years. Stop trying to rely on "well maybe a foreign app might be harder to control hypothetically, despite the fact that American apps are completely uncontrolled". It's irrelevant to the reality of the situation we have now and therefore a flimsy excuse to protect domestic billionaires interests.
I didn't wish a circular debate. You engaged in one, retreading things already said (by me no less) right at the start. It's baffling.
You were arguing about the ability. That's probably why... lol. The whole thing is really simple. American government would rather deal with local companies that they can exert more power over, had they the inclination to do so. Makes them more at ease.
It was never about ability, you brought it up and I countered with the fact that ability means nothing if you don't enforce it...... Aaaaaaand then you brought up ability again like it's relevant.
Why in god's name would you think ability to exert control over a company wouldn't matter to the US government..?
Because they never exercise it in respect to social media?
See how you can't see past this one simple concept and keep circling back?
You don't think it's important for them to have the ability, the assurance of that? I'm not circling back but rather just trying to help you to understand their pov.
What, you think the government thinks "oh we don't care about having more control over social media, we're not going to use that anyway, might as well let China have that control"? I mean come on lol.
You still think this is about exerting a control they have yet to exercise, instead of the far more obvious thing I've repeated about 5 times and you've ignored each time:
THIS IS PROTECTIONISM FOR AMERICAN SOCIAL MEDIA MAGNATES.
I mean I've always held the view that it's both. It was just the control thing that seemed to be a hangup for you.
It's both, just that it's really about one of them and the other is just a cherry on top.
Don't try to frame this as a hangup of mine and act like you haven't been thoroughly participating in this debate in a way entirely hyperfixated on "it's about control". You're better than that.
I'm not sure how you've been reading this whole thing but it's sorta the part you disagreed with so that's what the discussion became about