Live data from Hacker News

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

news.umich.edu

431–440 of 645 posts

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

#431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I'll go with the normalisation of curtailing freedoms on a whim.

Sweden managed to just ask their citizens to behave properly and it worked.

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

#432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tried that on reddit a long time ago. It didn't work. We realized that a lot of people just want to see the discussion. I always click on the comments first myself to see if the article is even worth reading.

I thought that was the WHOLE point of Reddit when I joined years ago. It was like Digg but ONLY for people that had "Read-It". I think that was the idea and it quickly devolved into horse shit. I would love a site that was like Read-It but forced people to "read-it" first.

My take on “read it” - is that I read the title, look at the score and then the qty of comments

If it’s an interesting title and the score and qty of comments is high, i go to the comments.

I’m pretty much in /all and I hide tons of subs using RES...

So my feed on /all is pretty clean and tailored to things I’m open to.

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

#433
post #131
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Conversely, it has never been easier to inject true claims that are inconvenient for gatekeepers. What tilts the balance of equities in favor of censorship for you?

I don't even have to reach this question to support my argument. You're effectively comparing 2020 to 2015. I'm comparing 2020 to 1980.

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

#434
I'm coming to the realization that misinformation has to be combatted at the ear and not the mouth. I feel the world needs to go through a learning period where everyone realizes that whatever they read on the Internet is default false and they need to verify before they believe anything. In the least they need to verify credibility of sources, if not individual articles or tweets. I suppose what we're experiencing now is the pain of that learning period.

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

#435
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You know that Mike Wallace interviewed an Imperial Wizard of the KKK on his show in 1957, right? And Ayatollah Khomeini.

I am well aware; read my comment in light of that.

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

#436
post #434

I'm coming to the realization that misinformation has to be combatted at the ear and not the mouth. I feel the world needs to go through a learning period where everyone realizes that whatever they read on the Internet is default false and they need to verify before they believe anything. In the least they need to verify credibility of sources, if not individual articles or tweets. I suppose what we're experiencing n…

> I feel the world needs to go through a learning period where everyone realizes that whatever they read on the Internet is default false

The world had 50+ years to learn this about the TV, but didn't. Don't hold your breath.

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

#437
post #101
post #28

> ISPs in Norway are imposing what the study calls “extremely aggressive” blocking across a broader range of content, including human rights websites like Human Rights Watch and online dating sites like Match.com. I have no trouble accessing hrw.org and match.com in Norway. I wonder is it specific to some ISPs? I also couldn’t find any law that was passed to block certain pornogrpahic websites in Wikipedia [1] and I…

When I read that, I immediately dismissed the whole article. Both HRW and match.com are available on the 4/5 ISPs I have access to ATM. Home (Telenor), mobile (Telia), server host (domeneshop), my office (Telia, wired) and a customer network (Not sure about the downstream ISP). On the last one match.com is blocked by a firewall not the ISP. They should really check thier sources. My guess is that they tested on a net…

I checked as well (Globalconnect wired; Telenor mobile). It's a fairly ridiculous claim, one which if true would have attracted instant media attention.

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

#438
post #51
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.

The interesting thing about this is that nationalism is in general associated with right-leaning politics, and the censorship is far and away being applied more aggressively to those very same right-leaning nationalist groups. You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online.

"You would be hard pressed to find liberal / progressive content being censored online."

You must be joking? Twitter, Google, FB, the blatantly partisan censorship?

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

#439
post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ten minutes of thinking gave me: (1) Identification of potential dissidents. Those who violate lockdowns or mask orders are most likely to resist state control. (2) Normalizing control over common activities. It takes four weeks to normalize a new habit. "Two weeks to stop the spread" has been going on since March (that's thirty-two weeks and counting). Americans are now habituated to state-controlled social behavior…

So a cultural revolution?

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

#440

Of my past 10 posts on HN 6 have been flagged and removed by users. Of those, many made it to the front page with 10+ votes. I contacted Dang and he was clear it was users censoring it, further that some users were also "vouching" for my posts. It's to the point, people don't want to know. I feel I'm fairly even handed in my discussion. Here's a couple of my posts (who knows if I'll get flagged): - Public Safety Anno…

> both sides of the political spectrum have no idea what the other is claiming. I'm not sure that's true. As your post about Michigan voter database points out, one side is making up facts they themselves don't believe in order to push the perception the results are invalid. The objective is not to reverse the results, which it's very unlikely they'll be able to do, but to use the perception to justify moves you allu…

This is incorrect and illustrates the parent’s point. There is a sincerely held belief that a subset of the people who had the means, motive, and opportunity to influence the results in key districts may have succumbed to the temptation. This is actually the more rational position as far as I can tell. So, a lot of people are looking at anything that may prove or disprove this. This is in no way unlike what the democrats do. It’s still a common belief that the 2000 election was stolen, and academics were analyzing it even years after. Also, Trump lost by fewer votes than Abrams did, and that’s still a conspiracy theory in the left. It seems odd to me that so many folks on the left don’t realize how similar they are.

Are you engaging honestly? Or are you just assuming bad faith?

The dangerous territory is acting as though legitimate questions and inquiry is dangerous territory. Many of us in tech have had election security concerns for like a decade. We set up voting machines for kids to hack at defcon.

Of course, there are loud Q anon types on twitter throwing out all kinds of crap. Most of them are actually sincere as well, even though we know better and it seems silly. But those voices aren’t representative of the legitimate concerns.

I asked my wife, who hates Trump, if she was tasked with reporting a vote total in a crucial district, and she had the opportunity to plausibly fudge the numbers such that it would change the outcome, would she “do the right thing” and save us from another 4 years of Trump?

She said yes without hesitation. Somehow, I don’t think she is the only person who thinks that way. That doesn’t mean that someone cheated, but only a fool would take their word for it. With so much on the line, it’s in everyone’s best interest to get more certainty. We already know that voter fraud happens routinely, and even enough to swing elections. Especially in Philadelphia. We also know that humans make mistakes. In most elections, mistakes are a rounding error that is below the noise floor. In a tight race, a few mistakes can change the outcome.

You’re better off letting them look and find nothing than shout them down and say “nothing to see here!”. As part of this process, a lot of irregularities are going to be found that appear suspicious, and most are going to have benign explanations after they are investigated. That doesn’t make it bad faith.

They have already found several errors and thousands of ballots on memory cards that they “forgot” to upload. Ensuring that these were isolated incidents only makes sense.

Post reply on HN