Apple Removes TikTok From App Store on iPhones and iPads in the U.S.

[surferfb]

This really sums it up for me. It is censorship, it sets a bad precedent, and I have not seen adequate justification for such. “China does it too” seems to be a recurring justification from those who support the ban on this forum, and is just about the most unconvincing argument one could muster.

My issue is allowing an ideological enemy of the United States to mainline propaganda into Americans, particularly the youth. If you’re fine with that then you’re fine with that, but don’t be surprised if you find that China gets a lot more powerful in the coming decades and does things like “invade democratic Taiwan” without any pushback.

 

[Analog Kid]

Not the same thing. We should outlaw the sale of our data without opt-in explicit consent across the board. There wouldn’t be a need to put the onus on everyone to beef up all their security if we spiked the market itself.

It was the same thing as what you said, even if you didn't say exactly what you meant.

I would also like to put ownership of personal data in the hands of the people it pertains to, but I completely disagree you wouldn't need to hold companies accountable for protecting data if they couldn't sell it. Your credit card company and phone service provider have a bunch of data about you that they need to have to provide the services they do and they don't feel as responsible for protecting it as they should.

The problem isn't that people's data is being sold by TikTok, it's that it's being given to the the Chinese Government - who are using it for anything and everything from selling it (independent of TikTok), to training AI, to engaging in political interference. Banning or forcing a sale are the only ways to resolve that issue.

Most companies don't sell data - that's what is valuable. The use the data to sell 'access' to users through their own ad platforms (facebook, X, google etc.). Most data hacks aren't from social media companies. They're from telcos and banks and other non-tech companies you deal with ona day-to-day basis.

Which, going back to my point is why the focus shouldn't be on people voluntarily giving their data to one app, but on requiring companies (and government agencies) to properly protect the data they collect. Through hacking, China and others get a ton of data people don't voluntarily share.

 

[surferfb]

U.S. restricts export of certain AI chips and math software. Does that mean the U.S. is in control of NVIDIA and MATLAB?

No. Because the US doesn’t run the companies. You’re assuming that the way companies operate in the West is how they operate in China. And in fact, anyone who has the slightest expertise will tell you it’s significantly different.

 

[JPack]

No. Because the US doesn’t run the companies. You’re assuming that the way companies operate in the West is how they operate in China. And in fact, anyone who has the slightest expertise will tell you it’s significantly different.

"Senator, I'm Singaporean."

After the Snowden/PRISM revelations that virtually all U.S. tech companies are complicit in sharing data with NSA, it's naive to believe otherwise. Americans package it better and more beautifully behind courts and bills. The end result is the same.

 

[surferfb]

"Senator, I'm Singaporean."

That was a good bit of prep by his government affairs team, but literally doesn’t change anything about the structure of the company or China’s ability to manipulate the algorithm to serve China’s interests.

Again we’ve already seen this happen on TikTok. It’s not theoretical.

 

[cupcakes2000]

My issue is allowing an ideological enemy of the United States to mainline propaganda into Americans, particularly the youth. If you’re fine with that then you’re fine with that, but don’t be surprised if you find that China gets a lot more powerful in the coming decades and does things like “invade democratic Taiwan” without any pushback.

Being Chinese owned does nothing either way. All social media, including US based social media, is mainlining propaganda into Americans or any other citizen of the world. TikTok is no worse or better than Facebook or X or any of it.
This move is about money and influence/power/arrogance/control - nothing more.

 

[npmacuser5]

Very selective on apps and social media usage my new world order view.

 

[surferfb]

Being Chinese owned does nothing either way. All social media, including US based social media, is mainlining propaganda into Americans or any other citizen of the world. TikTok is no worse or better than Facebook or X or any of it.
This move is about money and influence/power/arrogance/control - nothing more.

TikTok is quite literally worse. If you can’t see that I don’t know what to tell you. Anyways, I’m not changing any minds here, so disengaging. Hopefully I’m wrong and TikTok is nothing to worry about.

Cheers!

 

[cupcakes2000]

TikTok is quite literally worse. If you can’t see that I don’t know what to tell you. Anyways, I’m not changing any minds here, so disengaging. Hopefully I’m wrong and TikTok is nothing to worry about.

Cheers!

