3 ms·
the concept of a web centralized into 5-7 multinationals who get to decide what is and what is not allowed to be said, while society has shifted near all though
by loudtieblahblah 5y ago
the concept of a web centralized into 5-7 multinationals who get to decide what is and what is not allowed to be said, while society has shifted near all thought and communication into non-ephemeral centralized corporate platforms, is inherently capitalist, grossly authoritarian (and not even authoritarian with a pretense of democratic under-pinning), dystopian and it's completely antithetical to the entire intent of the web's early designs.
whine more about westerners as you excuse your sycophancy to corporate power.
- filleduchaos 5y agoMy idea of "gross authoritarianism" is a government headed by a literal former military dictator who prior to his own military dictatorship had participated in state-sanctioned genocide. It's a government whose security forces terrorise and rob citizens on the daily, because the spirit of the military junta it was under for decades never actually went anywhere (and also because when protests against their actions get answered by the army opening fire on civilians). It's a government that straight up doesn't pay its civil servants their salaries and pensions because accountability does not exist, and that consistently implements policies designed to frustrate and starve its population. It's this and too many other things to name and very much also a government that bans a social media platform because said platform removed a tweet where it dog-whistle threatened genocide against the peoples it had already committed genocide against a half-century ago. But I can understand how people who've been coddled all their lives could form an idea of "gross authoritarianism" as "the web has big social media platforms".