Submitted by HorrorCharacter5127 t3_125eg3o in technology
Comments
koolaidisthestuff t1_je4s7ys wrote
Yeah it’s hilarious watching some archaic politician talk about privacy like that’s the issue.. but only attacking one Chinese company and not the thousands here, some run by the govt themselves.
Do as I say not as I do.
garygoblins t1_je4ykcp wrote
How are people not getting that they don't give a fuck about privacy. The entire crux of the issue is the Chinese government having direct access to influence and push propaganda to 150 million Americans (as well as potentially backdoor the app and compromise devices if they chose to in the future).
Reasonable_Ticket_84 t1_je4z3at wrote
>t having direct access to influence and push propaganda to 150 million American
As opposed to Fox News which is directly influencing and pushing propaganda for coup attempts?
garygoblins t1_je4zd99 wrote
Fox news is terrible and should go away, but that's an entirely different legal problem. That would be banning free speech (the government can't restrict citizens speech). The key difference is that it's a hostile foreign entity vs a hostile domestic entity. You can't treat them the same.
cambeiu t1_je4zpso wrote
>The key difference is that it's a hostile foreign entity
Top 10: Countries Receiving U.S. Exports
China … $41.9 billion (up 89.6%)
United Kingdom …$38.6 billion (up 16.3%)
Germany … $34.2 billion (up 28.6%)
South Korea … $27.8 billion (up 23%)
Netherlands … $26.5 billion (up 44.8%)
France … $22.4 billion (up 17.9%)
Taiwan … $22.1 billion (up 20.1%)
The "hostile entity" is hands down our #1 trade partner and a massive source of income.
Being a rival is not the same thing as being a hostile foreign entity.
garygoblins t1_je4zxv1 wrote
sigh. You can still be trading with someone and they can still be your enemy. Just because we're not at war with them, doesn't mean they aren't hostile.
cambeiu t1_je50bsn wrote
>You can still be trading with someone and they can still be your enemy.
How is China our "enemy"? When did China ever attack or threatened to attack the United States? The USSR was an enemy. They represented a fundamental existential threat to the United States. China does not. China is challenging our leadership position globally, but it has no intention to and gains nothing by destroying the United States.
johnjohn4011 t1_je5l3a4 wrote
Maybe China is not strictly an enemy but they're definitely not our best friend at this point - and do much to actively undermine our system here on our soil.
LizzosDietitian t1_je6ccxg wrote
China without a doubt views the United States as their #1 enemy.
Just look at their plans to take over the western pacific. The United States is the only thing in China’s way of fucking with international shipping lanes
garygoblins t1_je513f0 wrote
Bisoromi t1_je5ytfw wrote
You just linked a bunch of propaganda. Still serving swill in the US, I see. Eat it up hogs.
[deleted] t1_je5m1q4 wrote
[deleted]
SirAidandRinglocks t1_je7clna wrote
Why should I fear the Chinese more than the US?
Did China bomb MOVE?
Did China kill Frank Olsen?
Did China kill Fred Hampton?
Please explain why China is scarier than the US?
garygoblins t1_je7g7c5 wrote
The Chinese government is absolutely scarier than U.S. companies. We're not talking about the U.S government.
Did the U.S put Uyghur Muslims into concentration camps?
Did the U.S. murder student protesters and claim it didn't happen to this day?
Did the U.S invade and subjugate the Tibetan people?
SirAidandRinglocks t1_je7ghkk wrote
None of those people were in the US though.
Are the Chinese going to roll a tank through my town?
TeaKingMac t1_je672ng wrote
>Chinese government having direct access to influence and push propaganda to 150 million Americans
I didn't realize all those thirst traps were Chinese.
garygoblins t1_je696q8 wrote
I don't know if you've ever used TikTok, but 85% or the stuff that isn't thirst traps/onlyfans promotion is straight up misinformation. Even if it isn't Chinese instigated, TikTok is by far the scariest platform I've ever seen (worse than Facebook imo)
TeaKingMac t1_je6a5zl wrote
>85% or the stuff that isn't thirst traps/onlyfans promotion is straight up misinformation
That's the internet. Have you seen the Drudge Report within the last decade? Or The Blaze?
They're slamming one company for something that's very common throughout the internet.
And the tool they're using to do so is WILDLY broad.
inthearticleuidiot t1_je5r39h wrote
I doubt anyone is failing to "get" this. Most people having not been born yesterday remember our last few elections being heavily influenced by China and Russia via American competitors to Tik Tok. Singling out Tik Tok does nothing for American citizens.
dirtroad207 t1_je594jz wrote
Yeah I mean China can already buy most of the data tracked through tiktok anyway.
