5 ms·

I hope the Internet and its corresponding freedom of information destroys these evil regimes. Forcing ideas and practices on people from the outside cannot be s

I hope the Internet and its corresponding freedom of information destroys these evil regimes. Forcing ideas and practices on people from the outside cannot be sustainable.

StavrosK 8y ago
What freedom of information? China chose "restrict access to information" as the method of control, the US chose "deluge people with so much misinformation they can just choose whatever truth suits them". Don't make the mistake of thinking one is better, or more free.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  sorry, 'people believe stupid shit' is on an entirely different level from 'the police arrest you for criticizing their regime'
- aldoushuxley001 8y ago
  One is better and more free though. Atleast in the US you have the possibility of getting closer to the truth if you're committed enough to wade through all the info. In China, that's simply not that case.
- Scipio_Afri 8y ago
  The US government doesn't restrict freedom of speech to such a degree that it allows for non-government actors (including political parties, partisans and those monetarily interested in obfuscation) to decrease the signal to noise ratio of truth (signal) to misinformation and the like (noise). That is a lot different than the government itself getting into the misinformation business itself. That can be summed up that don't have regulations on limiting speech when it isn't truthful, except when it incites violence and other limited times like libel, and even then the legal bar is very high to have the legal basis to successfully bring a case. There is no restriction on reporting the truth. Classified information gets leaked in the press on a fairly frequent basis without any ramifications to the journalists publishing it. It seems fairly often those who leak it aren't charged. Those cases where they are charged are when they don't just verbally say to a reporter off the record, but when they leak documents.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    >That is a lot different than the government itself getting into the misinformation business itself. At most, it means someone quits working for a government agency and joins a private party to do their misinformation campaign, see "White House Plumbers," though often it is just the government involved.
- nabla9 8y ago
  > Don't make the mistake of thinking one is better, or more free. This is incredibly misguided and idiotic if original thought. I doubt it's originality. False equivalency not just error of thinking. It's the main propaganda message of several anti-liberal democratic movements.
ardy42 8y ago
> I hope the Internet and its corresponding freedom of information destroys these evil regimes. Forcing ideas and practices on people from the outside cannot be sustainable. That would be nice, but I don't think that's enough. I'm starting to think that, if we eventually want real improvements in human rights in those places, we're going to need new legislation like the Jackson Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson%E2%80%93Vanik_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson%E2%80%93Vanik_amendmen...

I hope the Internet and its corresponding freedom of information destroys these evil regimes. Forcing ideas and practices on people from the outside cannot be sustainable.

StavrosK 8y ago

What freedom of information? China chose "restrict access to information" as the method of control, the US chose "deluge people with so much misinformation they can just choose whatever truth suits them". Don't make the mistake of thinking one is better, or more free.

nyolfen 8y ago
sorry, 'people believe stupid shit' is on an entirely different level from 'the police arrest you for criticizing their regime'
aldoushuxley001 8y ago
One is better and more free though. Atleast in the US you have the possibility of getting closer to the truth if you're committed enough to wade through all the info. In China, that's simply not that case.
Scipio_Afri 8y ago
The US government doesn't restrict freedom of speech to such a degree that it allows for non-government actors (including political parties, partisans and those monetarily interested in obfuscation) to decrease the signal to noise ratio of truth (signal) to misinformation and the like (noise). That is a lot different than the government itself getting into the misinformation business itself. That can be summed up that don't have regulations on limiting speech when it isn't truthful, except when it incites violence and other limited times like libel, and even then the legal bar is very high to have the legal basis to successfully bring a case. There is no restriction on reporting the truth. Classified information gets leaked in the press on a fairly frequent basis without any ramifications to the journalists publishing it. It seems fairly often those who leak it aren't charged. Those cases where they are charged are when they don't just verbally say to a reporter off the record, but when they leak documents.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  >That is a lot different than the government itself getting into the misinformation business itself. At most, it means someone quits working for a government agency and joins a private party to do their misinformation campaign, see "White House Plumbers," though often it is just the government involved.
nabla9 8y ago
> Don't make the mistake of thinking one is better, or more free. This is incredibly misguided and idiotic if original thought. I doubt it's originality. False equivalency not just error of thinking. It's the main propaganda message of several anti-liberal democratic movements.

ardy42 8y ago

> I hope the Internet and its corresponding freedom of information destroys these evil regimes. Forcing ideas and practices on people from the outside cannot be sustainable. That would be nice, but I don't think that's enough. I'm starting to think that, if we eventually want real improvements in human rights in those places, we're going to need new legislation like the Jackson Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson%E2%80%93Vanik_amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson%E2%80%93Vanik_amendmen...