Of course is not true. You can't compare the US with NK or China. Proof is the simple fact that you could write that comment without being censored and/or thrown in a jail cell.
however, who cares that i can tweet the president whatever i want within reason? is that freedom? i don't have any power or any effect.
in the u.s., politicians cannot say what they want. everything they say is couched in layers to appease others in government. a former presidential nominee is basically an outcast for voting in a well-reasoned manner against party lines. people have been removed from office for even being perceived to be going against the president.
don't equate choice of words and what products to buy with freedom.
if you watch the documentary hypernormalization by adam curtis, you'll see that the west has created a different kind of control. it's a sort of chaotic control. if you increase the chaos, you reduce people's ability to differentiate between truth and not truth, which in turn increases the ability to control and manipulate. in my opinion, this method of control is much more sinister because it hides behind "look how we free are" and a supposedly free media.
there is no one setup that defines all authoritarian powers.
I care. Of course it is freedom and it has power. Why do you think the authoritarian governments don't like it? What freedoms you have in China and not the US or Europe? Of course democracies are not perfect but they are a step forward compared with dictatorships. It's a big difference between manipulative politicans and dictators who put you in jail or even kill you if you don't agree with them.
Politicians should understand that there are many things which can't be locally produced and penalising local businesses from importing those things from other countries is only going to disrupt the value add chain and lower their net exports.
This is something developing countries like India need to learn.
Get bad quality local machine = product crap quality end product = can no longer compete in international market = business goes bankrupt = local machine manufacturer is also dead in long term.
Reciprocity and fairness? Seems like a basic diplomatic concept but apparently it only applies to "important" countries who have enough leverage to warrant it. How can developing countries develop the leverage necessary to negotiate favorable trade agreements with established super powers like the US and Europe?
We need the ability to say "we don't actually need you but we're willing to entertain your proposal if we find it to our benefit". Anything less is actually exploitation. The fact the US can just send an aircraft carrier to somebody's coast to project some force prior to negotiations doesn't help, does it? It was never a level playing field.
Who wants that? Just look at the US and the trade war. As soon it realizes it can't compete/lead in the said industry it declares it a national security issue, be it communications(5G) or raw materials. I don't even want to mention the millitary procurement or oil. It was never about a free market. It was always about a market ruled by the most powerful where everyone can make a buck but not too much.