Case Proposal: Prohibits political discussions which are against the government-advocated value

I propose the following data to be a new case:

Fields Data
Name Prohibits political discussions which are against the government-advocated value
Description Political content, which is against the government-advocated value, in the form or pictures, discussions, or campaigning isn’t allowed.
Classification blocker
Topic https://edit.tosdr.org/topics/52
Weight 80
4 Likes

I think we have case for this already

https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/316

Though with a different weight and classification

2 Likes

This case is inspired by the frequent element in mainland China service. Unlike https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/316, the service does not prohibit or even encourage political discussions which promote government-approved value. (For example, the current Chinese Internet regulation states that the service should encourage “contents which promote the positive energy”)

Updated: Specifically, “反对宪法所确定的基本原则的;
· 危害国家安全,泄露国家秘密,颠覆国家政权,破坏国家统一的;
· 损害国家荣誉和利益的;
· 煽动民族仇恨、民族歧视、破坏民族团结的;
· 破坏国家宗教政策,宣扬邪教和封建迷信的;
· 散布谣言,扰乱社会秩序,破坏社会稳定的”

3 Likes

Ahh I see now, entirely different!

Would fit under topic censorship better though

https://edit.tosdr.org/topics/47

3 Likes

I’d like to change it to “censorship” topic, but I don’t know how to change it. The reason why I give it “blocker” and “weight: 80” is:

  1. The “government-advocated value”, unlike laws and regulations, is frequently changed. Sometimes, when you just wake up, the value suddenly changes.
  2. It excludes any possibilities of adding certain user-friendly ToS since they are required to quickly respond to the value change.
  3. Since it encourages the promotional content of the value, the service may tolerate trolling, spamming against the political enemies.
4 Likes

Despite it may seem like spam, I post this for suggesting “weight: 100” instead for reason above and the following reason:

  1. The case often override other all ToS case, including but not limited to anti-harassment cases and anti-discrimination cases.
  2. It has created “taboos everywhere” environment and greatly shaped users’ behavior. (For example, they have to practice self-censorship and even threat overseas company to censor such content before the government’s action)

Also, it is never as same as https://edit.tosdr.org/cases/314 since the government-approved value may be extreme. (I have seen people say racial slurs and other slurs to attack anyone who criticized their government-approved value. Supporting or justifying massacre is also allowed to show as long as they are attacking government’s enemies) It is never as same as Case 283: You agree not to submit libelous, harassing or threatening content for reasons above.

Finally, I hope that we are never dragged in the no-ending intolerance.

2 Likes

I’d say a weight of 100 is too much, since that would mean that it’s the worst case a service could ever get, while other cases, like case 327: Your identity is used in ads that are shown to other users or case 172: You cannot delete your account of this service have a lower weight even if they may be worse since they affect all users of the service, and not only the ones looking for freedom of speech by using the service.

Also, this case doesn’t only apply to Services which governing law is in PRC, and in other countries it may have less impact. For instance, while reviewing Vimeo’s Terms (updated on december 2020; court of law in New York State, USA), I noticed a news-related restriction:

"You may not submit any content that: [...] Contains false or misleading claims about (1) vaccination safety, or (2) health-related information that has a serious potential to cause public harm"

Sicne health information is varying quickly, US Government/Vimeo meaning of “false” information or “public harm” may not always be accurate, and this may mean all discussions against the government advocated value related to health might be censored.

Given this ambiguous situation, I think applying this huge weight could unfairly hide other points importance and unfairly rate some Services.

I suggest a weight of 70 instead in order to avoid the impact of these issues.

2 Likes

I think it is a great suggestion since weight: 100 is too PRC-centered and does not apply worldwide, which is against my purpose and this website’s goal. But I don’t know how to change the weight.

2 Likes

I think if the case is added, the weight is better set as 70 as well as in censorship category because of Justin and Agnes’ reasons. Maybe I’ll propose more new cases to better including different cultures.

3 Likes

No other adverse opinions have been expressed, so the case has been added here

2 Likes

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.