The_Red_Grin_Grumble t1_je6qhjw wrote
It's not about buying the data, it's about controlling the algorithm that pushes misinformation.
Ask yourself, why are US social media companies banned in China? Why is it a big deal if the US chooses to do the same?
[deleted] t1_je7tfvj wrote
[removed]
cydus t1_je410ef wrote
How likely is it that its just because its not owned by an american person or company and that this is what america does not like?
PurelyLurking20 t1_je4cbas wrote
Incredibly likely. The CCP really did not have much access to US user data and they were already in the process of moving all data centers for US users into America, which would also be run by Americans.
They're no different than tencent, just making a metric ton of money for CCP investors. There's basically zero chance or even motive for them to hand over any more user data than American companies are also collecting and selling to whoever wants it.
FirstAtEridu t1_je486tz wrote
Look no further than the Monsanto-Bayer purchase. The moment the germans bought it tens of thousands of lawsuits came in.
Dlwatkin t1_je4rl2n wrote
Monsanto was already in a huge lawsuit before they got bought
FirstAtEridu t1_je4t2ge wrote
>May 29, 2018: U.S. regulator approves Monsanto takeover
>
>July 9: First Roundup trial begins
>
>Aug. 10: California jury finds Roundup caused plaintiff's cancer, orders Bayer to pay $289.2 million
Comical, really. The moment it changed owners and the protective hand was lifted the hits started coming in.
Dlwatkin t1_je4tbrq wrote
not sure your point, the lawsuit was long and on going before they started to buy them
[deleted] t1_je42bis wrote
[removed]
Leading_Initiative50 t1_je46805 wrote
If tik tok is bad what about other social media like Facebook for example ? In reels you can see a lot of „adult content” as well and nobody seems to care
cubonelvl69 t1_je55p7y wrote
It's getting banned because it's owned by china. Facebook and other social medias are not
Mr0HIC t1_je7h4ze wrote
First of all, just stop whataboutism.
JoeFro0 t1_je59m8w wrote
RESTRICTS ACT also known as the tiktok ban is effectively Banning Free Speech, First Amendment, actual Journalism.
Read the RESTRICTS ACT here:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?format=txt&r=15&s=1
Priority Information and Communications Technology Areas.--In carrying out sections 3 and 4, the Secretary shall prioritize evaluation of--
(1) information and communications technology products or services used by a party to a covered transaction in a sector designated as critical infrastructure in Policy Directive 21 (February 12, 2013; relating to critical infrastructure security and resilience);
(2) software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to telecommunications products and services, including-- (A) wireless local area networks; (B) mobile networks; (C) satellite payloads; (D) satellite operations and control; (E) cable access points; (F) wireline access points; (G) core networking systems; (H) long-, short-, and back-haul networks; or (I) edge computer platforms;
(3) any software, hardware, or any other product or service integral to data hosting or computing service that uses, processes, or retains, or is expected to use, process, or retain, sensitive personal data with respect to greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including-- (A) internet hosting services; (B) cloud-based or distributed computing and data storage; (C) machine learning, predictive analytics, and data science products and services, including those involving the provision of services to assist a party utilize, manage, or maintain open-source software; (D) managed services; and (E) content delivery services;
(4) internet- or network-enabled sensors, webcams, end- point surveillance or monitoring devices, modems and home networking devices if greater than 1,000,000 units have been sold to persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction;
(5) unmanned vehicles, including drones and other aerials systems, autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles, or any other product or service integral to the provision, maintenance, or management of such products or services;
(6) software designed or used primarily for connecting with and communicating via the internet that is in use by greater than 1,000,000 persons in the United States at any point during the year period preceding the date on which the covered transaction is referred to the Secretary for review or the Secretary initiates review of the covered transaction, including-- (A) desktop applications; (B) mobile applications; (C) gaming applications; (D) payment applications; or (E) web-based applications; or
(7) information and communications technology products and services integral to-- (A) artificial intelligence and machine learning; (B) quantum key distribution; (C) quantum communications; (D) quantum computing; (E) post-quantum cryptography; (F) autonomous systems; (G) advanced robotics; (H) biotechnology; (I) synthetic biology; (J) computational biology; and (K) e-commerce technology and services, including any electronic techniques for accomplishing business transactions, online retail, internet-enabled logistics, internet-enabled payment technology, and online marketplaces. (b) Considerations Relating to Undue and Unacceptable Risks.--In determining whether a covered transaction poses an undue or unacceptable risk under section 3(a) or 4(a), the Secretary-- (1) shall, as the Secretary determines appropriate and in consultation with appropriate agency heads, consider, where available-- (A) any removal or exclusion order issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense, or the Director of National Intelligence pursuant to recommendations of the Federal Acquisition Security Council pursuant to section 1323 of title 41, United States Code; (B) any order or license revocation issued by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to a transacting party, or any consent decree imposed by the Federal Trade Commission with respect to a transacting party; (C) any relevant provision of the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation and the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and the respective supplements to those regulations; (D) any actual or potential threats to the execution of a national critical function identified by the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; (E) the nature, degree, and likelihood of consequence to the public and private sectors of the United States that would occur if vulnerabilities of the information and communications technologies services supply chain were to be exploited; and (F) any other source of information that the Secretary determines appropriate; and (2) may consider, where available, any relevant threat assessment or report prepared by the Director of National Intelligence completed or conducted at the request of the Secretary. SEC. 6. DESIGNATION OF FOREIGN ADVERSARIES. (a) In General.-- (1) Designation.--The Secretary may, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, designate any foreign government or regime as a foreign adversary if the Secretary finds that the foreign government or regime is engaged in a long-term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons. (2) Removal of designation.--The Secretary may, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, remove the designation of any foreign government or regime as a foreign adversary, including any foreign government or regime identified in section 2(8), if the Secretary finds that the foreign government or regime is no longer engaged in a long- term pattern or serious instances of conduct significantly adverse to the national or economic security of the United States or security and safety of United States persons in a manner that would warrant designation as a foreign adversary. (b) Notice.--Not later than 15 days before the date on which the Secretary makes or removes a designation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall, by classified communication, notify the President pro tempore, Majority Leader, and Minority Leader of the Senate, the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, and the relevant committees of Congress, in writing, of the intent to designate a foreign government or regime as a foreign adversary under this section, together with the findings made under subsection (a) with respect to the foreign government or regime and the factual basis therefor.
RESTRICTS ACT
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/686/text?format=txt&r=15&s=1
TrunksTheMighty t1_je3wnyx wrote
Well since it's likely to still get banned, enjoy the pr while you can, I guess.
roflmaolz t1_je4rd2s wrote
It's getting banned because most Americans are too stupid and propagandized to realize that this Restrict bill that will ban Tiktok is also basically the Patriot Act 2.0.
Living-blech t1_je58967 wrote
Quite bold of you to assume the majority of Americans know what the Patriot act is, let alone what the outcome was. That's half the outcome of the Patriot act...
throwaway12131214121 t1_je6369g wrote
It’s the patriot act on steroids
Higuy54321 t1_je4cguu wrote
Imo it actually may not get banned now, the hearing put a lot of attention on it and people just realized it actually might happen
Since the hearing, left wing democrats have come out against the ban, Fox News came out against the TikTok banning bill, and also people think that the TikTok CEO is hot lmao. It could still happen, but there isn't really a way to ban an app without running into the issues that people have with the bill
Dlwatkin t1_je4rf0n wrote
the bill is awful and more people need to know this
roflmaolz t1_je5s7re wrote
It's not getting a lot of attention though. I tried looking up the Restrict bill and barely see anything in the news about it. Most only make fun of the hearing, but no one was addressing the actual bill.
Also, Reddit has been completely barren about the bill as well. Most Redditors are still in favor of the bill because they think it's just about banning Tiktok. Funny enough, Tiktok is the platform where it is most talked about. Not Reddit, not YouTube, not mainstream news, but Tiktok. Really makes you wonder why they want to ban it so badly.
Lorddon1234 t1_je58d9t wrote
Wait, Fox News is actually against banning Tik Tok???
Higuy54321 t1_je5qsbo wrote
I think they’re more against the bill? But Tucker did play a clip of AOC being against a TikTok ban in general and basically said she’s right, while also saying that she’s still anti American and promotes war against Russia and that the viewer should hate her
But I don’t see how TikTok can be banned without setting a precedent for banning any foreign tech that has the potential to be a future security threat. And that’s what people against the bill do not want
Lorddon1234 t1_je5t29w wrote
Gotcha. Thanks for the context!