Worse propaganda or influence than X? Even the new X with the Bond villain running amok? Or truth social and that one man ego fest? Or Facebook? Maybe level with them, or maybe you’re not seeing the propaganda because of the bubble they put you in, or perhaps you agree with the propaganda. I dunno. But it’s all the same, and if you can’t see that then yes, good idea to disengage.

 

[surferfb]

Worse propaganda or influence than X? Even the new X with the Bond villain running amok? Or truth social and that one man ego fest? Or Facebook? Maybe level with them, or maybe you’re not seeing the propaganda because of the bubble they put you in, or perhaps you agree with the propaganda. I dunno. But it’s all the same, and if you can’t see that then yes, good idea to disengage.

I’m about as far away from being in any one of those bubbles as a person could possibly be, and don’t agree with just about anything coming out of those places. But I (maybe naively) still trust Americans over a communist dictatorship that has murdered tens of millions of its own citizens, ethnically cleansed Tibetans and Uyghurs, crushed its people asking for democracy etc.

 

[JPack]

For people who still don't understand why BD won't sell, here's the short version:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1881044268397273499

 

[jonblatho]

Respectfully, no it’s not. Congress passes laws all the time that rely on classified information. (I worked for a Congressman on the intelligence committee). The people of their districts/states have chosen to trust their judgement to make those decisions for them.

Deciding “the way the US has worked for almost 250 years doesn’t apply anymore because someone gave me a campaign contribution” is significantly more scary.

One more thing about this post that bothers me deeply is the "well, it is what it is" attitude. The decision's been made by Trusted People who are clearly smarter than me, might as well just accept it. We don't revisit decisions in this country.

And I mean, it's tough to take the Supreme Court's recent decisions as anything but handing the incoming president unchecked power. They will be his lapdogs. Your mention of your previous employment somehow makes it so utterly unsurprising that you're still playing the wrong game.

Screaming "but the rules say you can't do that!" as someone rips up the rulebook in your face — and gets away with it.

You see where that approach has gotten us, and no, continuing to try it will not magically begin yielding different results.

 

[drrich2]

The US government has stayed silent about China banning Facebook, twitter, google and other apps, which is no different to the US government now banning Tiktok.

China's Communist Party excludes ideologies apt to contribute to dissent with their autocratic one party rule. The level of societal/cultural control they manage to pull off in today's 'Information Age' is quite impressive...albeit revolting.

I can't wait till the EU follows by blocking TikTok. Why do we need to have so much from China? To spy on us? To start a new world war?

We need things from China when nobody else is doing those things better. How many of us are sitting typing and connecting via computers made in China right now? And carry phones made in China. So much stuff in my house might as well have 'Made in a Foreign Adversary' stamped on the bottom.

Future generations will laugh at us for using something so obviously bad for us in the same way that we laugh at old marketing campaigns aiming cigarettes at children or the Victorians thinking cholera was caused by some sort of airborne 'miasma'.

No. In a somewhat free market capitalistic society that values individual liberty, they'll be doing various suboptimal and unhealthy things their own way. Before the Internet, t.v. sets were the disdained evil, the 'One-eyed Babysitter,' or America. All that sitting around subject to passive consumption. Now on the Internet, via forums and social media, we engage and not only consume but contribute, and still...it's evil!

It absolutely is their job. It is 100% their job to keep people safe, and if that means from their own idiot choices, then they’ll do it. It’s their job.

Not exactly. There are instances of that, such as when the danger involves people losing decisional capacity and control (e.g.: addiction to meth. or cocaine) or is likely to harm others (e.g.: if I started manufacturing nitroglycerin in my home in large amounts as a hobby).

But it's not their job to keep me from eating at McDonalds, not going to the gym, smoking cigarettes (which I don't do), etc... U.S. culture is a good deal more individualistic than some. On a forum called Quora, Andrew T. Post wrote an excellent entry contrasting the deontological vs. utilitarian worldviews. The level of social control exercised in some European nations would be resented in (and voted out of) many places here.

It actually is their job to parent your kids. There are laws meaning they have to go to school, or to keep them safe. Child protection laws, laws to have them removed from home. If you don’t care for your kids, the government is required to.

You have a good point, but it's pretty limited in real world application. The government doesn't step in to optimally parent kids, or even do so decently. It steps in to stop severe abuse, marked neglect, etc... Things often have to get really bad before the government will take a kid out of a home and stick him/her in foster care.

