Politics From Across the Globe

[Berkut]

The issue with Hollywood and China is not that Hollywood wants to appeal to Chinese consumers. It is that in order to have the chance to compete for Chinese consumers, Hollywood must get their movies onto the yearly "approved" list. The CCCP approves 80ish foreign films a year.

hey don't SAY you have to censor your content to never mention Taiwan, or make sure your potrayal of China is always positive, but everyone knows you have no chane of being one of those 80 spots otherwise.

I have some first hand knowledge on this. In our case, they were very troubled with our series showing the state as being fallible (and it wasn't China). We had to change that and make a new (very tacky) ending.

It reminded me of Franco censorship, which also changed many movies so the cops always got their man, the authorities made no mistakes, etc...

You can't even blame the producers of the content. They are a business, and they are not going to realistically be able to resist that kind of political control.

This is a prime example where the state has to exert its own power against the power of the other state. And there needs to be coordination. Make it illegal to market and sell any media in a country where the state exerts that kind of political control over content. Get everyone on the same page, and China will have to back down - their own domestic political reality will demand it. They are absolutely counting on the successful imposition of a divided prisoners dilemma to control this kind of thing. But oddly enough, in this case the prisoners can all talk to each other!

[celedhring]

Well, we just made a version for China with all the problematic content removed/adjusted. In the ROTW we released as intended. That's not always possible though.

[Sheilbh]

THis was what I was referencing in regards to China in the AUKUS thread.

Yeah and it's the sort of thing I was meaning when I said I don't think Hollywood matter v the tech platforms who in this case are complying with requests to make it more difficult for the opposition to function

There's a huge and difficult question of whether the benefits of Google and Apple everywhere and semi-open internet globally (generally) is worth the things they need to do to offer their products, or if the alternative would be worse.

They don't SAY you have to censor your content to never mention Taiwan, or make sure your potrayal of China is always positive, but everyone knows you have no chane of being one of those 80 spots otherwise.

I could be wrong but I think they literally do say what you need to do if there's something they're not happy with, especially if it's a big enough film.

You saw similar stuff with the NBA tying itself into knots trying to be sufficiently appeasing.

This is not a free market issue - there is no free market here to fight over. It is a market access issue, and will require coordinated political action to overcome. Of course that is the case - it is coordinated political action that has created the access to begin with!

And the really interesting case of Arsenal v Mesut Ozil.

[Admiral Yi]

What would be the point of prohibiting a company like Apple or Google from operating in a country like Russia?

If we're trying to protect the company's interests, can't they judge that for themselves?

Is there some national interest that is served by Apple being banned from Russia?

[HVC]

I guess it's in Americas best interest not to aid hostiles nations in broadcasting domestic propaganda. But that has to be weighted against the sweet sweet money and stock prices.

[Sheilbh]

I guess it's in Americas best interest not to aid hostiles nations in broadcasting domestic propaganda. But that has to be weighted against the sweet sweet money and stock prices.

Yeah I suppose my thought is whether there should be standards - similar to say anti-bribery/corruption legislation, or anti-modern slavery laws or other laws about making sure you're not doing something dodgy and neither's your supply chain.

I think we may end up moving in that direction with environmental standards - I wonder if there should be some wider ethical standards too. But I'm not sure what they'd be.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah I suppose my thought is whether there should be standards - similar to say anti-bribery/corruption legislation, or anti-modern slavery laws or other laws about making sure you're not doing something dodgy and neither's your supply chain.

I think we may end up moving in that direction with environmental standards - I wonder if there should be some wider ethical standards too. But I'm not sure what they'd be.

Good point.  The point of bribery laws is really to protect the interests of the citizens of the other country, and this would be similar.

[DGuller]

What would be the point of prohibiting a company like Apple or Google from operating in a country like Russia?

If we're trying to protect the company's interests, can't they judge that for themselves?

Is there some national interest that is served by Apple being banned from Russia?

Any time you have a coercion dynamic in play, the "judge that for themselves" argument becomes dubious.  The freedom to give in to coercion is hardly an unqualified good, it's the kind of freedom that paradoxically can make you less free on aggregate. 

