4 ms·

I wonder how much of it is also due to technologies making this possible. The centralisation of a huge chunk of communications via a few massive actors makes th

by boudin 4y ago

I wonder how much of it is also due to technologies making this possible. The centralisation of a huge chunk of communications via a few massive actors makes this kind ideas enforceable. So, while those ideas aren't new, the thought of generalising it comes from having layed down the technical foundation that makes it possible.

chriswarbo 4y ago
Agreed. I deleted my Twitter account after the UK government floated the idea of having the power to turn off such sites: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-in-england https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-... > And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. > So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. The fact that's even a possibility put me off such centralised platforms. (Of course, HN is centralised; but it's a niche forum, rather than a general medium of communication)
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > I deleted my Twitter account after the UK government floated the idea [...] > when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality Were you "plotting violence, disorder and criminality"?
  - pfoof 4y ago
    Define "violence, disorder and criminality"
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    Most people have something they would protest.
  - shmageggy 4y ago
    This argument fails in the same way that “I’ve got nothing to hide” arguments against privacy fail. Even if someone is not currently running afoul of the current government’s current definition of a particular illegal act, we still might not want to grant them absolute power to enforce. These definitons of illegality tend to change (read: expand) over time, and when governments change they tend not to give back powers they’ve been granted.
- paganel 4y ago
  > So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. Wow, had Egypt’s Mubarak done the same just before the Arab Spring maybe his sons would still be in power right now. But, of course, bank then it was totally legit to use Twitter and FB in order to plot “violence and disorder”.
pessimizer 4y ago
I believe that the government is encouraging media monopolies in the US. It's obviously infinitely easier to work with a few dependent giant media corps than trying to play a bunch of competitive outlets against each other to get your message out. You can literally just flood the few giant media companies with your own staff; just route their government paycheck through Raytheon (as a "consultant") or promise them they'll be able to retire from media to a lazy job in higher education as the Harriet Foundation Endowment Chair at the Council for Democratic Innovation at Harvard. Internet media companies are filling up with ex-intelligence agency employees.
logicchains 4y ago
>I wonder how much of it is also due to technologies making this possible. The centralisation of a huge chunk of communications via a few massive actors makes this kind ideas enforceable. At the time of the US revolution most communication was centralised in the postal service, monitored by the British. That's one of the reasons for the first amendment.
proc0 4y ago
It's not that technologies are making this possible, but rather that technology is undoing the previous era of centralized information when it was much easier to censor people without anyone noticing. The glass half-full take is that the internet is decentralizing information in a way that central authorities can no longer control, and this is one of the many desperate attempts at retaining that control. I don't think it will be successful unless governments go totalitarian.

by boudin 4y ago

chriswarbo 4y ago

Agreed. I deleted my Twitter account after the UK government floated the idea of having the power to turn off such sites: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-in-england https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-statement-on-disorder-... > And when people are using social media for violence we need to stop them. > So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. The fact that's even a possibility put me off such centralised platforms. (Of course, HN is centralised; but it's a niche forum, rather than a general medium of communication)

zimpenfish 4y ago
> I deleted my Twitter account after the UK government floated the idea [...] > when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality Were you "plotting violence, disorder and criminality"?
- pfoof 4y ago
  Define "violence, disorder and criminality"
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Most people have something they would protest.
- shmageggy 4y ago
  This argument fails in the same way that “I’ve got nothing to hide” arguments against privacy fail. Even if someone is not currently running afoul of the current government’s current definition of a particular illegal act, we still might not want to grant them absolute power to enforce. These definitons of illegality tend to change (read: expand) over time, and when governments change they tend not to give back powers they’ve been granted.
paganel 4y ago
> So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. Wow, had Egypt’s Mubarak done the same just before the Arab Spring maybe his sons would still be in power right now. But, of course, bank then it was totally legit to use Twitter and FB in order to plot “violence and disorder”.

pessimizer 4y ago

I believe that the government is encouraging media monopolies in the US. It's obviously infinitely easier to work with a few dependent giant media corps than trying to play a bunch of competitive outlets against each other to get your message out. You can literally just flood the few giant media companies with your own staff; just route their government paycheck through Raytheon (as a "consultant") or promise them they'll be able to retire from media to a lazy job in higher education as the Harriet Foundation Endowment Chair at the Council for Democratic Innovation at Harvard. Internet media companies are filling up with ex-intelligence agency employees.

logicchains 4y ago

>I wonder how much of it is also due to technologies making this possible. The centralisation of a huge chunk of communications via a few massive actors makes this kind ideas enforceable. At the time of the US revolution most communication was centralised in the postal service, monitored by the British. That's one of the reasons for the first amendment.

proc0 4y ago

It's not that technologies are making this possible, but rather that technology is undoing the previous era of centralized information when it was much easier to censor people without anyone noticing. The glass half-full take is that the internet is decentralizing information in a way that central authorities can no longer control, and this is one of the many desperate attempts at retaining that control. I don't think it will be successful unless governments go totalitarian.