
Reddit Protests and China’s Control of American Culture - theNJR
https://www.nicholasjrobinson.com/blog/culture-2-0/the-reddit-protests-and-chinas-control-of-american-culture
======
pjc50
This seems like another one of those "money is speech and there are no values
higher" => "oh no suddenly foreigners are paying huge amounts for speech we
don't like" arguments.

> Ultimately, if America is no longer the top exporter of culture, what
> becomes of our identity?

Every other country is practically a net importer of American culture. Often
to the detriment of their own. So they have had the same questions: is this
just a market, or should there be cultural protectionism?

Edit:
[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/france...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/07/france-
culture-war-united-states) "Culture is like chewing-gum, a product like any
other." \-- Jack Valenti

~~~
therealforsen
the US constitution only applies to US persons. someone living in china
doesn't actually have freedom of speech protected by our constitution.

~~~
pjc50
What if they are the sole owner of a Delaware corporation? The corporation
definitely _does_ have free speech rights, per Citizens United.

~~~
nostromo
No, corporations do not have rights. The owners of the corporation have
rights. If the owners are not citizens, then the corporation they own to not
have rights only provided to citizens.

~~~
pjc50
Could you dig up the bit of the SCOTUS ruling where it says that?

Edit: link please?

~~~
nostromo
Citizens United, as you mentioned. Read it -- it's clear that the logic is
that corporations are collections of individuals and as such, they have the
same speech protections as individuals themselves.

~~~
munk-a
This is not the reason, actually. Laws can apply to different types of actors,
it has been traditionally read that "natural persons" are flesh and blood
human beings, while "persons" can include organizations, this interpretation
is part of how companies can be legally held responsible for their actions and
really _really_ regrettable and complex. It is possible that the 1st Amendment
text was written prior to the distinction between "persons" and "natural
persons" was clear, and that has been argued - but for the time being all
"persons" are afforded free speech, including corporations.

~~~
learc83
No, the GP was correct. Read the Citizens United decision. The finding was
based on the concept that the rights of the people who make up an organization
extend to collective action taken by that organization.

The decision had nothing to do with corporations being considered legal
persons or the definition of person.

------
Barrin92
I have trouble what to make of the article. Mainly because it itself points
out the central hypocrisy. The US is just as interested in spreading its
values by means of entertainment media as any other country on the world, it
just had more money in recent history than anyone else.

And with countries like China or India having a larger market, what does
America want to do? Not let them invest in the US, accepting that different
viewpoints will be expressed? Declare them invalid?

One of the positions that Americans broadly have always held is that when
ideas are exchanged, the people overall can figure out what the good ideas are
and what the bad ideas are, that's in fact the basic assumption behind liberal
democracy. So if these Chinese cultural exports are just propaganda and all
around awful, surely Americans will figure it out.

If there's something to them, and they're genuinely valuable and give a
different perspective, then it would be bad to try to suppress them.

So by liberal democracies own standards, I find myself puzzled by the flat-out
fear of foreign cultural imports.

~~~
defertoreptar
It's not so much fear of cultural imports as it is about political influence
from a foreign government. The article makes a good point about how "Seven
Years in Tibet" came out before Chinese money started flowing into Hollywood,
and how perhaps that movie might not be so easily made these days.

There's something you didn't mention when you talked about how "USA wants to
spread its values too." American companies that invest in Hollywood and sites
like Reddit generally aren't partially owned by the government, and certainly
aren't subject to as much government control.

~~~
rdiddly
"Seven Years in Tibet" was made without Chinese money, so why couldn't the
same movie be made today without Chinese money? It's harder because everyone
else is taking Chinese money? I don't buy it.

~~~
deogeo
"Make this movie, and you won't get any more investments from us. We've said
the same to your distributor and producer. And we'll make sure every corporate
board we have influence over will shun you."

~~~
luckylion
And then the next producer will make it, enjoy the financial super hit and get
super rich by doing it. That's how markets work, supposedly. If one company
doesn't want to do something that is in demand, others will.

------
ShorsHammer
Breaking news: The world's 2nd biggest economy now employs the same soft power
techniques as worlds largest economy.

World's largest economy is shocked and outraged.

~~~
hannasanarion
China isn't just a large economy. If it was the European Union buying interest
in Reddit, nobody would bat an eye, because Europe shares America's values of
freedom, rights, and equality as cornerstones of society, arguably moreso.
China is a repressive one-party state where dissidents are regularly silenced
by imprisonment or "disappearing", citizens are ranked for party loyalty the
same way Americans are ranked in economic creditworthiness, and ethnic
minorities are imprisoned in concentration camps. They are the last people we
want to be running prominent public forums.

~~~
yourbandsucks
We've all got problems.

China's problems are routinely exaggerated and "othered" far in excess of
Western problems. After all, we understand the context for Western missteps.
"Its complicated."

For example, can you believe that China is overreacting and violating civil
rights after terror attacks from Central Asian Muslims? I've never heard of
such a thing. Certainly no Western country aside from the USA, Russia, the UK
and France would do that.

Meanwhile, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty doesn't seem to count
for much.

They have a different history, different culture and different challenges.
Demonization is not only wrong, it's a surefire way to mishandle the situation
out of ignorance.

~~~
hannasanarion
For one thing, that's not an example of "overexaggeration in excess of western
problems". Just because Chinese crimes against humanity in their western
provinces is new to you doesn't mean they are new.

Do you think the Dalai Lama is living in India because he likes the weather?

When was the last time America rolled tanks onto their university campuses to
shoot students until they fell in line?

~~~
pjc50
> When was the last time America rolled tanks onto their university campuses
> to shoot students until they fell in line?

Well ... May 4, 1970. But there were no tanks and they only killed 4 students.

