6 ms·

I would honestly love that. No more paid trolls on social media, the democratic process has a chance to adapt to technology, we can avoid the fate of the US.

by kubb 1y ago

exe34 1y ago
Only until the next Reichstag fire, I suspect, because by then there won't be any more democracy.
- kubb 1y ago
  Can you phrase your thought as a causal chain so that I don’t have to guess what you mean?
  - BiteCode_dev 1y ago
    In the 1930s, the Dutch government conducted a census that included religion. The Netherlands, after all, had a comprehensive population registry system (Bevolkingsregister) established in the 19th century. This registry was centralized, continuously updated, and included religion, addresses, family connections, and occupations. After the German occupation in 1940, the Nazis accessed and exploited the Dutch population registry, including religious affiliation. About 75–80% of the ~140,000 Jews in the Netherlands were killed. This is the highest percentage in Western Europe. Compare that to France, which had a more fragmented administrative system, and less complete central records and 25% of Jews in France were deported and killed — a much lower percentage than the Netherlands. As usual, when reaching the Godwin point, the idea is not for you to take it at face value, but to extrapolate to your situation. The concentration of power and centralized people tracking are eventually always abused, and once your system becomes less free (which has historically eventually happened on a long enough timescale), you will pay the price for it. In our case, having a full history of all opinions, interactions, locations, and behavior linked to full identity of people is what we are ultimately talking about here. It's already well on its way, but it will make it worse. The more you concentrate power and feed data about people, the greater the potential damage. And of course, it doesn't need to be a full-on dictatorship to get problems with those. It's a spectrum of increasing problems you will get, the more you lean into it.
    - kubb 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >This registry was centralized, continuously updated, and included religion, addresses, family connections, and occupations. Sorry, but why would the Dutch government need to know all those details in the first place? Did Dutch citizens never ask that question back then? Nazis or no Nazis, that was an issue waiting to happen. I guess it wouldn't have mattered if they did, since the Netherlands was a kingdom and people didn't have much say into how the monarchy ran things.
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        Do Americans or Europeans ask any questions with regarding to why the Government wants to pass these anti-privacy laws, or how is it even supposed to reduce "child grooming", etc.? Maybe the Dutch citizens did ask these questions you think they did not ask, but the Government won.
      - speleding 1y ago
        To do governing properly you want to understand the impact your policies are having, and I general that means more data can give you better answers. In a world where the invasion had not happened yet it was not unreasonable to collect as much as we could and store it in threefold. Things are different now, once bitten twice shy.
      - harvey9 1y ago
        Your post highlights how shocked people who don't live in a database state can be when they encounter one. In the UK you can expect to be asked your ethnicity, sexuality, sex, gender, religion and a few other things every time you apply for a job or interact with the state.
        rwmj 1y ago
        Simply not true.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  We're already there if you live in places like Germany or the UK. Go on social media and criticize some politicians in the UK/DE about their open borders policies being directly responsible for some of the terror attacks there, and there's a high chance police will knock on your door for "being a right supremacist" and for committing the "speech of hate". I think France, Italy are also following the same path. You know you don't have free speech anymore, when saying facts gets you in trouble. And this is only the beginning. It will be more and more difficult to speak against the actions of your government the more unpopular the politicians become and the more people hate the results of their policies. And instead of changing course and following the wishes of the voters, politicians instead will clamp down on free speech.
  - soco 1y ago
    You mean France and Italy where the parties which blame open border policies are governing? Somehow the whole rightwing discourse looks to me based on scare tactics: it will be so bad, it's not yet bad but just wait and it will be! All fortune tellers in that wing indeed.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      >You mean France and Italy where the parties which blame open border policies are governing? Is Le Pen governing in France and I'm not aware of? Because I've never seen Macron do that. And people are the ones blaming open borders, then some parties choose to capitalize on that (even if they ultimately do nothing), while some other parties choose to suppress that viewpoint as being right wing propaganda and that in reality there are no issue with open borders, that all the crime is imaginary, which is why they push for online censorship and anti-encryption laws, to make sure only their viewpoint becomes the only legally allowed one.
