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

271–280 of 645 posts

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

#271

Post by ttt0 »

throwsofaraway wrote: post #109

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…

The most offensive thing is not even the censorship, but how awful and almost completely useless search engines have become. Years ago I used to be able to find almost anything, no matter how obscure it was, if I tried hard enough. Today I most often just give up, because it sometimes seems like you can't find the answers to even really basic questions. I don't know what they did, but every search engine is now a complete garbage. They're now basically just shortcuts to the actual search features on websites that everyone already knows, when you're too lazy to type in the URL or click on a bookmark to the actual website.

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

#272

Post by dragonwriter »

busterarm wrote: post #209
JoshuaDavid wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fascism has a specific definition that is not just "whatever Mussolini did".

Considering that the term itself comes from his movement, the "Fasces of Revolutionary Action", and that he coined the word fascism personally in 1919 (after the word "fascio"), I think at the very least he gets to be attributed the lions' share of it.

> Considering that the term itself comes from his movement, the "Fasces of Revolutionary Action", and that he coined the word fascism personally in 1919 (after the word "fascio"), I think at the very least he gets to be attributed the lions' share of it.

Sure, but that doesn't mean any one aspect of what he did, in isolation from the rest, is "the definition of fascism". (And the understanding of the genericized term is at least as much shaped by Naziism as Italian fascism, anyhow; this might annoy Mussolini if he was around to be annoyed -- frankly, that Nazis are taken as an example of "fascism" would probably annoy Hitler, too -- but, you know, that's just the way language evolves; if we're talking about Mussolini's movement in Italy specifically, we generally say "Italian fascism", not just "fascism" unless there is context to indicate that we are specifically talking about Italy.)

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

#273

Post by galangalalgol »

slg wrote: post #170
paxys wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A free and open internet also allows propaganda and hate to flourish I disagree. Sure there will always be some amount of misinformation on the internet, but a fully state-controlled media and internet (see - China) is far, far more effective at spreading propaganda and controlling the narrative.

This isn't a binary choice between a fully state controlled internet and a fully free and open internet. There is a spectrum. I believe the ideal internet rests much closer to the free and open side than the state controlled side, but existing at the extreme of free and open would be come with its own set of problems. Just look at all the most popular places on the web that champion their lack of censorship or modera…

Is it possible that they become cesspools because poop isn't allowed to flow everywhere else? Is there a finite quantity of poop that could be diluted if it were spread out evenly, or is the supply unending?

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

#274

Post by newguy1234 »

WalterBright wrote: post #265
newguy1234 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Another big problem I've noticed is that there are so many partisan news sources. If you are liberal, you go to CNN which has a liberal spin to it. If you are conservative, fox news. The problem is each one is adding their own biases to it. I saw this clear as day when I was watching live streams during the Portland federal courthouse protest. I would watch these for several hours per day as a form of entertai…

This is hardly new. "60 Minutes" was infamous in the 1960s for the egregious slanting of their segments. It was so bad that the smarter people being interviewed by them would demand that the interview be simultaneously filmed by their own people. As for riots, my dad remarked to me that the TV media would represent the crowds as large or small simply by where they pointed the camera and the zoom level used. And they…

Yeah very true I guess. I guess the big eye opener now is that cell phones are cheap and high speed mobile data is cheap so that allows anyone to become a "citizen reporter" so to speak. If something serious is happening, it is very likely someone will be live streaming it to facebook, youtube or similar platform so that is a complete game changer at breaking away from main stream media.

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

#275

Post by robben1234 »

selestify wrote: post #269
gruez wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I'll just click the link, read some memes on reddit, then come back once the timer runs out.

Why are you so opposed to reading something before commenting on it?

A lot of people aren't interested in discussing linked material and therefore reading it, they just want to have a discussion on the topic of the title.

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

#276

Post by busterarm »

WalterBright wrote: post #248
busterarm wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> rich enough to buy the newspaper That's not how it worked. The moment Gutenberg invented the printing press, printers popped up everywhere and printed anything and everything. That means newspapers, newsletters, pamphlets, flyers, advertisements, bills, leaflets, everything. It was cheap to print, not remotely restricted to the rich, and you certainly did not need to buy a newspaper. Schools print newspapers, busin…

newspapers have reach, which is in the context we're talking about when making comparisons to twitter.

sure, you could cheaply print stuff, but you had to (pay people to) stand on a lot of street corners to get your message out there.

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

#277

Post by leanstartupnoob »

lliamander wrote: post #208
leanstartupnoob wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What we LOVE is a market free of force and fraud, and we love rule of law. Within that there are very nuanced conversations to be had about when the threshold for force or fraud has been reached. Enforcement of contracts is essential to a healthy society, but is it good to enforce a contract where one party either lied or coerced the other to sign? No, or at least not necessarily. The nature of the contract between s…

Twitter is a private company with zero legal authority to enforce anything other than not sharing your tweets.

Be honest that you really want to use the force of government laws to mandate that Twitter spreads your version of free speech across the platform paid for and developed by Twitter.

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

#278

Post by [deleted] »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #256
busterarm wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we should have never given those poors access to say whatever is on their minds, right? At least not in front of other people... It'll be the end of civilization. Everyone should agree with the rich and powerful.

Isn't that basically what the Allegory of the cave is advocating for? If you are uneducated (and almost certainly poor), you do not see reality for how it is, but instead you see shadows against the wall. Only through the process of a dialectical education can you begin to see reality for how it is. As a result, only the educated enlightened individuals should become kings or the guardians of a state. Any system whic…

[deleted]

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

#279

Post by p1necone »

chrisco255 wrote: post #83
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.

What benefit do you think the government gets out of lockdowns? (other than the obvious one of stopping the spread of the pandemic).

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

#280

Post by busterarm »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #256
busterarm wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we should have never given those poors access to say whatever is on their minds, right? At least not in front of other people... It'll be the end of civilization. Everyone should agree with the rich and powerful.

Isn't that basically what the Allegory of the cave is advocating for? If you are uneducated (and almost certainly poor), you do not see reality for how it is, but instead you see shadows against the wall. Only through the process of a dialectical education can you begin to see reality for how it is. As a result, only the educated enlightened individuals should become kings or the guardians of a state. Any system whic…

I don't know how you follow this to any conclusion that doesn't advocate for locking down the entire internet.

That genie is out of the bottle.

Post reply on HN