It does smack of hypocrisy but I’ve been feeling more it’s a paradox of tolerance thing. Which itself a sort of hypocrisy now that I’m thinking about it. Huh.
nah, i don’t see it as a tolerance issue at all, I see it more through a Chomsky/Foucault lens.
US social media has been used as a state messaging apparatus for going on two decades now, and a foreign-owned platform is simply not as responsive to US state pressure as a domestically-owned one. China was simply playing the same game as the US has been. It’s not at all surprising that the US would want to ban one that has gotten to be so widely used - but what’s funny about it is the messaging/logic used to do so.
“A communist authoritarian actor is influencing civilian opinion through media curation, so we must take drastic authoritarian action to control media curation to stop foreign influence of civilian opinion.”
I think seeing it through a ‘paradox of tolerance’ lens kinda misses the point of the irony I see in the response.
It does smack of hypocrisy but I’ve been feeling more it’s a paradox of tolerance thing. Which itself a sort of hypocrisy now that I’m thinking about it. Huh.
nah, i don’t see it as a tolerance issue at all, I see it more through a Chomsky/Foucault lens.
US social media has been used as a state messaging apparatus for going on two decades now, and a foreign-owned platform is simply not as responsive to US state pressure as a domestically-owned one. China was simply playing the same game as the US has been. It’s not at all surprising that the US would want to ban one that has gotten to be so widely used - but what’s funny about it is the messaging/logic used to do so.
“A communist authoritarian actor is influencing civilian opinion through media curation, so we must take drastic authoritarian action to control media curation to stop foreign influence of civilian opinion.”
I think seeing it through a ‘paradox of tolerance’ lens kinda misses the point of the irony I see in the response.