211–220 of 224 posts
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…
Some people liken Section 230 to being the First Amendment of the Internet, and they’re not far off. That doesn’t mean social media isn’t dangerous, but fire is dangerous. Print is still dangerous. Guns are dangerous. There’s a lot of dangerous things out there, so where do you want to draw the line? We’re not very good at dealing with social media as a society yet, but you don’t develop antibodies to this crap without first exposing yourself to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Cold War was ended in negotiations with the Soviet Union that stipulated that no NATO expansion towards Russia would happen There was no such negotiations with binding promises made public aside from interwebs rumors, frequently reposted on RT/Sputnik/etc. The end of Cold War was USSR unilaterally dissolving by agreement between Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. Furthermore, Yeltsin publicly said that eastern europe…
> There was no such negotiations with binding promises made public aside from interwebs rumors I have heard from multiple cold war scholars some that were in government at that time that they promised this to Gorbachev. That said, it was never formally ratified. This is just one example, another one is the non-adjustment of borders without agreemnt. But this was broken in the 90s when the US created Kosvo. The missil…
And there was a lot of pressure to not separate from USSR up to coup of 1991. Especially from Western europe. Looking at our politicians from early 90s memoirs, Gorbachev broke those unwritten agreements with West by using military in January events of 1991.
> This is just one example, another one is the non-adjustment of borders without agreemnt. But this was broken in the 90s when the US created Kosvo.
Wasn't non-adjustment of borders some agreement in Helsinki in mid-70s?
> Arguably the Cold War ended with the treaties between the Soviet Union and the US before it devolved. That is at least what US negotiators believed and you can listen interviews with them.
Got any examples? Because
> Yeltsin was weak and had to agree to a lot of stuff that he didn't like. The Russian elites certainty never wanted the NATO to expand east.
While Yeltsin was rather weak (just like any politician in 90s in ex-USSR/Warsaw pact), the main difference was split between democractical vs imperial powers. Russian SSR government was were pro-democracy people congregated while pan-USSR structures were held by imperialists. When USSR dissolved, it took some time for imperialists to regroup and take over Russian Federation (ex Russian SSR) structures.
> They are incredibly friendly right at the point in the history where they are weakest. Lenin was so friendly he signed over half of European Russia.
Lenin only signed over non-ethnically-Russian territories of tsarist Russia. Tsarist Russia was called "jail of nations" for a reason.
Currently I have settled for a room-darkening shade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He was being asked directly about the insults. >"We experienced similar attacks in the past. The lack of monitoring on these platforms have a role in the rise of this sort of immoral behaviour. These platforms do not suit this country. We want these platforms to be banned, taken under control." The "similar attacks", and the "immoral behavior" are direct references to insults against him and his family on social medi…
No need to be insulting yourself. I was asking for evidence of the personal attacks and you listed them. The AP should have added then that a newborn was insulted instead of referring to „his family“. Someone who insults a baby must be quiet foolish. There seems to be a heating debate! At least Turkey got some balls and they talk openly about Adrenochrome in the main stream news, can’t be that bad their censorship. I…
There was already plenty of evidence if you actually read the quote the and setup that it was the answer to a question about the attack.
>At least Turkey got some balls and they talk openly about Adrenochrome in the main stream news, can’t be that bad their censorship.
If you're talking about the fictional drug, there's a movie and a TV show that openly talk about it. If you're talking about the chemical substance, you can buy it in the US.
If you're talking about the bullshit pizza gate conspiracy, the mainstream news mentions it when it's newsworthy. Like when someone shoots a hole in the floor of a pizza restaurant. But most of the time they don't talk about for the same reason they don't talk about lizard people or the tooth fairy.
Go ahead and talk about it though. I guarantee you the government won't censor you and throw you in jail the way they will in Turkey if you insult a government official.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Instead of trying to silence the loud minority, a better solution would be to return a proportional voice to the silent majority. One way for that would be open voting where people vote not for political parties but directly for laws, and can trade votes between each other.
Given what happened with Brexit I think this idea can only work with a highly educated populace living within a society underpinned by intellectually honest political discourse. We have neither at the moment.
As the saying goes "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time", so this would in fact be a safeguard against things like Brexit.
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…
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…
> Add to that the fact that social media is highly game-able and scalable, and you have small groups of people working against the majority of the country. I started in this industry in the '90s, I like to think of my cohort as the generation who "built the Internet" (or the commercial version of it). We've created a monster. Or at least the means to unleash it.
We now see an explosion in selfish and cowardly interactions. Good faith conversations obviously abound, but they have been effectively buried under co-opted hysteria.
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…
Agreed. I think we need to transition to something like Scuttlebutt, where no one controls the network. It solves the problems of profit incentives, government intervention and policing of content all at once. I've been writing about this a lot recently at https://adecentralizedworld.com