The best way to fight coercion is with counter-coercion.  If Apple is going to be forced to exit Russia if they give in to threats by the Russian government, then the Russian government knows that trying to extort Apple is basically tantamount to kicking them out of Russia.  On the other hand, if they know that Apple has the freedom to give in when their employees are threatened, then that gives the incentive to threaten their employees.  Apple technically has more freedom in the second case, but in the first case they actually get to do business without dealing with extortion, because Russia doesn't want Apple out of their country.

This dynamic is exemplified by an episode in Sopranos where a couple of wise guys try to shake down a Starbucks-esque store, only for the manager to explain to them that he has no flexibility to give in to them, because the corporate would come down on him if anything is missing from the coffers.  The small business stores have a lot more flexibility to decide what to do, they don't have the corporate breathing down their neck, and as a result they get successfully shaken down by the mob.

[Berkut]

What would be the point of prohibiting a company like Apple or Google from operating in a country like Russia?

If we're trying to protect the company's interests, can't they judge that for themselves?

Is there some national interest that is served by Apple being banned from Russia?

You are basically saying "What is the point of trying to break the prisoners dilemna? Shouldn't the prisoner be able to decide for themself how to respond?"

[alfred russel]

China will have to back down - their own domestic political reality will demand it.

Tank man might agree with you but homie got steamrolled.

[Jacob]

Yeah, I don't think China's domestic reality puts any pressure on the CCP letting Hollywood films into the country.

[Razgovory]

On Russia I'd note that YouTube removed videos running through the best tactical votes against Putin and Apple and Google removed Navalny's app from their appstore it would tell you the best anti-Putin tactical vote in your location

Wow.
Bending over for China I get. Yuan speaks.
But Russia?

Ruble speaks. 

Barney was certainly the "face" of that group.

[Admiral Yi]

Any time you have a coercion dynamic in play, the "judge that for themselves" argument becomes dubious.  The freedom to give in to coercion is hardly an unqualified good, it's the kind of freedom that paradoxically can make you less free on aggregate. 

The best way to fight coercion is with counter-coercion.  If Apple is going to be forced to exit Russia if they give in to threats by the Russian government, then the Russian government knows that trying to extort Apple is basically tantamount to kicking them out of Russia.  On the other hand, if they know that Apple has the freedom to give in when their employees are threatened, then that gives the incentive to threaten their employees.  Apple technically has more freedom in the second case, but in the first case they actually get to do business without dealing with extortion, because Russia doesn't want Apple out of their country.

This dynamic is exemplified by an episode in Sopranos where a couple of wise guys try to shake down a Starbucks-esque store, only for the manager to explain to them that he has no flexibility to give in to them, because the corporate would come down on him if anything is missing from the coffers.  The small business stores have a lot more flexibility to decide what to do, they don't have the corporate breathing down their neck, and as a result they get successfully shaken down by the mob.

Good point.  Oddly enough I watched that Starbucks clip not to long ago.

[Berkut]

Yeah, I don't think China's domestic reality puts any pressure on the CCP letting Hollywood films into the country.

Of course it does. China still has to keep the masses basically content.

Otherwise they would not care what Hollywood showed.

[The Minsky Moment]

Any time you have a coercion dynamic in play, the "judge that for themselves" argument becomes dubious.  The freedom to give in to coercion is hardly an unqualified good, it's the kind of freedom that paradoxically can make you less free on aggregate. 

The best way to fight coercion is with counter-coercion.  If Apple is going to be forced to exit Russia if they give in to threats by the Russian government, then the Russian government knows that trying to extort Apple is basically tantamount to kicking them out of Russia.  On the other hand, if they know that Apple has the freedom to give in when their employees are threatened, then that gives the incentive to threaten their employees.  Apple technically has more freedom in the second case, but in the first case they actually get to do business without dealing with extortion, because Russia doesn't want Apple out of their country.

This dynamic is exemplified by an episode in Sopranos where a couple of wise guys try to shake down a Starbucks-esque store, only for the manager to explain to them that he has no flexibility to give in to them, because the corporate would come down on him if anything is missing from the coffers.  The small business stores have a lot more flexibility to decide what to do, they don't have the corporate breathing down their neck, and as a result they get successfully shaken down by the mob.

Thomas Schelling should be required reading in every university.