Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns • Hacker News Board

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#11

Post by zmgsabst » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:18 PM UTC

cyberlurker wrote: post #5

zmgsabst wrote: post #2

Why 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.

COVID was the example I had I mind, where they censored medical professionals, politicians, and journalists who said lockdowns were a bad idea, questioned the data supporting mRNA (eg, Robert Malone), etc.

But since you mentioned not covering a story — we also have the Hunter Biden laptop, which wasn’t merely not covered, but actively censored on social media during an election. (Facebooks Mark Zuckerberg admitted as much.) The whole point of freedom of speech is the censors are notoriously bad at deciding what is “misinformation”, as they were in that case… where they shut down a political story which hurt their preferred candidate but was nonetheless true.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#12

Post by perihelions » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:19 PM UTC

The US has this capability too. It's an expansive power and largely unchecked.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/10/22/representatives-propose-bi... (" Representatives propose bill limiting presidential internet ‘kill switch’")

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#13

Post by OrangeMonkey » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:19 PM UTC

The every day user, even on here, supports shutting down internet access for some - why wouldn't the government give them what they want.

You cannot simultaneously hold that - for the good of us all - we have to remove people from internet services (see 'paradox of tolerance') and then pretend that the government shutting people out from the internet is bad.

Too harsh? No. Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#14

Post by dale_glass » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:20 PM UTC

zmgsabst wrote: post #2

Why 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?

I think pretty much nobody stands by their principles. Because ultimately principles are a means to an end, and if the end is not achieved, they're discarded.

And this really makes perfect sense to me when you think of it. We're not logical robots. If whatever principles we hold backfire badly enough, we'll discard them or add exceptions because the reason for those principles is that we believe they make a better world. If the world is not made better, then the principles failed in their aim.

Morality needs a degree of flexibility to survive, or somebody will exploit it.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#15

Post by zmgsabst » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:21 PM UTC

cyberlurker wrote: post #7

zmgsabst wrote: post #6

Earlier 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 had officials coordinate with social media companies to coordinate takedowns of accounts and messages which disagreed with them.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#16

Post by svnpenn » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:21 PM UTC

OrangeMonkey wrote: post #13

The every day user, even on here, supports shutting down internet access for some - why wouldn't the government give them what they want. You cannot simultaneously hold that - for the good of us all - we have to remove people from internet services (see 'paradox of tolerance') and then pretend that the government shutting people out from the internet is bad. Too harsh? No. Check out the article on HN yesterday to see…

> Check out the article on HN yesterday to see what your fellow users like and believe. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32678501

I did check that link. It doesn't seem to support your argument. Can you be more specific? It is some HN comments? If so link them. Is it the article itself? If so quote at least one part.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#17

Post by OrangeMonkey » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:21 PM UTC

zmgsabst wrote: post #2

Why 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?

Its not even random people you don't see - its us. Us, in HN, the people you are talking to now - we would rather have censorship than free speech. You get the government you deserve.

The article yesterday "Backsliding on free expression around the world needs to end" shows exactly what the majority of people here think.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#18

Post by mminer237 » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:22 PM UTC

generalizations wrote: post #3

Time 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.

I doubt it. You have to get the consent of every owner of property for a connecting 100+ miles. You pretty much have to either have an uninhabited wasteland or eminent domain to do that. Plus, you have to hire people to do hard manual labor for 100+ miles. You can try to just lay it on preexisting poles without permission some places, but who knows how long that will stay up.

And ultimately, fiber is something anyone with a shovel can destroy in 2 minutes. If the government doesn't want you to have Internet, a mesh network is a much more robust method if you can get it in place.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#19

Post by soco » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:23 PM UTC

thrown_22 wrote: post #9

cyberlurker wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Gover…

Or maybe because the large public doesn't care reading about some things, thus the press will not write about it. That's capitalism at work and the freedom of the press. There's no law forcing us to read everything, luckily, and just because a few people consider something of interest doesn't automatically make it of interest.

Re: Flicking the kill switch: governments embrace internet shutdowns

#20

Post by zmgsabst » Fri, Sep 02, 2022, 1:23 PM UTC

dale_glass wrote: post #14

zmgsabst wrote: post #2

Why 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?

I think pretty much nobody stands by their principles. Because ultimately principles are a means to an end, and if the end is not achieved, they're discarded. And this really makes perfect sense to me when you think of it. We're not logical robots. If whatever principles we hold backfire badly enough, we'll discard them or add exceptions because the reason for those principles is that we believe they make a better wo…

Except that, in this case, discarding them led to a worse world:

- bitter divisions in the nation because they subverted the consensus mechanism

- poor policy decisions because we didn’t have a robust debate about options

- poor medical outcomes because we didn’t exercise due caution

The reason we had those principles in the first place was to avoid repeats of past bad outcomes from not having them — and they were discarded at a societal level for shortsighted reasons.

Your job as a leader is to uphold those principles in hard times because they’re the path to a better outcome. And our leaders badly failed us.