This is a misapplication of Popper's tolerance paradox. You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals".
We-Chat and TikTok are without argument tools of an oppressive regime and therefore constitute intolerance one needs not tolerate, both conceptually and as products.
Is the USA the right regime to morally champion this cause? It the real reason for these bans even remotely associated with this moral objective? I'll leave that up to the reader.
But: with what's happening at the behest of the people who ultimately and directly control the censorship and data of these applications, there is no further difficulty in applying "intolerance to intolerance" in this case.
> You do not describe our "being intolerant of their intolerance of our products (content, code, and signals)", but rather our "being intolerant of their products (content, code, and signals".
Took me a few reads to understand your point of contention, but I'm pretty sure I described it accurately. Their intolerance of our products over whatever concerns they have justifies our intolerance of their products for the same.
zwaps|5 years ago
Is the USA the right regime to morally champion this cause? It the real reason for these bans even remotely associated with this moral objective? I'll leave that up to the reader.
But: with what's happening at the behest of the people who ultimately and directly control the censorship and data of these applications, there is no further difficulty in applying "intolerance to intolerance" in this case.
eganist|5 years ago
Took me a few reads to understand your point of contention, but I'm pretty sure I described it accurately. Their intolerance of our products over whatever concerns they have justifies our intolerance of their products for the same.