Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which NYT articles were blocked on Facebook?
At least an "questionably sourced article that made incriminating claims about Joe Biden and his son Hunter".
That was the New York Post, not the Times.
‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
631–640 of 645 posts
Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
#632Earlier 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.
> It's not so hard that it couldn't be taught to average humans.
What makes you believe this? I can't think of a time in history when the average person could critically evaluate information successfully.
Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
#633Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
#634Earlier quoted context omitted.
You dont have to be stupid to fall for disinformation, you just have to want to believe a lie. A lot of people are ok with lies if they confirm what they already believe.
Yes but those types of people are not looking for truth, they're looking for information that supports their bias. So if you tell them to shut up and take it, now they internally fabricate a conspiracy theory. What's worse is you have no idea what they're thinking or planning now. The only people who care about "truth" in capitalism are shareholders and affluent individuals. It binds them to the culture and when a bu…
> The only people who care about "truth" in capitalism are shareholders and affluent individuals.
These are the people that care about stability, in order to enjoy their wealth. A country that cannot agree with one another on objective reality isn't one that can be governed, and is destined to fall.
Which might be why so many of the "disinformation" fighters come from the establishment, and so many proprietors of distortions and lies are those with grudges (Greenwald, Bannon, etc.) or nothing to lose (QAnon/MAGA types).
It comes down to a difference between people that benefit from a stable status quo, and those (for whatever reason) that want to tear it down.
Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
#635Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Seems like it should be TRIVIAL; (if backed up by legal authority of governments - and that's the REAL trick) - to cause all claims to be properly categorized. Either something is OPINION, or it's FACT. And anything that is Factual, could have the privilege to be labeled as such. Things that are proven not-true or misinformation, or unsupported - they could be permanently labelled "bullshit" and why the hell can't we…
Guilty until proven innocent. Sounds like a plan!
Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
#636I'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…
We just need to put more value in human integrity. It's too easy to do "the wrong thing" with 0 consequences
Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
#637Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Ya,no. Top down authoritarian systems (including democratic ones) always corrupt. Power leads to cronyism and sociopaths rising to control. Always, just give it time. Its not "the rich" vs "the working people" narrative you subscribe to. If anything your attitude and worship of burocracy is what creates the power to be corrupted. Less is more.
[deleted]
Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
#638Earlier 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…
> all opposition is rusophobic and/or paid by the CIA/MI-6
This is probably the most ridiculous statement I've read on HN. But unfortunately not surprising.
Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
#639Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 anonymo…
But we also had the Russian election manipulation talk without any named source and evidence and it was widely believed.
I categorize that situation as mass hysteria, personally, another mutation of the 'red-baiting' McCarthy'ism that hasn't escaped American culture, which needs enemies to justify its trillion dollar investment in death machines. It served mostly as a mechanism for Americans to deflect from the real issues with their election: the Democrats fielded a corrupt, criminal candidate who could not defeat an also-corrupt, despicable ex-reality TV star. So, blame Russia.
And therefore, a perfectly good example for why people should demand sources be revealed when it comes to issues of state election security.
Otherwise, we will continue to be ruled by duplicitous subterfuge instead of verifiable facts.
Re: ‘Extremely aggressive’ internet censorship spreads in the world’s democracies
#640Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. So censor what they see to ensure they only receive the information you approve of correct?
No, but the 30 thousandth time a meme resurfaces proporting to show guns being delivered to terrorist refugees it would be nice if Facebook automatically tagged it with the information that actually it's a scene from some movie or where ever it really came from.
Oh that’s interesting, I’m not on facebook much (ever) so I missed this.