5 ms·
This is the one time I vehemently disagree with Schneier. Creating mass censorship infrastructure to automatically ban stuff that isn't "truthy" can easily be a
by rubbingalcohol 7y ago
This is the one time I vehemently disagree with Schneier. Creating mass censorship infrastructure to automatically ban stuff that isn't "truthy" can easily be abused for totalitarian ends. He's right that it would be easier to set up such infrastructure if you have an apolitical pretext, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous.
- Pmop 7y agoI have a personal belief that if something can be gamed for power, it'll be gamed for power. It's not a possibility, it's just a matter of time. No-go for mass censorship devices.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y agoDemocracy selects for people who are the best at playing the election game is it any surprise they are good at other types of games as well?
- Reelin 7y agoMass censorship is indeed a very dangerous approach. I agree that it's a terrible idea. However, the core message of the article doesn't necessarily require censorship. > We need to solve the problem of misinformation during pandemics together — governments and industries in collaboration with medical officials, all across the world — before there’s a crisis. A creative structural solution might be able to address our current problems without actually censoring anything. Or perhaps I'm overly optimistic.
- dredmorbius 7y agoOne of the leading investigators of online disinformation behaviours, Kate Starbird of UW, started looking at ad hoc informational networks (largely though not wholly ham radio) springing up around natural disasters, while at the University of Colorado. Disinformation was a concern but not nearly so much as it's been in the online world, for interesting (and not fully understood) reasons. Licensing, volunteer organisations, training, and extant community among hams likely plays a strong role.