Live data from Hacker News

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

news.umich.edu

171–180 of 645 posts

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

#171

As great as free press and democracies are, they also come with huge weaknesses. Those make it easy for foreign propaganda to influence the public and hence run the countries from outside. Thanks to The Great Firewall and the CCP rule, China is mostly immune to foreign propaganda. At the same time, China is using a lot of effort to affect countries with democracy and free speech, like India and the U.S. China is obvi…

Seeing free speech as an impediment to nationalist competition is rich. Nationalist competition appears to corrode every civil liberty and thing that makes life worth living that we have. What if we had international cooperation instead of a death match? I guess certain business people would not make as much money.

>Nationalist competition

What do you mean by nationalist competition? Nations competing against each other?

>What if we had international cooperation instead of a death match?

Cooperation for what? Different people value different things. Different cultures even more so. You cannot have cooperation unless everyone is on the same side of every issue in the same degree.

If we had that level of agreement, we would not survive, not for long anyway. Let me explain:

Almost all of politics (or religious sects for that matter) is about how we use the resources we have. If there are multiple ways of using the resources, there have to be people who disagree and want different ways of using the resource. That slows us down, which helps us understand the cost/benefits of different ways of doing things. That also keeps options open... so if we find problems with the prevalent way, we won't have to start over. Other groups will already have understood the alternative ways and made some progress that others can join... once they sacrifice the leader who led them the "wrong way", of course.

Nations are just another level of doing this thing on a global scale. Nations should do things differently, so that the world as a whole is more robust.

>I guess certain business people would not make as much money.

Ironically, it's certain business interests which have tried to make the world homogenous. That helps them scale their business in the most efficient way. They value efficiency more than robustness. George Soros, founder of the Open Society Foundations, is an example of a person who religiously believes in removing all inefficiencies due to nation states... and has been using his billions of dollars for that cause. I think that is dangerous. It's not different from finding "superior people", inbreeding them and killing everyone else for being inferior. That wouldn't make them superior. That would make them fragile. It's the same for nations.

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

#172

Have you recently used Google to search for something slightly out of accepted-by-mainstream compared to search engines like Yandex? I'm not saying Russian propaganda is not real, but it's a helpful guide to compare and contrast the results specially relevant results that is being omitted by Google[0]. Of course this is mainly because we have hate speech societal norms, hate speech laws and such, but how do we know t…

Why won't you provide an example?

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

#174

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.

Not disagreeing with most of what you're saying here, just wondering if you mean manufactured consent, like the Herman and Chomsky book, not consensus.

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

#175
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 2 approaches. You could argue that freedom of speech is a sacrosant right, like the right to live, that no law(not even the constitution) can overrule. You will lost that battle, with reason, because things like child pornography or slander must not be protected. So the second approach is to say, ok, some things are better censored, let the laws to clearly define that. If something must be appended or remov…

> let the laws clearly define that. If there is one thing about laws is that they're messy and complex, a reflection of the world we live in. Our culture and values constantly evolve, and the laws are normally following those so something legal or illegal at this moment might not be in the future.

And that's why there is a full branch of government dedicated to that work, a branch that at least in theory is at the service of the nation. Totally opposite to the XXI century digital Rockefellers.

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

#176

Have you recently used Google to search for something slightly out of accepted-by-mainstream compared to search engines like Yandex? I'm not saying Russian propaganda is not real, but it's a helpful guide to compare and contrast the results specially relevant results that is being omitted by Google[0]. Of course this is mainly because we have hate speech societal norms, hate speech laws and such, but how do we know t…

I tried "us election fraud" on both sites in private mode. The results are certainly very different but I don't see any indication of google omitting anything. You're already using a throwaway so you might as well provide some specifics.

You know throwaway accounts can get banned and their comments "dead" too, right?

Try the founder of Vice, let's say you want to listen to his Podcast by just searching for his name, good luck doing that on Google, on Yandex it's the 5th result down.

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

#177
post #24

Fits well with the current wave of authoritarianism/nationalism that has taken root all over the world. A free and open internet represents everything that a government that wishes complete control over its people would be afraid of.

How about the wave of 'I won't change, I won't work on myself, so I'll change / sensor you under the pretense of virtue" that's taken hold in SV echochambers?

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

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That sounds like saying we cant have laws which forbid things I don't like, and no laws against things I do like. We have final arbitrators of truth, they are laws, judges and juries. It isn't a perfect system, and it might not scale, but I see no need to abandon the idea some things are fundamentally incorrect, and get rid of those things.

The US has fallen a great way from the spirit of the first amendment when laws, judges and juries are not just a necessary component of a well ordered society, but are the "final arbiters of truth" on political questions.

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

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The president of the United States has been using these platforms to lie to the entire world unashamedly. For the most part not even the skillful half truths, statistics and selective quoting that politicians are known for, just complete fabrications and nutjob conspiracies. The corporations had the choice to continue to be complicit, silence him completely or provide some balance from other sources. It seems to me t…

>> 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. I think there may be some legitimate truth to this statement that you are not seeing. Donald Trump is far from the only bad actor we've had in our history, and things weren't running smooth as silk before he arrived on the scene, but you sure wouldn't know it from the way people ta…

I do agree with that to some degree. In fact I do find some of the pan rattling about how social networks "must combat disinformation" about the potential Covid vaccines troubling.

However, maybe I'm just unlucky, but I have a number of family members who are predisposed to believing anything they see on the internet. I can see the need for social distancing when it comes to viral content too.

Post reply on HN