• @sexy_peach@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    02 years ago

    The problem they see is the one-to-many communication, with huge channels where channel creators can post to 100.000 others.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      32 years ago

      Sure, but the premise here is that the government should be able to control what people are allowed to discuss using online platforms. I don’t necessarily disagree with the notion of limiting harmful speech, but it’s worth pointing out that this is precisely the kind of thing westerners like to criticize China for doing saying that Chinese government is authoritarian.

      If we accept that it is reasonable for the government to limit free speech when it’s deemed harmful and to ban platforms that don’t comply then we have to admit that China’s approach to controlling online speech was fundamentally correct. It certainly could be argued that it helped avoid the kind of social instability we now see in the west.

    • @isleofmist
      link
      12 years ago

      It’s not ok for the government to limit what you can say.

        • @isleofmist
          link
          12 years ago

          That’s an easy and obvious case to make a small exception for. But not a good reason for this kind of widespread censorship.

          • @sexy_peach@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            02 years ago

            Widespread? Afaik the only thing that was banned was a couple of 1 to many thousand channels that spread neo nazi propaganda and anti vax content. Many are still up of course.

            I don’t think it’s effective to do this btw.