Unintended_incentive t1_je4xf46 wrote
The wording of the bill could cause trouble for the likes of Tencent as well. Games like Valorant or Genshin Impact could be banned under this bill.
lori_lightbrain t1_je52h18 wrote
>The wording of the bill could cause trouble for the likes of Tencent as well. Games like Valorant or Genshin Impact could be banned under this bill.
The government itself is in violation of that law because it probably uses javascript libraries written by chinese or russians that would fall under its scope.
Unintended_incentive t1_je57dq6 wrote
Not that the government would care to understand what code libraries are in the first place.
faptainfalcon t1_je7f3tu wrote
Good. Adversaries shouldn't be installing their homebrewed rootkits even if it helps against cheating.
No-Function-9174 t1_je5xekv wrote
Fox is owned by Australia, why not banned it too.
spectre1210 t1_je4x62g wrote
Lol alright two week old Reddit account whose posting history illustrates your karma farming of the recent shooting in Nashville...
zeaussiestew t1_jec09k1 wrote
Yeah, not only did the US put Muslims into camps (Guantánamo Bay), but they also started wars in the US for self serving reasons that killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Yeah, they definitely did kill their own students for protesting, it was called Kent State.
Yeah, they definitely did subjugate ethnic states and invade neighbouring territories with their history of wars with American Indians and Mexico.
Can’t believe people actually believe this propaganda about the China bogeyman.
johnjohn4011 t1_je4h4al wrote
Thought experiment - would China let the US run their own version of TikTok in China?
atwegotsidetrekked t1_je4ili2 wrote
Didn’t know that the bar for democracy and freedom was mirroring a totalitarian society.
But after reading the restrict act, looks like the USA would Rather look to China’s great firewall as inspiration instead of European GDPR, that is much more effective at protecting citizens.
But you know, can’t give up on the surveillance state that started with the patriot act.
johnjohn4011 t1_je4ka2x wrote
I don't see the wisdom in allowing China to operate here in ways they would never let us or anyone else, operate there. Maybe you should go live in China if you think it's such a great place, comparatively. Or maybe you already do? That would definitely explain your position. It's one thing for one's own country to do internal surveillance, but a whole other thing entirely to let another politically adverserial country do it inside your borders, eh?
atwegotsidetrekked t1_je4losm wrote
How is saying that China is a totalitarian state support for China? Wtf
I am a US Army Veteran honorable. So I will say what I think when I think it and you resorting to personal insults shows you lost the debate.
The United States with the restrict act is building the legal framework for a Chinese great firewall. This is a fact that isn’t debatable.
The United States could have instead implemented the EU GDPR, that actually protects citizens privacy.
Teftell t1_je4nhm4 wrote
Your Restrict act is far above Chinese and Russian laws in terms of opression and censorship, since non of those two jail people for visiting sites or using VPNs. And then your officials tell us to overthrow our totalitarian government, the irony.
[deleted] t1_je5kse4 wrote
[deleted]
manimarco1108 t1_je4tbda wrote
Peak reddit comment
johnjohn4011 t1_je5q03q wrote
What are you even talking about? Chinese citizens found creating or selling unapproved VPNs have received fines and prison sentences anywhere from three days to more than five years.
roflmaolz t1_je5su77 wrote
Want to know what the punishment will be in the Restrict bill? $250k to $1 million fine, and up to 20 years in prison. Also will be a federal crime.
Sounds a lot worse than 3 days to 5 years.
https://www.newsweek.com/does-tiktok-ban-allow-20-year-prison-sentence-1790932
johnjohn4011 t1_je5tpqk wrote
Why don't you read the whole article lol. Those fines are not for individual users, while the three days to 5 years is.
roflmaolz t1_je6rdqn wrote
I did skim that article tbh cause I'm at work, but let's look at the bill itself.
>(c) Criminal Penalties.—
>(1) IN GENERAL.—A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
That sure sounds like it isn't for individual users. Sounds like the wording is broad enough to allow for them to use it against anyone.
And yea, btw, politicians lie all the time. Just because he said it, doesn't mean it's true.
spectre1210 t1_je4xzsy wrote
Stick to Genshin and PCs - you know, the things you're actually midly informed about lol.
Teftell t1_je5159b wrote
No, I will make fun of 'murricans praising a totalitarian law, enjoy your democracy, while you can.
spectre1210 t1_je54uu7 wrote
Lol you'll make fun of Americans because you fail to comprehend what's being said? I figured when you used the label 'murricans' in this reply.
Please tell us, what beacon of democracy do you hail from? Don't worry, I'll wait...
