3 ms·

(2022) ...also, threat to privacy, definitely yes, but to democracy? Unregulated social networks are a threat to democracy, but they could exist very well with

by rob74 2y ago

(2022) ...also, threat to privacy, definitely yes, but to democracy? Unregulated social networks are a threat to democracy, but they could exist very well without Chrome.

otabdeveloper4 2y ago
Let's be honest here, latest developments show that free speech and elections are the biggest threat to democracy.
- rob74 2y ago
  Free speech? Or free lying?
- contravariant 2y ago
  You mean we should have no free speech or elections to ensure democracy?
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    That would be the safest way if we don't want Trump or Putin propaganda to win.
    - Existing4190 2y ago
      I see what you did there.
  - wave-function 2y ago
    Sure — as my friend likes to say, "Democracy is the rule of the democrats". Recent developments have proven him right.
  - Cthulhu_ 2y ago
    It's the paradox of tolerance or whatever, we're seeing that free speech and open elections have allowed the intolerant / autocrats to take over and take away those liberties, which implies that in order to have stopped them, they shouldn't have had those rights. One point of concern is that the idea of free speech has been used by foreign influences to change the opinions of people over the years. Anyway, counterpoint, unless there was voter fraud etc, democracy allows people to vote against democracy, so if that is the will of the majority, so it goes. Of course, one could argue it wasn't the will of the majority but of a vocal minority, which is the other problem with democracy.
  - miroljub 2y ago
    Many people in the "Western Civilization" seem to agree with that stance. Sad but true.
- aucisson_masque 2y ago
  Democracy rely on people being able to vote for those who best represent their interest. when company sell people's profile and allow political parties to target them with personalized advertisement, When journalists are allowed to be completely biased that no one trust them anymore, When fake news are allowed to be spread across social networks without any obstacle, You remove people's right to make an educated vote on who is best going to represent their interest. So yeah chrome, Google and other data harvester are part of the problem with some social network and the unregulation of such an important democracy tool that is journalism.
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    I agree, in the current climate a normal person could never be expected to make the correct choice on what their best interests are. To safeguard democracy we really need to protect the less advantaged here.
    - ethbr1 2y ago
      > To safeguard democracy we really need to protect the less advantaged here. By providing them better information.
  - pitkali 2y ago
    Rampant misinformation certainly makes it harder to figure things out, but I disagree that it somehow removes people's right to vote for what's best for them or making an educated vote. I don't find that kind of rhetoric helpful. Politics is complicated, and most people are neither interested nor qualified to determine what's "best." Even the experts often do not know or agree on how to "fix" things that are broken, so how should the voters? Most just want to be able to afford the groceries.
- xyzal 2y ago
  Free speech does not mean you should be able to spread lies without consequence
  - immibis 2y ago
    Er, actually it does mean that.
    - monkey_monkey 2y ago
      No, free speech means you can spread lies, it implies nothing about being immune to consequences.
      - immibis 2y ago
        The first amendment makes you immune to government consequences, but free speech in general makes you immune to consequences in general. If a really bad thing is imposed on me when I do X, then I'm not free to do X. Otherwise we'd all have the right of free bank robbing (despite going to jail).
        monkey_monkey 2y ago
        Free speech does not make you immune to consequences. Of course you're free to do X, you just have to decide whether or not to pay the price of the consequence. We can rob banks, we just have to decide whether or not it's worth paying the price of being caught and going to prison. I literally have no idea how you've come up with such a crazy take on things.
        immibis 2y ago
        So I'm free to rob banks, I just have to decide whether or not to pay the price of the consequence. This country has freedom of bank robbing.
Xelbair 2y ago
why do you think that unregulated social networks are a threat? why not all social networks? Frankly being served content at whim of company optimizing profits is as bad. In best case it is a feed optimized to extract as much value from you, while serving you content from bubble that entrenches your beliefs. In worst case scenario - company is politically motivated in similar vein to lobbying and just pushes views that fit their agenda. Regulated(censored in opinion of some) or not - the sentiment in society exists, you just hide it from policymakers. It will spread slower, but it will fester and can explode and catch society unaware. Encrypted chats exists, and in worst case people can just talk when they meet up. Honestly i find all the pushes for censorship to be as bad as loss of democracy - in fact, they are one and the same if you can say only approved things. It is even harder to understand why would you push for that if you come from a country that did suffer from censorship in the past. I personally didn't experience it, but my parents did - and the nightmare stories live on in my generation. Lets not lie to ourselves - 'regulated', 'hate speech' and other such phrases are doublethink words for 'censorship that we like'. and the problem with social media runs deeper than just 'regulation' - it is an inherent conflict of interests between social media corporation itself and society - the goals of both do not align at all. and before anyone starts defending this approach - think what happens when your worst enemy gets the same powers you give yourself. to give example - DOGE works with such powers because one of previous Democract administration created such agency with such overreaching powers.
miroljub 2y ago
You used the wrong term. In Germany, they call it "Unsere Demokratie (tm)", which may be tranlated to "Our Democracy (tm)". You know, it's not a democracy for everyone, it's just a democracy for a small group op people in power with correct opinions and a monopoly on state media. And indeed, social media, free speech, even elections, not all elections, but elections where people vote for a wrong party, are a threat to Our Democracy(tm).
- rob74 2y ago
  Ok, I think I know who you voted for in the last election... Yeah, sure, you could argue that it's not democratic to keep extreme parties out of power, but there are multiple examples across history of parties coming to power democratically and then destroying democracy from within - it happened in Germany in 1933, in Russia, in Hungary, and it's currently happening in the United States. How to prevent this phenomenon (assuming that you want to prevent it, which of course the people profiting from it don't - see JD Vance's speech at the Munich security conference) is a controversial topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy).
  - miroljub 2y ago
    > Ok, I think I know who you voted for in the last election... No, you don't ;) Anyways, it's not only about Germany. It's the whole Europe. The establishment uses tricks, fraud, and deception to stay in power despite diminishing support and introduce policies opposed to the majority will of the people. In Germany, one party was prevented getting into the parliament by theft. In Romania, the election was annulled, and the leading candidate prevented to candidate because he was the wrong one. In Moldova, the election was manipulated by the government deciding which diaspora has the right to vote, and which not. In Slovakia, the elected president got shot for the wrong politics. In the Ukraine, president refuses to organize an election or transfer the power to the Head of Parliament, as the constitution requires, since he's a good guy. France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, everywhere the same or similar story. JD Vance was right. It's not democracy and not free speech and not freedom, when one group op people have the power to decide about election results, and no real opposition is allowed. And the party you think I voted for is getting bigger and bigger, not because they offer any solution. They don't. It's because the ruling parties keep pushing policies and laws that suit only a small minority, and which a majority of people oppose. It's the current (and future) German government that is bringing us closer to 1933. You can't blame an opposition for that.

by rob74 2y ago

(2022) ...also, threat to privacy, definitely yes, but to democracy? Unregulated social networks are a threat to democracy, but they could exist very well without Chrome.

otabdeveloper4 2y ago

Let's be honest here, latest developments show that free speech and elections are the biggest threat to democracy.

rob74 2y ago
Free speech? Or free lying?
contravariant 2y ago
You mean we should have no free speech or elections to ensure democracy?
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  That would be the safest way if we don't want Trump or Putin propaganda to win.
  - Existing4190 2y ago
    I see what you did there.
- wave-function 2y ago
  Sure — as my friend likes to say, "Democracy is the rule of the democrats". Recent developments have proven him right.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  It's the paradox of tolerance or whatever, we're seeing that free speech and open elections have allowed the intolerant / autocrats to take over and take away those liberties, which implies that in order to have stopped them, they shouldn't have had those rights. One point of concern is that the idea of free speech has been used by foreign influences to change the opinions of people over the years. Anyway, counterpoint, unless there was voter fraud etc, democracy allows people to vote against democracy, so if that is the will of the majority, so it goes. Of course, one could argue it wasn't the will of the majority but of a vocal minority, which is the other problem with democracy.
- miroljub 2y ago
  Many people in the "Western Civilization" seem to agree with that stance. Sad but true.
aucisson_masque 2y ago
Democracy rely on people being able to vote for those who best represent their interest. when company sell people's profile and allow political parties to target them with personalized advertisement, When journalists are allowed to be completely biased that no one trust them anymore, When fake news are allowed to be spread across social networks without any obstacle, You remove people's right to make an educated vote on who is best going to represent their interest. So yeah chrome, Google and other data harvester are part of the problem with some social network and the unregulation of such an important democracy tool that is journalism.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  I agree, in the current climate a normal person could never be expected to make the correct choice on what their best interests are. To safeguard democracy we really need to protect the less advantaged here.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    > To safeguard democracy we really need to protect the less advantaged here. By providing them better information.
- pitkali 2y ago
  Rampant misinformation certainly makes it harder to figure things out, but I disagree that it somehow removes people's right to vote for what's best for them or making an educated vote. I don't find that kind of rhetoric helpful. Politics is complicated, and most people are neither interested nor qualified to determine what's "best." Even the experts often do not know or agree on how to "fix" things that are broken, so how should the voters? Most just want to be able to afford the groceries.
xyzal 2y ago
Free speech does not mean you should be able to spread lies without consequence
- immibis 2y ago
  Er, actually it does mean that.
  - monkey_monkey 2y ago
    No, free speech means you can spread lies, it implies nothing about being immune to consequences.
    - immibis 2y ago
      The first amendment makes you immune to government consequences, but free speech in general makes you immune to consequences in general. If a really bad thing is imposed on me when I do X, then I'm not free to do X. Otherwise we'd all have the right of free bank robbing (despite going to jail).
      - monkey_monkey 2y ago
        Free speech does not make you immune to consequences. Of course you're free to do X, you just have to decide whether or not to pay the price of the consequence. We can rob banks, we just have to decide whether or not it's worth paying the price of being caught and going to prison. I literally have no idea how you've come up with such a crazy take on things.
        immibis 2y ago
        So I'm free to rob banks, I just have to decide whether or not to pay the price of the consequence. This country has freedom of bank robbing.

