If you're Chinese or Russian, ignore my comment. But if you're an American, you need a bit of perspective. Literally most countries on Earth do orders of magnitude of worse stuff on a daily basis than US. And literally no other country has an egalitarian setup where anyone can potentially succeed. The countries that are objectively better than US in terms of human rights for own citizens, are very few (Switzerland, Nordic countries, few others which are either small/or have homogeneous population). I am stunned when I read comments suggesting that US is as bad or Russia or China.
> If you're Chinese or Russian, ignore my comment. But if you're an American, you need a bit of perspective. Literally most countries on Earth do orders of magnitude of worse stuff on a daily basis than US. And literally no other country has an egalitarian setup where anyone can potentially succeed. The countries that are objectively better than US in terms of human rights for own citizens, are very few (Switzerland, Nordic countries, few others which are either small/or have homogeneous population). I am stunned when I read comments suggesting that US is as bad or Russia or China.
Your critique misses the vastness of the violent capitalist system that exists and operates today:
"Place Silicon Valley in its proper historical context and you see that, despite its mythology, it’s far from unique. Rather, it fits into a pattern of rapid technological change which has shaped recent centuries. In this case, advances in information technology have unleashed a wave of new capabilities. Just as the internal combustion engine and the growth of the railroads created Rockefeller, and the telecommunications boom created AT&T, this breakthrough enabled a few well-placed corporations to reap the rewards. By capitalising on network effects, early mover advantage, and near-zero marginal costs of production, they have positioned themselves as gateways to information, giving them the power to extract rent from every transaction.
Undergirding this state of affairs is a set of intellectual property rights explicitly designed to favour corporations. This system — the flip side of globalisation — is propagated by various trade agreements and global institutions at the behest of the nation states who benefit from it the most. It’s no accident that Silicon Valley is a uniquely American phenomenon; not only does it owe its success to the United States’ exceptionally high defence spending — the source of its research funding and foundational technological breakthroughs — that very military might is itself what implicitly secures the intellectual property regime." [1]
Can you show me a critique that is more clear and true than this? I have quoted it a million times and that's because I just haven't heard a better explanation.
An area where capitalist firms are doing a lot of damage using their IP system is in the global south:
"The possibility of a handful corporations monopolizing healthcare and agriculture in the developing world is a very real risk today. Closely associated with these corporations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) - the richest and the most powerful philanthropic foundation shaping these sectors globally - aids them in the process of monopolization by granting huge funds to its network of NGOs to carry out activities which mainly benefit these selected corporations, in many of which the foundation has considerable financial stakes.
Apart from making such grants, through the vehicle of Public Private Partnerships (PPP), the foundation also has been facilitating the flow of millions of dollars of taxpayer money into what are essentially private projects.
The foundation also plays a crucial role in lobbying for stronger IPR regimes which oblige developing countries to grant long patent periods for drugs which are only minor alterations of already existing, off-patent drugs. In Africa, this foundation is one of the most powerful forces that is arm-twisting governments to gradually rewrite seed laws to provide patent protection for commercial seeds, which would eventually require criminalization of all non-certified seeds.
[...]
Far from aiding the production of cheap drugs by generic pharma through means such as technology transfers, the corporate giants, including Bill Gates’ Microsoft, “lobbied vociferously” for acceptance of TRIPS agreement, which obliged member countries to agree to grant patents to pharmaceutical companies for a minimum period of 20 years. Microsoft again lobbied the G8 in 2007 to strengthen the protection of global Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), which, Oxfam warned, is bound to “worsen the health crisis in developing countries”, the New Internationalist reported.
Stifling the development of generic pharma by lobbying for stronger Intellectual Property Rights regime (which, contrary to incentivizing innovation as is widely claimed, has the opposite effect as demonstrated by many empirical studies including one by U.S government ); facilitating a flow of enormous subsidies into private projects of closely associated pharmaceutical companies, not only by making philanthropic grants but also by channelizing through GAVI alliance the public money granted by various states; and protecting selected corporations from potential competition in the market by locking countries receiving assistance through this programme into long-term commitments to buy vaccinations they manufacture - all appear to be a multi-pronged strategy to monopolize the global healthcare industry. And being “the single most influential voice in global health”, Bill Gates is more than well-qualified to be at the helm of this machine." [2]
People like Gates grew up with access to an immense amount of privileged high quality knowledge, theories and pedagogical material available to them - access to the immense inheritance of humanity's scientific explorations. Yet what makes them powerful is that they have kicked away the ladders they themselves used to climb up in the first place.
The US and it's capitalist allies are powerful because they have created one big corrupt intellectual property system that favors the already powerful capitalists. There is no opting out of it. Through IP laws this system criminalizes sharing and turns inventions and science into commodities to be bought and sold. Helping ourselves and other humans is criminalized.
If the boy geniuses of Silicon Valley are so genius, why do they need to turn something that is not scarce (knowledge/science/inventions) into something scarce, and lock it away as a trade secret? How can we speak about egalitarianism when this system is so clearly the opposite of that? This system is not democratic, it's a bourgeois run prison.
> Literally most countries on Earth do orders of magnitude of worse stuff on a daily basis than US.
The reason there is violence in other countries is exactly because people in these countries are deeply implicated and entangled in the global capitalist production system, which is being led and directed by global north capitalists.
