4 ms·

A free and open internet also allows propaganda and hate to flourish which are two bedrocks of most authoritarian and nationalist regimes. It isn't as simple a

by slg 6y ago

A free and open internet also allows propaganda and hate to flourish which are two bedrocks of most authoritarian and nationalist regimes. It isn't as simple as ending censorship will allow everyone to be free.

paxys 6y ago
> A free and open internet also allows propaganda and hate to flourish I disagree. Sure there will always be some amount of misinformation on the internet, but a fully state-controlled media and internet (see - China) is far, far more effective at spreading propaganda and controlling the narrative.
- slg 6y ago
  This isn't a binary choice between a fully state controlled internet and a fully free and open internet. There is a spectrum. I believe the ideal internet rests much closer to the free and open side than the state controlled side, but existing at the extreme of free and open would be come with its own set of problems. Just look at all the most popular places on the web that champion their lack of censorship or moderation. Most of them end up as cesspools.
  - zests 6y ago
    Not disagreeing -- but what popular parts of the internet are not cesspools?
  - galangalalgol 6y ago
    Is it possible that they become cesspools because poop isn't allowed to flow everywhere else? Is there a finite quantity of poop that could be diluted if it were spread out evenly, or is the supply unending?
    - TeMPOraL 6y ago
      The problem isn't quantity, but risk. There's a reason we restrict literal poop to a few designated places - while there's only a finite amount of excrement deposited any given time, you don't want every place you visit and interaction you're a part of to carry a chance of you witnessing someone defecating.
newguy1234 6y ago
Exactly and this is the dirty little detail that people don't want to realize. People think you can just censor right wing misinformation but guess what happens? The right wing movements simply create their own websites and start blocking anything that is a counter argument. Biggest example is reddit which has focused on blocking right wing groups. /r/thedonald used to be big on reddit but they got banned. So they went on to create their own version of reddit and now that website has exploded in popularity. It is apparently in the top 500 most visited websites in the USA now. It is very likely that moving forward, many right wing people will shift away platforms like facebook, twitter, and reddit. In fact, these platforms already exist. Gab is a replacement for facebook and parler is a replacement for twitter.
cortic 6y ago
Propaganda is vulnerable to open discourse, promoters of false information are handicapped by the flaws in their arguments. The only way it can flourish is censored away into manipulative misdirection and secretive groups. There is also the immunity to bad ideas aspect; Its important that the propaganda is heard openly and argued against in public, as this makes people immune to these arguments. Censor these bad ideas and we make the next generation vulnerable to them. I don't think we can offset this with education, as with drugs, we never give the kids the very best bad idea - argument when we try to teach the dangers of drugs, this is why so many are vulnerable to the dealers quiet persuasion. I really feel like the more we silence movements like the alt right, the more vulnerable our society becomes to their bad ideas.
- slg 6y ago
  >Propaganda is vulnerable to open discourse, promoters of false information are handicapped by the flaws in their arguments. The only way it can flourish is censored away into manipulative misdirection and secretive groups. This is repeated so much it is practically a meme at this point, but is there anything to actually back it up? Especially when users have the ability to control what they see. If someone is in a bubble of disinformation, it doesn't matter how many voices outside the bubble try to debunk those claims. It seems like a more effective approach would to be to work on preventative measures so people are never exposed to these harmful beliefs rather than wait until these beliefs are heard and then try to convince them they are wrong.
  - cortic 6y ago
    > If someone is in a bubble of disinformation The censorship of the good information is the problem. And it probably started with censorship of bad information that lead to the bubble in the first place. >work on preventative measures so people are never exposed This is where the analogy breaks down, its not a virus, its an idea, anyone can come up with an idea, good or bad. you want to protect people from themselves, you must immunize them from the bad ideas they could come up with. We know it works, it was the only vehicle from the dark ages to the enlightenment. We also have the problem that if you set up a perfect system of blocking bad ideas, the people who run it can have bad ideas of their own. Hell the mechanism we have to even tell the difference between bad ideas and good ideas in society (open free discourse) will have been destroyed. There are plenty of examples of people trying to do this around the world, tyrants and hell-holes created with the best of intentions.
RonanTheGrey 6y ago
I'm curious -- what are you hoping that argument will accomplish? Freedom of ANY kind allows bad things to happen. The most secure world is one in which we are all locked up, nobody ever interacts, and are only fed via tube from their government provided feeder in their government provided cube. Since I'm fairly sure that isn't what you're advocating, please, explain what you're hoping to accomplish by stating that a free and open internet is a problem.
- slg 6y ago
  I was responding to a comment that stated an authoritarian/nationalistic movement would fear a free and open internet. I was pointing out that a free and open internet can be a tool of an authoritarian/nationalistic movement. I was hoping to open some people's eyes to how openness can be abused. Also I don't know if this was intentional, but just letting you know that your phrasing of this post comes off as needlessly confrontational. You can ask for clarification without asking "what are you hoping that argument will accomplish" which sounds accusatory as it implies a nefarious motive.
AngryData 6y ago
That is why we need the education to identify and expose propaganda. Something most governments have either completely ignored or severely neglected in public education because of how useful and successful their own propaganda has been in shaping public ideas and narrative.

