7 ms·

It goes counter to the idea of a globally connected internet though. Without a degree of oppression of free speech you can't stop the flow of culture and ideas

It goes counter to the idea of a globally connected internet though. Without a degree of oppression of free speech you can't stop the flow of culture and ideas no matter how big of a wall you build.

nabc45 9y ago
But you can teach people which ideas are toxic, and you can make sure toxic ideas don't get air time. I think people overestimate the power of the Internet compared to schooling/telly/etc.
creaghpatr 9y ago
Except facebook does stop the flow of culture and ideas, per their community guidelines.
rayiner 9y ago
People are people even when they’re on the Internet, and people are tribal. If anything the Internet makes tribalism easier.
jrs95 9y ago
How does respecting national sovereignty rather than letting your government be trampled over by international corporations run counter to a globally connected internet? This sort of attitude might seem like "nationalist populism" now, but it wasn't that long ago that "the left" was on the same page. I still am personally, but there seems to be a disturbing trend where anti-Trump sentiment is being leveraged to promote a corporate agenda.
- wybiral 9y ago
  I'm not arguing against populism, more so the nationalist aspect of the "nationalist populism". Particularly the idea that "diversity is the root of our problems" and "immigration is inherently bad". These ideas seem central to most of the nationalist movements in western society recently.
  - jrs95 9y ago
    I generally agree. "Nationalism" is often just a euphemism for xenophobia which is not only immoral but counter productive if what you were really concerned about was the national interest. At the same time, I wish we could have a reasonable discussion about what level of immigration, free trade, etc is most beneficial for the people. There are legitimate issues that can arise from these things, but there's far too much toxicity in the debate for any nuanced view to really be politically viable it seems. And the policies that would benefit workers don't really seem to be materializing from either side that claims to represent them.
    - wybiral 9y ago
      Absolutely. We need less polarization and more nuanced debate. It's one of those issues where it appears that party lines have been drawn around it and both sides seem to be drifting more and more extreme. I don't think that the average person is that polarized on some of these issues, but instead I think party members are afraid of being shunned for not fervently agreeing.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  One issue is with diverging values and rules. If national sovereignty overrides everything, one country mandates X, and another mandates not-X - then that's not compatible with a globally connected internet; since each of them will require the "other" thing to be removed from "their" internet, and that leads to segmentation, blocking and separation. What do you do when country A requires all maps to show that some territory belongs to them, and country B requires the same? What do you do when country A requires particular data to be stored so that they have access to it, and country B requires that the same data is stored so that country A does not have access to it? What if country A wants people to be say X without restrictions, and country B wants everyone to be prohibited from saying X? If you separate everything cleanly into "areas of sovereignty" then you can't really have a single, globally connected, integrated internet, as services/content can't satisfy all conflicting requirements and thus be available everywhere the same; if you do not, then the sovereignty of at least some countries will be limited. For me, the best solution would be if we could come to some agreement about some global, universal rules/principles for the internet, but that inevitably requires countries to hand over some of their sovereignty and abstain from any making requirements contrary to these rules.
  - deltron3030 9y ago
    You don't need to go that far. Problems already start on the local level, where you have cities and city people ruling over rural people and their interests, totally different lifestyles. There needs to be a way to shrink to homogenous units, and then use technology to organize everything. The bureaucracy of centralized governments was practical, but it didn't kept up with the diversification of society. The self driving car stuff could effect housing too, think about self driving mobile homes, that cluster and arrange based on your preferences, basically going back to a nomadic way of living, but in a techy way. This could be a solution to many problems of the static nature of cities, and problems that start perpetuating upwards from there.
eli_gottlieb 9y ago
As it turns out, the actual effect of a "globally connected internet" was to make it easier for the Russian state to exploit its own underemployed citizens to pretend to be Texans and stoke racial tensions in Texas. Meaningful human connection requires some amount of basic honesty.
- leereeves 9y ago
  > I was one of the first U.S. journalists to report extensively on the St. Petersburg-based “troll farm,” > I agree with my colleague Masha Gessen that the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. ... if I could do it all over again, I would have highlighted just how inept and haphazard those attempts were. That the Agency is now widely seen as a savvy, efficient manipulator of American public opinion is, in no small part, the fault of experts. They may derive their authority from perceived neutrality, but in reality they—we—have interests, just like everyone else. And, when it comes to the Trump-Russia story, those interests are often best served by fuelling the fear of Kremlin meddling. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-so-called-experts-uneasy-dive-into-the-trump-russia-frenzy https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-so-called-experts-...
- ben509 9y ago
  Of course, everyone but you is being manipulated.
- vkou 9y ago
  Is this only a problem when Russians behave dishonestly, or is it also a problem when domestic media behaves dishonestly, in an effort to stoke divisive tensions? That line seems to be incredibly arbitrary.
- wybiral 9y ago
  Yes it makes propaganda easier, but so did the printing press and I still believe that it had a positive net effect on the world. By coincidence I am a Texan and I've had some really interesting conversations on the internet and have been exposed to a wide variety of viewpoints and information sources that vastly outweigh that of Putin's little troll farms.