Go one better. Outlaw the sale of personal data entirely. Ban any form of tracking. Full stop.

It’s ridiculous that we have to wade through screens to turn off cookies per website; ridiculous that pages of fine print that no one reads give corporations the right to mine data, etc.

The problem with outlawing that is it is disruptive in ways that conflict with the will of much of the public. Platforms like X and FaceBook have to make money. We accepted ad.s and data collection/usage as the price of that, because we don't want to pay subscriptions. YouTube has a paid premium version that has:

"YouTube and YouTube Music ad-free, offline, and in the background
1-month trial for $0 • Then $13.99⁠/⁠month • Cancel anytime "

Nope. Ain't paying that.

What I would like to see is FaceBook and X offer 3 tiers of service and let customers choose.
1.) Tier 1 - what we have now.

2.) Tier 2 - Ad.s but no data collection - maybe $10/month?

3.) Tier 3 - No ad.s or data collection - maybe $20/month?

I suspect most social media users would stick with Tier 1, their choice, but I wish those of you more concerned about it had the other choices.

The US government can censor certain viewpoints on all major social media aside from TikTok.

And that is a serious concern. Zuckerberg's claims about censorship pressure from the Biden Administration during the pandemic were alarming.

A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century This is way scarier than anything that's happened via TikTok yet.

The west should ban all social media as a key cause of the loneliness and mental health epidemics.

No, that runs contrary to the 'truths held to be self-evident' and we (at least U.S. adults) have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

There are nanny state people who'd probably like to away our option to eat at McDonalds and Burger King, take away the salt shaker and who knows how many other things 'Big Brother' decides is bad for us.

The term 'epidemic' gets thrown around so much isn't losing shock value.

The people of their districts/states have chosen to trust their judgement to make those decisions for them.

Not exactly. These days people often 'hold their nose' and vote for the less revolting candidate or party. I wouldn't equate that with investing much trust. And even then, it's only the majority of voters, and that majority is often slim, with many on the other side strongly opposed.

I love the way Winston Churchill put it, that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.

After all, this certainly wasn’t the first time that TikTok has seemed to act politically: the service censored #BlackLivesMatter and #GeorgeFloyd, blocked a teenager discussing China’s genocide in Xinjiang, and blocked a video of Tank Man. The Guardian published TikTok guidelines that censored Tiananmen Square, Tibetan independence, and the Falun Gong, and I myself demonstrated that TikTok appeared to be censoring the Hong Kong protests and Houston Rockets basketball team.

Thanks for the examples, good to know.

That said, American company media often self-censors, too.

When the New York Times Lost Its Way (The Economist). You probably gotta register for a free account to read that, and it's long, but wow, what an eye-opener.

And the user base is often complicit.

How Liberal America Came To Its Senses (The Atlantic).

No wonder so many people don't trust the Chinese government. They're human beings, as are we, so considering all the crap people over here pull, it stands to reason they might be doing some of the same things.

 

[surferfb]

One more thing about this post that bothers me deeply is the "well, it is what it is" attitude. The decision's been made by Trusted People who are clearly smarter than me, might as well just accept it. We don't revisit decisions in this country.

Laughing that you think anyone who has worked for Congress believes Representatives and Senators are “clearly smarter than me”. For the record there are geniuses, normal people, and idiots in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle.

But they certainly have a fuller understanding of the reasoning when they have received classified briefings and the rest of us haven’t. It’s not like this passed on a party line vote.

And I mean, it's tough to take the Supreme Court's recent decisions as anything but handing the incoming president unchecked power. They will be his lapdogs. Your mention of your previous employment somehow makes it so utterly unsurprising that you're still playing the wrong game.

I’m not a fan of recent Supreme Court decisions either - I was only using my previous employment to provide context that laws based on classified intelligence happens frequently, and for very good reason. It’s not out of the ordinary like the other poster mentioned. That’s all.

Screaming "but the rules say you can't do that!" as someone rips up the rulebook in your face — and gets away with it.

You see where that approach has gotten us, and no, continuing to try it will not magically begin yielding different results.

