No, MI5 should not have more control over social media • Hacker News Board

Re: No, MI5 should not have more control over social media

#31

Post by Proziam » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 6:23 PM UTC

machello13 wrote: post #29

Proziam wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experience this fairly regularly. My views tick a few of the boxes that result in me being called a Nazi among other things. Truly radical ideas like 'I believe every single American, including people of color and transfolk, should be armed to the teeth to prevent against evil government' will put me in that category for some people.

Your politics are definitely out of the liberal mainstream, but they don't have to be to get labeled a bot. Just criticizing the current democratic nominee will do it.

It's absolutely true that liberalism has changed shape dramatically. It's almost unrecognizable in it's current form.

I wouldn't expect that most people would object to something like this (wikipedia):

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

But even the above comment I made was downvoted, so I guess this is just where we are now.

Re: No, MI5 should not have more control over social media

#32

Post by machello13 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 6:32 PM UTC

coolgeek wrote: post #30

machello13 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've seen plenty of actual people get called "russian bots" on social media for no reason other than people disagreed with their politics. This sounds like a terrible idea.

Do you not understand the difference between a rando making such an accusation and a law enforcement or intelligence agency making a documented case? This does, indeed, have the potential to be abused at some point in the future. But at present there is a real, documented, problem that needs to be solved. Let's solve the existing problem, and deal with the potential one if and when it occurs.

That second paragraph could be said about literally anything. It's a very convenient way to ignore potential problems in any solution.

Re: No, MI5 should not have more control over social media

#33

Post by tolien » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 10:12 PM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #28

tolien wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That which is asserted without evidence can and must be dismissed without evidence. TFA provides evidence for nothing, so I guess we just dismiss it all then? My point was how do you even begin to assess to what extent slogans, disinformation campaigns, apathy towards either candidate or some other factor was effective in swinging the result? Demanding proof that disinformation moved the result even a little verges…

>Demanding proof that disinformation moved the result even a little verges on ludicrous. Got some weapons of mass destruction over there. Just keep up the "evidence is ludicrous" We'll need that to get the power to do more of what's right and get it past the population, like the unqualified success invading Iraq has unquestionably been. Or should we not take WMD on trust forever? If you're not asking for evidence whe…

I mean, the claim that Iraq had WMDs didn't change anyone's mind about invading because it was prima facie nonsense, right? Unless you have direct evidence that the claim was both accepted as true and moved the needle on sentiment regarding the invasion?

Maybe everyone was just in favour of getting shot of Saddam because, like, "drain the swamp [beside the Euphrates]"?

Re: No, MI5 should not have more control over social media

#34

Post by harry8 » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 1:51 AM UTC

tolien wrote: post #33

harry8 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Demanding proof that disinformation moved the result even a little verges on ludicrous. Got some weapons of mass destruction over there. Just keep up the "evidence is ludicrous" We'll need that to get the power to do more of what's right and get it past the population, like the unqualified success invading Iraq has unquestionably been. Or should we not take WMD on trust forever? If you're not asking for evidence whe…

I mean, the claim that Iraq had WMDs didn't change anyone's mind about invading because it was prima facie nonsense, right? Unless you have direct evidence that the claim was both accepted as true and moved the needle on sentiment regarding the invasion? Maybe everyone was just in favour of getting shot of Saddam because, like, "drain the swamp [beside the Euphrates]"?

Lies don't matter. Truth doesn't matter. Sure. And so there's no point discussing anything, ever.

Re: No, MI5 should not have more control over social media

#35

Post by tolien » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 10:23 AM UTC

harry8 wrote: post #34

tolien wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the claim that Iraq had WMDs didn't change anyone's mind about invading because it was prima facie nonsense, right? Unless you have direct evidence that the claim was both accepted as true and moved the needle on sentiment regarding the invasion? Maybe everyone was just in favour of getting shot of Saddam because, like, "drain the swamp [beside the Euphrates]"?

Lies don't matter. Truth doesn't matter. Sure. And so there's no point discussing anything, ever.

I certainly feel enlightened.