this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
58 points (77.9% liked)
Technology
59298 readers
4481 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Only US corps can sell US people info, Chinese corps can't..
That's not a selling data concern.
It's the same Meta, Twitter, Reddit and all west centralized social media are doing but instead of be working for communists they are working for fascists.
I know this is what-about-ism but I really wish we cared half as much about Meta having already destabilized the last two presidential elections.
Same here. Generally, I really hate the whataboutism people hop to, but in this case they literally crafted a bill for one company/set of specific companies… they could have easily made it more wide ranging and solved multiple issues with one bill. I feel the “but these others are also doing it and you should have thought about that” is valid criticism of this bill.
China isn't communist.
That's kind of the no true Christian argument. China is Communist in some ways, like it has a "Communist" party that knows best what's good for the people. Clearly according to communist doctrine, automatically and unavoidably leading to a authoritarian government, that has happened in ALL communist countries.
This reminds me of a famous quote from Karl Marx:
"If you call yourself a communist, you must be a communist"
In a way yes. Except other communists will always complain that any attempt of implementing communism isn't true communism, because they always fail.
But people who favor democracy, have less trouble identifying that communism doesn't really work, and accept it as communism despite the failures of actually living up to the ideals.
The current communist regime in China came to power through a communist revolution by the people, at what point exactly did it fail to be communist?
I think your problem is assuming that just because a revolution is led by a person who purports to be communist, therefore the new regime established by that person must also be communist, even after almost a hundred years of political evolution. Just because they put "The People's X" on everything doesn't mean that any of it is actually operating in a way which upholds any of the ideals of communism as described by Marx.
China is an authoritarian capitalist oligarchy. There's some state intervention for welfare, but honestly not that much more than a country like the US (eg. both have for-profit healthcare, both have a pretty jingoist/exploitative attitude toward other countries, both have a prison-industrial complex, both have rampant wealth inequality).
I hear ya man. It really gets my goat when people say the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea isn't a Democratic Republic. Like, it's right there in the name.
Strawman argument, that clearly shows you don't get the no true Christian fallacy.
Not at all. My statement simply pointed out a common mistake many people make when misusing the "No True Scotsman" or "appeal to purity" fallacy, as you did. This fallacy occurs when there is no clear, objective definition available, or when someone dismisses a valid counterexample.
That's why, since you have a clear definition in mind of what a Democratic Republic is, you immediately recognized the misuse of the term in North Korea's case, and thus wouldn't argue that stating it isn't truly a Democratic Republic constitutes a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. The same reasoning applies to China and Communism.
Communism is a political, social, and economic ideology advocating for the replacement of private ownership and profit-based economies with a classless system of communal ownership. However, China has actively promoted private entrepreneurship and foreign investment, fostering the growth of a private sector. Therefore, China cannot be considered Communist.
The definition of Communism can be tested and evaluated. China's policies diverge from this definable concept, thus it doesn't fall under the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Edit: I just read further down, and realized you actually believe the only criteria for being part of a group is calling yourself as such.
So... yeah, you honestly just don't understand the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. But you do have a fun definition, by which the claim that North Korea is a Democratic Republic is affirmed. After all, if you call yourself a Democratic Republic, "in a way yes" you are.
As I mentioned earlier, you don't understand the no true Christian fallacy. I did not use no true Scotsman, I used no true Christian. There is no true Christian because it's IMPOSSIBLE, it has nothing to do with the no true Scotsman fallacy, which is to change the meaning of what a true Scotsman is.
Christians recognize that other Christians are not true Christians, but believe themselves to be, but they are not because it's impossible, because of the self contradictions and inconsistencies of the Bible.
In the same way there are no true communist countries because it's impossible. But they are communist in being authoritarian and CLAIM to be communist, and claim to have roots in Marxism.
To what degree they actually have is irrelevant, because all attempts at communism have resulted in oppression of the people and civil rights like freedom of speech. And this is no different in China than all other Communist countries, so as I see it, China is as communist as any other so called Communist country.
Just like a Christian who believes in trinity is as Christian as one who doesn't.
You are actually making the no true Scotsman fallacy, by saying China Isn't true communism. Because they "use sugar in their coffee", and no true Scotsman/communist does that.
Using North Korea as a counter example is an obvious strawman, because democracy has 1 very specific requirement, which is free and fair democratic elections, despite that there are many degrees of democracy, depending on how actually free and fair elections are. By that definition North Korea is an extremely poor democracy, and you can feel free to call China a poor communist regime, but they all are.
While the specific context and criteria may differ between the "No True Scotsman" and "No True Christian" fallacies, the underlying logical error remains the same: attempting to maintain a generalization or stereotype by selectively redefining the category to exclude inconvenient counterexamples. There is no meaningful difference. (In a somewhat ironic twist, you've essentially applied the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to the concept itself.)
I didn't argue that China isn't Communist because of trivial reasons like using sugar in their coffee; rather, my point was centered on their significant presence of a private sector. Just as you emphasize that democracy necessitates "free and democratic elections," I similarly emphasize that Communism entails certain defining characteristics. The absence of private industry serves as a clear benchmark, not a moving target or an impossible standard, but a fixed criterion. Despite whatever label the controlling party in China holds, they fall short of meeting this criterion.
In essence, you're basing your argument on a false premise. Your definition of Communism holds as much weight as North Korea's definition of Democracy. While you allow Democracy to define itself based on its ideology, you insist on defining Communism based on the actions of its deceitful actors.
No they don't, because no true Scotsman is moving the goal post, which no true Christian is not.
Cooperations can be private too, and absolutely a part of Communism.
Yea, isn't it just "media is capable of influencing public opinion in the United States"? Lots of news about Nazi stuff on twitter so I doubt this law is about protecting the social fabric of the U.S.
If you replace government with authorities it's basically the same. US authorities also buy information from tech companies, which has been very clearly revealed on several occasions, where police buy information that would be illegal to set up the surveillance to get themselves. Obviously when police and intelligence services do it, it's practically the same as the government. It's just weird to claim the "government" can do it, because of course they can. Just like USA has made regulation that American companies can't claim secrecy on things they have on servers in EU, if a court or authorities ask for it, despite EU regulation makes it illegal to pass on outside EU.
No doubt USA is in the wrong too on this issue, whether China is worse IDK.