Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
[deleted]
Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism
41–50 of 233 posts
Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism
#42Democracy has always faced the problem that come elections, every living soul has one vote, but not every soul is equally equipped to be critical about information they are exposed to.
The solution is not to inhibit freedom of thought and speech, it is to teach new generations of people to be more critical.
Ultimately in the long run democracy and free societies are always more likely to triumph against authoritarian societies, because the will of the people prevents the governments from endlessly doing moronic or corruptive actions. If they do, they will get voted out in the next election cycle. Authoritarian governments don’t have that luxury, if the glorious leader decides to run against a wall year after year in full speed because they think they are right, they will and nobody dares to stop the train.
So the enemy is not disinformation, it is the gullible mind. We need to educate critical thinking, without going too deep into values. Then our societies will sort this shit out.
On a tangent, when a political entity is dismantling education of critical thought and science in school systems, you should know it’s because they know their political rule depends on people not thinking critically.
Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism
#43Just to make sure I understand this — the argument is that in order to combat authoritarianism, Silicon Valley companies should censor more content?
Private platforms can choose not to amplify hateful shit.
Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is "saving democracy" by denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. In fact, it does quite the opposite by destabilizing the political discourse. The "solution" is to stop trying to control people.
How is content moderation "denying people the right to participate in the democratic process"?
[deleted]
Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism
#45> How can you have election integrity if you don't have integrity of facts? This one is easy. There is no integrity of facts. No matter what standard you use you will have cases where reasonable people disagree. Historians argue about interpretation of facts all the time. There is no universal objective truth. You can argue that you don't need absolute integrity and just clamp down on the fringe stuff but that just s…
> There is no universal objective truth.
So you're saying it's true that there's no objective truth?
Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism
#46Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is content moderation "denying people the right to participate in the democratic process"?
Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. Just because we disagree with their viewpoint does not make censorship justified, nor does it take away from the fact that it is currently happening.
>Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process.
I still see plenty of content from various political viewpoints, far left to far right, on every forum and social media platform I visit. This "systemic lopsided moderation of one political viewpoint" you're referring to doesn't really exist apart from right-wing propaganda.
Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism
#48> How can you have election integrity if you don't have integrity of facts? This one is easy. There is no integrity of facts. No matter what standard you use you will have cases where reasonable people disagree. Historians argue about interpretation of facts all the time. There is no universal objective truth. You can argue that you don't need absolute integrity and just clamp down on the fringe stuff but that just s…
> 3. Make appearing at a polling place mandatory. This one is controversial. This is the system Australia has. You don't have to vote. You simply need to show up and get your name crossed off. That's it; and How is this enforced?
Well the first is that it's possible to not be registered to vote. If that's the case, there's nothing you need to do. My sense was that most people are registered to vote and this seems to be backed up by AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) statistics [1].
So if you are registered, then wherever you live, you'll bein a giant book. When you show up to vote, you just tell them your name and they draw a line through it. If you're out of your district, you can still vote. You just need to fill out an absentee voting form wherever you go to. This information is collated after the fact for failures to appear or duplicates.
I believe if you fail to appear you just get mailed a fine that starts at $20 [2]. I'm not sure this enforcement is 100%. At least, I've never known anyone who has gotten one. Then again, not voting seems to be relatively uncommon.
Voting, in my experience, is straightforward and quick. It's never taken me more than 5-10 minutes. The polling places are typically schools (which you can use, because it's on a Saturday) and I've never had to wait for more than a few minutes.
But this is why mandatory appearance is so important: the AEC is then responsible for making sure there is sufficient capacity. They can't play games with making it harder or easier in particular districts. Mandatory appearance frees the AEC from any partisan traps of that particular type.
[1]: https://www.aec.gov.au/enrolling_to_vote/enrolment_stats/
[2]: https://www.elections.wa.gov.au/vote/failure-vote#:~:text=Th....
Re: Nobel Peace laureates blast tech giants and warn against rising authoritarianism
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is content moderation "denying people the right to participate in the democratic process"?
Systemic lopsided moderation (i.e. censorship) of one political viewpoint is absolutely denying people the right to participate in the democratic process. Just because we disagree with their viewpoint does not make censorship justified, nor does it take away from the fact that it is currently happening.
Can you plese define what that political viewpoint is you're talking about?
Is it saying that the government should be smaller and not involved in everyday life, or is it doing things like claiming an election was stolen, which has led to real world harm (poll workers receiving death threats), or calling for violence?