Because when a small group of elites with permament term and no elections decides what is allowed and what isn't... and has full control of silencing what's not allowed and any meta discussion about the silencing itself... is different from when an elected government decides it, and then anyone is free to raise a stink on whatever is their version of twitter today without worrying about being disappeared tomorrow
It's not an elected government if you're talking about the US. These policies are also all decided by "elites with permanent term and no elections" you realize right?
I don't feel like this was a good faith interpretation of my comment. What i'm saying is that in the US and China, censorship is decided by unelected officials. In one case it's CPC in another case it's corporate executives
That makes even less sense as a comparison. Sure Instagram censored anti-Trump posts for a day but in case you didn't notice you are free to discuss that without fearing suppression or jail.
> Why would China censoring Tiananmen Square/whatever out of their LLMs be anymore harmful to the training process when the US controlled LLMs also censor certain topics, eg "how do I make meth?" or "how do I make a nuclear bomb?".
I was explaining why it is more harmful and thought you were arguing it is not harmful?
I was just making a very simple narrow claim: Censorship in the west and china are both done by unelected people. Note that i didn't say china was good, censorship was equivalent or anything else you're trying to argue. my literal only point was:
Censorship in the west and china are both done by unelected people