All I’m saying is someone ripping up the rule book and ignoring a law that got passed with a VETO PROOF MAJORITY is more concerning than a law having classified evidence supporting its passage. Particularly when, as someone who has worked in that building, I understand how hard it is to get that many Senators and Representatives to agree on something uncontroversial, let alone this.

The numbers this passed by are so large that I suspect the evidence is very damning, and there is also very good reason it hasn’t been leaked. Congress isn’t some big conspiracy - if there wasn’t a reason one of the 535 people with access would have leaked it.

But I’m just some guy on the internet (and to be clear, haven’t worked on Capitol Hill in over 15 years - I’m way out of the game). But I do know enough about how things work in the Capitol to have a better understanding than the layman with how things work. Sorry if that offended you.

 

[drrich2]

I can't wait till the EU follows by blocking TikTok. Why do we need to have so much from China?

Your question brings up a related question; why does the EU 'need' (use) so much foreign (the U.S. and China) produced tech. products?

When I think of operating system platforms, web browsers, smart phone operating systems, major software application categories, it seems like American companies are heavily the producers of these things. And some of major hardware platforms - Intel, AMD, Qualcomm, Apple...

1 Key exception leaps to mind - Linux, which seems to be more of a 'behind the scenes' player on servers, etc..., with a small desktop presence.

And when I think of hardware, well...it seems like most things this side of the Moon have 'Made in China' stamped on them somewhere.

Are there major tech. software platforms and the like other than Linux used across much of the world with European nation-based company ownership? Where is the EU in all this (other than trying to impose restrictions on foreign companies)?

People keep talking about TikTok's coveted algorithm; surely that fine 'German engineering' I've heard mentioned over the years could make a good one!

 

[drrich2]

All I’m saying is someone ripping up the rule book and ignoring a law that got passed with a VETO PROOF MAJORITY is more concerning than a law having classified evidence supporting its passage.

Yes, that is important. When a President starts 'ruling like a king,' that's cause for concern. This isn't a partisan principle. I bitterly resent Joe Biden unilaterally transferring student loan debt from adults who sought those loans, agreed to the terms and were to receive the educations onto all of us, since there is no 'loan forgiveness,' only 'debt transfer.'

It would be hypocritical to now turn around and shrug if Trump rules like a king.

It's tempting to overlook when the 'king' is doing things you want done. But anything a guy on one side of the aisle can do today, one on the other side can do tomorrow.

Someone once said when you consider giving the government a power, imagine that power in the hands of whichever top tier politicians you most vehemently disagree with.

 

[steve09090]

Not exactly. There are instances of that, such as when the danger involves people losing decisional capacity and control (e.g.: addiction to meth. or cocaine) or is likely to harm others (e.g.: if I started manufacturing nitroglycerin in my home in large amounts as a hobby).

But it's not their job to keep me from eating at McDonalds, not going to the gym, smoking cigarettes (which I don't do), etc... U.S. culture is a good deal more individualistic than some. On a forum called Quora, Andrew T. Post wrote an excellent entry contrasting the deontological vs. utilitarian worldviews. The level of social control exercised in some European nations would be resented in (and voted out of) many places here.

Primarily, it’s their job to run the society in an orderly manner.

It is said:

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government​

So whilst you said, "it's not their job to keep me from eating at McDonalds, not going to the gym, smoking cigarettes (which I don't do), etc...". You are expressing your freedom of choice. But as we know, governments add "sugar tax" to some fast foods and taxes to cigarettes, or have OHS requirements for gyms. Governments have the right to dissuade us, or sometimes outright ban certain things. The list is endless.

It has a right to ban TikTok, in the same way Governments have rights to ban organisations they deem harmful to its people.

Freedom of choice is a myth. In many countries, including Australia where I am, or the U.S. where this particular ban occurred it is a freedom of choice within boundaries given to us by the people we choose to make those decisions for us. Rebelling against that idea is just that. It doesn’t make it true. That is why the Sovereign Citizen argument fails at every turn.

You have a good point, but it's pretty limited in real world application. The government doesn't step in to optimally parent kids, or even do so decently. It steps in to stop severe abuse, marked neglect, etc... Things often have to get really bad before the government will take a kid out of a home and stick him/her in foster care.

On this last point, in Australia we had the "stolen generation" where Aboriginal children were taken from their parents to effectively force a "dilution" of aboriginality (in the guise of care). It was wrong morally, but it occurred because the choices were for the government to make.

