zlacker

It's not an elected government if you're talking about the US. These policies are also all decided by "elites with permanent term and no elections" you realize right?

>>snapca+(OP)
> It's not an elected government if you're talking about the US

If you don't believe US has elections then straighten up your tinfoil hat:)

Maybe you'll say next the earth is flat, if you think people have nothing better to do but to find ways to lie to you.

>>throwa+W6
I don't feel like this was a good faith interpretation of my comment. What i'm saying is that in the US and China, censorship is decided by unelected officials. In one case it's CPC in another case it's corporate executives

>>snapca+Md
That makes even less sense as a comparison. Sure Instagram censored anti-Trump posts for a day but in case you didn't notice you are free to discuss that without fearing suppression or jail.

>>throwa+892
Come on man why are you doing this? I didn't say censorship was the same in america or china you're just trying to find something to disagree with

>>snapca+JS2
> Why would China censoring Tiananmen Square/whatever out of their LLMs be anymore harmful to the training process when the US controlled LLMs also censor certain topics, eg "how do I make meth?" or "how do I make a nuclear bomb?".

I was explaining why it is more harmful and thought you were arguing it is not harmful?

>>throwa+Iq4
I was just making a very simple narrow claim: Censorship in the west and china are both done by unelected people. Note that i didn't say china was good, censorship was equivalent or anything else you're trying to argue. my literal only point was:

Censorship in the west and china are both done by unelected people

>>snapca+mb5
OK you are technically correct. We can talk how "appointed by elected people" makes a difference...