Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

uk.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 224 posts

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#111

Post by rayiner »

m_a_g wrote: post #45
hyko wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Turkey is not a democracy?

Turkey has been a democracy for almost a century now. However, it all comes down to this, what happens when people of a democratic country elect a president that has totalitarian tendencies?

This happens all the time, and the criticisms are, in my mind, directed at policy as much as anything about the people having “totalitarian tendencies.” In Muslim countries, in particular, like Turkey and Egypt, totalitarianism is usually invoked to keep out proponents of political Islam. Erdogan was replacing authoritarians who maintained Turkey’s secular regime against a religious populace. When Egypt’s dictator fell, the people replaced him with a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Then a military dictator toppled him to restore secularism.

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#112

Post by umvi »

augustt wrote: post #108
umvi wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The statues are not arbitrary and many of them have been objected to for years. Christopher Columbus and Francis Scott Key aren't arbitrary? It's not like they were removed by a democratic process. The majority had no say. A loud minority decided they needed to come down for arbitrary reasons and did it without permission. Anyone challenging them would be browbeaten by the loud minority mobs on social media and can…

Columbus has been a point of contention for a while now. Regardless, corporations are not saying BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that. A majority of America supports the movement, and that's being reflected by PR now. The last line of defense for conservatives is "well actually there's a silent majority that thinks otherwise" and "actually most people don't care, they're just virtue signaling". An…

> Columbus has been a point of contention for a while now

That's a given, but it's arbitrary in that he's not generally recognized as a "symbol of slavery" like Confederate flags or statues are, so it's just minorities taking advantage of turmoil to bypass the democratic process and impose their will on everyone.

On a side note, I personally think it's wrong to retroactively "cancel" historical figures because we now judge their actions to modern morals. It's better to recognize they were victims of their time and not judge them as harshly - "with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again" and all.

Most of the founding fathers had slaves, but let's face it, most of us would have had slaves as well had we been born in their shoes. If we really decide it's a good idea to hold historical figures to modern standards, and cancel them if they fail the test, prepare for people in 2525 to retroactively cancel us and all of our heroes because we don't live up to the lofty (unknown) morals of 2525.

> Regardless, corporations are not saying BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about meaningless virtue signalling that corporations attempt to try to ingratiate the small, but extremely loud, mobs on social media (think GitHub changing master branch name). It's a corporation's worst PR nightmare to be harangued by the mob on social media.

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#113

Post by Hoasi »

salmonfamine wrote: post #100
briefcomment wrote: post #24

In a dictatorship, cracking down on social media is a no brainer. But I think social media undermines democracies as well. Social media vastly amplifies loud minorities. Democracy assumes that the majority of people are reasonable, so majority rule will also be reasonable. Loud minorities undermine majority rule. Loud minorities have always existed, but social media is now amplifying them to the point of obscuring wh…

I think we're encountering a fundamental conflict between an unregulated free market and a digital economy that doesn't have any notion of scarcity or cost. The old paradigm just doesn't fit. And the result is that a handful of tech employees and billionaires can wield outsized influence over the dominant media channels and public forums of the entire world without any democratic input or regulatory oversight. The fa…

> A for-profit model is just not compatible with the nature of social media.

I agree and would add that the same argument stands for the traditional press as well.

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#114

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway67654 wrote: post #52
whatshisface wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I have found that on HN there is more of a dictatorship of phrasing than a dictatorship of ideas. Here's the short list of ideas you can't say on HN no matter how you phrase them, I think you would agree that this is not excessive: - "Individuals of one race are better or worse than individuals of another." - "One gender is clearly better or worse than another." - Anything about Republicans or Democrats Th…

- Anything positive about China - Relating ad blocking to piracy - Benefits of open offices

[deleted]

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#115

Post by 127 »

augustt wrote: post #108
umvi wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The statues are not arbitrary and many of them have been objected to for years. Christopher Columbus and Francis Scott Key aren't arbitrary? It's not like they were removed by a democratic process. The majority had no say. A loud minority decided they needed to come down for arbitrary reasons and did it without permission. Anyone challenging them would be browbeaten by the loud minority mobs on social media and can…

Columbus has been a point of contention for a while now. Regardless, corporations are not saying BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that. A majority of America supports the movement, and that's being reflected by PR now. The last line of defense for conservatives is "well actually there's a silent majority that thinks otherwise" and "actually most people don't care, they're just virtue signaling". An…

Yes, the majority of corporations supports virtue signalling at zero cost and making money.

