3 ms·
I suspect there’s more to the argument than than is being analyzed here, but there are some interesting points in terms of who stands to benefit from a closed
by d4mi3n 5y ago
I suspect there’s more to the argument than than is being analyzed here, but there are some interesting points in terms of who stands to benefit from a closed vs open information ecosystem.
I’d be interested in seeing elaboration on those ideas. I think there’s probably more going on here than a zero sum game of competing geopolitical powers.
A couple things that come to mind:
1. Cultural exchange. Open networks make it easier to gain access to media that may not reflect views one grows up with. I suspect that without broad exposure to different ideas/lifestyles/values, more places would trend towards nationalism.
2. Scientific progress: COVID was an excellent example of the international scientific community coming together to face a global issue. What could similar events look like had we not had pre-existing research agreements or openly available data on a crisis?
Would love to here more on these topics.
- roughly 5y ago> 1. Cultural exchange. Open networks make it easier to gain access to media that may not reflect views one grows up with. I suspect that without broad exposure to different ideas/lifestyles/values, more places would trend towards nationalism. Until relatively recently, US policy and those involved in it broadly treated free access to information as something that de facto favored the US - as in, it's not that we needed to provide information as propaganda, it's that access to unfiltered information by citizens abroad intrinsically promotes the US's policy goals, in part by supporting accountability against repressive and closed regimes. It's clearly not something that's been promoted in all times and all places, but it's been a tenet of a good amount of foreign policy over time.