Which will be more open in five years: American Internet or Chinese Internet?

Which will be more open in five years: American Internet or Chinese Internet?

Attached: 36700077_674324859572499_7185955142087213056_n.jpg (560x386, 27K)

Other urls found in this thread:

reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked
twitter.com/AnonBabble

ur anus

I always have high hopes for the revolutionary citizens of China. We will see.

Chinese internet is already more open then in west. Try pirating something in China and then in Germany.

Well, the American Internet will be more open, but you're setting the lowest possible bar.

Here, have some of my magical Chinese-repellent runes.

>六四事件
>八九民运
>六四运动
>陆肆
>六四
>自由花

Guaranteed to keep mainland chinks off your internet or your money back.

So what is your logic? Some memes related to western attempt of overthrowing the government and plunging China in civil war are censored, so internet is more closed? Try mentioning that holocaust is not real on your facebook page.

BTFO

Nice mental gymnastics there, Zhang.
Facebook can't censor the whole internet to users, the CPC can.

>what is the great firewall of china

CPC doesn't censor users, it filters out retards
Thing to prevent google from spying on you

Holy shit, Chinese actually believe that.
Or are you on a government paycheck?

Weak bait
Also.you wouldnt be able to use Jow Forums as a Chinese citizen

Technically everyone in China is on government paycheck, because government in China actually works and its actions result in everyone in society getting more rich over recent decades. That's why no one China doesn't give a fuck about government involvement. Because government = more money for everyone. Now in US government only exists to serve the interests of 1% of super rich at the expense of everyone else, that's why you think that government involvement is bad thing.

Wrong.

“American” Internet is already open. If China loosens their grip over their citizens (fat chance) then I guess they would be more open. This is a really retarded question but I guess you got my (You) anyway.

Attached: 6E5CAB35-0689-4DA0-8307-CAD20A2B9C12.gif (300x300, 43K)

>he actually believes this

Attached: 1489057971233.gif (540x350, 868K)

5 Social Credits have been deposited in your account.

>make a thread trying to bait americans
>a chink gets baited instead

Chinese can use Jow Forums if they have a pass. Have you never seen someone post with a Chinese flag?

>Paying for a right to post on a capitalist Imageboard.
Personally, I see nothing wrong there.

>Us courts literally just said it is legal to publish gun making videos on the internet
My money is in merica. Past 2024 who knows

American internet is already heavily censored, have to use russian yandex for lots of shit that google just don't "see" anymore.

Murican one might start costing more for non supported content but it's unlikely to have serious active censorship. Shit's going to be subtle. CPC doesn't need to be subtle and

Don't you have some winnie the poo memes to cry about?

Chinks are having almost as many billionaires as Burgers soon. Neither of the two governments is working for the interest of the people. The Chinese one just doesn't fuck theirs as hard.

>implying gun making videos would be legal in China
>implying there is any positive in allowing crazy people easy access to guns

>my c&d battle with German copyright lawyers still isn't over after two years

Attached: 0b8.gif (320x287, 2.36M)

Like what?

Yes you can, it's not blocked in china you mong

600,000,00 wangs have been deposited (conversion to usd = $0.01)

Chinese

Prepare to get mail from them just before three years pass, usually around Christmas. German copyright lawyers are cheeky motherfuckers.

>conversion to usd
No thanks, I like my wangs raw.

Attached: 1525697407751.jpg (1087x1080, 112K)

>The Chinese one just doesn't fuck theirs as hard.
That better be fucking bait.
>implying there is any positive in allowing crazy people easy access to guns
>implying there isn't a greater point being made

This, but unironically.

>Jow Forumstards measuring censorship by piracy

Attached: 15 - 1.jpg (192x320, 21K)

I pirated an episode of CSI:NY in Japan once. ISP sent me a warning a week later. MPAA niggers have literally transcended borders

It's those sweet trade agreements. What, are you against JOBS?!

holy fuck OP got demolished

>ISP sent me a warning a week later
I wish, I ended up having to pay ~2500 euroshekels

did you pay right away?

