4 ms·

You want to give any pseudoanonymous actor in the world access to the thoughts and desires of anyone else - you got it! Thanks Big Tech! Honestly, China has mo

You want to give any pseudoanonymous actor in the world access to the thoughts and desires of anyone else - you got it! Thanks Big Tech! Honestly, China has more like the right approach when it comes to allowing its citizens access to the internet.

leosanchez 3y ago
> China has more like the right approach when it comes to allowing its citizens access to the internet. Really?
- hfuyf65 3y ago
  It is kinda fascinating is it not? A person genuinely clamoring for the state to carefully control what they they can say/do/think.
  - bamboozeell 3y ago
    You mis-read. I think a government has a responsibility to limit who can influence what I (and those around me) decide to do/say/think, whether that's through maintaining a physical border, implementing domestic law and order, or limiting remote access. After all, I don't want to live in a country where significant numbers of my fellow citizens have been unduly influenced by external propaganda and misinformation.
    - wenebego 3y ago
      "limit who can influence" is a form of control. Why are you also qualifying "external" propaganda and misinformation? You're fine with both of those things as long as its "internal"? Can you define what source of misinformation you're okay with?
      - bamboozeell 3y ago
        >"limit who can influence" is a form of control. Sure is, and govenments also control what kinds of goods can be sold to me, what kind of transport I may drive, places and buildings I may enter, and so on. Are you advocating for no government? Or are you saying that all (most?) of the controls they currently exert are ok, but they must allow completely free transfer of data in and out? If so, why is the internet so special? >Why are you also qualifying "external" propaganda and misinformation? Assuming I live somewhere half-decent, I have greater trust in the government and culture that I know. >Can you define what source of misinformation you're okay with? None, really, although defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics. After all, we all knowingly and unknowingly spread some form of misinformation just going about our lives. In any case, why is it a good idea to allow the world's misinformation in, in addition to what we have to sort through from a bloke in the pub / my town's micro-politics / my government's constant battle with the opposition party?
        hfuyf65 3y ago
        <<defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics Would you not agree it is a strong argument against government wielding that kind of enormous power?
        bamboozeell 3y ago
        I'm arguing in defence of limiting external data inputs, not filtering by "misinformation".
        hfuyf65 3y ago
        In practical sense, how would one differentiate one from the other? The end result is the same: data is missing. I understand your point, but I can't help wondering if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted.
        bamboozeell 3y ago
    - chatmasta 3y ago
      If the government published a browser extension that self censored your view of the internet (according to a regularly updated government blocklist), would you use it? Or does this scheme only work when everyone is equally suppressed from reading the same information? Just wondering if your desire for censorship is borne out of an idea of keeping intrusive thoughts out of your own mind, or if it's more about other people's minds.
- Grimblewald 3y ago
  The state has motivation to self preserve, so is unlikely to suck a population dry. Making the state the only source of fuckery then means fuckery won't kill us. Opening up access to population wide fuckery to the highest bidder however is different. The highest bidder does not care for the life and well-being of the livestock, they care to see their investment pay off. While I don't agree china has it right, both approaches are wrong as humans are not livestock, we shouldn't even treat livestock the way we do, the Chinese approach is like choosing to sell 50% of all children born while Twitter is like selling as many children as buyers will take.
  - thfuran 3y ago
    >Making the state the only source of fuckery then means fuckery won't kill us. Quite right. No government has ever killed anyone, directly or indirectly.
    - Grimblewald 3y ago
      I wouldn't say anyone but they certainly haven't killed everyone
      - thfuran 3y ago
        As opposed to the tech companies, which have done?
        Grimblewald 3y ago
        Tech companies haven't been around long enough to have that level of impact but if corporate behaviour in general is any indication, then big oil for example is a pretty strong example of why we cannot let private entities act without strict oversight.
- bamboozeell 3y ago
  Yes, in that they don't allow unfettered access to the internet outside their borders. As a soverign nation who cares for their citizens' state of mind as well as physical security, why would you not do this in addition to defending your border?
  - thfuran 3y ago
    Would you want physical borders defended by locking all the citizens in as well?
    - bamboozeell 3y ago
      Where did I say that is how I think physical borders should be defended? In any case, even in a largely "free" country, I'm not entirely free to leave when and to where I might want.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        >Where did I say that is how I think physical borders should be defended? Where did I say you said that? Indeed, had you, I wouldn't have asked. But surely you see the similarities: Blocking non-domestic Internet stuff is imposing restrictions on what information/systems citizens are able to access, effectively curtailing the digital equivalent of a right to travel. >In any case, even in a largely "free" country, I'm not entirely free to leave when and to where I might want. What "free" country imposes routine restrictions on its citizens leaving? That you may be denied entry anywhere else is a related but separate issue.
        bamboozeell 3y ago
        >Where did I say you said that? In your previous comment: >>Would you want physical borders defended by locking all the citizens in as well? The answer is no, but I don't know on what basis you asked the question. Unless, that is, you mean "If you compared the data access policy of one country to another, you must also be in favour of the physical access policy of that first country". Which, frankly, is an absurd stretch. I was very careful in the wording of my original comment. >What "free" country imposes routine restrictions on its citizens leaving? The analogy between free physical movement and free flow of data isn't perfect, but no analogy is. There are places in the world I can't go. I must carry certain paperwork if I wish to travel at all. I am limited to certain entry and exit locations. I certainly can't invite an aribitrary human to visit me in my country.