In the 178 countries that have mandatory military conscription, you can just say no. False
You can stand in front of 10 Downing Street, SW1 to have your photo taken. False
As an adult at 18, you can drink in most states of the U.S. False
You can smoke on a plane from Denmark to Sweden. False
Don’t even get me started on the right to choose as a right….

They sound like freedoms of choice to me. Freedom of Choice is always at the discretion of our governments.

——-

To summarise, I think you’re saying we have a lot of "wiggle room". But priorities change in governments. Populist Governments or Leaders like the U.S. has just elected, can change these priorities on a dime.

 

[steve09090]

I’m about as far away from being in any one of those bubbles as a person could possibly be, and don’t agree with just about anything coming out of those places. But I (maybe naively) still trust Americans over a communist dictatorship that has murdered tens of millions of its own citizens, ethnically cleansed Tibetans and Uyghurs, crushed its people asking for democracy etc.

Those in glass houses…. Btw, most Americans are good people. Most Chinese are amazing people too. Governments on both sides have their flaws. But as China is a democratic dictatorship, it does things openly that are morally subjective. The USA, being a Constitutional Republic, does things privately that are morally subjective.

From Amnesty International.

USA continues to fail to live up to its human rights obligations on a range of issues including: the continued use of the death penalty; the use of lethal force by law enforcement; the prevalence of gun violence; the failure to respect sexual and reproductive rights; the “targeted killing” program; the failure to protect the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; discrimination and violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; the failure to protect Indigenous women from gender-based violence.​

Those in glass houses…

 

[drrich2]

Governments have the right to dissuade us, or sometimes outright ban certain things. The list is endless.

They have the power. 'Right' is a more contentious matter. The United States got its start on the argument that taxation without representation was a moral wrong, irrespective of whether it was a legal 'right' of government (note: I imagine the U.K. has a different view of what went down and the issue is more complex, but that was a major talking point).

And in our Declaration of Independence it was written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Our founders believed that people have inherent rights that are neither bestowed by government nor the government's to legislate away.

The scope of that is rather vague and universal accord will not be had. I just want to make the point that at least in the U.S. it is held there are moral restrictions on what the government can legitimately do to people, irrespective of whatever laws they manage to get passed.

It has a right to ban TikTok, in the same way Governments have rights to ban organisations they deem harmful to its people.

The basis for such 'deeming' is important.

On this last point, in Australia we had the "stolen generation" where Aboriginal children were taken from their parents to effectively force a "dilution" of aboriginality (in the guise of care). It was wrong morally, but it occurred because the choices were for the government to make.

So government having the legal power doesn't = having the moral right.

As an adult at 18, you can drink in most states of the U.S. False

But they can at 21. While this issue is controversial, it may help to consider that most of the U.S. is 'car culture' - people have to drive around to get places. This is a demographic that is high risk. The human brain in females tend to finish developing around age 20 but males take some more years, but what I've read elsewhere. There is a reasoned basis for it. The reason they're otherwise deemed adults is because they can be drafted, serve in the military, etc..., and thus ought to get a vote given that politicians have power to send them to their deaths.

You can smoke on a plane from Denmark to Sweden. False

Probably because of the 2nd hand smoke risk to others, not to protect you from lung cancer.

From Amnesty International.
USA continues to fail to live up to its human rights obligations on a range of issues including: the continued use of the death penalty; the use of lethal force by law enforcement; the prevalence of gun violence; the failure to respect sexual and reproductive rights; the “targeted killing” program; the failure to protect the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; discrimination and violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; the failure to protect Indigenous women from gender-based violence.

If we consider Amnesty International the ultimate arbiter of what is morally right and what the USA's obligations are. Some of what's on your list:

1.) To many the death penalty is a matter of justice. Only a tiny minority of criminals are executed.

2.) Our 'gun violence' looks better if you put aside the suicides and criminals killing criminals parts. There are still homicides. I suspect A.I. may be judging from the perspective of countries where private ownership of firearms isn't legal? I'm guessing they're aren't worried about protecting a 'right to bear arms?'

3.) 'Reproductive rights' sounds like code for abortion, which some people consider in utero infanticide. And some don't.