>More billionaires means a bad government
Holy shit what a bad post.

No, I went into dispute saying I have low income yada yada and they agreed to letting me pay ~2000 over a period of 18 months

wow, you destroyed that fucking retard so bad. his little tiny pea brain can't even comprehend what you said he's such a subhuman too.

>mention you holocaust isn't real and your life is over in the west
>mention you don't like niggers blacking your wife and murdering your son and you're racyst who loses job
>facebook, google, and twitter will censor you for anything they dislike BUT THAT'S NOT THE GUBBERMENT
etc etc. the deluded retards can't even understand this point though.

Honestly given the mainland chinese I have to deal with, you could give them open internet and they still wouldn't know how to use it properly. Most are too retarded to even walk in a straight line.

And that's why I pirate exclusively through my Russian NAS.
Torrent everything to it and then download to my local PC overnight.

One word: Private Internet Access.

wagecuck

The trick is that with Facebook you don't need to censor the entire internet. Dumb fucks don't even use other parts of the anymore.

>That better be fucking bait.
Chinks have fewer freedoms when it comes to expression but they have better health care and worker protection, and lower retirement age. College is way more affordable too. You underestimate just how bad people in Murica are fucked even compared to developing countries. Hell, what does the Murican government even do for the people outside of filling jails with niggers, killing sand niggers across the world and blowing their corporations?

>implying there isn't a greater point being made
Well, the point is shitty if it relies on bitching about limiting harm.

It's a good sign that the government prioritises parasites instead of their citizens, especially if there is such a huge gap between them.

The US and Germany are the only western countries where at least 60% of the population are pirates.

France and Spain got a huge scene too. And there is some country in the north that hosts THE piracy site.

>It's a good sign that the government prioritises parasites instead of their citizens, especially if there is such a huge gap between them.

Why yes comrade, let's just be poor together instead

>It's a good sign that the government prioritises parasites instead of their citizens
I hope this is bait

Swede here. The boomers are still totally against piracy and compare it to murder or theft.

>facebook filename

They usually are, outside of east europe and third world countries.

Or we could just throw all our resources at few individuals and hope something will tickle down back! Didn't work in the last 40 years but maybe 40 more will do the trick?

>Didn't work in the last 40 years

Have you no knowledge of modern history at all?

Real wages for plebs stagnated (well, often went a bit down) while our overlords got richer and richer without giving shit back. It's not even a fucking secret or anything.

I'm in China right now, all foreign websites are slow as ass, it dosen't matter what circumvention you use. It sucks being a foreigner here, people are always looking at you, including the police and government.

Attached: Screenshot_20180807-220422.jpg (1080x1920, 279K)

>It sucks being a foreigner here
You have nobody to blame but yourself. That's like living in a zoo exhibit and feeling out of place.

It's a company buisness trip, I'm not some loser sexpat.

you don't need to route all your shit through russia faggot.
Virtually all EE countries are exactly the same open to piracy and they have better infrastructure/speed.

You're also helping the FSB,be it "encrypted" traffic or not.Though i doubt they care about terabytes of degenerate content

Pwned

As China grows this 1984 shit becomes less and less tenable. It'll explode because of this.

Obvious bait but a lot of mainlanders actually believe it

Well, the left is going full fascist mode and want to censor everything, so I guess it depends on who wins in 2020.

Attached: 1532394072291.jpg (851x714, 80K)

>It's a company buisness trip,
>I'm not some loser sexpat.
You're on Jow Forums during a 'company buisness trip'
You're a loser, 'sexpat' or not

Can you post on Jow Forums without vpn?

>better worker protection

>As China grows this 1984 shit becomes less and less tenable. It'll explode because of this.
The west is having a slow erode of freedom and you believe that authoritarianism will make China explode?

american internet you fucking retard.

what kind of retarded thread is this? unless a unilateral western trade war btfo's china so hard they overthrow their government and install a more western one, it's not going to change.

