Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

news.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 645 posts

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#81

Post by Karunamon »

chrisco255 wrote: post #58
codemac wrote: post #38

A measure of this community will be how successfully we can manage a conversation about this topic. My bet - we will fail. I'm completely lost on how we should approach this for various social media like fb or twitter where the platform is ubiquitous.

Social media should be regulated and forced to federate to combat their monopoly, for one. People spend years and years building up followings on these platforms, and since users themselves are the creators of the content that Facebook and Twitter are selling, they should have more legal protections of their rights. Like the 20th century labor movements, there needs to be a 21st century user/consumer movement. Users…

An internet user's bill of rights would be a good first step here. Define the requirements up front and then let the companies adapt to them. I really, really don't want the government dictating technical specs to the broader community.

Look to the requirement for phone number portability as an example. The providers weeped and gnashed their teeth, and then got together and implemented a working system.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#82

Post by DrJones1098 »

cogman10 wrote: post #61

I have to wondered how we "fix" our current internet situation. On the one hand, censorship appears to be appealing to stop the tide of misinformation. Anti-vaxx garbage is a prime example of something that should be censored into oblivion. It is actively harmful to the public. But, on the other hand, who pulls the levers of censorship is equally terrifying. I don't want a world where a dissenting opinion is censored…

You can't have both censorship of things you don't like (anti-vaxx things) and no censorship of things you do like.

Religion could be classified as mis-information but that helps a lot of people.

Who is the final arbitrator of what is determined as misinformation?

If one religion took control that one religion could classify another religion as mis-information and censor them.

If one political actor took control they could qualify another political groups information as censorship.

SOME censorship doesn't work. It's either all information available and you trust people to be smart or you have a censored internet.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#83

Post by chrisco255 »

varispeed wrote: post #40

The problem is that we didn't teach people about manipulation techniques because that was governments' favourite tool to control the masses. Now that anybody can reach anyone with any information, bad actors use these techniques to control people to their advantage. Governments' are now in an awkward position - ramp up education in these areas and forever give up a tool that worked for ages, or censor the information…

You've failed to make the case that the government is not a "bad actor". They've used all sorts of manufactured consensus techniques to get us into unjust wars or to give up our liberties (i.e. mass surveillance, lockdowns, etc) for over-blown threats. We aren't going to get education from the government. Open debate and discussion are really the only cure for propaganda.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#84

Post by stale2002 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #53
cambalache wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let the laws and courts determine that. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey.

> Let the laws and courts determine that. Not Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey. So, we should rely on state censorship in preference to the free marketplace of ideas competing for private support to relay them?

"state censorship" at least in The USA, is pretty limited.

So yes, I would prefer the existing system, where state censorship is extremely limited, to a situation where instead censorship is much more broad and effects more people.

If the speech is legal, then it should be allowed on major communication platforms.

There is even existing laws for this, that we could expand to cover new forms of media.

Those existing laws are called common carrier laws, and they currently apply to the phone network, and they could be changed to include many of the major new platforms.

Common carrier laws are pretty uncontroversial. I would hope that you do not think as they apply to the phone system, that they are some huge example of unfairness.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#86

Post by busterarm »

tptacek wrote: post #76
busterarm wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worse than that. We're seeing the teaming up of governments and giant corporations to control the narrative and tell people what's true and what isn't. It's the literal definition of fascism. And you see it being championed by people as defending against "the greatest threat to our democracy".

It has never in the history of western civilization been easier for people to inject random claims into the public discourse. Neither Mike Wallace at 60 Minutes nor Otis Chandler at the LA Times would have given an inch of space for QAnon or antivax, but the "giant corporations" you allude to today do so happily, and at a scale no newspaper publisher would have imagined 50 years ago.

No, before you had to be rich enough to buy the newspaper to print crazy bullshit, but that certainly happened (and still happens) too.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#87

Post by FriendlyNormie »

leanstartupnoob wrote: post #64
artursapek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. There's nothing "nationalist" about the type of censorship we're seeing on Twitter. If anything it's the opposite.

Which government agency is censoring Twitter? Conservatives and libertarians LOVE to bleat about property rights, but they can't handle it when private parties won't provide free advertising for right-wing conspiracies.

No post body was provided.

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#88

Post by square_square »

varispeed wrote: post #40

The problem is that we didn't teach people about manipulation techniques because that was governments' favourite tool to control the masses. Now that anybody can reach anyone with any information, bad actors use these techniques to control people to their advantage. Governments' are now in an awkward position - ramp up education in these areas and forever give up a tool that worked for ages, or censor the information…

The reasoning course should start at first grade

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#89

Post by nullc »

Cerealkiller050 wrote: post #25
bendbro wrote: post #7

It is extremely dangerous to our democracy to have unlimited free speech. 1. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. 2. Corporations aren't the government, so the first amendment doesn't apply. 3. Haven't your heard of "fire in a movie theater"? 4. Hate speech IS violence. 5. Reading disinformation from un-check-marked, non-fact-checked sources is anti scientific. Since all scientists have check marks, we…

This post is gonna be a good litmus test to see how many people read this comment to the end before they start attacking their keyboards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies

#90

Post by [deleted] »

leanstartupnoob wrote: post #64
artursapek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. There's nothing "nationalist" about the type of censorship we're seeing on Twitter. If anything it's the opposite.

Which government agency is censoring Twitter? Conservatives and libertarians LOVE to bleat about property rights, but they can't handle it when private parties won't provide free advertising for right-wing conspiracies.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN