Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
1–10 of 157 posts
Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
#2Why wouldn’t they?
Nominal proponents of open society in the West were all too happy to engage in censorship during an emergency rather than stand by their principles.
What would motivate people to embrace an open society if the nominal proponents don’t?
Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
#3Time to start building long distance (100+ mile) mesh nets.
Alternately, I wonder if there's any way to lay down fiber long distance that doesn't require govt authorization...and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
#4Why wouldn’t they? Nominal proponents of open society in the West were all too happy to engage in censorship during an emergency rather than stand by their principles. What would motivate people to embrace an open society if the nominal proponents don’t?
> Nominal proponents
Could you be slightly more specific?
Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
#5Why wouldn’t they? Nominal proponents of open society in the West were all too happy to engage in censorship during an emergency rather than stand by their principles. What would motivate people to embrace an open society if the nominal proponents don’t?
Which emergency are you referring to? And what censorship methods are you referring to?
For example, I think the media choosing not to cover a story immediately when it is being peddled by an unreliable political agent doesn’t qualify as censorship. Even if it turns out to be true.
Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
#6Why wouldn’t they? Nominal proponents of open society in the West were all too happy to engage in censorship during an emergency rather than stand by their principles. What would motivate people to embrace an open society if the nominal proponents don’t?
> Nominal proponents Could you be slightly more specific?
Governments which claim to support values like freedom of speech, but in fact do not.
Eg, the US — who is outspoken on that issue, but during an emergency used social media companies to censor doctors, politicians, etc who did not agree with them.
Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nominal proponents Could you be slightly more specific?
Governments which claim to support values like freedom of speech, but in fact do not. Eg, the US — who is outspoken on that issue, but during an emergency used social media companies to censor doctors, politicians, etc who did not agree with them.
They passed laws making those social media companies censor them?
Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Governments which claim to support values like freedom of speech, but in fact do not. Eg, the US — who is outspoken on that issue, but during an emergency used social media companies to censor doctors, politicians, etc who did not agree with them.
They passed laws making those social media companies censor them?
They didn’t have to.
Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
#9Why wouldn’t they? Nominal proponents of open society in the West were all too happy to engage in censorship during an emergency rather than stand by their principles. What would motivate people to embrace an open society if the nominal proponents don’t?
Which emergency are you referring to? And what censorship methods are you referring to? For example, I think the media choosing not to cover a story immediately when it is being peddled by an unreliable political agent doesn’t qualify as censorship. Even if it turns out to be true.
>The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.
>Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news—things which on their own merits would get the big headlines—being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that ‘it wouldn’t do’ to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question.
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns
#10No post body was provided.