He's not even remotely wrong. Look at this shit and tell me this isn't fascistic in anyway shape or form:
reason.com/blog/2018/07/31/democrats-tech-policy-plans-leaked

Chink workers have more rights than Burgers, look it up, nigga.

On the paper maybe

zhang please. you have to wear the brain monitoring helmet at all times during work hours.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT, the fascist want us to label bots as bots! They even want independent audits, to make sure companies are accountable. As for the rest, it's already common practice. Democrats are really out of touch if they want to sell common practices as new shit.

In reality too if they work in the cities. The only aspect that's worse is safety.

Obviously it doesn't mean worker rights in China are great but people underestimate just how insane it's in Murica, making almost any other shithole look decent in comparison when it comes to labour laws.

You mean like Amazon trackers incase the peasants decide to take a bathroom break?

government wise... america
once you take into account 'its their service, they can do what they want' excuses, china.

Censorship interfering with commerce and free trade is an antiquated idea. You can (and China has to some degree) censor in a careful, precise way that doesn't impede economic activity on the slightest.

they will be equally restrictive is subtly different ways
screencap this post

>banning media doesn't impede economic activity

>And—of course— these include further revisions to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, recently amended by Congress to exclude protections for prostitution-related content. A revision to Section 230 could provide the ability for users to demand takedowns of certain sorts of content and hold platforms liable if they don't abide, it says, while admitting that "attempting to distinguish between true disinformation and legitimate satire could prove difficult."

>"The proposals in the paper are wide ranging and in some cases even politically impossible, and raise almost as many questions as they try to answer," suggested Mathew Ingram, putting it very mildly at the Columbia Journalism Review.

So basically, they're trying to denigrate the 1st Amendment under the guise of national security and then actively control aspects of private corporations that manage the information highway because they think that people are so stupid that they give a shit what a bot thinks. Not mention they want to actively force these companies to do things like make it mandatory that you disclose where you are when you use their service and force you to use private details even if you don't want to (a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment), which might be in place in a shithole like yours, but I don't want some giant megacorp using my private data willy-nilly because the gov't told them they needed it.

Meant for

here's a more interesting question:
What will you still be allowed to say on the internet in 5 years without life-ruining government/social repercussions: in China vs in America

>The only aspect that's worse is safety.
Dude
>how insane it's in Murica
I'm aware, but when amazon worker killed himself

It's already worse in the US

user that's three words.

There's nothing funny about Uranus.

>A revision to Section 230 could provide the ability for users to demand takedowns of certain sorts of content and hold platforms liable if they don't abide
Sounds like something to use for revenge porn stuff. With misuse potential but it exist for any law, while these are just incomplete proposals.

>make it mandatory that you disclose where you are when you use their service and force you to use private details even if you don't want to
Practically it's already the case since any major company complies when there is a request from the guberment.

>but I don't want some giant megacorp using my private data willy-nilly because the gov't told them they needed it
Well, you're at least a decade too late now. All your companies already have to share shit about you. Thank the terrorist meme for that.

>they think that people are so stupid that they give a shit what a bot thinks
It's how marketing works. Shit isn't as simple as "I read bot said X, so I believe in X" and more about diluting information while slowly planting ideas and doubt in your head. Works every time once you repeat it often enough with a minimum of finesse, whether it's "Coke is refreshing" or "But her emails."

>muh suicide rates
This is such an outdate meme. Suicide rate inside the evil Foxconn plants was lower than the national average in China, which is lower than the national average in Murica. The guys in China just tried to send a message/protest, while your average Amazon drone just off himself quietly at home.

Come on, dude. Check the data first, don't make me defend fucking China.

>Sounds like something to use for revenge porn stuff.
We both know that this law is not about this
>With misuse potential but it exist for any law
True but this law seems to be made to be misused
> "But her emails."
Only few cuckservatives really cared about the emails, killary lost because of her hubris

>Sounds like something to use for revenge porn stuff. With misuse potential but it exist for any law, while these are just incomplete proposals.

