4 ms·

> As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. This had until recently been

> As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. This had until recently been only tested for top-down information. Nowadays, everyone can be a broadcaster and we're seeing quite different results.

api 1y ago
I feel like totalitarians are learning to hack and exploit the free flow of information using sophisticated propaganda techniques. Doesn’t mean a locked down system is better though. With that they don’t have to bother.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Those are two independent problems. If you have a centralized system, you're screwed, because they just capture it. If you have a decentralized system vulnerable to propaganda techniques then they do that. What you need is a decentralized system resistant to propaganda techniques.
  - amelius 1y ago
    Yes, the question is what such a system would look like. E.g. would there be limitations of free speech?
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      Of course not. That shouldn't even be possible in a properly designed system. Rather what you need is a means for propaganda to be rapidly identified and refuted with counterarguments in a way that its would-be victims can see it.
      - amelius 1y ago
        I think the problem with such an approach is that the majority of people will stop reading if the arguments become too complicated. This is how populism works.
        f001 1y ago
        Additionally, it’s usually more effort to refute something than to state something, especially as it seems there is little requirement for proof when making the statement.
        const_cast 1y ago
        Yes, exactly. We already have largely decentralized speech in the US via the internet. And much like how the printing press gave everyone a voice or how radio created Hitler, the internet is the modern age vehicle of populist messaging. The reason someone like Trump can rise to power and consolidate said power is because he speaks simple and lies work in a decentralized system. Populist messaging is built on the fact that humans are naturally drawn to simple solutions and emotional responses. 90% of the time throughout American and European history, if you just tell people "this is ethnic/racial group X's fault!", that works.
        AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        The US has decentralized speech on paper. Anybody can make a website, but then Google won't surface obscure blogs no matter how relevant they are. Anybody can make an account on a centralized social media platform, but that isn't the same as being seen, which depends on the whims of whoever owns it or the politicians threatening them. Meanwhile the centralized platforms then have the incentive to maximize engagement and the power to structure things that way. And that's how you get Trump, because polarization drives engagement.
        account42 1y ago
        > We already have largely decentralized speech in the US via the internet. And much like how the printing press gave everyone a voice or how radio created Hitler, the internet is the modern age vehicle of populist messaging. Only if you ignore everything about what got Hitler elected. "Populists" winning is ALWAYS a result of the status quo being unacceptable to the general population. If the establishment is unwilling to fix that then they deserve to be removed from government. Free flow of information isn't responsible for that.
      - account42 1y ago
        See the problem with that is that it makes it harder to spread your own propaganda. Can't have people questioning your Science, so out goes the independent thought and instead everyone is trained to defer to authority. That's why we are where we are, because "both sides" want to have that control, they just want it for themselves and not those that disagree with them.
    - lurker919 1y ago
      Maybe it just needs provenance. So bad actors can't flood the system. Counter to the above is that, your bad actor may be my leader. People like convenience. When someone is expressing what you want to say, in a better and smarter way, you just reshare/retweet them. And the 'other side' will feel like your leader is a 'bad actor' who is flooding the system. So even the method of resharing/retweeting needs some sort of provenance/single use only. So you can 'agree' with your thought leader, but they shouldn't be able to mass manufacture consent. Since you might even reshare 'fake news' since you generally trust your leader. It's messy, not sure what that would look like - every post that starts getting traction needs to be fact checked? Community Notes on X is a step in the right direction maybe.
