Can Google/Facebook/Twitter be considered "uncensored internet"? To what degree is a culture's view of moderate speech different than its influence of "soft power"?

It's not seperable. The spread of one's cultural values by way of dominating media is a tried and true application of soft power.

Or they could, you know, be a neutral search engine.

Then people would complain that they aren't taking down the Christchurch shooting videos and are condoning hate.

Authoritarian policies thrive alongside tragedy.

That’s why films and TV shows are so powerful. Hollywood is the greatest weapon of American soft power.

And that's why you see so much Chinese influence in Hollywood.

> To what degree is a culture's view of moderate speech different than its influence of "soft power"?

Google/Facebook/Twitter are pretty darn conservative about what they censor. "Hate speech is bad" is technically a cultural statement, I guess, but one I feel wholly comfortable spreading everywhere.

Google are pretty hot on censoring copyright infringement. Which is arguably a pretty western value, and is a direct consequence of US government influence.

Generally speaking, this is a bit different in that violating copyright is illegal, not just in the US but in the foreign countries where Google operates. Sometimes in name only, true, but the government of those countries is still ostensibly saying that they want copyrighted works protected. Google is attempting to comply.

I was also under the impression that impression takedowns were not automatically applied worldwide, although I could be wrong. I know I can often view Youtube videos that were taken down for copyright by connecting to a Russian VPN.

Does that make any difference from the perspective of the nation who feels threatened by the power?

From the Chinese perspective I don't think it makes much difference whether something they perceive to be threatening originates somewhere in the soup of the internet and then makes its way into China or is a concerted effort by a foreign government.

I think the same would be true in reverse, when the Chinese internet would collectively promote material running counter to US interests, say for patriotic reasons, it'd be subject to scrutiny just the same. (In fact historically that did sort of happen to say, pro Soviet American citizens)

Says the person who is probably not among the following Chinese people who would probably disagree:

- 10000 who were killed in 1989

- parents whose baby who were poisoned by melanine-tainted milk

- people who were forced out of their homes by corrupt local officials and property developers

- human rights lawyers locked up without due process even by the standards of the Chinese written laws

The US has its fair share of misdeeds, but it does not blatantly censor the Internet and public discourse.

Don't conflate Chinese people with CPC.

Anyone disagrees with you are sponsored by CPC. That "if" statement works well for you.

- prisoners executed in order to harvest their organs

Or * 1-2 Million Uighurs locked into reeducation camps...uh, sorry, I meant to write "voluntarily attend vocational schools"

How do you tell the difference between passive soft power and active influence campaigns? Consider e.g. the handwringing about Russian troll farms.