4 ms·

I believe that this kind of behaviour will be the reason why the Internet as we know it and are used to it will end some day. We will have many island solution

I believe that this kind of behaviour will be the reason why the Internet as we know it and are used to it will end some day. We will have many island solutions with firewalls around them just to prevent foreign powers from interfering in internal political processes. For example I certainly do not like what Erdogan is doing in Turkey (cutting off Facebook and Twitter), but is he wrong when he is accusing foreign powers from trying to incite demonstrations or manipulate public opinion? I'm pretty sure he is not. Same goes for China, Russia and all the other countries that are implementing or already have finished implementing their own great firewall. There is no reason in the world why any country should ever accept this. (I doubt the US would ever accept China doing this to them) But there are also serious internal problems. For one Google could influence the US presidential elections by skewing search results and making certain candidates look bad and others good. I'm sure almost 100% of Google employees would never support such a thing, but when Google does this regarding Syria you can't really be sure that they wouldn't do this internally too.

adrianN 11y ago
I don't think restricting the flow of information because you don't trust people to interpret it correctly is morally okay. People have been influenced by other people since the dawn of language. Deciding by whom they can be influenced shouldn't be the state's concern.
- brbsix 11y ago
  Why the downvotes? Are people really advocating for state censorship and propagandization? Perhaps the state has already achieved it's goals if this is so.
saasyguy 11y ago
This kind of thing isn't new though. The Internet is just the latest means of communication with the public. Public opinion has, and still is, manipulated for good and bad via mass media, grassroots campaigning, bribery, agent provocateurs, etc., etc. Replace "internet" with "telephone" or "printing press" and your post would read the same. Governments always want to control their "internal political processes" and to achieve that they tend to block out anything that interferes, whether it be foreign governments or internal factions that run counter to their interests.
merpnderp 11y ago
"I'm sure almost 100% of Google employees would never support such a thing..." Even to stop Trump? I'm betting quite a few employees, especially at the top, wouldn't mind tweaking things to stop what they see as a very real threat.
- thedonald2 11y ago
  Why is Donald Trump "a very real threat"? To who? Maybe it's Google who are the true threat to democracy? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-t... "Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute’s annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering. The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump. Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he “cannot support Donald Trump.”
  - brbsix 11y ago
    The fact that establishment figures from both sides see him as "a very real threat" seems like a very good sign. For all the talk of democracy, it's pretty funny (funny ironic) listening to all the talk of subverting the election process. Can't entrust such a thing with the plebes after all...
    - tamana 11y ago
      Over half the plebes are opposed to Trump too. This is not a class divide.
- wyldfire 11y ago
  Trump's pretty bad IMO, but worst case scenario he'd only be the president. There's really good checks against the president's power. The unfortunate (glaring) exception being that we've somehow lost track of the bit about Congress being the only one who can execute a declaration of war.
wyldfire 11y ago
> many island solutions with firewalls I wonder if it will be less pernicious than this. > Same goes for China, Russia ... great firewall. I don't know about Russia but it certainly seems that China is establishing some social networks that are wholly distinct from other western ones. In that way they're "island solutions" but less malicious sounding.
cryoshon 11y ago
>For one Google could influence the US presidential elections by skewing search results and making certain candidates look bad and others good. It'd be very hard to prove, but yes. This could be extremely granularly controlled, too-- apply a few filters to weed out those who are likely to be able to detect subversion, then drill down to the demographic in the geographical area that needs to be energized to vote for a certain candidate.
- tamana 11y ago
  Or they could display a bar chart of "won" primary delegates, merging in the counts for superdelegates who haven't committed their votes yet.
frandroid 11y ago
> is he wrong when he is accusing foreign powers from trying to incite demonstrations or manipulate public opinion? I'm pretty sure he is not. Please substantiate. Turkey is a NATO member which, other than the recent kerfuffle with downing a Russia fighter jet, has decent relations with most of its neighbours, and no real Great Enemies. Turkey has always had a press-repressive (!!) orientation because they've wanted to keep internal Islamist forces at bay. Amusing, Erdogan has flipped the script and now it's his Islamist government which is cracking down on other voices, although the take-over of the Zaman news organization is really about internal fighting with an influential cleric. But either way, in the end, Turkey has always had authoritarian governments succeeded by military coups and more authoritarian rule.
- dingaling 11y ago
  > Turkey is a NATO member Turkey's membership of NATO was only achieved through explicit naming in an addendum to the Articles, the only country so included, and was never a popular addition. They remain the only country for which expulsion has a clear process, though unlikely. > has decent relations with most of its neighbours Except with Greece, both of whom have shot down more of each others aircraft than non-NATO aircraft, and Armenia with whom they have a lingering border skirmish and Syria and Kurdistan-Iraq...
  - DominikR 11y ago
    Don't forget the Bulgaria, Cyprus, Iran, Syria, Russia and the Kurds. Turkey is basically surrounded by enemies, there's almost no one they are on good terms with.
deciplex 11y ago
That would be regrettable, but it only partially addresses the threat that the Internet, or rather networking in general, poses to oppressive regimes around the world (which is to say, the vast majority of governments around the world). A balkanization of the Internet would reduce that threat considerably, and especially with regard to outside influences of course, but would not come close to eliminating it. The threat I'm talking about is just people talking to each other, and coordinating their actions. The only way to totally stop that is to basically ban computing devices at all, or at least ban their networking Battlestar Galactica style, and at that point you're condemning yourself to a 70s-ish economy in the best case, which means you're not going to compete with other nations in trade nor in military strength. Kind of defeats the purpose of having an oppressive regime in the first place, which is mainly about controlling and enslaving your people while playing at "realpolitik" pissing contests on the international stage. I look at the Internet as basically a return to the status quo, after a century where national governments could monopolize the mass media and thus monopolize speech. Those days are over, and not even a balkanization of the Internet will bring them back. Oppressive regimes increasingly will have to choose between going full DPRK, or trying their hand on a more even playing field (compared to 50 years ago). So far they have unanimously chosen the latter, and there is every reason to think they will continue to do so.

