121–130 of 168 posts
https://www.accessnow.org/surveillance-state-incoming-with-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think about this approach every two weeks, when I hear that somewhere in the world there's a new initiative to treat the internet like a kindergarten. Sure why not, but I would like to sign up for the wild west, the easily offended and gullible can live happily on the safe side, thanks.
Exactly. I used yo be a total Internet freedom proponent and that's what I want for myself but now as everybody (of whom the majority is mentally unprepared) is on Facebook I admit it makes no sense - Internet kindergartens have to be there for the people who need them (and most of these people just naturally go to places like Facebook and Instagram).
There are many wild wests on the internet in the clearnet, yet most of the people I know that would want to be treated like children already exclusively are via fb, insta, etc.
Be that as it is, I see no reason for further controls. Heck, I doubt I would have had any real interest in learning about computers if my only options for internet fun were boring sites like the top socials. From experience, I would imagine most of the appeal of the net for people if it were to become some locked down nanny land would be in breaking out of it or in "misusing" the services. Or, more likely, people would just make new sites that would serve as the wild west. The infinite of the undeveloped is not containable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The modern definition of troll seems to be more closely related to one of the personalities that got its start at a particular notorious imageboard, who constantly posts flamebait and thrives off of pushing the limits of how much they can upset others. I haven’t seen the original more innocuous definition used in a long time.
Trolling existed on Usenet long before 4chan. https://gizmodo.com/the-first-internet-troll-1652485292
I read a lot of these wacko things coming out of Australia, but is any of it really enforced? Wasn't there a thing about banning encryption? I remember when Malcolm Turnbull made the quote: “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s unhealthy; why should promoting unhealthy social media adoption be our policy priority? Nobody should promote it, people should fight against it, but until that changes, it should be taken into account. > This occurred before the Internet, too. The answer is more speech, education, and enabling people — not censorship. Before the Internet the potential reach was much more limited. Recruitment for ISIS online…
Just like real immunity, it requires exposure and a robust personal defense. The last thing you do for a healthy immune system is put a body in a sterile bubble. There were mean, bad people before the internet too. We can deal with that fact, or fail attempting to get rid of them with censorship, while harming real information and exchanges in the process.
This is absolutely ridiculous on so many levels. The "standard" here is that if someone thinks they are being defamed, bullied or attacked?! What that simply means that in practice anyone can get anything they don't like erased off of the internet. This law isn't just an attack on free speech, its the complete obliteration of free speech and open discourse all together.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like real immunity, it requires exposure and a robust personal defense. The last thing you do for a healthy immune system is put a body in a sterile bubble. There were mean, bad people before the internet too. We can deal with that fact, or fail attempting to get rid of them with censorship, while harming real information and exchanges in the process.
The mean, bad people weren't able to reach whoever wherever while retaining anonymity. That drastically alters the equation. A kid in Pakistan can harass a female journalist in Spain today without any trouble; a random racist from anywhere can hurl racial slurs at a French footballer playing in the UK. Few people would dare to say the bullshit they spew online face to face, with associated risks.
What they want though is to be "reachable" by everyone without the drawback of people actually demonstrating a negative view, very much like removing dislikes from Youtube. They want to remove the dislikes from their online personas but done for everyone so it's less obvious they are hiding their critics. Because at the end of the day they need to be famous to get sponsorships or money whatever way they do it, hence they need to pretend to be "reachable".
This is sort of off topic. >users who post defamatory comments Wouldn't that be more like Twitter Mob. Does the word "Troll" means something different in Australia, or is it the headline written by Reuter using the word "Troll" differently to what I understand, or does "Troll" means something differently in the US given Reuter is an US media. Just what is "Trolls"?
>>The new legislation will introduce a complaints mechanism, so that if somebody thinks they are being defamed, bullied or attacked on social media, they will be able to require the platform to take the material down.
If one merely "thinks" they are being bullied or attacked, the law will require the platform to erase that material. Obviously this is completely subjective nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it isn't voluntary or pretend. For most people today it's a natural extension of their lives, which they use daily, if not hourly. Where two decades ago you'd call a friend to talk, or send physical mail to communicate or physically go to a store or send mail to pay your taxes,today all of those are online. Most young people grow up with all of those things online and have never known anything else. For them, and…
> many people make their self worth based on Instagram or whatever That’s unhealthy; why should promoting unhealthy social media adoption be our policy priority? > Real life people are impacted, up to and including death (radicalisation and joining a terrorist group, This occurred before the Internet, too. The answer is more speech, education, and enabling people — not censorship. > or driven to suicide through haras…
The alternative is to destroy the tech industry as it exists. That's a fair chunk of the world economy. How do you plan on implementing that policy?
"[Radicalisation and joining a terrorist group] occurred before the Internet, too. The answer is more speech, education, and enabling people — not censorship."
I don't suppose you could provide an example or three? Of your "answer" working; I have plenty for the problem.
"Then we need to focus on individual resiliency - not building a hug-box."
1. Victim blaming.
2. Personal responsibility for one's actions.