> Of course that was not done at the behest of the US Government.
How would we know that?
When ActivisionBlizzard, a US company, banned a player for trying to turn a private event into a political platform nobody wanted to see evidence for how "The CCP forced ActiBlizz to do that!", it was just accepted as established fact, even without the slightest bit of evidence for it.
> Criticism of the US, US politicians and Government officials is rampant on Western social media.
Just like a demand to moderate it even more [0]. Just like this kind of criticism can have very far-reaching consequences in the real world [1].
> The US Government doesn't try to censor this.
No, it just nudges US social media companies into doing it for them under the very real threat of having government regulation forced on them [2] As a German, I'm plenty familiar with this kind of "Not government-censorship censorship" that gives legal plausible deniability but still ends up forcing people into censoring their content if they want it to get any exposure.
> Meanwhile, Chinese tech companies are beholden to the whims of China's CCP leaders.
Unlike US companies? The third-party doctrine [3] is still a very real thing, heavy cooperation between US private companies and US intelligence services is still a very real thing . Just because people sometimes talk about PRISM, and pretty much only that [4], does not change the reality that these crimes are still going on to this day.
But that's okay because "We are allowed to talk about it!", somewhere besides the mainstream, every couple of months when Snowden manages to pierce a headline trough the attention glass ceiling, after that it's back to business as usual.
A reminder: Intel is subsidized by the US government, Intel's ME is pretty much exactly what Bloomsberg fictional Chinese super spy chip supposedly does [5]. The difference is: Intel ME is real [6], Bloomberg's chip has yet to be actually found, even tho there are supposedly tens of thousands of physical samples in the US.
This has very real consequences for companies outside the US [7]. Deflecting from that whole situation by going "We sometimes talk about PRISM", when nothing changes and no major political movements are pushing for change, is belittling the problem for the sake of projecting a completely fictional moral high ground.
How would we know that?
When ActivisionBlizzard, a US company, banned a player for trying to turn a private event into a political platform nobody wanted to see evidence for how "The CCP forced ActiBlizz to do that!", it was just accepted as established fact, even without the slightest bit of evidence for it.
> Criticism of the US, US politicians and Government officials is rampant on Western social media.
Just like a demand to moderate it even more [0]. Just like this kind of criticism can have very far-reaching consequences in the real world [1].
> The US Government doesn't try to censor this.
No, it just nudges US social media companies into doing it for them under the very real threat of having government regulation forced on them [2] As a German, I'm plenty familiar with this kind of "Not government-censorship censorship" that gives legal plausible deniability but still ends up forcing people into censoring their content if they want it to get any exposure.
> Meanwhile, Chinese tech companies are beholden to the whims of China's CCP leaders.
Unlike US companies? The third-party doctrine [3] is still a very real thing, heavy cooperation between US private companies and US intelligence services is still a very real thing . Just because people sometimes talk about PRISM, and pretty much only that [4], does not change the reality that these crimes are still going on to this day.
But that's okay because "We are allowed to talk about it!", somewhere besides the mainstream, every couple of months when Snowden manages to pierce a headline trough the attention glass ceiling, after that it's back to business as usual.
A reminder: Intel is subsidized by the US government, Intel's ME is pretty much exactly what Bloomsberg fictional Chinese super spy chip supposedly does [5]. The difference is: Intel ME is real [6], Bloomberg's chip has yet to be actually found, even tho there are supposedly tens of thousands of physical samples in the US.
This has very real consequences for companies outside the US [7]. Deflecting from that whole situation by going "We sometimes talk about PRISM", when nothing changes and no major political movements are pushing for change, is belittling the problem for the sake of projecting a completely fictional moral high ground.
[0] https://medium.com/@nayafia/why-do-millennials-support-gover...
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/27/border-deny-entry-united-s...
[2] https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/327887/pbs-th...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine
[4] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/20140...
[5] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-10-04/the-big-h...
[6] https://www.bsi.bund.de/SharedDocs/Warnmeldungen/DE/CB/2018/...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial...