The difference between China and the USA is that in China it's clear in everyone's mind that the government did the censorship, in the USA everyone knows that besides the government, hiding behind corporations, sometimes it's just pure greed that gives rise to censorship. Both could use some clarity, but I expect not much in either case.
What I wonder is why China hasn't tried algorithm suppression, like the USA? They can either rapidly or slowly drive away views in this way, and thus make it looks more innocent. As if the public isn't interested in critical news, and only in titillations or approved rants/taking heads. The USA has a far heavier hand than China; It just appears invisible to the dolts/sheeple.
I'm too much of an Engineer, I'd tell the truth too often. Someone like Sirota might do the trick. He believes he can fix a broken system when it isn't really broken; it's working exactly as designed.
If Chinese censors issued reasons for censoring (with avenues for appeal) it would make free speech more effective for engaging in reasoned discussion.
Why am I not upset that these mopes have been censored...(?) If I'm being purely philosophical and trusting in the agency of all people, sure, folks should be allowed to speak. OTOH, filling the airwaves with dipsquat commentary by performative assholes...is that what moves the ball forward?
Aristotle's many criticisms of democracy seem relevant, with a few appropriate to the moment, i.e., there are always going to be more dumb/poor/loony citizens than intelligent rational citizens, and that by allowing everyone a voice, the vast majority of dumb/poor/loony folks will ultimately control narratives and the direction of society.
"In a famous episode, he laughed at a parent whose child, with excellent STEM grades, wanted to study journalism in college to fulfill his dream. Zhang’s advice to the parent was to beat the child into a coma in order to stop him from having this silly idea. He further stated that anyone should just blindfold themselves and pick whatever random major, and it will still be better than journalism."
Obviously the specific details in this case are a bit heavy-handed from a western perspective, but making the Internet be more of a niche text-based medium like what it was 20 years ago seems like a good idea in general.
I've got it... Those clowns are causing global warming. Recent research by Very Smart People™ with vast scientific credentials have studied the energy demand for a single post by Christiano Ronaldo, and they determined that just a single post going out to his tens of millions of followers uses enough energy to light up an entire city in Great Britain.
Assumptions (example values I use below)
• Average image file delivered to each viewer ≈ 0.3 MB = 0.0003 GB.
• Energy intensity of Internet delivery (network + CDN + datacenter processing) ≈ 0.1 kWh / GB (this is a plausible mid-range value; real values vary widely).
• Push notification per follower (to notify them the post exists) ≈ 2×10⁻⁶ kWh (very small per notification).
• Upload + initial processing + storage overhead ≈ 0.05 kWh (one-time, negligible vs. millions of views).
• Carbon intensity ≈ 0.4 kg CO₂ per kWh (use local grid value to change).
Energy per single view (delivering the image):
• size (GB) × energy intensity = 0.0003 GB × 0.1 kWh/GB = 0.00003 kWh per view (that is 0.03 Wh per view).
Example 1 — upload only, no viewers:
Total ≈ 0.05 kWh → CO₂ ≈ 0.05 × 0.4 = 0.02 kg CO₂ (negligible).
Example 2 — big celebrity: suppose 50,000,000 people see the post (N = 50,000,000):
So a widely-seen Ronaldo post can plausibly cause on the order of ~1–2 MWh of energy (1,000–2,000 kWh) and hundreds of kilograms of CO₂, depending on exact view counts and grid carbon intensity.
SO.... it's not censorship. It's responsible climate policy. Problem solved...
Interesting experiment. I don't think it solves the basic problem that algorithms rewards click-baiting through borderline false (or blatantly false), outrageous or vulgar stuff, but at least introduces a bit of personal accountability. Would be better if it were more gradual than blunt censorship, and (more important) if the bureaucrats deciding this were themselves accountable, but at least, they're trying something...
The difference between China and the USA is that in China it's clear in everyone's mind that the government did the censorship, in the USA everyone knows that besides the government, hiding behind corporations, sometimes it's just pure greed that gives rise to censorship. Both could use some clarity, but I expect not much in either case.