It goes counter to the idea of a globally connected internet though. Without a degree of oppression of free speech you can't stop the flow of culture and ideas no matter how big of a wall you build.

nabc45 9y ago

But you can teach people which ideas are toxic, and you can make sure toxic ideas don't get air time. I think people overestimate the power of the Internet compared to schooling/telly/etc.

creaghpatr 9y ago

Except facebook does stop the flow of culture and ideas, per their community guidelines.

rayiner 9y ago

People are people even when they’re on the Internet, and people are tribal. If anything the Internet makes tribalism easier.

jrs95 9y ago

How does respecting national sovereignty rather than letting your government be trampled over by international corporations run counter to a globally connected internet? This sort of attitude might seem like "nationalist populism" now, but it wasn't that long ago that "the left" was on the same page. I still am personally, but there seems to be a disturbing trend where anti-Trump sentiment is being leveraged to promote a corporate agenda.

wybiral 9y ago
I'm not arguing against populism, more so the nationalist aspect of the "nationalist populism". Particularly the idea that "diversity is the root of our problems" and "immigration is inherently bad". These ideas seem central to most of the nationalist movements in western society recently.
- jrs95 9y ago
  I generally agree. "Nationalism" is often just a euphemism for xenophobia which is not only immoral but counter productive if what you were really concerned about was the national interest. At the same time, I wish we could have a reasonable discussion about what level of immigration, free trade, etc is most beneficial for the people. There are legitimate issues that can arise from these things, but there's far too much toxicity in the debate for any nuanced view to really be politically viable it seems. And the policies that would benefit workers don't really seem to be materializing from either side that claims to represent them.
  - wybiral 9y ago
    Absolutely. We need less polarization and more nuanced debate. It's one of those issues where it appears that party lines have been drawn around it and both sides seem to be drifting more and more extreme. I don't think that the average person is that polarized on some of these issues, but instead I think party members are afraid of being shunned for not fervently agreeing.
PeterisP 9y ago
One issue is with diverging values and rules. If national sovereignty overrides everything, one country mandates X, and another mandates not-X - then that's not compatible with a globally connected internet; since each of them will require the "other" thing to be removed from "their" internet, and that leads to segmentation, blocking and separation. What do you do when country A requires all maps to show that some territory belongs to them, and country B requires the same? What do you do when country A requires particular data to be stored so that they have access to it, and country B requires that the same data is stored so that country A does not have access to it? What if country A wants people to be say X without restrictions, and country B wants everyone to be prohibited from saying X? If you separate everything cleanly into "areas of sovereignty" then you can't really have a single, globally connected, integrated internet, as services/content can't satisfy all conflicting requirements and thus be available everywhere the same; if you do not, then the sovereignty of at least some countries will be limited. For me, the best solution would be if we could come to some agreement about some global, universal rules/principles for the internet, but that inevitably requires countries to hand over some of their sovereignty and abstain from any making requirements contrary to these rules.
- deltron3030 9y ago
  You don't need to go that far. Problems already start on the local level, where you have cities and city people ruling over rural people and their interests, totally different lifestyles. There needs to be a way to shrink to homogenous units, and then use technology to organize everything. The bureaucracy of centralized governments was practical, but it didn't kept up with the diversification of society. The self driving car stuff could effect housing too, think about self driving mobile homes, that cluster and arrange based on your preferences, basically going back to a nomadic way of living, but in a techy way. This could be a solution to many problems of the static nature of cities, and problems that start perpetuating upwards from there.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

As it turns out, the actual effect of a "globally connected internet" was to make it easier for the Russian state to exploit its own underemployed citizens to pretend to be Texans and stoke racial tensions in Texas. Meaningful human connection requires some amount of basic honesty.

leereeves 9y ago
> I was one of the first U.S. journalists to report extensively on the St. Petersburg-based “troll farm,” > I agree with my colleague Masha Gessen that the whole issue has been blown out of proportion. ... if I could do it all over again, I would have highlighted just how inept and haphazard those attempts were. That the Agency is now widely seen as a savvy, efficient manipulator of American public opinion is, in no small part, the fault of experts. They may derive their authority from perceived neutrality, but in reality they—we—have interests, just like everyone else. And, when it comes to the Trump-Russia story, those interests are often best served by fuelling the fear of Kremlin meddling. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-so-called-experts-uneasy-dive-into-the-trump-russia-frenzy https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-so-called-experts-...
ben509 9y ago
Of course, everyone but you is being manipulated.
vkou 9y ago
Is this only a problem when Russians behave dishonestly, or is it also a problem when domestic media behaves dishonestly, in an effort to stoke divisive tensions? That line seems to be incredibly arbitrary.
wybiral 9y ago
Yes it makes propaganda easier, but so did the printing press and I still believe that it had a positive net effect on the world. By coincidence I am a Texan and I've had some really interesting conversations on the internet and have been exposed to a wide variety of viewpoints and information sources that vastly outweigh that of Putin's little troll farms.