zlacker

>>el_dud+(OP)
The US is forcing its tourists to give away a list of all their social media accounts and all their email accounts. If you're a foreign journalist writing pseudonymously for your safety, you must now share that information with the US government to enter the country. This isn't quite on the level of forcing people to install malware on their phone yet, but give it a couple years.

>>murbar+04
> The US ...

This style of argument is deflection, and it gets us nowhere.

It's very effective in redirecting the focus away from one bad actor and onto another bad actor, though.

>>panark+ph
To add to your comment:

We should be critical of our own government. Panarky clearly agrees with this (me too). The difference is that the conversation is about China. We can also have a conversation about the US or <insert any Western country> and how they are not respecting people's freedom. But this conversation is about China. It's also a conversation that needs to be had.

Plus this redirection is similar to "Bob shot a guy 30 times." "Oh yeah? Bill punched a guy". Neither Bob or Bill are likely good guys, but come on... Bob is definitely worse and Bill's actions don't really relate to how we want to condemn Bob's actions.

>>godels+ol
> But this conversation is about China.

I don't know. It seems kind of weird to want to restrict the conversation like that, but I guess I kind of see your point.

> Plus this redirection is similar to "Bob shot a guy 30 times." "Oh yeah? Bill punched a guy".

The way I saw it, the neighborhood is turning kind of bad. Someone comments "Bob shot a guy 30 times", and another adds "Bill punched a guy". Neither of these people have met Bob nor Bill and don't really care about them in particular, but their interest lies in the neighborhood as a whole.

>>jolmg+Ft
It isn't so much about restricting as derailing.