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

601–610 of 645 posts

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

#601

Post by mistermann »

lainga wrote: post #72
mistermann wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fits well with the current wave of authoritarianism/nationalism that has taken root all over the world. Autoritarianism often goes hand in hand with nationalism, but not always. In recent history, it is the non-nationalists who seem to be most pro-censorship, does it not? Unfortunately, due to the extremely dynamic and high velocity nature of current times, this article wasn't able to get into the new flavor of mic…

Indeed, in 1848 authoritarianism and nationalism were the two major opponents on the European political stage.

A lot of people would say the same thing is happening today.

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

#602

Post by colordrops »

lobotryas wrote: post #535
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.

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?

No, I'm not suggesting there is a single truth. I'm suggesting that people think critically and keep an open mind that perhaps they are wrong or don't know the whole picture.

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

#603

Post by raxxorrax »

tootie wrote: post #474
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…

Snowden had nothing to do with censorship. I haven't seen a credible accusation of internet censorship against the government in recent memory. Private companies can refuse to serve certain customers. And obviously there's copyright law and government secrecy laws. But no personal expression is banned.

Mass surveillance induces censorship and has a chilling effect on speech, so it is arguably true that security agencies violated the constitution they are sworn to protect.

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

#604

Post by raxxorrax »

bitwize wrote: post #591
easterncalculus wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never understand why people feel like reasonable conversation is something to be only techically legal and limited in every capacity possible, instead of something we should try and pursue. I've seen this argument come up all the time as justfication for the destruction of ideas in good faith and rarely ever for actual harassment or intimidation. It's ironcially almost always linked in bad faith, to misreprese…

> I will never understand why people feel like reasonable conversation is something to be only techically legal and limited in every capacity possible, instead of something we should try and pursue. Because we've learned in the past decade or so that the "marketplace of ideas" fallacy is false. Ideas aren't traded like market goods; rather, they spread like disease. And the way to prevent dangerous ideas like Nazism…

Crude ideas are like snakes and the more you struggle against them, the more allure they have for others. Or just use some Nietzsche quote, I don't care.

People disputing the marketplace of ideas want to be authoritative voices in my experience. If we had been a little more relaxed in the face of objection, we might have fared better.

Anyway, if you are correct, we would need an authority on truth and I see a lot of problems already. Frankly, literature is full of examples why this is a bad idea, but don't let me stop you.

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

#605

Post by raxxorrax »

tptacek wrote: post #488
busterarm wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1957 there was a television for just about every 5 Americans, an average family size of 3.6 and not that much programming to watch. Mike Wallace effectively gave the KKK a forum reaching everybody in the United States... That's much more effective than Twitter. Your comment doesn't read any better.

You can watch the Eldon Edwards video right now, with a single Google search, to see how untrue it is that the KKK had in 1957 anything resembling the access to the discourse they have today.

Very few people like the KKK. Arguably fewer than in the past.

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

#606

Post by raxxorrax »

tptacek wrote: post #487
n0nc3 wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't just toss out core enlightenment principles because a handful of loud simpletons latch on to bad ideas. Not without explaining why.

I object to the claim that I've tossed out any "core enlightenment principles" by observing that we have drastically fewer gatekeepers now than we did in 1980.

Do you implicate that we need gatekeepers? If so, then yes, if not, then it was falsely concluded.

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

#607

Post by electrondood »

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…

I think a two-pronged approach is needed, though it's hard to educate the "ear" when it only wants to hear information confirming it's existing position.

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

#609

Post by mint2 »

anticodon wrote: post #557
ordu wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's one clear sign that you can find on any Russian anti-Putin and/or pro-liberal blog or channel: that Russian people are lazy, stupid, alcoholics and drug addicts, that Russians never invented anything (all the technology at all times was stolen from Europe and USA), Russia never won any war (including WWII that was "won" exclusively by USA), etc. They go even as far as to declare Russian language "stupid and b…

> one clear sign that you can find on any Russian anti-Putin and/or pro-liberal blog or channel: that Russian people are lazy, stupid, alcoholics and drug addicts

Wow i don’t know how it is in Russia; but that’s exactly the fake impression I’d work to cultivate if I was Putin or the state. If I had to guess, what you’re seeing is a false image designed to make you hate anything not explicitly pro Russia government. Your description follows with tactics used by clandestine groups in the US, like appearing has black activists but taken to absurd levels so as to either alienate other supporters or turn them into extremists.

It sounds like you’re being played.

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

#610

Post by somesortofsystm »

ccmcarey wrote: post #582
somesortofsystm wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You are incorrect. The reason those subjects are largely not discussed here is because this is not the place for discussions such as those. It's like going to a bird watching event and complaining that they don't respond when you try to argue political points. It's just not an appropriate discussion.

I can think of hundreds of examples of HN-appropriate discussions involving privacy, the NSA, military technology, Big Data and the military, where it was strictly verboten to bring up the ongoing wars, which are still very relevant to the HN readership.

But sure, there are other places to discuss war crimes.

Post reply on HN