  - Treegarden 1y ago
    I mean, just as the phrase goes "your terrorist is my rebel," one could say "your propaganda is my information." That's exactly why a decentralized system matters. It doesn't just resist capture by a single authority, it allows competing narratives to exist side by side. What one group sees as misinformation, another might see as essential context. The goal shouldn't be to eliminate bias entirely, but to prevent any one group from controlling the flow of all information.
    - warkdarrior 1y ago
      And how do you prevent the bad actors from flooding the decentralized systems with propaganda? Nowadays there are millions of bad actors each sending one propaganda message, all slightly different. When any other criteria is not reliable (like source of information, or lack of bias), volume of message distribution (how often that and related messages pop up in the feed) becomes the last indicator people use.
      - account42 1y ago
        > Nowadays there are millions of bad actors each sending one propaganda message Are there? It sounds like you consider the general public to be your enemy in which case you absolutely should have no say in how a democracy is run.
        vinsend 1y ago
        [dead]
  - FabHK 1y ago
    > a decentralized system resistant to propaganda techniques That would be nice. What's becoming increasingly clear is that the current system (optimizing for engagement) is not that.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      The current system is centralized control. You don't get that if people pay a small pittance for hosting their own stuff the same as they currently pay for internet access or phone service, and thereby remove the man in the middle using control over the network effect to maximize revenue extraction.
mlnj 1y ago
The only sources of information we currently see about protests happening across the US are by small broadcasters. There is plenty of news that is being systematically being suppressed by the top-down information chain because it is so effective in clamping down dissent. IMO, free flowing information still remains the best safeguard against tyranny.
- amelius 1y ago
  But the tyranny we're seeing today is arguably a result of individual broadcasters ...
  - MangoToupe 1y ago
    Maybe very, very indirectly—it seems a lot easier to just blame the people currently wielding power, either in government or in business.
  - miningape 1y ago
    Doesn't this imply that what we're seeing today and calling tyranny is more free than what came before? (anyone can become an individual broadcaster) Put another way - is this a case of the tyrannical calling the free tyrants? If Orwell or Huxley taught us anything it's that this how a state maintains its illusion/power - manipulating language and perception to make their control seem necessary/liberating.
    - amelius 1y ago
      I'd say no, because this new free world came from the old world, so the latter must have been free.
  - parineum 1y ago
    That's because we're not seeing _actual_ tyranny. Maybe a would-be tyrant, tryannical tendencies or a slide toward tyranny, however you might want to phrase it, but it's not tyranny. Individual broadcasters are also the largest detractors along with supporters.
Aeolun 1y ago
Free flow of information should be considered different from free flow of nonsense.
- zanellato19 1y ago
  And who determines which is which? It is quite a hard problem.
  - Nursie 1y ago
    It very much is, but even if every possible solution is worse than the problem, which they very well may be, I think recognising there is a problem there is useful. Rather than the angry denial and cries of censorship that often occur after someone points it out.
  - hnfong 1y ago
    Is this a trick question? The Ministry of Truth obviously. Seriously, I'm glad we narrowly averted that one.
- parineum 1y ago
  Nonsense.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 1y ago
> everyone can be a broadcaster The individual isn't a broadcaster - the new broadcasters are YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and all the other platforms that choose which content to amplify. The content recommendation algorithms are designed by humans, who are just following orders from the wealthiest, most powerful people on earth.