      - pydry 1y ago
        Nobody is suppressing the view that outsider migrants are the root of most evil in the west, just as nobody suppressed view that the outsider Jews are the root of most evil in the west in the 1930s. It's been a mainstream view in multiple mainstream media outlets for years.
DocTomoe 1y ago
... and all the social media posts having been pre-approved by Minitrue. What a glorious world we shall live in. This is no longer just rhetoric. Meanwhile, the EU’s polite, tea-drinking cousin, the UK has quietly deployed a “social media surveillance unit.” Not to fight trolls or bots, of course - but to ensure His Majesty’s Subjects think correctly in public. Doubleplusgood, wouldn’t you say? [1] [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-social-media-migrant-immigration-b2796646.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-socia...
- kubb 1y ago
  „monitoring social media for anti-immigrant posts” amounts to banning wrongthink? Get outta here dude. Politicians who simultaneously increase immigration and stir up hatred against immigrants will inevitably cause a tragedy.
  - eptcyka 1y ago
    One does not have to be anti-immigrant to not be happy about immigration policies. It is known at this point that the Kremlin is actively helping migrants to come to Europe. If an enemy knows that this will be to the detriment of Europe, maybe Europeans themselves should also acknowledge that?
    - kubb 1y ago
      Yes but (risky absolute statement) criticizing the policies themselves, in isolation from the immigrants who are already here, never got anyone in trouble with the law.
      - eptcyka 1y ago
        I think the critique of the policies gets swept up and put in the bucket together with alt-right ideological idioms, thus coloring it immediately.
        1y ago
lynx97 1y ago
People like you are the death of freedom.
- kubb 1y ago
  What does the freedom to spew hate anonymously get you? You just create a less free world for everyone else by doing that. Freedom for me is the ability to live a good life, and be happy, not harass people.
  - lynx97 1y ago
    "Hate speech" is an excuse to attack people that are not conforming with state/government opinion. It is basically the modern version of "someone has to think of the children". And it is played through conservative, family-value people, like you seem to be.
    - kubb 1y ago
      That’s just false. Hate speech is (simplifying) when you blame a group of people for everything that is bad in the world, and the only thing that group can do to appease you is to cease to exist. You know like the Nazis and the Jews.
      - lynx97 1y ago
        Godwin's law... But to stay a little more serious: I get your point of view. The question is, is it a good idea to give up anonymity for everyone to fight the nazis? Should we give up our freedom to fight terrorism?
        kubb 1y ago
        I don’t see the connection with terrorism. What’s certain is that speech has consequences.
      - BSDobelix 1y ago
        https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-... >>public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.)
numpad0 1y ago
Companies are neither minors or adults. Account management for paid shills will be handled between customer support backend infra and social media API servers, not subject to any particular rules.
- kubb 1y ago
  > Companies are neither minors or adults. Chickens are neither mammals nor worms, what are you talking about.
jeltz 1y ago
People would just buy a ton of hacked accounts just like today.
- kubb 1y ago
  Can’t have speed control on the highway, people would just exceed the limit anyway. Come on brother let’s not give up before doing anything.
KETHERCORTEX 1y ago
> No more paid trolls on social media If you didn't come up with a way to have paid trolls in such a system doesn't mean that there won't be any.
- kubb 1y ago
  The logic is simple - making it harder for them to operate will diminish their impact and effectiveness.
  - KETHERCORTEX 1y ago
    Unless they are government backed trolls with fake ids issued ad-hoc by that government. That's one of the possibilities. People already sell access to their Google accounts so buyers can run not-that-legal ad campaigns. Creating one extra step won't do much to solve problems as long as the incentive is big enough and budget is sufficient.
    - kubb 1y ago
      In Western Europe there are no records of government backed trolls. You present it as a possibility when it isn’t one as long as we can avoid autocracy which the existing trolls are working towards.

I would honestly love that. No more paid trolls on social media, the democratic process has a chance to adapt to technology, we can avoid the fate of the US.

by kubb 1y ago

I would honestly love that. No more paid trolls on social media, the democratic process has a chance to adapt to technology, we can avoid the fate of the US.

exe34 1y ago

Only until the next Reichstag fire, I suspect, because by then there won't be any more democracy.

kubb 1y ago
Can you phrase your thought as a causal chain so that I don’t have to guess what you mean?
- BiteCode_dev 1y ago
  In the 1930s, the Dutch government conducted a census that included religion. The Netherlands, after all, had a comprehensive population registry system (Bevolkingsregister) established in the 19th century. This registry was centralized, continuously updated, and included religion, addresses, family connections, and occupations. After the German occupation in 1940, the Nazis accessed and exploited the Dutch population registry, including religious affiliation. About 75–80% of the ~140,000 Jews in the Netherlands were killed. This is the highest percentage in Western Europe. Compare that to France, which had a more fragmented administrative system, and less complete central records and 25% of Jews in France were deported and killed — a much lower percentage than the Netherlands. As usual, when reaching the Godwin point, the idea is not for you to take it at face value, but to extrapolate to your situation. The concentration of power and centralized people tracking are eventually always abused, and once your system becomes less free (which has historically eventually happened on a long enough timescale), you will pay the price for it. In our case, having a full history of all opinions, interactions, locations, and behavior linked to full identity of people is what we are ultimately talking about here. It's already well on its way, but it will make it worse. The more you concentrate power and feed data about people, the greater the potential damage. And of course, it doesn't need to be a full-on dictatorship to get problems with those. It's a spectrum of increasing problems you will get, the more you lean into it.
  - kubb 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >This registry was centralized, continuously updated, and included religion, addresses, family connections, and occupations. Sorry, but why would the Dutch government need to know all those details in the first place? Did Dutch citizens never ask that question back then? Nazis or no Nazis, that was an issue waiting to happen. I guess it wouldn't have mattered if they did, since the Netherlands was a kingdom and people didn't have much say into how the monarchy ran things.
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      Do Americans or Europeans ask any questions with regarding to why the Government wants to pass these anti-privacy laws, or how is it even supposed to reduce "child grooming", etc.? Maybe the Dutch citizens did ask these questions you think they did not ask, but the Government won.
    - speleding 1y ago
      To do governing properly you want to understand the impact your policies are having, and I general that means more data can give you better answers. In a world where the invasion had not happened yet it was not unreasonable to collect as much as we could and store it in threefold. Things are different now, once bitten twice shy.
    - harvey9 1y ago
      Your post highlights how shocked people who don't live in a database state can be when they encounter one. In the UK you can expect to be asked your ethnicity, sexuality, sex, gender, religion and a few other things every time you apply for a job or interact with the state.
      - rwmj 1y ago
        Simply not true.
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
We're already there if you live in places like Germany or the UK. Go on social media and criticize some politicians in the UK/DE about their open borders policies being directly responsible for some of the terror attacks there, and there's a high chance police will knock on your door for "being a right supremacist" and for committing the "speech of hate". I think France, Italy are also following the same path. You know you don't have free speech anymore, when saying facts gets you in trouble. And this is only the beginning. It will be more and more difficult to speak against the actions of your government the more unpopular the politicians become and the more people hate the results of their policies. And instead of changing course and following the wishes of the voters, politicians instead will clamp down on free speech.
- soco 1y ago
  You mean France and Italy where the parties which blame open border policies are governing? Somehow the whole rightwing discourse looks to me based on scare tactics: it will be so bad, it's not yet bad but just wait and it will be! All fortune tellers in that wing indeed.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    >You mean France and Italy where the parties which blame open border policies are governing? Is Le Pen governing in France and I'm not aware of? Because I've never seen Macron do that. And people are the ones blaming open borders, then some parties choose to capitalize on that (even if they ultimately do nothing), while some other parties choose to suppress that viewpoint as being right wing propaganda and that in reality there are no issue with open borders, that all the crime is imaginary, which is why they push for online censorship and anti-encryption laws, to make sure only their viewpoint becomes the only legally allowed one.
    - pydry 1y ago
      Nobody is suppressing the view that outsider migrants are the root of most evil in the west, just as nobody suppressed view that the outsider Jews are the root of most evil in the west in the 1930s. It's been a mainstream view in multiple mainstream media outlets for years.

DocTomoe 1y ago

... and all the social media posts having been pre-approved by Minitrue. What a glorious world we shall live in. This is no longer just rhetoric. Meanwhile, the EU’s polite, tea-drinking cousin, the UK has quietly deployed a “social media surveillance unit.” Not to fight trolls or bots, of course - but to ensure His Majesty’s Subjects think correctly in public. Doubleplusgood, wouldn’t you say? [1] [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-social-media-migrant-immigration-b2796646.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-socia...

kubb 1y ago
„monitoring social media for anti-immigrant posts” amounts to banning wrongthink? Get outta here dude. Politicians who simultaneously increase immigration and stir up hatred against immigrants will inevitably cause a tragedy.
- eptcyka 1y ago
  One does not have to be anti-immigrant to not be happy about immigration policies. It is known at this point that the Kremlin is actively helping migrants to come to Europe. If an enemy knows that this will be to the detriment of Europe, maybe Europeans themselves should also acknowledge that?
  - kubb 1y ago
    Yes but (risky absolute statement) criticizing the policies themselves, in isolation from the immigrants who are already here, never got anyone in trouble with the law.
    - eptcyka 1y ago
      I think the critique of the policies gets swept up and put in the bucket together with alt-right ideological idioms, thus coloring it immediately.
      - 1y ago

lynx97 1y ago

People like you are the death of freedom.

kubb 1y ago
What does the freedom to spew hate anonymously get you? You just create a less free world for everyone else by doing that. Freedom for me is the ability to live a good life, and be happy, not harass people.
- lynx97 1y ago
  "Hate speech" is an excuse to attack people that are not conforming with state/government opinion. It is basically the modern version of "someone has to think of the children". And it is played through conservative, family-value people, like you seem to be.
  - kubb 1y ago
    That’s just false. Hate speech is (simplifying) when you blame a group of people for everything that is bad in the world, and the only thing that group can do to appease you is to cease to exist. You know like the Nazis and the Jews.
    - lynx97 1y ago
      Godwin's law... But to stay a little more serious: I get your point of view. The question is, is it a good idea to give up anonymity for everyone to fight the nazis? Should we give up our freedom to fight terrorism?
      - kubb 1y ago
        I don’t see the connection with terrorism. What’s certain is that speech has consequences.
    - BSDobelix 1y ago
      https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-speech https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hate-... >>public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.)

numpad0 1y ago

Companies are neither minors or adults. Account management for paid shills will be handled between customer support backend infra and social media API servers, not subject to any particular rules.

kubb 1y ago
> Companies are neither minors or adults. Chickens are neither mammals nor worms, what are you talking about.

jeltz 1y ago

People would just buy a ton of hacked accounts just like today.

kubb 1y ago
Can’t have speed control on the highway, people would just exceed the limit anyway. Come on brother let’s not give up before doing anything.

KETHERCORTEX 1y ago

> No more paid trolls on social media If you didn't come up with a way to have paid trolls in such a system doesn't mean that there won't be any.

kubb 1y ago
The logic is simple - making it harder for them to operate will diminish their impact and effectiveness.
- KETHERCORTEX 1y ago
  Unless they are government backed trolls with fake ids issued ad-hoc by that government. That's one of the possibilities. People already sell access to their Google accounts so buyers can run not-that-legal ad campaigns. Creating one extra step won't do much to solve problems as long as the incentive is big enough and budget is sufficient.
  - kubb 1y ago
    In Western Europe there are no records of government backed trolls. You present it as a possibility when it isn’t one as long as we can avoid autocracy which the existing trolls are working towards.