Teftell t1_je5716v wrote
I do not live in a "beacon of democracy", I live in a totalitarian shithole of a country. And now as I saw your Restrict bill, I can not resist but laugh and make fun of you. A vague law, that will allow to ban any foreign site or software without disclosing a reason, allowing to jail you for a decade just for use of a VPN, for visiting restricted site, in a country, that sanctioned my shithole for totalitarian opression, that proclaims itself a spearhead of democratic and liberal values, what a treat!
spectre1210 t1_je57uv0 wrote
Ahh so it's just a game of whataboutism! Not surprising given your proximity to the former Soviet Union.
I'll certainly agree that this bill is too vague and needs refining language to specify its intent, but saying this makes us worse than China or Russia when it comes to digital privacy is laughable.
Teftell t1_je59zg1 wrote
I can use VPN, visit restricted sites without a threat of being jailed for 10 years or going bankrupt, will you be able to say the same in a near future?
spectre1210 t1_je5auf2 wrote
RemindMe! 2 years
Teftell t1_je5te86 wrote
May be like 2 months?
spectre1210 t1_je5u8xy wrote
Lol OK - then set a reminder and show me how wrong I am come June.
Edit: Or just scurry off to your corner, as was expected.
spectre1210 t1_je5arhx wrote
I also get all my news analysis from Twitter and social media lol.
roflmaolz t1_je5t7ns wrote
https://www.newsweek.com/does-tiktok-ban-allow-20-year-prison-sentence-1790932
Here is that Twitter source for you!
Btw I'm American and personally don't want to see another Patriot act in my lifetime.
spectre1210 t1_je5to6n wrote
Oh thanks! Did you read the actual article, or just the headline?
Here, I'll help you out:
> "Under the terms of the bill, someone must be engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S., causing 'catastrophic effects' on U.S. critical infrastructure, or 'interfering in, or altering the result' of a federal election in order for criminal penalties to apply," Warner's communications director, Rachel Cohen, said.
Lol OK, you're an American. So am I. Saying Patriot Act isn't going to be enough for me to disregard my entire point. I agree the language in this bill is a bit non-specific (often how legislation is crafted) and could be refined, but anyone claiming they won't be able to use a VPN in the next few months is being bombastic at best.
roflmaolz t1_je6s9zu wrote
Right, just like how the Patriot act was supposed to be just for anti terrorism and all of a sudden, NSA is wiretapping and gathering data on regular Americans.
That's the problem that you don't seem to understand. This vague and broad wording is giving unelected officials broad and sweeping powers to do so much all in the name of "national security", just like the Patriot act. You have to be really naive to think the government won't abuse this power and stretch the wording to do as much as they want.
spectre1210 t1_je75axn wrote
The failing of the Patriot Act is the act itself, or a failure to enforce it as was intended? I'd certainly argue the original intent of that bill was justified in its own right, as is the RESTRICT Act considering TikTok's proximity to the Chinese government. We've also ceased use of Huawei chips in federal devices for similar reasons, so it's not exactly like this is an immediate reaction over a singular event. But if you're genuinely concerned about surveillance and manipulation of regular citizens, just you wait until you learn about how China operates - at least one reason to put in the "pro" list of the RESTRICT Act.
So you see, the problem is that you don't seem to understand. In fact, it seems like all you want to do is compare this to the Patriot Act, and label anyone as naive who disagrees with you.
Amusingly, I think you're naive for failing to see the differences in these circumstances, rather than fixating on the similarities.
[deleted] t1_je5kiox wrote
[deleted]
johnjohn4011 t1_je5p8ka wrote
Thank you for your service. Otherwise, let me know when that great Chinese firewall has actually been implemented here. Otherwise you're just fear mongering in an attempt to undermine this country's attempts to police itself against such entities as the Chinese Communist party among another things... and that's a fact that isn't debatable. Also I stated no personal insults - but obviously you feel a need to take things as such. Victim much? The GDPR will be unenforceable without any direct proof. Do you really expect China to store the evidence of spying through TIkTok on servers here, where it can be detected?
itsallfairlyshite t1_je5et41 wrote
> I am a US Army Veteran honorable
How does facilitating the murder of innocent families for profit make you honorable?
atwegotsidetrekked t1_je5j35i wrote
Incoherent much?
Who said anything about facilitating murder or even once defending China’s human rights record?
[deleted] t1_je5jgl6 wrote
[removed]
spectre1210 t1_je6ly1x wrote
> I am [NOT] a US Army Veteran honorable.
Just going based off of typical Reddit and social media interactions.
