2 ms·

This is really globally coordinated, isn't it? I'm just not sure why now and not previously. Is it just that Twitter went over the toxicity threshold that every

by pjc50 9mo ago

This is really globally coordinated, isn't it? I'm just not sure why now and not previously. Is it just that Twitter went over the toxicity threshold that everyone noticed?

lava_pidgeon 9mo ago
why is it globally coordinated? Maybe just bunch of politicians find the idea appealing after Australia implemented it?
- Ekaros 9mo ago
  Very cheap way to appear to be doing something about anything. Lot of talk, a few memos. All implementation burden on private sector. Aimed at group that can't currently vote. Only ones against it on principle care about implementation not actually the ban. And some of us think it doesn't go far enough. I would set limit to 18. Would solve lot more issues. Like make adult content fully allowable by default as everyone can automatically be considered to be an adult then.
Devasta 9mo ago
> I'm just not sure why now and not previously. Shock at how many people believe Palestinians are human got the ball rolling, but now its prepping for the fallout of the release of more and more Epstein files.
vachina 9mo ago
Kind of dangerous to let malleable young minds in the hands of another country’s “algorithm”. Ideologies are cultivated young.
Maken 9mo ago
Maybe it's because now we are starting to realize the effects that social media exposure have on human brain, specially on teenagers. Legislation always lag behind.
m000 9mo ago
Why now? Because in the past 2-3 years it has been made abundantly clear that: (a) Social media operators choose to do nothing at all against coordinated influencing operations, unless the influencing goes against the interests of very specific countries and groups. (b) US government most likely has unfettered access to social media data. As if this isn't bad enough, they will probably give them out to Palantir for "data integration" and under uncertain terms.
- stinkbeetle 9mo ago
  Those things were pretty clear well before 2-3 years. Social media is seen as a driver for people having opinions deemed a threat to the status quo. Western governments have been fighting a long battle to use these tools to control domestic influence and at times have probably thought they were winning, but recently things seem to be turn a bit. "Think of the children" is obviously the oldest and most pathetic trick in their playbook. We know it's a bald faced lie because data and studies on social media harms on children has been coming out for well over a decade by now, and not a finger was lifted for years. So we know that is not the reason, and we know they are lying about the reason. Therefore we know the real reason is seen as unpopular with the electorate. And curbing foreign (including US government) influence and access to data is not unpopular anywhere.
Markoff 9mo ago
Well COVID green pass didn't work out to save us all from deadly flu with 0.31% fatality rate[1][2], so now they are trying it to save our children with digital ID... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034125000474 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187603412... [2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
account42 9mo ago
Definitely tickles all kinds of conspiracy theory senses. Of course it could just be law makers seeing one country do it and then going "wait, you can do that and people will go along with it???". I'm not sure if that's any better than a global conspiracy though.
lysace 9mo ago
It does seem to be, yes. Sweden will also fall if the leftist side wins in the september government election. They will end up banning sites allowing purely anonymous comments. (This might include HN.) This is the consequence of the ambition that is already clearly anounced by the opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the social democrats. These anonymous comments are incidentally their current worst enemy. The are really good at amplifying stories that the 3 (three!) national news publishers (government/public service, Bonnier News, Schibsted) decide to ignore or deamplify for ideoleogical reasons.

by pjc50 9mo ago

This is really globally coordinated, isn't it? I'm just not sure why now and not previously. Is it just that Twitter went over the toxicity threshold that everyone noticed?

lava_pidgeon 9mo ago

why is it globally coordinated? Maybe just bunch of politicians find the idea appealing after Australia implemented it?

Ekaros 9mo ago
Very cheap way to appear to be doing something about anything. Lot of talk, a few memos. All implementation burden on private sector. Aimed at group that can't currently vote. Only ones against it on principle care about implementation not actually the ban. And some of us think it doesn't go far enough. I would set limit to 18. Would solve lot more issues. Like make adult content fully allowable by default as everyone can automatically be considered to be an adult then.

Devasta 9mo ago

> I'm just not sure why now and not previously. Shock at how many people believe Palestinians are human got the ball rolling, but now its prepping for the fallout of the release of more and more Epstein files.

vachina 9mo ago

Kind of dangerous to let malleable young minds in the hands of another country’s “algorithm”. Ideologies are cultivated young.

Maken 9mo ago

Maybe it's because now we are starting to realize the effects that social media exposure have on human brain, specially on teenagers. Legislation always lag behind.

m000 9mo ago

Why now? Because in the past 2-3 years it has been made abundantly clear that: (a) Social media operators choose to do nothing at all against coordinated influencing operations, unless the influencing goes against the interests of very specific countries and groups. (b) US government most likely has unfettered access to social media data. As if this isn't bad enough, they will probably give them out to Palantir for "data integration" and under uncertain terms.

stinkbeetle 9mo ago
Those things were pretty clear well before 2-3 years. Social media is seen as a driver for people having opinions deemed a threat to the status quo. Western governments have been fighting a long battle to use these tools to control domestic influence and at times have probably thought they were winning, but recently things seem to be turn a bit. "Think of the children" is obviously the oldest and most pathetic trick in their playbook. We know it's a bald faced lie because data and studies on social media harms on children has been coming out for well over a decade by now, and not a finger was lifted for years. So we know that is not the reason, and we know they are lying about the reason. Therefore we know the real reason is seen as unpopular with the electorate. And curbing foreign (including US government) influence and access to data is not unpopular anywhere.

Markoff 9mo ago

Well COVID green pass didn't work out to save us all from deadly flu with 0.31% fatality rate[1][2], so now they are trying it to save our children with digital ID... [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876034125000474 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187603412... [2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02867-1/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

account42 9mo ago

Definitely tickles all kinds of conspiracy theory senses. Of course it could just be law makers seeing one country do it and then going "wait, you can do that and people will go along with it???". I'm not sure if that's any better than a global conspiracy though.

lysace 9mo ago

It does seem to be, yes. Sweden will also fall if the leftist side wins in the september government election. They will end up banning sites allowing purely anonymous comments. (This might include HN.) This is the consequence of the ambition that is already clearly anounced by the opposition leader Magdalena Andersson of the social democrats. These anonymous comments are incidentally their current worst enemy. The are really good at amplifying stories that the 3 (three!) national news publishers (government/public service, Bonnier News, Schibsted) decide to ignore or deamplify for ideoleogical reasons.