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#116

Post by briefcomment »

willvarfar wrote: post #87
briefcomment wrote: post #24

In a dictatorship, cracking down on social media is a no brainer. But I think social media undermines democracies as well. Social media vastly amplifies loud minorities. Democracy assumes that the majority of people are reasonable, so majority rule will also be reasonable. Loud minorities undermine majority rule. Loud minorities have always existed, but social media is now amplifying them to the point of obscuring wh…

Perhaps Social Media has “democratized” lobbying? Historically, only the vocal minorities with money could afford to influence politicians. Now minorities without much money can get politicians attention too?

I think it's more that social media secretly gave lobbyists another avenue. In addition to paying decision makers directly, then can pay for a small army of loud people. Before social media, that small army might make up a protest in the street or something. With social media, that small army can seem much larger than it actually is.

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#117

Post by hansjorg »

brnt wrote: post #107
hansjorg wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a GO masquerading as an NGO. A caveat lector is appropriate whenever someone brings them up.

I was with you until your used to word 'masquerading'. Nothing about Freedom House is a masquerade. If you don't share sources, then don't please write such things. [edit] Can't reply below: Freedom House is NOT the State Department. They're a funder, but not the only one. So your description still in incorrect or requires sourcing.

They're masquerading in the sense that a newspaper will write 'According to NGO Freedom House...' rather than 'According to the US State Department'.

They're not masquerading in the sense that they try to hide where the money comes from, but to the majority that read their materials, this won't be apparent.

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#118

Post by ipnon »

grishka wrote: post #97
ipnon wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We see that the convenience of centralized social media is more valuable than the autonomy of federated social media. This is because the centralized social media is easily accessible, practically free and tolerably open regarding opposing viewpoints. Solve for the equilibrium. We would expect federated social media to increase in popularity when the convenience of centralized social media is jeopardized. I believe i…

I have some ideas about making social media decentralized while keeping global search possible. They need practical testing though, which is something I haven't gotten around to yet. > I believe in Russia, where people don't feel safe voicing their opinions publicly on centralized social media, ad hoc social networks have appeared on safe chat platforms like Telegram to take their place. I'm Russian. Today is the las…

Thanks for explaining this to me, I am clearly misinformed.

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#119

Post by salmonfamine »

Hoasi wrote: post #113
salmonfamine wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're encountering a fundamental conflict between an unregulated free market and a digital economy that doesn't have any notion of scarcity or cost. The old paradigm just doesn't fit. And the result is that a handful of tech employees and billionaires can wield outsized influence over the dominant media channels and public forums of the entire world without any democratic input or regulatory oversight. The fa…

> A for-profit model is just not compatible with the nature of social media. I agree and would add that the same argument stands for the traditional press as well.

I think before the advent of mass-media it probably worked reasonably well. A subscription-based revenue model seems to work ok.

I think a reliance on advertising is what has pushed things to the degenerated state we have now. And social media has practically dictated that reliance.

Re: Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says

#120

Post by syshum »

augustt wrote: post #108
umvi wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The statues are not arbitrary and many of them have been objected to for years. Christopher Columbus and Francis Scott Key aren't arbitrary? It's not like they were removed by a democratic process. The majority had no say. A loud minority decided they needed to come down for arbitrary reasons and did it without permission. Anyone challenging them would be browbeaten by the loud minority mobs on social media and can…

Columbus has been a point of contention for a while now. Regardless, corporations are not saying BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that. A majority of America supports the movement, and that's being reflected by PR now. The last line of defense for conservatives is "well actually there's a silent majority that thinks otherwise" and "actually most people don't care, they're just virtue signaling". An…

>>BLM because some tiny segment of the country thinks that. A majority of America supports the movement, and that's being reflected by PR now.

A majority of the nation supports the Statement "Black Lives matter" a Majority of the nation supports reforming the police and holding them accountable. And a majority of the nation supports ending systemic racism in our laws and institutions

BLM as movement / organization however has many many positions that are not supported by the majority, the organizers are self described Social Marxists, the BLM Foundation web site speaks of breaking down the nuclear family, and with in the movement is also an undertone of socialism even communism none of which is supported by the Majority of the nation

Post reply on HN