So I will say what I think when I think it and you resorting to personal insults shows you lost the debate. "So I think I'm given carte blanche to run my ignorant mouth and demand it be treated equivalent as objective fact, but those considerations don't apply to you since you lost the debate...because army."
FTFY
cubonelvl69 t1_je560it wrote
You don't even have to do a thought experiment. China banned Facebook and YouTube, they'd absolutely ban an American tiktok
AwfulUsername123 t1_je3zjch wrote
Yeah, some lawmakers said stupid things. The app is still getting banned.
Gold_Rush69 t1_je41med wrote
Glad to see the country that runs concentration camps in the 21st century is getting good PR.
ChampionshipKlutzy42 t1_je4lqys wrote
Are you talking about the US putting refugee children in cages at the border and having the highest incarceration rates in the world?
Potential-Panda-2814 t1_je98nb0 wrote
No answer?
Where would you rather the children go?
ChampionshipKlutzy42 t1_je9dysk wrote
Where would the children go? clearly not in cages! it costs the tax payers $50-60 dollars a day to detain them in those conditions. $1500 a month.
How many people would let refugees have a spare room in their home if the government paid them $1500 a month per person?
A program could be created as an extension of the foster care system.
[deleted] t1_je7fri1 wrote
[removed]
Potential-Panda-2814 t1_je4tct1 wrote
Where would you rather the children go?
[deleted] t1_je4uzav wrote
[removed]
Gold_Rush69 t1_je4uuws wrote
No, I’m talking about China putting Uyghurs in prison camps where they are tortured, raped, starved, beaten, and executed.
And China has the highest incarceration rate considering the whole country is a prison.
The_Last_Green_leaf t1_je4ta8g wrote
none of those are concentration camps, also whataboutism.
SectorEducational460 t1_je54wn6 wrote
Is it whataboutism when you point a hypocrisy out?
The_Last_Green_leaf t1_je94ayj wrote
no whataboutism is whenever people point out the fact that china is currently committing a genocide, you Chinese bots go "mUh aMeRiCa" to defend them.
that is textbook whataboutism.
SectorEducational460 t1_je9bvc2 wrote
It's fair argument when the topic is relevant.
The_Last_Green_leaf t1_jefuog7 wrote
but the topic isn't relevant because we're talking about china's current ongoing genocide.
atwegotsidetrekked t1_je4iw6k wrote
Gold_Rush69 t1_je4wvvp wrote
That doesn’t really factor the fact that most of the world still have the death penalty, cops you can bride, or poor law enforcement.
You may argue that some US states have the death penalty as well but it’s so bureaucratic and slow hardly anyone ever gets executed in the states where it is legal.
Also I’d take a prison sentence in the US over being stoned to death in Saudi Arabia, especially considering the fact that adultery is punishable by death, and that includes women who get raped since apparently that counts as adultery.
Uganda just made being gay punishable by death, but hey, at least they have a low incarceration rate.
Also China has the highest incarceration rate in the world considering the whole country is a prison.
The US my have a high incarceration rate compared to the rest of the world but the rest of the world kinda sucks at criminal justice.
atwegotsidetrekked t1_je4z9fh wrote
The USA sucks at criminal justice.
Your comparison to awful countries proves my point. The United States is the worst among western nations. When your using Saudi Arabia and China as your starting metric for human rights, that’s a fucking low bar.
I am not going to get in the gutter about what country sucks most, I am just saying that the USA is a glass house on human rights both domestic and abroad. But yeah, better than China, low bar.
Do better
Gold_Rush69 t1_je5ahzy wrote
You’re the one who started the whataboutism by responding to my criticism of China’s concentration camps with incarceration statistics.
“better then China, low bar”
That was literally my original point.
FISHING_100000000000 t1_je535qo wrote
Sure, we’ve got empty bottles, food wrappers, and piss stains everywhere, but we’re better than than than the landfill down the road!
Gold_Rush69 t1_je5chts wrote
Literally the same thing they replied to my original comment with.
Me: China has concentration camps.
Them: responds with link to incarceration stats
Teftell t1_je4mui0 wrote
Also that country as well as another country will have less censorship and no prosecution for using VPN if that bill passes, making US a sole champion of totalitarian censorship and opression.
noorbeast t1_je415qm wrote
Should Americans be protected from the technological tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party, for sure, at the same time the rest of us should be protected from American survielence capitalist social media + NSA, as non-USA democratic citizens don't we deserve the same respect and consideration, or are the $$$ just too alluring to live up to shared values /s.