What I wonder is why China hasn't tried algorithm suppression, like the USA? They can either rapidly or slowly drive away views in this way, and thus make it looks more innocent. As if the public isn't interested in critical news, and only in titillations or approved rants/taking heads. The USA has a far heavier hand than China; It just appears invisible to the dolts/sheeple.
They should hire you as a consultant!
https://substack.com/@sirota/note/c-157345165
I'm too much of an Engineer, I'd tell the truth too often. Someone like Sirota might do the trick. He believes he can fix a broken system when it isn't really broken; it's working exactly as designed.
If Chinese censors issued reasons for censoring (with avenues for appeal) it would make free speech more effective for engaging in reasoned discussion.
Absolutely agree
Why am I not upset that these mopes have been censored...(?) If I'm being purely philosophical and trusting in the agency of all people, sure, folks should be allowed to speak. OTOH, filling the airwaves with dipsquat commentary by performative assholes...is that what moves the ball forward?
Aristotle's many criticisms of democracy seem relevant, with a few appropriate to the moment, i.e., there are always going to be more dumb/poor/loony citizens than intelligent rational citizens, and that by allowing everyone a voice, the vast majority of dumb/poor/loony folks will ultimately control narratives and the direction of society.
Sound familiar?
"In a famous episode, he laughed at a parent whose child, with excellent STEM grades, wanted to study journalism in college to fulfill his dream. Zhang’s advice to the parent was to beat the child into a coma in order to stop him from having this silly idea. He further stated that anyone should just blindfold themselves and pick whatever random major, and it will still be better than journalism."
He is absolutely correct on that one.
Obviously the specific details in this case are a bit heavy-handed from a western perspective, but making the Internet be more of a niche text-based medium like what it was 20 years ago seems like a good idea in general.
I've got it... Those clowns are causing global warming. Recent research by Very Smart People™ with vast scientific credentials have studied the energy demand for a single post by Christiano Ronaldo, and they determined that just a single post going out to his tens of millions of followers uses enough energy to light up an entire city in Great Britain.
Assumptions (example values I use below)
• Average image file delivered to each viewer ≈ 0.3 MB = 0.0003 GB.
• Energy intensity of Internet delivery (network + CDN + datacenter processing) ≈ 0.1 kWh / GB (this is a plausible mid-range value; real values vary widely).
• Push notification per follower (to notify them the post exists) ≈ 2×10⁻⁶ kWh (very small per notification).
• Upload + initial processing + storage overhead ≈ 0.05 kWh (one-time, negligible vs. millions of views).
• Carbon intensity ≈ 0.4 kg CO₂ per kWh (use local grid value to change).
Energy per single view (delivering the image):
• size (GB) × energy intensity = 0.0003 GB × 0.1 kWh/GB = 0.00003 kWh per view (that is 0.03 Wh per view).
Example 1 — upload only, no viewers:
Total ≈ 0.05 kWh → CO₂ ≈ 0.05 × 0.4 = 0.02 kg CO₂ (negligible).
Example 2 — big celebrity: suppose 50,000,000 people see the post (N = 50,000,000):
• Delivery + notifications term = 50,000,000 × 0.000032 = 1,600 kWh
• • 0.05 kWh overhead → ≈ 1,600.05 kWh total
• CO₂ ≈ 1,600.05 × 0.4 = ≈ 640 kg CO₂
So a widely-seen Ronaldo post can plausibly cause on the order of ~1–2 MWh of energy (1,000–2,000 kWh) and hundreds of kilograms of CO₂, depending on exact view counts and grid carbon intensity.
SO.... it's not censorship. It's responsible climate policy. Problem solved...
Interesting experiment. I don't think it solves the basic problem that algorithms rewards click-baiting through borderline false (or blatantly false), outrageous or vulgar stuff, but at least introduces a bit of personal accountability. Would be better if it were more gradual than blunt censorship, and (more important) if the bureaucrats deciding this were themselves accountable, but at least, they're trying something...