adrianN 11y ago

I don't think restricting the flow of information because you don't trust people to interpret it correctly is morally okay. People have been influenced by other people since the dawn of language. Deciding by whom they can be influenced shouldn't be the state's concern.

brbsix 11y ago
Why the downvotes? Are people really advocating for state censorship and propagandization? Perhaps the state has already achieved it's goals if this is so.

saasyguy 11y ago

This kind of thing isn't new though. The Internet is just the latest means of communication with the public. Public opinion has, and still is, manipulated for good and bad via mass media, grassroots campaigning, bribery, agent provocateurs, etc., etc. Replace "internet" with "telephone" or "printing press" and your post would read the same. Governments always want to control their "internal political processes" and to achieve that they tend to block out anything that interferes, whether it be foreign governments or internal factions that run counter to their interests.

merpnderp 11y ago

"I'm sure almost 100% of Google employees would never support such a thing..." Even to stop Trump? I'm betting quite a few employees, especially at the top, wouldn't mind tweaking things to stop what they see as a very real threat.

thedonald2 11y ago
Why is Donald Trump "a very real threat"? To who? Maybe it's Google who are the true threat to democracy? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-trump_us_56ddbd38e4b0ffe6f8ea125d http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aei-world-forum-donald-t... "Billionaires, tech CEOs and top members of the Republican establishment flew to a private island resort off the coast of Georgia this weekend for the American Enterprise Institute’s annual World Forum, according to sources familiar with the secretive gathering. The main topic at the closed-to-the-press confab? How to stop Republican front-runner Donald Trump. Apple CEO Tim Cook, Google co-founder Larry Page, Napster creator and Facebook investor Sean Parker, and Tesla Motors and SpaceX honcho Elon Musk all attended. So did Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), political guru Karl Rove, House Speaker Paul Ryan, GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Rob Portman (Ohio) and Ben Sasse (Neb.), who recently made news by saying he “cannot support Donald Trump.”
- brbsix 11y ago
  The fact that establishment figures from both sides see him as "a very real threat" seems like a very good sign. For all the talk of democracy, it's pretty funny (funny ironic) listening to all the talk of subverting the election process. Can't entrust such a thing with the plebes after all...
  - tamana 11y ago
    Over half the plebes are opposed to Trump too. This is not a class divide.
wyldfire 11y ago
Trump's pretty bad IMO, but worst case scenario he'd only be the president. There's really good checks against the president's power. The unfortunate (glaring) exception being that we've somehow lost track of the bit about Congress being the only one who can execute a declaration of war.