Sure. I agree with your broader point. But a lot of companies don't have the time or inclination to conduct useful interviews (take home assignments, project deep dives etc). So they simply ask a bunch of leetcode questions and 1-2 system design, "behavioral" questions, and expect you to give perfect answers. Conversely, if you are in a situation where you want a job at these companies, then you do leetcode. As an anecdote, I like solving programming puzzles (advent of code, ICPC problems etc) but couldn't clear FANG without leetcode. I despised leetcode because the puzzles/problems there are uninspiring as compared to ICPC problems. Of course, software engineering has very little to do with any of it :)
How easy is it to get a job in eastern European countries? And how does one go about finding jobs if you are outside EU? I have tried a couple of job sites, but haven't received any leads. Appreciate any pointers.
"The policies (at least on the paper) are getting closer and closer to what I can observe here in Europe."
Can you give a few examples of such policies?
I'm not sure if it's still relevant to the topic but some that I heard of from last year's 'Two meetings' (the congress):
- parental leaves for both (I don't know if paid or unpaid)
- age of consent from 14 to 16
- rights for single female to freeze eggs
- abolish of cooling period of a divorce
- tougher requirement for child adoption
- protect citizen info online and prevent data leakage and abuse
- defining quasi-contract better
etc
Of course there are glaring issues a lot of people care but never properly addressed such as the unfair pension scheme for gov body employees, which have been brought up every year and not resolved yet.
The standard of evidence for a country with free press cannot and should not be compared to the standard of evidence for a country with no press freedom. China controls flow of information so tightly, that even rumours should be considered credible unless proven otherwise.
Yeah, its convenient, but even more convenient is the mindset of ignoring existing evidence and bending over backwards for the pleasure of profiting off cheap manufacturing.
Free press is a nebulous concept, especially considering that for all but the most naive or disingenuous person the mass media press is an indirect tool of the intelligence services of each country.
> China controls flow of information so tightly, that even rumours should be considered credible unless proven otherwise.
You could say exactly the same about the military occupation of every country, or are we getting the whole truth in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen or Iraq?
For me this a case of simply, "Since I am American/European I will believe my press" Well, I am not Chinese, neither American or European so I dont have that automatic loyalty nor prejudice.
I am also not Chinese, American or European, but I will say that prejudice is totally warranted against authoritarian regimes. Free press simply refers to an ability to present an opposing view point, which authoritarian governments despise.
Where is the opposite point the western "free press" saying, maybe China is not committing Genocide? Because reading publications like The Economist, The New York Times or The Guardian you will never find it.Where is the opposite point in the mainstream press asking for GW Bush to be trialed as a war criminal (which he is)?
No, but nice strawman, congrats. According to my logic , if A does something wrong and it is heavily criticized in the press, when B does the same I expect the same level of criticism and that does not happen at all. Then it is obvious the press is responding to many incentives (political , economical, tribal) which make it not really that free.
> Where is the opposite point the western "free press" saying, maybe China is not committing Genocide?
For example, you are saing it here, on English-speaking website located in USA. And you are not scared of possible consequences for you and your family.
I am pretty sure there are many better examples, but this one is here and now, and hard to deny.
> This marks the fifth consecutive year that repressive governments have imprisoned at least 250 journalists. Lack of global leadership on democratic values – particularly from the United States, where President Donald Trump has inexhaustibly denigrated the press and cozied up to dictators such as Egyptian President Abdelfattah el-Sisi – has perpetuated the crisis. As authoritarians leveraged Trump’s “fake news” rhetoric to justify their actions – particularly in Egypt – the number of journalists jailed on “false news” charges steadily increased. This year, 34 journalists were jailed for “false news,” compared with 31 last year.
> Within the United States, no journalists were jailed at the time of CPJ’s prison census, but an unprecedented 110 journalists were arrested or criminally charged in 2020 and around 300 were assaulted, the majority by law enforcement, according to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker. At least 12 still face criminal charges, some of which carry jail terms. Observers told CPJ that the polarized political climate, militarized law enforcement, and vitriol toward the media combined during a wave of protests to eradicate norms that once afforded journalists police protection.
But by all means keep believing in a black and white world.
The difference between authoritarian and democratic states is that CPJ wouldn't exist in authoritarian states. The very existence of a report which documents the actions against journalists wouldn't exist in authoritarian states. How hard is it to understand this ?
Even the most authoritarians of the states have inside groups who oppose them (from the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina, to Saddam in Iraq, to Putin in Russia, to Trump in America), the groups can be more or less tolerated in function on how dangerous they are perceived. See the treatment of the black panther movement and the communist party in America.
The narrative is created by powerful people usually with input of the state. Can you in all sincerity claim that the treatment of the Palestinians from the Israelis is not in the same league or even worst? And yet you dont hear anyone here talking about a genocide there and any criticism of Israel is swiftly called anti-Semitic.
Manufacturing consent, good old Chomsky was right, as usual.
Yes, an attempt is always made by powerful forces to create a narrative. But with CCP (or any successful authoritarian governments) there is no "alternative" view point at all. They are always right, and make no mistakes. I haven't and won't claim that Israelis are any better, but CCP does it against their own citizens time and again (Tibet) and CCP apologists, shills come out with "Everyone does it. There is no free press!" arguments. Yes, the state attempts to create a narrative, but authoritarian governments can hold on to a given narrative indefinitely, while democracies can potentially change policies over a period of time.
CPJ, based in New York. Such an organization would never be allowed to exist in China.
It is the likes of the CCP & Trump who would paint the world as black and white, i.e. you're either with me or against me. The rest of us acknowledge that press freedoms enable a spectrum of viewpoints.
But you just said in the previous comment than A) Journalists were not jailed in the west. B) Freedom of the press was a clear cut issue. I would love to see how your brain works.
Again, the organization you quoted would never be allowed to exist in China. Journalists are sometimes jailed, like any other person, they do not get exemption from breaking the law. They have significantly more latitude outside authoritarian countries.
