3 ms·

Censoring lies is one step closer to censoring truth. > Had the internet existed in WW2, I suspect things would have been very different. Yes, the Nazis would

Censoring lies is one step closer to censoring truth. > Had the internet existed in WW2, I suspect things would have been very different. Yes, the Nazis would have censored the Internet and said they are the good guys trying to prevent a coup.

iso1210 5y ago
And the UK would have too, just like they censored the press and controlled the radio EDIT: I'm not making a judgement about whether it's right or wrong, but it's quite clear that the internet can be used as a weapon, and a government (be that Hitler's, Churchill's, Kennedy's, or Khrushchev's) wanting to control that weapon is understandable. What I will say is that it seems to me that the damage to the average population that the internet can cause in these situations is far higher than the gain. It's not 1776 any more.
- samizdis 5y ago
  The UK has operated a system for enforcing censorship for a long time. Formerly known as the D-Notice, later DA-Notice and now DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) [1]. The Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee responsible for the system has a website explaining its operations and history [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice [2] https://www.dsma.uk/ https://www.dsma.uk/
shadowgovt 5y ago
During World War II, we had radio and television broadcast. The fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany brought both under state control. ... but so did every Allied nation, to a greater or lesser degree. The US press worked hand-in-glove with the federal government on message-shaping and propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship As a general rule of thumb, the state will regulate the media during wartime. That's pretty standard.

3 ms·

Censoring lies is one step closer to censoring truth. > Had the internet existed in WW2, I suspect things would have been very different. Yes, the Nazis would

by encryptluks2 5y ago

iso1210 5y ago
And the UK would have too, just like they censored the press and controlled the radio EDIT: I'm not making a judgement about whether it's right or wrong, but it's quite clear that the internet can be used as a weapon, and a government (be that Hitler's, Churchill's, Kennedy's, or Khrushchev's) wanting to control that weapon is understandable. What I will say is that it seems to me that the damage to the average population that the internet can cause in these situations is far higher than the gain. It's not 1776 any more.
- samizdis 5y ago
  The UK has operated a system for enforcing censorship for a long time. Formerly known as the D-Notice, later DA-Notice and now DSMA-Notice (Defence and Security Media Advisory Notice) [1]. The Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee responsible for the system has a website explaining its operations and history [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSMA-Notice [2] https://www.dsma.uk/ https://www.dsma.uk/
shadowgovt 5y ago
During World War II, we had radio and television broadcast. The fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany brought both under state control. ... but so did every Allied nation, to a greater or lesser degree. The US press worked hand-in-glove with the federal government on message-shaping and propaganda. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship As a general rule of thumb, the state will regulate the media during wartime. That's pretty standard.