3 ms·
>This reads like an assumption that the article is about tech companies in the United States and their effects to combat election misinformation. I completely
by noodles_nomore 6y ago
>This reads like an assumption that the article is about tech companies in the United States and their effects to combat election misinformation.
I completely disagree with this. The parent didn't mention companies once. This must be some kind of 'blue-black or white-gold' thing because the rest of your post reads like nonsense to me. I'm sorry that I haven't got anything substantial to add to this, but I'm just very confused by the fact that your comment is the highest response right now.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoThe source article is about countries forcing ISP-level bans on accessing certain sites, while the parent comment is about misinformation. Nobody's blocking gambling content, pornography, or Match.com because they're worried about misinformation.
- noodles_nomore 6y agovarispeed talks about control and manipulation. That's far broader than misinformation.
- pessimizer 6y agoYet also not "gambling content, pornography, or Match.com."
- noodles_nomore 6y agoSorry for being curt in the last reply. To expand on this, I think a key line might be >bad actors use these techniques to control people to their advantage. which I interpret broadly as enticing people to do things not sanctioned by the status quo morality. Some governments aren't happy about sexual liberty, others about certain religious or political belief. The internet with the liberation of information also liberated a certain relativism that is corrosive to the epistemic fundament of established power.