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

531–540 of 645 posts

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

#531

Post by etripe »

igorkraw wrote: post #508
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Consider the notion that government has always been this way however its easier to tell this now because we are all so interconnected and informed.

That's a cynical take, a slightly less cynical take is that the rich and (privately) powerful have always tried to cement their power in form of organising a feudal-ish state and that the rest of us had to actively support democratising forces to counteracting them. What this means is having everything which lends itself to monopoly to democratic control, not private control, and to work together to make democratic c…

> That's a cynical take

I always wonder why people make this kind of comment, as if it's a valid argument and not just sentiment. The difference between your first paragraph and their comment is tonal, as both accurately describe reality.

Can I conclude from the rest of your post that you are perhaps reading into the post that their stance is dejected and disengaged, yourself preferring a more activist, "I'm part of the solution" approach?

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

#532

Post by bobthepanda »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #524
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Consider the notion that government has always been this way however its easier to tell this now because we are all so interconnected and informed.

Even so, the technological tools for surveillance and censorship are far more effective and widespread today than before. Surveillance might have meant tapping your phone, reading your mail or following you and all the manual labor and cost that entails a few decades ago. Today its conceivable to run a search across every email, call, message, photo, bank transaction, location signal etc a person has quickly and chea…

Although this is fair, we do actually know what a state capable of this looks like.

The East German Stasi ended up with records of about 5.6M out of a population of ~16M people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi_Records_Agency

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

#533

Post by hmry »

cryptica wrote: post #514
snazz wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics is generally off-topic here other than in a few specific posts that are explicitly allowed because they're so newsworthy, like the death of RBG and the media calling the election.

I think the fact that politics can't be discussed here is itself a form of censorship. Because people are not able to freely exchange ideas about politics, you end up with silos. The main reason why the subject of politics causes flame wars is because people are thinking about it emotionally because they have very little actual information to work with. The less sharing of information there is on the subject, the mor…

There are valid reasons for limiting which topics people can discuss in a space, in my opinion. If I disallow people from discussing politics on my cooking forum that's not censorship. It's keeping the discussion focused on the actual topic.

HN seems to take a middle ground position of allowing politics when they are relevant to the topic, but not otherwise. That is also what I promote on all platforms I moderate.

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

#534

Post by jayko »

tsimionescu wrote: post #501
colordrops wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a suggestion or thesis? It's not so hard that it couldn't be taught to average humans. Even if it was extremely hard, it should still be taught, considering its importance.

The problem is that, for many topics, there just isn't a reliable source to go to. Sure, if you want information on scientific topics, you have very good options - go to one of the celebrated journals and read some papers, or at least the press releases from those same journals. When it comes to current domestic affairs (has there been massive election fraud in the US? is ANTIFA terrorizing the US?) then the mainstre…

The NYT do not lie? Do you remember the Jussie Smollet case or the MAGA hat teenager case? What about the misinformation campaign re: The Iraqi weapons of mass-destruction? That's just out of the top of my head.

They do lie a lot. And nowadays they mostly lie by omission. It's just a different kind of lying than Breitbart's.

Why we are still hang-up to the time were NYT actually had journalistic integrity which is over 20 years ago?

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

#535

Post by lobotryas »

colordrops wrote: post #484
taneq wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trusting sources and verifying information is actually an incredibly hard game. Being too credulous leaves you open to misinformation, but on the other hand, being uncritically skeptical leads to the current "fake news" environment where (to those involved) no source is credible and we might as well all just believe whatever meets our preconceptions and dismiss the rest.

Do you have a suggestion or thesis? It's not so hard that it couldn't be taught to average humans. Even if it was extremely hard, it should still be taught, considering its importance.

You act as if there is a singular truth that can be divined from any set of circumstances. You and I can review the same set of events and even if we agree on the facts come to different conclusions. Does that mean you did something wrong just because I disagree with you?

