3 ms·

This is a very good post, but I think it misses part of the point. You talk exclusively about the erosion of trust between the people and the government. And I

by bumby 4y ago

This is a very good post, but I think it misses part of the point. You talk exclusively about the erosion of trust between the people and the government. And I agree with your point. But I think the real distinction (and current issue regarding social media) isn’t erosion between the populace and the government, but between the populace and itself. The “othering” and divisive nature of social media, which erodes the “united” in United States.

somenameforme 4y ago
This bill is only about the external, and a general framework for the establishment of a national firewall. If the government wants to ban all social media, more power to them. It would never pass the 1st amendment, but if it could I'd even support it! But that's tangential, as this bill isn't that. As for what's causing divides, the one thing I'd observe is that if it were the internet then we'd expect to see divides of a similar magnitude throughout the world, and that is not the case. Some Western democracies, such as Norway, are even becoming less divided. They have no censorship whatsoever besides a handful of file-sharing sites being blocked, and universal access to the internet. Beyond this there are so many possible, and completely viable, explanations for the divisions in America that I think it turns into a Rorschach test. It's like trying to explain the fall of Rome.
- bumby 4y ago
  You're right; the bill is aimed at adversarial threats to national security. Social media isn't the end, just the means in this case. >we'd expect to see divides of a similar magnitude throughout the world, and that is not the case. I'm not sure if this premise holds. For one, I think it's missing the nuance about the size and heterogeneity of the U.S. Take, for example, the thesis that the country is more accurately comprised of multiple different dominant sub-cultures.[1] I think when you expand the other Western democracies similarly, we see analagous divisions (see: Brexit). [1] https://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/244527860/forget-the-50-states-u-s-is-really-11-nations-says-author https://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/244527860/forget-the-50-state...

by bumby 4y ago

somenameforme 4y ago

This bill is only about the external, and a general framework for the establishment of a national firewall. If the government wants to ban all social media, more power to them. It would never pass the 1st amendment, but if it could I'd even support it! But that's tangential, as this bill isn't that. As for what's causing divides, the one thing I'd observe is that if it were the internet then we'd expect to see divides of a similar magnitude throughout the world, and that is not the case. Some Western democracies, such as Norway, are even becoming less divided. They have no censorship whatsoever besides a handful of file-sharing sites being blocked, and universal access to the internet. Beyond this there are so many possible, and completely viable, explanations for the divisions in America that I think it turns into a Rorschach test. It's like trying to explain the fall of Rome.

bumby 4y ago
You're right; the bill is aimed at adversarial threats to national security. Social media isn't the end, just the means in this case. >we'd expect to see divides of a similar magnitude throughout the world, and that is not the case. I'm not sure if this premise holds. For one, I think it's missing the nuance about the size and heterogeneity of the U.S. Take, for example, the thesis that the country is more accurately comprised of multiple different dominant sub-cultures.[1] I think when you expand the other Western democracies similarly, we see analagous divisions (see: Brexit). [1] https://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/244527860/forget-the-50-states-u-s-is-really-11-nations-says-author https://www.npr.org/2013/11/11/244527860/forget-the-50-state...