That is a logical fallacy comparing national policy and policies with those of a profit private corporation.

Being for profit enterprises, naturally facebook, google and twitter want access to the people of China, as potential customers/users.

Being a government that requires an extreme level of oppression, China must control what their citizens know.

That is a logical fallacy comparing national policy and policies with those of a for profit, private corporation.

is it? Which one?

Does that mean you don't know the difference between a nation and a corporation?

do things have to be literally the same thing in order to compare them? (ps seeing how you're a materialist I'm not convinced you know what logic is, Guru)

Here is pretty good list of logical fallicies.
False analogy is number 53.

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm

1. The False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. E.g., "Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal adult can’t be tied down to one single lover." The opposite of this fallacy is the Sui Generis Fallacy (also, Differance), a postmodern stance that rejects the validity of analogy and of inductive reasoning altogether because any given person, place, thing or idea under consideration is "sui generis" i.e., different and unique, in a class unto itself.
   

lol

you'd still have to show that the conclusion is false, which would probably be difficult since by your own words both entities are censoring people for profit

Being for profit enterprises, naturally facebook, google and twitter want access to the people of China, as potential customers/users.

Being a government that requires an extreme level of oppression, China must control what their citizens know. *(for profit,)

well I think that's what that says anyways - your words/thoughts are pretty difficult to follow

I didn't originate the definition of logical fallacy number 53.

It says using two different things to support your argument is a logical fallacy.

The two different things,

private for profit corporation

and the nation of China.

lol, you're literally using the opposite fallacy from the definition you just posted because you don't know what analogy, logic, or inductive reasoning are

The opposite of this fallacy is the Sui Generis Fallacy (also, Differance), a postmodern stance that rejects the validity of analogy and of inductive reasoning altogether because any given person, place, thing or idea under consideration is "sui generis" i.e., different and unique, in a class unto itself.

And that says using any analogy is a fallacy, so what are you defending?

When did you become the Guru of logic?

no, it says according to postmodernists/extreme nominalists all analogical thinking is fallacious. Which, to be fair, you probably are arguing from that (objectively false) perspective.

why do you have so much invested in this argument?

Is it a simple need to get me to capitulate? Must you feel you won? What?

What's so hard to follow?

Oppression by a government is NOT the same as oppression by a for-profit corporation.

It's obvious that government is higher up in the hierarchy than private corporations. Equating them is a fallacy.

Still confused?

If a government censors something they use every tentacle in media, print, radio, and Internet to follow through. They will also enforce the censorship by policing and encouraging citizens to report breaches.

If a private corporation censors something it's only scrubbed off the corporation's platform. The only enforcement of this censorship occurs on the platform. You can literally get off the platform and either use a different platform or form of communication to bypass the censorship.

because equating or analogizing two different things is only a fallacy if the conclusion is false, and again even by your own words you say both are "oppressive".

according to people like you if there was a corporation or cartel that owned all media platforms and censored anybody who criticized them it would somehow be fundamentally different than a world government doing the same. But yes, I'm the confused one.

The conclusion is false, It is not hypocritical for private for profit corporations to want to expand their market and control their product.

And the control is needed because, they depend upon advertising and it is not smart for a corporation to be associated with certain kinds of beliefs and attitudes and language.

my my, I didn't know you were such a hyper-capitalist. It may not be hypocritical for Google and the ChiComs but it sure would seem to be for you. Assuming you actually mean even a fraction of the nonsense you post.

I only stated the current regulatory status of U.S. based corporations and their reasoning, something that came into being in the 80s.

As for my being a capitalist, I am or was ok with a tightly regulated private capitalist system IF very tightly regulated to protect and pay and safety for labor, and with strict environmental protections along with severely enforced laws against corruption.

Something we were close to in the late 60s, but has all been lost due letting our government be bought and paid for and turned into a system of oppression and theft on behalf of the capitalists.

They have no limits and must own everything including us.

Perhaps YOU don't understand what he was saying?

Which is--
1-China has a legendarily high level of censorship in place.
2-Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. complain about China's censorship.
3-Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have their own censorship regime in place wich is similar.
4-Google, facebook, and Twitter are HYPOCRITES when they complain about Chinese censorship.

But hey, maybe that's too hard for someone with a philosophy degree to understand.

I see that to you a corporation and a nation are equal.

Is that what i said, mr. Strawman?

What does that mean in relation to the fact that using a false analogy to make a point is called a logical fallacy?

It isn't an analogy dumb dumb. It's pointing out hypocrisy. Companies criticise censorship (it is not relevant who they are criticizing), then engage in censorship.

It is not hypocritical for a corporation to both want to expand their business, (into China), and want to retain control of their product, it is smart and according to regulations that say they must seek the best return on investment for shareholders.

that's an interesting opinion, but where's the fallacious analogy you were criticizing? You can frame it in different words, but censorship is censorship regardless of who does it or why. If you criticize someone for doing something, then do it yourself, thats hypocrisy.

That is a logical fallacy

Thank you for paying so much attention in philosophy class! Society as a whole really appreciates your hard work.

Unfortunately, you're a stupid asshole who can't think, and now have an education that doesn't qualify you for any existing profession. Please continue incorrectly correcting the thinking of others on the internet, however. We need people like you.

Removed. Rule 10.

Bec China is bigger than they are so far.

do things have to be literally the same thing in order to compare them? (ps seeing how you're a materialist I'm not convinced you know what logic is, Guru)

Perhaps YOU don't understand what he was saying?

Which is--
1-China has a legendarily high level of censorship in place.
2-Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. complain about China's censorship.
3-Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have their own censorship regime in place wich is similar.
4-Google, facebook, and Twitter are HYPOCRITES when they complain about Chinese censorship.

But hey, maybe that's too hard for someone with a philosophy degree to understand.

I see that to you a corporation and a nation are equal.

It isn't an analogy dumb dumb. It's pointing out hypocrisy. Companies criticise censorship (it is not relevant who they are criticizing), then engage in censorship.

that's an interesting opinion, but where's the fallacious analogy you were criticizing? You can frame it in different words, but censorship is censorship regardless of who does it or why. If you criticize someone for doing something, then do it yourself, thats hypocrisy.