4.) Targeted killing - sounds better than indiscriminate killing. It's my understanding that gets into CIA activities, etc... Sounds like this matter is not unlike that information the government tried to put forward in their case against TikTok that we're not allowed to see. Probably something to do with 'national security.'

5.) Some of the rest would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I don't know how extreme their standard is. A Catholic private school hiring a teacher is not likely to okay an openly gay one whose lifestyle is in direct violation of the teachings of their church. Otherwise, not sure what their focus is.

The point is, when you let an outside agency with an often different value system pass judgment on a nation, you get a bad grade and a list like this.

 

[surferfb]

Those in glass houses…. Btw, most Americans are good people. Most Chinese are amazing people too. Governments on both sides have their flaws. But as China is a democratic dictatorship, it does things openly that are morally subjective. The USA, being a Constitutional Republic, does things privately that are morally subjective.

From Amnesty International.

USA continues to fail to live up to its human rights obligations on a range of issues including: the continued use of the death penalty; the use of lethal force by law enforcement; the prevalence of gun violence; the failure to respect sexual and reproductive rights; the “targeted killing” program; the failure to protect the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; discrimination and violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity; the failure to protect Indigenous women from gender-based violence.​

Those in glass houses…

I am frankly shocked at the number of you arguing there is a moral equivalence between the genocidal dictatorship running China and the United States. Lord knows I don’t think the US is perfect - it has made plenty of mistakes, but please read up on who you are defending - here some search terms to help you out.

Chinese Government Organ Harvesting
Chinese Government Forced Sterilizations
Uyghur Re-education Camps
Tibetan Forced Relocation and Han Migration

 

[drrich2]

I am frankly shocked at the number of you arguing there is a moral equivalence between the genocidal dictatorship running China and the United States.

I don't think most are seriously claiming we're on the same level, but there's a concern we're different shades of gray rather than black vs. white.

A lot depends on what you judge by, and what news some foreign folks hear. Some people knock us for 'gun violence' (in fairness, those school shootings do look bad), lack of universal health care, claims that poverty and homelessness are worse here, and claims of racism (especially since the George Floyd thing awhile back made international news, though I don't think the reality is as bad as some outsiders might conclude from the media). And some people think Trump being elected is an indictment against the moral fiber and intelligence of a majority of the citizenry (I'm not saying it is, just pointing out what I believe to be a perception).

We hold ourselves to be morally superior to China's Communist Party, to value freedom of speech and religion, of public assembly, a nation where government is by the people, for the people and rulers are accountable to the people, where a balance of powers in design and a free press reveal our guardedness toward the potential for governmental abuse, and our 2 party system has 2 parties that often revile each other, of course we don't 'just trust the government.' Even our government doesn't trust our government (because neither party trusts the other).

And therefore when our government is seen as having 'sinned' in restricting what information resources Americans have access to, pressuring social media platforms to exercise censorship, looking to expand its powers (e.g.: the Patriot Act) though we have cause for concern about how it may use them (Edward Snowden warned us and had to flee the country), etc..., we are judged to a higher standard.

When China censors to exercise control, we see that as China being China. But when the U.S. does it, it appears hypocritical. Then it looks like we're taking steps toward being more like the Chinese Communist Party.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”​

― Friedrich Nietzsche

Substitute autocratic government for monster...

But no, we're not at the same level.

 

[steve09090]

They have the power. 'Right' is a more contentious matter. The United States got its start on the argument that taxation without representation was a moral wrong, irrespective of whether it was a legal 'right' of government (note: I imagine the U.K. has a different view of what went down and the issue is more complex, but that was a major talking point).

And in our Declaration of Independence it was written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, , that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

Our founders believed that people have inherent rights that are neither bestowed by government nor the government's to legislate away.

The scope of that is rather vague and universal accord will not be had. I just want to make the point that at least in the U.S. it is held there are moral restrictions on what the government can legitimately do to people, irrespective of whatever laws they manage to get passed.


The basis for such 'deeming' is important.


So government having the legal power doesn't = having the moral right.


But they can at 21. While this issue is controversial, it may help to consider that most of the U.S. is 'car culture' - people have to drive around to get places. This is a demographic that is high risk. The human brain in females tend to finish developing around age 20 but males take some more years, but what I've read elsewhere. There is a reasoned basis for it. The reason they're otherwise deemed adults is because they can be drafted, serve in the military, etc..., and thus ought to get a vote given that politicians have power to send them to their deaths.


