4 ms·
It is a great illustration of how transition to the authoritarianism happens (I've seen it happen in Russia in 2000s). At first you don't even need censorship,
by sega_sai 8mo ago
It is a great illustration of how transition to the authoritarianism happens (I've seen it happen in Russia in 2000s). At first you don't even need censorship, you just need to scare owners of channels/newspapers enough, so that they self-censor.
- dsl 8mo agoFear is the enforcement mechanism because it can't be challenged in court. It is long past time for everyone in tech to take a long hard look at the current situation and stop doing anything that financially benefits Musk, Ellison, or Thiel.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoChilling effect has a long history of being well considered as unconstitutional harm in the courts https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/chilling-effect/ https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/chilling-effect/
- amanaplanacanal 8mo agoWho would have standing to challenge this though?
- f_devd 8mo agoThere is no "who", once stabilizing institutions 'fall' the only remaining option is social pressure (which can come in various forms) but that does require a critical mass as it's very much reliant on network effects.
- appplication 8mo agoA history of anything in the courts doesn’t seem to be given too much consideration nowadays.
- tim333 8mo agoIt kind of explains quite a lot of behavior of the Russian government like low level aggression in the west, interesting ways of killing people and the like. Maybe also the Epstein files - he was in touch with Moscow a lot, and the behavior of Trump who seems pretty scared by that stuff.
- fahhem 8mo agoYep, Epstein was definitely a spy for the Kremlin, and not an 'ally' that was involved in the Iran-Contra affair that Epstein was a part of.
- lymbo 8mo agoI went to a tech founder conference recently and it was quite jarring given the current state of startups to see no lecture or discussion of ethics of products people should be building. It was all focused on demands of PE and delivering profit, no matter the moral cost, not a minute to stop and get a broader systemic reality check. “It turns profit, it must be good”. Not sure how we collectively combat these dominant forces of privacy violation, attention demands, and mass exploitation.
- CGMthrowaway 8mo agoIndeed. Mark Zuckerberg has long said the administration pressured Facebook to censor COVID-related content, including satire and humor. And now the administration has ended public funding for NPR and PBS. Chilling effect It goes back even further, just see the 1941 FCC “Mayflower Decision” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_doctrine
- mrandish 8mo agoWhen you say "the administration", it's worth noting you're describing actions by two different administrations. Both political parties have tried to silence dissenting views through soft censorship.
- dsl 8mo agoCensoring an interview with a political opponent is a far cry from spreading disinformation that is counter to broadly accepted medical advice during a pandemic with the intent of harming the general population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- aftbit 8mo agoSure, but that's the straw-man version of the argument. During COVID, there was aggressive censorship of _everything_ related to the virus that didn't exactly toe the party line. Satire, comedy, and truly live questions (like the weak version of the lab leak hypothesis, that SARS-CoV-2 accidentally escaped from a lab into human population) were censored alongside the obviously false, harmful, and misleading takes about drinking bleach and Ivermectin. Both science and democracy require active conversation that permits dissenting viewpoints and challenges to the accepted wisdom. Once we have an organization deciding what "the truth" is, we're doomed to stagnation and extremely vulnerable to organizational capture by self-motivated people. In other words, once you build the political, legal, and technical machinery of censorship, you're half way to having it co-opted by people with anti-social intents.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- cyberge99 8mo agoDidn’t Putin then run for a third term and because he corrupted the voting machines, remain in power? He started having dissenters abducted by plainclothes masked men in vans for the fear factor. Quietly, dissent stopped and everyone learned that when you go against Putin, you face defenestration.
- jimmydddd 8mo agoI think the FCC is just enforcing the rule that you have to give equal time to all candidates. The late night talk shows used to get around this policy by using the exception given to news agencies. The FCC is just saying that the late night talk shows aren't really "news" shows. Probably should have been doing this the whole time. They also noted that it would not be a problem on cable or internet broadcasts. Not saying it's not politically motivated though.
- amanaplanacanal 8mo agoExcept that they haven't said that. They said they were "thinking"about it. They evidently also don't apply this rule to talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative. Talk about putting your thumb on the scale.
- jimmydddd 8mo agoAgreed. Although I could see making a case that a radio talk radio show might better satisfy a news format than an entertainment show.
- hn_throwaway_99 8mo agoMy question is are there any historical parallels for the slide toward authoritarianism being reversed without a major catastrophe/war. There were many "ground rules" in American society and politics that Trump has just proved can be thrown completely out the window, and it feels like there is no unringing that bell.
- brimwats 8mo agoBrazil and South Korea offer two relatively recent examples
- primaryplease4 8mo agoDoes this illustration include the law that was passed an about century ago? Or does time start at a different point in the horizon?