wyldfire 11y ago

> many island solutions with firewalls I wonder if it will be less pernicious than this. > Same goes for China, Russia ... great firewall. I don't know about Russia but it certainly seems that China is establishing some social networks that are wholly distinct from other western ones. In that way they're "island solutions" but less malicious sounding.

cryoshon 11y ago

>For one Google could influence the US presidential elections by skewing search results and making certain candidates look bad and others good. It'd be very hard to prove, but yes. This could be extremely granularly controlled, too-- apply a few filters to weed out those who are likely to be able to detect subversion, then drill down to the demographic in the geographical area that needs to be energized to vote for a certain candidate.

tamana 11y ago
Or they could display a bar chart of "won" primary delegates, merging in the counts for superdelegates who haven't committed their votes yet.

frandroid 11y ago

> is he wrong when he is accusing foreign powers from trying to incite demonstrations or manipulate public opinion? I'm pretty sure he is not. Please substantiate. Turkey is a NATO member which, other than the recent kerfuffle with downing a Russia fighter jet, has decent relations with most of its neighbours, and no real Great Enemies. Turkey has always had a press-repressive (!!) orientation because they've wanted to keep internal Islamist forces at bay. Amusing, Erdogan has flipped the script and now it's his Islamist government which is cracking down on other voices, although the take-over of the Zaman news organization is really about internal fighting with an influential cleric. But either way, in the end, Turkey has always had authoritarian governments succeeded by military coups and more authoritarian rule.

dingaling 11y ago
> Turkey is a NATO member Turkey's membership of NATO was only achieved through explicit naming in an addendum to the Articles, the only country so included, and was never a popular addition. They remain the only country for which expulsion has a clear process, though unlikely. > has decent relations with most of its neighbours Except with Greece, both of whom have shot down more of each others aircraft than non-NATO aircraft, and Armenia with whom they have a lingering border skirmish and Syria and Kurdistan-Iraq...
- DominikR 11y ago
  Don't forget the Bulgaria, Cyprus, Iran, Syria, Russia and the Kurds. Turkey is basically surrounded by enemies, there's almost no one they are on good terms with.

deciplex 11y ago

That would be regrettable, but it only partially addresses the threat that the Internet, or rather networking in general, poses to oppressive regimes around the world (which is to say, the vast majority of governments around the world). A balkanization of the Internet would reduce that threat considerably, and especially with regard to outside influences of course, but would not come close to eliminating it. The threat I'm talking about is just people talking to each other, and coordinating their actions. The only way to totally stop that is to basically ban computing devices at all, or at least ban their networking Battlestar Galactica style, and at that point you're condemning yourself to a 70s-ish economy in the best case, which means you're not going to compete with other nations in trade nor in military strength. Kind of defeats the purpose of having an oppressive regime in the first place, which is mainly about controlling and enslaving your people while playing at "realpolitik" pissing contests on the international stage. I look at the Internet as basically a return to the status quo, after a century where national governments could monopolize the mass media and thus monopolize speech. Those days are over, and not even a balkanization of the Internet will bring them back. Oppressive regimes increasingly will have to choose between going full DPRK, or trying their hand on a more even playing field (compared to 50 years ago). So far they have unanimously chosen the latter, and there is every reason to think they will continue to do so.