Probably because of the 2nd hand smoke risk to others, not to protect you from lung cancer.


If we consider Amnesty International the ultimate arbiter of what is morally right and what the USA's obligations are. Some of what's on your list:

1.) To many the death penalty is a matter of justice. Only a tiny minority of criminals are executed.

2.) Our 'gun violence' looks better if you put aside the suicides and criminals killing criminals parts. There are still homicides. I suspect A.I. may be judging from the perspective of countries where private ownership of firearms isn't legal? I'm guessing they're aren't worried about protecting a 'right to bear arms?'

3.) 'Reproductive rights' sounds like code for abortion, which some people consider in utero infanticide. And some don't.

4.) Targeted killing - sounds better than indiscriminate killing. It's my understanding that gets into CIA activities, etc... Sounds like this matter is not unlike that information the government tried to put forward in their case against TikTok that we're not allowed to see. Probably something to do with 'national security.'

5.) Some of the rest would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I don't know how extreme their standard is. A Catholic private school hiring a teacher is not likely to okay an openly gay one whose lifestyle is in direct violation of the teachings of their church. Otherwise, not sure what their focus is.

The point is, when you let an outside agency with an often different value system pass judgment on a nation, you get a bad grade and a list like this.

I won't answer each of your points individually, as I think we have slight variances in thought, but generally in the same ball park. Singing from the same Hymn sheet so to speak, but we are doing it out of tune with each other. 😀 (I hope you appreciate the analogy).

I agree that the Supreme Court in the U.S. does back up many of those rights held by the Constitution. But also that in many cases, that does get eroded by Political will. As does the Supreme Court being appointed with Political leaning. It's hardly balanced.

Car culture. Even more so in Australia, yet we have a learners at 16, driving at 17. Alcohol allowed at 18. I think our vehicle fatality rate is 4.8 per 100,00 and the U.S. is 13.8 per 100,000. So if that is the reason, it might be flawed. But also other factors take place I am sure.

The basis of "deeming" TikTok to be harmful is important, but we will probably never know all of the reasons due to secrecy etc. I shudder to think what they know. It is this that we have no choice but to trust governments (that's a hard thing to say), but claiming TikTok as a right, is naive at best imo. That's the practical approach but I know a bunch of people who think they know better will disagree. They don't know better.

Those Amnesty International points are obviously a bias view based on Liberal Values. To be honest, so are views on other countries from an American standpoint. "Who are we to judge, yet we do". That's where Moral Subjectiveness comes in. We've all but banned firearms here and the results are amazing. This entire "right to bear arms" things was a different time (1791) in a different world. Not relevant now. Australia death by firearms 0.1 people per 100,000. USA 10.3 per 100,000! 100x the death rate!

Anyway, that's the response to your thoughtful answer.

 

[steve09090]

I don't think most are seriously claiming we're on the same level, but there's a concern we're different shades of gray rather than black vs. white.

A lot depends on what you judge by, and what news some foreign folks hear. Some people knock us for 'gun violence' (in fairness, those school shootings do look bad), lack of universal health care, claims that poverty and homelessness are worse here, and claims of racism (especially since the George Floyd thing awhile back made international news, though I don't think the reality is as bad as some outsiders might conclude from the media). And some people think Trump being elected is an indictment against the moral fiber and intelligence of a majority of the citizenry (I'm not saying it is, just pointing out what I believe to be a perception).

We hold ourselves to be morally superior to China's Communist Party, to value freedom of speech and religion, of public assembly, a nation where government is by the people, for the people and rulers are accountable to the people, where a balance of powers in design and a free press reveal our guardedness toward the potential for governmental abuse, and our 2 party system has 2 parties that often revile each other, of course we don't 'just trust the government.' Even our government doesn't trust our government (because neither party trusts the other).

And therefore when our government is seen as having 'sinned' in restricting what information resources Americans have access to, pressuring social media platforms to exercise censorship, looking to expand its powers (e.g.: the Patriot Act) though we have cause for concern about how it may use them (Edward Snowden warned us and had to flee the country), etc..., we are judged to a higher standard.

