3 ms·

This isn’t the product of shadowy government figures meeting together and plotting to take over the internet. It’s an obvious byproduct of the current moral pan

by Aurornis 11mo ago

This isn’t the product of shadowy government figures meeting together and plotting to take over the internet. It’s an obvious byproduct of the current moral panic around social media. Just look at the HN comments. There are people welcoming this level of government control and using famous moral panic topics to justify it, like Andrew Tate or TikTok.

rightbyte 11mo ago
You can be in "moral panic" without instigating what you think is government overreach. People and especially kids drink too much soda but I don't think bans are appropriate.
- Ajedi32 11mo ago
  Yes, but when moral panic reaches the ears and minds of people in government, who see government as the solution to every problem and don't tend to think much about limits to their own power (I'm a good guy with good intentions, why would you want to limit me?), this is the type of solution you tend to get.
- Aurornis 11mo ago
  Thinking kids drink too much soda is an opinion (probably backed by evidence), but I wouldn't describe it as a moral panic. Moral panic usually rises to the level where the threat is viewed as so severe to the fabric of society that excessive laws and regulations are welcomed as a solution. People engaged in moral panic start to believe that their normal baseline values for topics like freedom of expression and innocent until proven guilty can be suspended due to the urgency and magnitude of the threat. If you're just lamenting the fact that too much soda is consumed, I wouldn't call that a moral panic.
- fasbiner 11mo ago
  This sounds very reductionist to me.
krapp 11mo ago
Who do you think is responsible for the current moral panic around social media? That shit didn't just happen. Social media only became ontologically evil once it presented a threat to the status quo by allowing the underclasses to organize and establish political power, and when it started to undermine mainstream propaganda narratives. It's no coincidence that TikTok is being described as a CCP weapon of war and indoctrination when it starts leading people to question their government's foreign policy and capitalism. Can't have that.
- myrmidon 11mo ago
  So your theory is that a single, coherent actor ("deep state"?) is responsible for current public sentiment that is both somewhat critical of social media and specifically foreign control of that media? I disagree on that. In a democracy, if you gave full control over local media to a foreign nation, do you see how that could lead to problems, or would you be fine with that?
  - krapp 11mo ago
    TikTok being owned by a Chinese company didn't represent "giving full control over local media to a foreign nation." And it's weird that you mistrust the influence of something as banal as TikTok but apparently believe the moral panic around social media and TikTok specifically is entirely organic. Because I guess there is no such thing as propaganda or influence operations on Western social media? If you're worried about foreign influence on social media literally every Western platform is being aggressively manipulated by both foreign and Western intelligence. It just got revealed that most of the MAGA accounts on Twitter were foreign, likely Russian-based networks. The platform that serves as the de facto psychological operations and communications channel for the current Presidental administration. But it's just TikTok and the Chinese mind control we should worry about?
    - myrmidon 11mo ago
      I'm absolutely not saying that there is no western propaganda. But giving control over your media to any single actor (especially sovereign ones) is basically suicide for a democracy because it allows those actors to "democratically" achieve results against voter interests. Politicians having control over media is always a problem, but it got much worse thanks to inherent centralization of modern media, so more regulatory pushback is needed now than in the newspaper age. I'd also argue that foreigners having media control is typically worse because incentives are even less aligned with voters.
myrmidon 11mo ago
I do agree mostly, but the threat is not empty: If democratic outputs can be sufficiently controlled via media that is for sale, then you already have a de-facto plutocracy. Similarly, allowing foreign interests a significant media presence (and control) in your country is a very real threat to the basic principles of a democratic nation.

rightbyte 11mo ago

You can be in "moral panic" without instigating what you think is government overreach. People and especially kids drink too much soda but I don't think bans are appropriate.

Ajedi32 11mo ago
Yes, but when moral panic reaches the ears and minds of people in government, who see government as the solution to every problem and don't tend to think much about limits to their own power (I'm a good guy with good intentions, why would you want to limit me?), this is the type of solution you tend to get.
Aurornis 11mo ago
Thinking kids drink too much soda is an opinion (probably backed by evidence), but I wouldn't describe it as a moral panic. Moral panic usually rises to the level where the threat is viewed as so severe to the fabric of society that excessive laws and regulations are welcomed as a solution. People engaged in moral panic start to believe that their normal baseline values for topics like freedom of expression and innocent until proven guilty can be suspended due to the urgency and magnitude of the threat. If you're just lamenting the fact that too much soda is consumed, I wouldn't call that a moral panic.
fasbiner 11mo ago
This sounds very reductionist to me.

krapp 11mo ago

Who do you think is responsible for the current moral panic around social media? That shit didn't just happen. Social media only became ontologically evil once it presented a threat to the status quo by allowing the underclasses to organize and establish political power, and when it started to undermine mainstream propaganda narratives. It's no coincidence that TikTok is being described as a CCP weapon of war and indoctrination when it starts leading people to question their government's foreign policy and capitalism. Can't have that.

myrmidon 11mo ago
So your theory is that a single, coherent actor ("deep state"?) is responsible for current public sentiment that is both somewhat critical of social media and specifically foreign control of that media? I disagree on that. In a democracy, if you gave full control over local media to a foreign nation, do you see how that could lead to problems, or would you be fine with that?
- krapp 11mo ago
  TikTok being owned by a Chinese company didn't represent "giving full control over local media to a foreign nation." And it's weird that you mistrust the influence of something as banal as TikTok but apparently believe the moral panic around social media and TikTok specifically is entirely organic. Because I guess there is no such thing as propaganda or influence operations on Western social media? If you're worried about foreign influence on social media literally every Western platform is being aggressively manipulated by both foreign and Western intelligence. It just got revealed that most of the MAGA accounts on Twitter were foreign, likely Russian-based networks. The platform that serves as the de facto psychological operations and communications channel for the current Presidental administration. But it's just TikTok and the Chinese mind control we should worry about?
  - myrmidon 11mo ago
    I'm absolutely not saying that there is no western propaganda. But giving control over your media to any single actor (especially sovereign ones) is basically suicide for a democracy because it allows those actors to "democratically" achieve results against voter interests. Politicians having control over media is always a problem, but it got much worse thanks to inherent centralization of modern media, so more regulatory pushback is needed now than in the newspaper age. I'd also argue that foreigners having media control is typically worse because incentives are even less aligned with voters.

myrmidon 11mo ago

I do agree mostly, but the threat is not empty: If democratic outputs can be sufficiently controlled via media that is for sale, then you already have a de-facto plutocracy. Similarly, allowing foreign interests a significant media presence (and control) in your country is a very real threat to the basic principles of a democratic nation.