4 ms·

> a step beyond fascism into a new brand of totalitarianism. Social pressure is being exerted on businesses to enact change. How does this have anything to do

by sp0rk 6y ago

> a step beyond fascism into a new brand of totalitarianism. Social pressure is being exerted on businesses to enact change. How does this have anything to do with fascism or totalitarianism when the government isn't even involved?

nootropicat 6y ago
Government is about power, not the name. Facebook has more power to shape public opinion than most dictators in history. Traditional propaganda had to appeal to the common denominator, facebook can use ml to analyze every user individually and generate (what it think is) an optimal feed to generate the intended outcome. Filtering counterproductive information is an integral part of it. It's totalitarianism because people advocating for it are true believers: they believe if you oppose them you are evil. Fascism usually relies on self-interest in the form of carrot and stick rather than fanaticism. I'm much, much more afraid of true believers. If you disagree with the first sentence, consider a hypothetical country: everything is owned by Google. In theory, you can own land, but in practice you can't, because Google won't sell it to you. You can only rent. Everyone is communicating using devices rented from Google, software owned by Google and using servers owned by Google. Same for literally everything - food is only sold by Google, payments are only possible on Google Pay. If you break Google's ToS, you are banned from using any of its services - ie. you starve to death. Appeals are handled exactly as they are today when the issue is about a youtube channel ban or demonetization. In this world, officially there's a government with a constitution guaranteeing multiple freedoms, along with a very efficient and fair justice system. One thing the legal system allows you to do is to enter into a contract with Google that requires you to waive all your rights. If you don't sign the contract, you can't buy food and you starve, so logically everyone alive is under the contract. What entity is the actual government in this scenario? Hyperbolic? Yes. Yet, every day we are getting closer to this reality, even if the extreme outcome never happens.
Lammy 6y ago
These businesses’ products are the way humans communicate. I don’t consider “you can say what you want, but it will be impossible for you to say it _to_ anybody” to be an acceptable compromise. Free speech that’s not absolute does not exist at all.
koheripbal 6y ago
Many politicians have suggested that the government SHOULD be involved in cracking down on social media speech. AOC (a US congresswoman) specifically suggested that legislation be written to curb free speech on Facebook.

by sp0rk 6y ago

nootropicat 6y ago

Government is about power, not the name. Facebook has more power to shape public opinion than most dictators in history. Traditional propaganda had to appeal to the common denominator, facebook can use ml to analyze every user individually and generate (what it think is) an optimal feed to generate the intended outcome. Filtering counterproductive information is an integral part of it. It's totalitarianism because people advocating for it are true believers: they believe if you oppose them you are evil. Fascism usually relies on self-interest in the form of carrot and stick rather than fanaticism. I'm much, much more afraid of true believers. If you disagree with the first sentence, consider a hypothetical country: everything is owned by Google. In theory, you can own land, but in practice you can't, because Google won't sell it to you. You can only rent. Everyone is communicating using devices rented from Google, software owned by Google and using servers owned by Google. Same for literally everything - food is only sold by Google, payments are only possible on Google Pay. If you break Google's ToS, you are banned from using any of its services - ie. you starve to death. Appeals are handled exactly as they are today when the issue is about a youtube channel ban or demonetization. In this world, officially there's a government with a constitution guaranteeing multiple freedoms, along with a very efficient and fair justice system. One thing the legal system allows you to do is to enter into a contract with Google that requires you to waive all your rights. If you don't sign the contract, you can't buy food and you starve, so logically everyone alive is under the contract. What entity is the actual government in this scenario? Hyperbolic? Yes. Yet, every day we are getting closer to this reality, even if the extreme outcome never happens.

Lammy 6y ago

These businesses’ products are the way humans communicate. I don’t consider “you can say what you want, but it will be impossible for you to say it _to_ anybody” to be an acceptable compromise. Free speech that’s not absolute does not exist at all.

koheripbal 6y ago

Many politicians have suggested that the government SHOULD be involved in cracking down on social media speech. AOC (a US congresswoman) specifically suggested that legislation be written to curb free speech on Facebook.