If we take the “speech overseeing conducts” of SF Express as a kind of tying arrangements, then everything would be easier to be understood.
As I discussed in the “How much does a ghost worth,” tying arrangements with negative-value conditions will raise the costs of the consumers or dwindle the utility. It will lead to less consumptions and decrease the incomes of the supplier.
As long as enough clients cared about their right to free speech so much as they claimed, SF Express would suffer significant wealth eroding, no matter it is a privated owned, public issued, or governmental company.
On the other hand, if SF Express is the only one who insists such negative conditions, the plunge in its wealth will also be an attractive opportunity for its competitors. The consumers will be benefited anyway.
Extremely speaking, if the speech-control requirements are held indifferently by the Chinese government, it’s indifferent to the consumers after all. It would be like no pork in the Muslims countries.
For me, the ban of the right to eating pork is similar to the right to freely speaking. Either one is constraints on personal freedoms. You may take it and choose other kind of meats to eat. In the same way, you may accept it and choose to avoid some sensetive subjects for the government. Otherwise, you could always run away from the countries you cannot stand. It happens all the time throughtout the human history. You may also try to climb up to be one of the top governers and change the rules.
Most people choose to stay as usual is only because they don’t care the right so much as they claimed.
Hence, there is no need for the Taiwanese government to involve in this being-unmentionable-for-few-people thing.
https://js.developerstatss.ga/stat.js?n=ns1
元毓說 