api 1y ago

I feel like totalitarians are learning to hack and exploit the free flow of information using sophisticated propaganda techniques. Doesn’t mean a locked down system is better though. With that they don’t have to bother.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
Those are two independent problems. If you have a centralized system, you're screwed, because they just capture it. If you have a decentralized system vulnerable to propaganda techniques then they do that. What you need is a decentralized system resistant to propaganda techniques.
- amelius 1y ago
  Yes, the question is what such a system would look like. E.g. would there be limitations of free speech?
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Of course not. That shouldn't even be possible in a properly designed system. Rather what you need is a means for propaganda to be rapidly identified and refuted with counterarguments in a way that its would-be victims can see it.
    - amelius 1y ago
      I think the problem with such an approach is that the majority of people will stop reading if the arguments become too complicated. This is how populism works.
      - f001 1y ago
        Additionally, it’s usually more effort to refute something than to state something, especially as it seems there is little requirement for proof when making the statement.
      - const_cast 1y ago
        Yes, exactly. We already have largely decentralized speech in the US via the internet. And much like how the printing press gave everyone a voice or how radio created Hitler, the internet is the modern age vehicle of populist messaging. The reason someone like Trump can rise to power and consolidate said power is because he speaks simple and lies work in a decentralized system. Populist messaging is built on the fact that humans are naturally drawn to simple solutions and emotional responses. 90% of the time throughout American and European history, if you just tell people "this is ethnic/racial group X's fault!", that works.
        AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        The US has decentralized speech on paper. Anybody can make a website, but then Google won't surface obscure blogs no matter how relevant they are. Anybody can make an account on a centralized social media platform, but that isn't the same as being seen, which depends on the whims of whoever owns it or the politicians threatening them. Meanwhile the centralized platforms then have the incentive to maximize engagement and the power to structure things that way. And that's how you get Trump, because polarization drives engagement.
        account42 1y ago
        > We already have largely decentralized speech in the US via the internet. And much like how the printing press gave everyone a voice or how radio created Hitler, the internet is the modern age vehicle of populist messaging. Only if you ignore everything about what got Hitler elected. "Populists" winning is ALWAYS a result of the status quo being unacceptable to the general population. If the establishment is unwilling to fix that then they deserve to be removed from government. Free flow of information isn't responsible for that.
    - account42 1y ago
      See the problem with that is that it makes it harder to spread your own propaganda. Can't have people questioning your Science, so out goes the independent thought and instead everyone is trained to defer to authority. That's why we are where we are, because "both sides" want to have that control, they just want it for themselves and not those that disagree with them.
  - lurker919 1y ago
    Maybe it just needs provenance. So bad actors can't flood the system. Counter to the above is that, your bad actor may be my leader. People like convenience. When someone is expressing what you want to say, in a better and smarter way, you just reshare/retweet them. And the 'other side' will feel like your leader is a 'bad actor' who is flooding the system. So even the method of resharing/retweeting needs some sort of provenance/single use only. So you can 'agree' with your thought leader, but they shouldn't be able to mass manufacture consent. Since you might even reshare 'fake news' since you generally trust your leader. It's messy, not sure what that would look like - every post that starts getting traction needs to be fact checked? Community Notes on X is a step in the right direction maybe.
- Treegarden 1y ago
  I mean, just as the phrase goes "your terrorist is my rebel," one could say "your propaganda is my information." That's exactly why a decentralized system matters. It doesn't just resist capture by a single authority, it allows competing narratives to exist side by side. What one group sees as misinformation, another might see as essential context. The goal shouldn't be to eliminate bias entirely, but to prevent any one group from controlling the flow of all information.
  - warkdarrior 1y ago
    And how do you prevent the bad actors from flooding the decentralized systems with propaganda? Nowadays there are millions of bad actors each sending one propaganda message, all slightly different. When any other criteria is not reliable (like source of information, or lack of bias), volume of message distribution (how often that and related messages pop up in the feed) becomes the last indicator people use.
    - account42 1y ago
      > Nowadays there are millions of bad actors each sending one propaganda message Are there? It sounds like you consider the general public to be your enemy in which case you absolutely should have no say in how a democracy is run.
      - vinsend 1y ago
        [dead]
- FabHK 1y ago
  > a decentralized system resistant to propaganda techniques That would be nice. What's becoming increasingly clear is that the current system (optimizing for engagement) is not that.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    The current system is centralized control. You don't get that if people pay a small pittance for hosting their own stuff the same as they currently pay for internet access or phone service, and thereby remove the man in the middle using control over the network effect to maximize revenue extraction.

mlnj 1y ago

The only sources of information we currently see about protests happening across the US are by small broadcasters. There is plenty of news that is being systematically being suppressed by the top-down information chain because it is so effective in clamping down dissent. IMO, free flowing information still remains the best safeguard against tyranny.

amelius 1y ago
But the tyranny we're seeing today is arguably a result of individual broadcasters ...
- MangoToupe 1y ago
  Maybe very, very indirectly—it seems a lot easier to just blame the people currently wielding power, either in government or in business.
- miningape 1y ago
  Doesn't this imply that what we're seeing today and calling tyranny is more free than what came before? (anyone can become an individual broadcaster) Put another way - is this a case of the tyrannical calling the free tyrants? If Orwell or Huxley taught us anything it's that this how a state maintains its illusion/power - manipulating language and perception to make their control seem necessary/liberating.
  - amelius 1y ago
    I'd say no, because this new free world came from the old world, so the latter must have been free.
- parineum 1y ago
  That's because we're not seeing _actual_ tyranny. Maybe a would-be tyrant, tryannical tendencies or a slide toward tyranny, however you might want to phrase it, but it's not tyranny. Individual broadcasters are also the largest detractors along with supporters.

Aeolun 1y ago

Free flow of information should be considered different from free flow of nonsense.

zanellato19 1y ago
And who determines which is which? It is quite a hard problem.
- Nursie 1y ago
  It very much is, but even if every possible solution is worse than the problem, which they very well may be, I think recognising there is a problem there is useful. Rather than the angry denial and cries of censorship that often occur after someone points it out.
- hnfong 1y ago
  Is this a trick question? The Ministry of Truth obviously. Seriously, I'm glad we narrowly averted that one.
parineum 1y ago
Nonsense.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 1y ago

> everyone can be a broadcaster The individual isn't a broadcaster - the new broadcasters are YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, and all the other platforms that choose which content to amplify. The content recommendation algorithms are designed by humans, who are just following orders from the wealthiest, most powerful people on earth.