The law even notes it can't distinguish between satire and actual disinfo campaigns effectively. Why would you pass a law like that in a society that values free speech and even potentially silence a form of free speech due to the conspiratorial rantings and ravings of a bunch of brian-dead Cold Warriors?

>Practically it's already the case since any major company complies when there is a request from the guberment.
Only when there's a warrant out for the person in question for a crime that the government otherwise wants to investigate in some manner. We have the 4th Amendment for a reason. The gov't can't just get someone's private data without otherwise proving they committed a crime or have a warrant to investigate their actions in a criminal investigation. The average person can't have their data randomly given to the gov't just because "MUH NATIONAL SECURITY".

>Well, you're at least a decade too late now. All your companies already have to share shit about you. Thank the terrorist meme for that.
This point is fair enough.

>It's how marketing works. Shit isn't as simple as "I read bot said X, so I believe in X" and more about diluting information while slowly planting ideas and doubt in your head. Works every time once you repeat it often enough with a minimum of finesse, whether it's "Coke is refreshing" or "But her emails."
The thing is with advertising and most products, people don't have a strong preference one way or another. Pepsi is replaceable with Coke which is replaceable with Dr. Pepper. They're good that can be replaced with one another and most people wouldn't care on way or another, which is why people buy the one that has the prettiest logos and the catchiest tunes in their advertisement. Meanwhile, when we're dealing with politics, people rarely change their political preferences

because of facts or "disinfo". Politics is more akin to footbal in that you support one team no matter what. You're not going to change teams because someone told you something you don't like, but you are more likely to gravitate towards people that share your same worldview. Not to mention Which is why I think the whole craze about bots is idiotic: they aren't going to persuade large swaths of the population one way or the other. All they can do at the very worst is build echo chambers in the farthest, most extreme segments of the political spectrum, who are already prone to social alienation and being in an echo chamber.

>True but this law seems to be made to be misused
That's bit unfair. It's clearly a law with positive potential. The huge potential for misuse shouldn't be ignored but not overestimated either.

>due to the conspiratorial rantings and ravings of a bunch of brian-dead Cold Warriors?
Because crazy people telling other crazy people crazy things can backfire pretty bad. It's a very fine line between freeze peach and incitement to crime. I sure as fuck wouldn't want to deal with it, because every decision is bound to be somewhat wrong.

>have a warrant to investigate their actions in a criminal investigation
Which leaves a lot room open, before even considering the secret courts. Nigga, you got no-fly lists, stop pretending there is much freedums to take left.

>Politics is more akin to footbal in that you support one team no matter what.
That only applies to true believers, who are usually a minority. The big factor about elections are the undecided and the mostly apathetic voters, who might and might not turn up. The manipulation is aimed at them, not to convert a bible belt republican to support Shillary or make stronk black wimin vote for Trump.

>who are already prone to social alienation and being in an echo chamber
The whole social media cancer makes the whole problem way more extreme though. I do agree that bots aren't a HUGE deal but it's shit worth addressing and while they are unlikely to have a huge effect, shouldn't be underestimated either. Besides it's not like any party is going to want to do deal with larger problems like voters not giving enough fucks over the shitty choices they have left, since that might affect the duopoly.

>It's a very fine line between freeze peach and incitement to crime.
Except being misinformed isn't a crime, nor is holding dumb beliefs that can be disproven. A hypothetical doesn't cut it. The Constitution allows for people to be malinformed. It doesn't allow for people to have their rights trampled on because of a moral panic.

>Which leaves a lot room open, before even considering the secret courts. Nigga, you got no-fly lists, stop pretending there is much freedums to take left.
Yeah, but you have to have a starting place when you want to talk about what the gov't should and shouldn't do based on the fucking Constitution it was established on. You can't just allow all ills in the world because the gov't wants to normalize them and use them to shit on the Constitution further.

