Right, so you basically reject the ideals of the enlightenment. This is very unusual among western peoples because we have seen what that leads to. Rejection of these ideals is essentially the bedrock under which the tripartite pact was formed during WWII.
No, I think standing up for the right to integrity and autonomy for the individual is worth more than some economic output. Let the CCP pretend otherwise, I am sure humanity is made up of individuals, not masses to be herded like so much cattle.
The primary nuance with China is the contradiction created in their constitution. Their need - and historical rationale from various civil wars and stalemates - to "uphold territorial unity" is an element that undermines all the other articles in their constitution.
The consolidation of control and single party exacerbates that, but there is primarily an inability of the courts to rule against this aspect of the constitution in support of other aspects of the constitution that would support free speech and other freedoms of association.
Outside of China, we have a caricature of what people there care about, and it is simply not accurate. Outside of China, we act like everyone is a victim, imagining they are all oppressed in their ability to speak about or learn more about a military massacre. But that's simply not the case. The government keeps everything "rated PG", it spends most of its paternal energy doing that, and its pretty successful at doing that, the outcome is pretty benign and people support that. This is the expectation people have from their government, this is the social contract there. Many corporate walled gardens are the same, and service providers work inside of those walled gardens, this doesn't make the service provider unethical. I think it is disingenuous to be automatically offended just because a public sector entity acts this way.
Is disingenuous to claim that people believe and consent something when it's been illegal (violently prohibited) to even discuss that thing for over a generation. That's the same logic that says someone fed a roofie consented to their rape.
Apple doesn't have the ability to imprison and execute me if they blaspheme in their garden. The Chinese Communist Party doesn't deserve it either.
The "social contract" isn't a contract when it's imposed one-sidey by a violent, hypocritical power.
This is a fair statement, and I think you are correct that there are those in the west do not understand this aspect of contemporary Chinese society.
However. Just because "most people aren't worried" and "can live their lives" doesn't make the problem go away. Just because injustice doesn't affect most people doesn't mean it's not an injustice.
When people in the west express concern about the way the CCP deals with party critics and dissidents, they aren't trying to speak for everyone in China, they are simply standing with the people who specifically are being oppressed.
> they are simply standing with the people who specifically are being oppressed
Except on every topic tangentially related to China as a massive agreement seeking disclaimer, when there are just other things going on.
Other countries have problems, massive problems, rogue intelligence communities, foreign policies that contradict their ideals, literal extrajudicial killings by firing squad, property expropriation that doesn't respect private ownership, things people imagine as core tenants of communist and state-capitalist regimes which is the biggest irony, and yet it simply isn't used to derail every single topic about those countries. It just disingenuous, and it isn't even clear if people realize these things, simple as that.
Of course other countries have problems. But this thread is about a specific incident where Zoom admitted to deactivating the accounts of pro-democracy activists to appease the CCP. Why shouldn't somebody make a comment about that under an article that is about Zoom deactivating other accounts, apparently to appease other powerful political groups? It shows a pattern of behavior. And it is perhaps fair to assume that the pattern of behavior is a result of the company having a big investment in China, and a significant number of employees that believe in creating a "rated PG" world, as you put it.
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think this is the place to try fight the battle. What was shared here is legitimately related to the topic at hand and hopefully of interest to Hackernews readers who may not be aware of Zoom's history of "censorship" going back before the Khaled events, since it was not mentioned in the article.
No, I think standing up for the right to integrity and autonomy for the individual is worth more than some economic output. Let the CCP pretend otherwise, I am sure humanity is made up of individuals, not masses to be herded like so much cattle.