Xelbair 2y ago

why do you think that unregulated social networks are a threat? why not all social networks? Frankly being served content at whim of company optimizing profits is as bad. In best case it is a feed optimized to extract as much value from you, while serving you content from bubble that entrenches your beliefs. In worst case scenario - company is politically motivated in similar vein to lobbying and just pushes views that fit their agenda. Regulated(censored in opinion of some) or not - the sentiment in society exists, you just hide it from policymakers. It will spread slower, but it will fester and can explode and catch society unaware. Encrypted chats exists, and in worst case people can just talk when they meet up. Honestly i find all the pushes for censorship to be as bad as loss of democracy - in fact, they are one and the same if you can say only approved things. It is even harder to understand why would you push for that if you come from a country that did suffer from censorship in the past. I personally didn't experience it, but my parents did - and the nightmare stories live on in my generation. Lets not lie to ourselves - 'regulated', 'hate speech' and other such phrases are doublethink words for 'censorship that we like'. and the problem with social media runs deeper than just 'regulation' - it is an inherent conflict of interests between social media corporation itself and society - the goals of both do not align at all. and before anyone starts defending this approach - think what happens when your worst enemy gets the same powers you give yourself. to give example - DOGE works with such powers because one of previous Democract administration created such agency with such overreaching powers.

miroljub 2y ago

You used the wrong term. In Germany, they call it "Unsere Demokratie (tm)", which may be tranlated to "Our Democracy (tm)". You know, it's not a democracy for everyone, it's just a democracy for a small group op people in power with correct opinions and a monopoly on state media. And indeed, social media, free speech, even elections, not all elections, but elections where people vote for a wrong party, are a threat to Our Democracy(tm).

rob74 2y ago
Ok, I think I know who you voted for in the last election... Yeah, sure, you could argue that it's not democratic to keep extreme parties out of power, but there are multiple examples across history of parties coming to power democratically and then destroying democracy from within - it happened in Germany in 1933, in Russia, in Hungary, and it's currently happening in the United States. How to prevent this phenomenon (assuming that you want to prevent it, which of course the people profiting from it don't - see JD Vance's speech at the Munich security conference) is a controversial topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy).
- miroljub 2y ago
  > Ok, I think I know who you voted for in the last election... No, you don't ;) Anyways, it's not only about Germany. It's the whole Europe. The establishment uses tricks, fraud, and deception to stay in power despite diminishing support and introduce policies opposed to the majority will of the people. In Germany, one party was prevented getting into the parliament by theft. In Romania, the election was annulled, and the leading candidate prevented to candidate because he was the wrong one. In Moldova, the election was manipulated by the government deciding which diaspora has the right to vote, and which not. In Slovakia, the elected president got shot for the wrong politics. In the Ukraine, president refuses to organize an election or transfer the power to the Head of Parliament, as the constitution requires, since he's a good guy. France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, everywhere the same or similar story. JD Vance was right. It's not democracy and not free speech and not freedom, when one group op people have the power to decide about election results, and no real opposition is allowed. And the party you think I voted for is getting bigger and bigger, not because they offer any solution. They don't. It's because the ruling parties keep pushing policies and laws that suit only a small minority, and which a majority of people oppose. It's the current (and future) German government that is bringing us closer to 1933. You can't blame an opposition for that.