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

#536

Post by ordu »

anticodon wrote: post #485
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #453

The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Why can't I ask someone at the government directly exactly what their policy is on blocking websites, which sites are blocked, and what the legal basis for blocking is? And get a real, detailed, authoritative answer? And contest that answer if it does not meet legal s…

I don't get what any government has to do with it. Almost all information now is consumed via Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. These are private companies that has their own censorship rules and push their own agenda aggressively. Government has no control over this, even USA government as was seen recently when Facebook blocked links to NYT articles and Twitter was censoring Trump twits. All other countries (exce…

I do not know why Google blocks pro-russian sources, but I know why I'd blocked them, if I could. They are not "pro-russian", they are all "pro-Putin". Any "pro-russian" source that is not "pro-Putin" will become "anti-russian" in a short time, because of activity of other "pro-russian" sources. They just forcibly stick "anti-russian" label on such a source, and here we are. Putin do all he could, to draw an equality sign between "Russia" and "Putin". And it works. Now no media needs to do nothing, "anti-russian" label sicks to any "anti-Putin" media all by itself. I know this, because I'm russian, I'm anti-Putin, and I tried to find a "pro-russian" and "anti-putin" source. I tried and failed. There is not such thing.

When a media use any material to promote it's propaganda ideas, doesn't bother with truth, use any dirty trick to mock opponents, it should be blocked.

But if Google blocked such dirty media, then what is to remain? Only "anti-Putin" media, which is all marked as "anti-russian".

I repeat: I do not know, why Google blocked "pro-putin" media, maybe due to reasons I described above, maybe because of order from a masonic lodge or from USA government. But the result is the same: all that is not blocked is "anti-russian".

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

#537

Post by somesortofsystm »

taneq wrote: post #461
hliyan wrote: 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…

Trusting sources and verifying information is actually an incredibly hard game. Being too credulous leaves you open to misinformation, but on the other hand, being uncritically skeptical leads to the current "fake news" environment where (to those involved) no source is credible and we might as well all just believe whatever meets our preconceptions and dismiss the rest.

One should only trust named, identified sources. The age of anonymous sources in mainstream media needs to end, because an anonymous source is not a source.

Yes, sources should be protected. But there should be mechanisms in place to protect sources who identify themselves that do not require the gullible public to just believe what they were told, because an authority said it was okay to believe something an anonymous person said about something.

Maybe this is something that the crypto/cert folks should address - a means of verifying that a source has been properly and adequately identified, without revealing the details required to target that individual for harassment/assassination/etc.

A media clearing house for sources, or a blockchain ...

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

#538

Post by dragonwriter »

teraku wrote: post #500
OJFord wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure, I think if GP had expanded on it a little it's an interesting take. Multiple corporations (with their 'fiefdoms') is decentralised from government, in a similar manner to peers being decentralised from government (or the crown). You could either argue 'not as much so', or that 'corporate lobbying, unions, and party donations have a similar influence on policy'; regardless I think it's an interesting…

First of all this, but even in the very definition of feudalism it's feudalism: > Feudalism, also known as the feudal system, was a combination of the legal, economic, military, and cultural customs [...]. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships that were derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. [0] Don't really get all the downvotes. I could extend more on…

> but even in the very definition of feudalism it's feudalism:

Except there is no “holding of land in exchange for labor”, the only concrete element of the description you quote.

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

#539

Post by pitay »

fomine3 wrote: post #361
babas wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 agree from a Japanese point of view. I never heard any ISP censorship except child porn. Censoring news sites must be huge news but never heard.

Here is an example from Australia:

https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/isps-in-au-and-nz...

What's interesting is the Prime Minister made it explicitly legal for ISPs to do this. Couldn't find the exact news on this but a search turned up the following article which is sort of what I remember https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/04/04/soci-a04.html .

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

#540

Post by 3633737446 »

anticodon wrote: post #485
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #453

The big problem in todays age is we can no longer assume the government is accountable to us, or even get straight answers from the right people there. Why can't I ask someone at the government directly exactly what their policy is on blocking websites, which sites are blocked, and what the legal basis for blocking is? And get a real, detailed, authoritative answer? And contest that answer if it does not meet legal s…

I don't get what any government has to do with it. Almost all information now is consumed via Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube. These are private companies that has their own censorship rules and push their own agenda aggressively. Government has no control over this, even USA government as was seen recently when Facebook blocked links to NYT articles and Twitter was censoring Trump twits. All other countries (exce…

As others have pointed out to varying degrees, everything you highlighted happens at the discretion of the government. Doing nothing does not imply a lack of engagement it simply means that the government sees no reason to act.
Post reply on HN