leosanchez 3y ago

> China has more like the right approach when it comes to allowing its citizens access to the internet. Really?

hfuyf65 3y ago
It is kinda fascinating is it not? A person genuinely clamoring for the state to carefully control what they they can say/do/think.
- bamboozeell 3y ago
  You mis-read. I think a government has a responsibility to limit who can influence what I (and those around me) decide to do/say/think, whether that's through maintaining a physical border, implementing domestic law and order, or limiting remote access. After all, I don't want to live in a country where significant numbers of my fellow citizens have been unduly influenced by external propaganda and misinformation.
  - wenebego 3y ago
    "limit who can influence" is a form of control. Why are you also qualifying "external" propaganda and misinformation? You're fine with both of those things as long as its "internal"? Can you define what source of misinformation you're okay with?
    - bamboozeell 3y ago
      >"limit who can influence" is a form of control. Sure is, and govenments also control what kinds of goods can be sold to me, what kind of transport I may drive, places and buildings I may enter, and so on. Are you advocating for no government? Or are you saying that all (most?) of the controls they currently exert are ok, but they must allow completely free transfer of data in and out? If so, why is the internet so special? >Why are you also qualifying "external" propaganda and misinformation? Assuming I live somewhere half-decent, I have greater trust in the government and culture that I know. >Can you define what source of misinformation you're okay with? None, really, although defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics. After all, we all knowingly and unknowingly spread some form of misinformation just going about our lives. In any case, why is it a good idea to allow the world's misinformation in, in addition to what we have to sort through from a bloke in the pub / my town's micro-politics / my government's constant battle with the opposition party?
      - hfuyf65 3y ago
        <<defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics Would you not agree it is a strong argument against government wielding that kind of enormous power?
        bamboozeell 3y ago
        I'm arguing in defence of limiting external data inputs, not filtering by "misinformation".
        hfuyf65 3y ago
        In practical sense, how would one differentiate one from the other? The end result is the same: data is missing. I understand your point, but I can't help wondering if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted.
        bamboozeell 3y ago
  - chatmasta 3y ago
    If the government published a browser extension that self censored your view of the internet (according to a regularly updated government blocklist), would you use it? Or does this scheme only work when everyone is equally suppressed from reading the same information? Just wondering if your desire for censorship is borne out of an idea of keeping intrusive thoughts out of your own mind, or if it's more about other people's minds.
Grimblewald 3y ago
The state has motivation to self preserve, so is unlikely to suck a population dry. Making the state the only source of fuckery then means fuckery won't kill us. Opening up access to population wide fuckery to the highest bidder however is different. The highest bidder does not care for the life and well-being of the livestock, they care to see their investment pay off. While I don't agree china has it right, both approaches are wrong as humans are not livestock, we shouldn't even treat livestock the way we do, the Chinese approach is like choosing to sell 50% of all children born while Twitter is like selling as many children as buyers will take.
- thfuran 3y ago
  >Making the state the only source of fuckery then means fuckery won't kill us. Quite right. No government has ever killed anyone, directly or indirectly.
  - Grimblewald 3y ago
    I wouldn't say anyone but they certainly haven't killed everyone
    - thfuran 3y ago
      As opposed to the tech companies, which have done?
      - Grimblewald 3y ago
        Tech companies haven't been around long enough to have that level of impact but if corporate behaviour in general is any indication, then big oil for example is a pretty strong example of why we cannot let private entities act without strict oversight.
bamboozeell 3y ago
Yes, in that they don't allow unfettered access to the internet outside their borders. As a soverign nation who cares for their citizens' state of mind as well as physical security, why would you not do this in addition to defending your border?
- thfuran 3y ago
  Would you want physical borders defended by locking all the citizens in as well?
  - bamboozeell 3y ago
    Where did I say that is how I think physical borders should be defended? In any case, even in a largely "free" country, I'm not entirely free to leave when and to where I might want.
    - thfuran 3y ago
      >Where did I say that is how I think physical borders should be defended? Where did I say you said that? Indeed, had you, I wouldn't have asked. But surely you see the similarities: Blocking non-domestic Internet stuff is imposing restrictions on what information/systems citizens are able to access, effectively curtailing the digital equivalent of a right to travel. >In any case, even in a largely "free" country, I'm not entirely free to leave when and to where I might want. What "free" country imposes routine restrictions on its citizens leaving? That you may be denied entry anywhere else is a related but separate issue.
      - bamboozeell 3y ago
        >Where did I say you said that? In your previous comment: >>Would you want physical borders defended by locking all the citizens in as well? The answer is no, but I don't know on what basis you asked the question. Unless, that is, you mean "If you compared the data access policy of one country to another, you must also be in favour of the physical access policy of that first country". Which, frankly, is an absurd stretch. I was very careful in the wording of my original comment. >What "free" country imposes routine restrictions on its citizens leaving? The analogy between free physical movement and free flow of data isn't perfect, but no analogy is. There are places in the world I can't go. I must carry certain paperwork if I wish to travel at all. I am limited to certain entry and exit locations. I certainly can't invite an aribitrary human to visit me in my country.