>The big factor about elections are the undecided and the mostly apathetic voters, who might and might not turn up. The manipulation is aimed at them

Which wouldn't work for the vast majority of their targets, since they aren't socially alienated much if at all since their views lie between garden variety conservatism and garden variety liberalism, well within the Overton window. These people are living comfortable lies under the status quo and don't have much to lose either way (at least in their minds) since everything they have is going to be there the day after the election, hence they don't care as much about elections in the first place. At worst, they pay more in taxes (or less if you are that self-hating/virtue-signalling). That's a pity, but not a disaster. They're apathetic for good reason and nothing short of a complete shitstorm would change that. Bots on Twitter aren't going anywhere close to changing that.

I wanna add:
>Because crazy people telling other crazy people crazy things can backfire pretty bad.
Sounds like a problem with crazy people. That's why we have (or at least ought to have) asylums to separate them from the public. You can't punish everyone for the crime someone else committed.

*comfortable lives under the status quo

>Except being misinformed isn't a crime
Sure but being the person who intentionally misinforms others and then have them causing actual harm with the misinformation edges close to crime. Mason didn't kill anyone himself either, just abused his power over crazy people. Some chick didn't kill a guy but was encouraging about his suicide and ended up in prison because of it. Whether it's a rapper getting investigated over saying they wish the president were dead or a meme spreading faggot with a cult following who accuses people of crime causing the followers to act ... shit is nothing new and yet still pretty tricky.

>You can't punish everyone for the crime someone else committed.
So if you tell some deranged idiot to do something stupid, while having a good reason to suspect that he will indeed do it, you're completely blame-free? Usually the courts disagree.

>You can't just allow all ills in the world because the gov't wants to normalize them and use them to shit on the Constitution further.
You're right, it just seems that suggestions for potential laws is a weird starting point given the existence of questionable laws. It's somewhat like worrying about climate change while your house is on fire.

>hence they don't care as much about elections in the first place
And this is where the propaganda comes in. Depending on your goals, you either want to motivate them to care a bit more or make them more apathetic and stay home. A decent disinfo campaign can push some to the desired side. How many and how effective it really is depends on too many variables to take a solid guess but if powerful actors are willing to invest resources into it, shit is unlikely to be completely useless.

>Chinks have fewer freedoms when it comes to expression but they have better health care and worker protection, and lower retirement age. College is way more affordable too.


The US looks really sleek compared to elder suicide, corporate sweatshop gulags, and having to hit and run rather than pay the rest of your natural life for their healthcare all with commie overlords inspecting your CAT5 cable for incoming and outgoing freedums.

>Sure but being the person who intentionally misinforms others and then have them causing actual harm with the misinformation edges close to crime.
Not if the misinformation is of a non-criminal nature. In that case, it's just being a dishonest piece of shit, but you still have the right to say it. You didn't make them commit the crime, they did it of their own accord.

>So if you tell some deranged idiot to do something stupid, while having a good reason to suspect that he will indeed do it, you're completely blame-free?
Yeah, if that something stupid isn't actually harming anyone, which most misinformation, intentional or not, doesn't.

>Depending on your goals, you either want to motivate them to care a bit more or make them more apathetic and stay home.
Except their lives aren't in shambles. like I said they have nothing to gain from either side winning an election. The same reason propaganda works on people with extreme beliefs is the same reason people who lost everything in life join cults or join said extreme political movements in the first place: they see the sense of belonging and the like-mindedness of people they associate with as a huge benefit to them. That's how people like Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler and Lenin/Stalin got into power and that's how Christianity pretty much spread across the Roman World: by appealing to the rejects of society and making them feel like they had a place in society. People that are being well-served by society ( the vast majority of the country) can't be propagandized into voting for a change because they like the status quo.
This election cycle, only like 33% of the US voted (a record low), on both sides of the isle because they didn't like the candidates that were presented and said they'd rather not bother voting, hence why both candidates had historical highs in their levels of unpopularity. You don't need a dumb conspiracy theory to explain what happened in 2016 holistically.