~~~
kortilla
So... never.

------
tivert
It might not be a bad idea to to set up media ownership rules that exclude
entities that are based-in or controlled by non-democratic regimes.

~~~
boomskats
Ignoring the oversimplification aspect for a moment, would that not be quite
ironic from a philosophical standpoint?

~~~
flatline
It's a well-known paradox [0]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

~~~
deogeo
According to that 'paradox', tolerant societies could never evolve from
intolerant ones.

~~~
hannasanarion
That is a complete non-sequitur. Free societies need to oppose those who would
destroy their freedoms. How does that have any bearing whatsoever on whether
free societies can be established?

~~~
deogeo
> need to oppose those who would destroy their freedoms

Of course no-one can argue against it if you re-state it like that. But the
paradox goes much further: "Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to
those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is
paradoxical."

~~~
hannasanarion
And this means that free society cannot be established because....?

~~~
deogeo
Tolerant, not free. The terms are not interchangeable.

The paradox implies it because if the ideas of tolerance are so fragile, that
even in a majority tolerant society, intolerant ideas present such a threat as
to consider sacrificing even free speech, then how could they have ever come
to dominate in the first place?

------
aj7
The number-1-zeroth-order-term-in-the-Taylor-expansion characteristic of
Chinese culture is Han racial superiority. So how the hell is Chinese culture
“vying” for cultural leadership when it is intrinsically exclusionist?

Now censorship, propaganda, etc., as well covered in the article — now you’re
talking.

~~~
theNJR
I haven't read about Han racial superiority before. Any book or article
suggestions? This Economist[1] article seems like a good starting point.

[1][https://outline.com/34FXDU](https://outline.com/34FXDU)

------
bitxbitxbitcoin
The comparison to Chinese influence in Hollywood is pretty apt. The point
being, the Chinese companies don’t need board seats to exert influence.

------
endofcapital
I've been a part of a lot of acquisitions, and a lot of investment rounds. The
stakeholders always want to start stirring the pot sooner or later. Maybe you
get a year or two of being left alone, but eventually, it always happens.

~~~
tru3_power
Could you elaborate a little? I have no doubt this happens but I’m fascinated
in the nuances of how it happens(changing the flag from China to NK for
example). Or is it more overt? (Do this or x, y, and z)

------
voltagex_
I didn't realise Tencent owned so much of Epic. I wonder what that means for
the game industry at large given the huge push for the Epic store. Could we
see the same effects we've seen in Hollywood?

------
simplecomplex
Are the investors actually making Reddit censor or is this just the latest
xenophobic rage bait?

America sure loves its China/Russia scaremongering.

~~~
theNJR
The crux of the article is around the 'investors making' anyone do anything.
It doesn't really work like that.

------
dmix
> The threat of Chinese censorship was feeling all too real _on a site that
> had historically embraced the extremes of free speech_.

Any active Reddit user with non-left leaning political views will most
certainly find this assertion amusing at a minimum.

In a similar vein I'd almost rather buy an Huawei phone over an American one
_because_ I don't care about China's interests nor live there, so I don't fear
them censoring my posts or kicking my door down over some innocuous statement
I made online. And for those who think that won't ever happen in the west the
UK has already done 2am night raids over a person's tweets. But most
redditor's didn't put up a similar fuss over a real life example of the thing
they fear from China because he was a (legitimately) douchey right winger who
didn't fit into their ideological bubble.

In practice I'd bet far more regular North American and European Reddit users
will be banned and have posts deleted for not sharing (by mainstream western
standards) the pretty radical left political world-views that is popular on
that site's communities - which of course are world-views I see nothing wrong
with, people can believe anything they want.

I don't know where I'm going with this other than to say I hope we in the tech
community stand against all forms of censorship, not just the one's that fit
into their particular pet ideologies. There's plenty of history and literature
since the 17th century enlightenment that anything less is a very dangerous
path.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Yea. Historically is the context there. Even when presented with examples of
censorship on reddit, the users completely ignore it. But... the Chinese come
in, and now the possibility of censorship is a big deal.

ffs... they seem to only be able to see slightly past their own noses.

~~~
theNJR
I meant Aaron Swartz historic. Current Reddit censorship (and really
censorship on all the major platforms) is very different.

------
tomglynch
That image at the top is just cringeworthy.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Agreed. If anyone has been paying the slightest bit of attention, the reddit
snoo is driving the tank.

------
quotz
Reddit and all other companies should really reconsider taking chinese
money.....

------
abledon
Leisure time on internet 90% of my friends spend their time with:

\- Riot Games - League of Legends

\- Supercell - Clash of Clans

\- Reddit (while waiting for games to load... riding bus.. work etc).

This acquisition will make 100% of their content Chinese owned !

------
solotronics
is there an uncensored version of reddit thats any good?

------
jorblumesea
I think a lot of people are missing the point. China is not an open and free
society. It has hundreds of thousands of ethnic in concentration camps and is
known to kidnap dissidents and silence opposition. It has implemented a social
credit system purely for establishing party loyalty.

It's hard to imagine a country so against and anathema to Western ideals.

Let's put it in historical context, should we have allowed Franco, Mussolini
or Hitler to have significant sway over US media and opinions at the time? How
different might the world be now, had we allowed unchecked totalitarianism to
spread its ideas before WW2?

We are approaching similar stakes now, where a country that is vehemently
against everything we stand for is trying to influence us. We need to
appreciate the severity of Chinese investment and not pretend like they are
just another investor.

