4 ms·

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
        What's so precious about "data"? I don't argue that "things are missing" when the postal service refuses to carry certian things, or when shops refuse to stock certain items, or so on. These are restrictions imposed for our own good, as we apparently can't be trusted with unfettered access to all life has to offer. There is naunce here, but my point is - why does the internet get a free pass when we consider the balance of high ideals of free transfer of stuff against what the stuff is and what it does? >if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health.
        hfuyf65 3y ago
        <<What's so precious about "data"? No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious. There is a deep distrust in me for anyone who: 1) engages in that 2) argues that it is kosher. < People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through. < Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health I want to be with you, but I worry that you wouldn't really solve apps issue. Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban? Online id check? It is pretty clear that we are diametrically opposed on the subject. I am continuing this conversation, because I think it is an important one to have.
- 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.

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
        What's so precious about "data"? I don't argue that "things are missing" when the postal service refuses to carry certian things, or when shops refuse to stock certain items, or so on. These are restrictions imposed for our own good, as we apparently can't be trusted with unfettered access to all life has to offer. There is naunce here, but my point is - why does the internet get a free pass when we consider the balance of high ideals of free transfer of stuff against what the stuff is and what it does? >if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health.
        hfuyf65 3y ago
        <<What's so precious about "data"? No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious. There is a deep distrust in me for anyone who: 1) engages in that 2) argues that it is kosher. < People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through. < Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health I want to be with you, but I worry that you wouldn't really solve apps issue. Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban? Online id check? It is pretty clear that we are diametrically opposed on the subject. I am continuing this conversation, because I think it is an important one to have.
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.