When China censors to exercise control, we see that as China being China. But when the U.S. does it, it appears hypocritical. Then it looks like we're taking steps toward being more like the Chinese Communist Party.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche

Substitute autocratic government for monster...

But no, we're not at the same level.

I like that you quoted Nietzsche. Not many people here would know who he is.

In many ways US and China are on different levels. If you look at Government persecution, yeah, China would be worse. If you look at the way people in the US are permitted to continue kill each other, than no. I say permitted, because it's not like the US are doing anything to stop it, based on choices of morality, one way or the other.

As far as spying on each other, I don't know that either can claim superiority.

I am frankly shocked at the number of you arguing there is a moral equivalence between the genocidal dictatorship running China and the United States. Lord knows I don’t think the US is perfect - it has made plenty of mistakes, but please read up on who you are defending - here some search terms to help you out.

Chinese Government Organ Harvesting
Chinese Government Forced Sterilizations
Uyghur Re-education Camps
Tibetan Forced Relocation and Han Migration

Let's not cherry-pick grievances between countries. I've not said China is close to perfect. I just said, those in glass houses. The US is not the moral compass of the world. I certainly do not believe Australia is. Far from it. Maybe get a perspective from Finland or another top level nordic country. They seem to know what they are doing.

 

[drrich2]

We've all but banned firearms here and the results are amazing. This entire "right to bear arms" things was a different time (1791) in a different world. Not relevant now. Australia death by firearms 0.1 people per 100,000. USA 10.3 per 100,000! 100x the death rate!

Won't go off on the tangent too far, but in Andrew T. Post's Quora post What People Get Wrong About America, he got into deontological vs. utilitarian-based views on morality and ethics, and it was enlightening to me, an aid to understanding how decent, reasonably people can look at the same evidence and come to opposed views.

On the issue of firearms, a utilitarian might compare gun death rates in a nation with and without a right to bear arms (though Canada and I believe Switzerland have a lot of private gun ownership), and seeing a much lower rate without, look to revoke the 2nd Amendment.

A deontological person might say the police aren't obligated to provide personal body guard service, law enforcement mainly intervenes after crimes when it's too late, and I should be able to empower myself for defense of self and family. He might also subtract suicides and criminals-killing-criminals from the gun fatality rate, and only consider homicides of innocent people as a big concern. He doesn't believe he should be obligated to be helpless.

Western European nations tend strongly toward the utilitarian mindset and seem more open to government playing a bigger role in telling them what to do. The U.S. is a mix, of course, but the deontological mindset is evident at times.

 

[steve09090]

Won't go off on the tangent too far, but in Andrew T. Post's Quora post What People Get Wrong About America, he got into deontological vs. utilitarian-based views on morality and ethics, and it was enlightening to me, an aid to understanding how decent, reasonably people can look at the same evidence and come to opposed views.

On the issue of firearms, a utilitarian might compare gun death rates in a nation with and without a right to bear arms (though Canada and I believe Switzerland have a lot of private gun ownership), and seeing a much lower rate without, look to revoke the 2nd Amendment.

A deontological person might say the police aren't obligated to provide personal body guard service, law enforcement mainly intervenes after crimes when it's too late, and I should be able to empower myself for defense of self and family. He might also subtract suicides and criminals-killing-criminals from the gun fatality rate, and only consider homicides of innocent people as a big concern. He doesn't believe he should be obligated to be helpless.

Western European nations tend strongly toward the utilitarian mindset and seem more open to government playing a bigger role in telling them what to do. The U.S. is a mix, of course, but the deontological mindset is evident at times.

That's a very interesting read. Thanks.

It doesn’t matter how many people in our society are addicted to drugs, or are dying of preventable diseases, or can’t read or write. It’s not the government’s job to fix any of that. Its only job is to defend our rights—and not for any specific purpose, but purely as a matter of principle.​

Except when things go wrong, they go tooth and nail at each other, attacking the government, politicians because they "failed" to do something. When power becomes the motivator, the rights of the individual are no longer important .

As it says. it is (and should ever remain) a mere night watchman.

When you have a president who wants to own Greenland, and wants to extend his own presidency beyond the 2 allowable terms. That's not being a Night Watchman, and the entire basis of protecting the rights of the people becomes null and void.