by slg 6y ago

paxys 6y ago

> A free and open internet also allows propaganda and hate to flourish I disagree. Sure there will always be some amount of misinformation on the internet, but a fully state-controlled media and internet (see - China) is far, far more effective at spreading propaganda and controlling the narrative.

slg 6y ago
This isn't a binary choice between a fully state controlled internet and a fully free and open internet. There is a spectrum. I believe the ideal internet rests much closer to the free and open side than the state controlled side, but existing at the extreme of free and open would be come with its own set of problems. Just look at all the most popular places on the web that champion their lack of censorship or moderation. Most of them end up as cesspools.
- zests 6y ago
  Not disagreeing -- but what popular parts of the internet are not cesspools?
- galangalalgol 6y ago
  Is it possible that they become cesspools because poop isn't allowed to flow everywhere else? Is there a finite quantity of poop that could be diluted if it were spread out evenly, or is the supply unending?
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    The problem isn't quantity, but risk. There's a reason we restrict literal poop to a few designated places - while there's only a finite amount of excrement deposited any given time, you don't want every place you visit and interaction you're a part of to carry a chance of you witnessing someone defecating.

newguy1234 6y ago

Exactly and this is the dirty little detail that people don't want to realize. People think you can just censor right wing misinformation but guess what happens? The right wing movements simply create their own websites and start blocking anything that is a counter argument. Biggest example is reddit which has focused on blocking right wing groups. /r/thedonald used to be big on reddit but they got banned. So they went on to create their own version of reddit and now that website has exploded in popularity. It is apparently in the top 500 most visited websites in the USA now. It is very likely that moving forward, many right wing people will shift away platforms like facebook, twitter, and reddit. In fact, these platforms already exist. Gab is a replacement for facebook and parler is a replacement for twitter.

cortic 6y ago

Propaganda is vulnerable to open discourse, promoters of false information are handicapped by the flaws in their arguments. The only way it can flourish is censored away into manipulative misdirection and secretive groups. There is also the immunity to bad ideas aspect; Its important that the propaganda is heard openly and argued against in public, as this makes people immune to these arguments. Censor these bad ideas and we make the next generation vulnerable to them. I don't think we can offset this with education, as with drugs, we never give the kids the very best bad idea - argument when we try to teach the dangers of drugs, this is why so many are vulnerable to the dealers quiet persuasion. I really feel like the more we silence movements like the alt right, the more vulnerable our society becomes to their bad ideas.

slg 6y ago
>Propaganda is vulnerable to open discourse, promoters of false information are handicapped by the flaws in their arguments. The only way it can flourish is censored away into manipulative misdirection and secretive groups. This is repeated so much it is practically a meme at this point, but is there anything to actually back it up? Especially when users have the ability to control what they see. If someone is in a bubble of disinformation, it doesn't matter how many voices outside the bubble try to debunk those claims. It seems like a more effective approach would to be to work on preventative measures so people are never exposed to these harmful beliefs rather than wait until these beliefs are heard and then try to convince them they are wrong.
- cortic 6y ago
  > If someone is in a bubble of disinformation The censorship of the good information is the problem. And it probably started with censorship of bad information that lead to the bubble in the first place. >work on preventative measures so people are never exposed This is where the analogy breaks down, its not a virus, its an idea, anyone can come up with an idea, good or bad. you want to protect people from themselves, you must immunize them from the bad ideas they could come up with. We know it works, it was the only vehicle from the dark ages to the enlightenment. We also have the problem that if you set up a perfect system of blocking bad ideas, the people who run it can have bad ideas of their own. Hell the mechanism we have to even tell the difference between bad ideas and good ideas in society (open free discourse) will have been destroyed. There are plenty of examples of people trying to do this around the world, tyrants and hell-holes created with the best of intentions.

RonanTheGrey 6y ago

I'm curious -- what are you hoping that argument will accomplish? Freedom of ANY kind allows bad things to happen. The most secure world is one in which we are all locked up, nobody ever interacts, and are only fed via tube from their government provided feeder in their government provided cube. Since I'm fairly sure that isn't what you're advocating, please, explain what you're hoping to accomplish by stating that a free and open internet is a problem.

slg 6y ago
I was responding to a comment that stated an authoritarian/nationalistic movement would fear a free and open internet. I was pointing out that a free and open internet can be a tool of an authoritarian/nationalistic movement. I was hoping to open some people's eyes to how openness can be abused. Also I don't know if this was intentional, but just letting you know that your phrasing of this post comes off as needlessly confrontational. You can ask for clarification without asking "what are you hoping that argument will accomplish" which sounds accusatory as it implies a nefarious motive.

AngryData 6y ago

That is why we need the education to identify and expose propaganda. Something most governments have either completely ignored or severely neglected in public education because of how useful and successful their own propaganda has been in shaping public ideas and narrative.