4 ms·

> Point is, when you see every democracy passing these laws, it isn't Meta. Sure. And the outpouring of support for ratification of OOXML as an ISO standard wa

> Point is, when you see every democracy passing these laws, it isn't Meta. Sure. And the outpouring of support for ratification of OOXML as an ISO standard wasn't motivated by Microsoft. Nor was the large influx of new "P" members who arrived just in time to vote to adopt OOXML. Absolutely. The fact that those "P" members refused to meet their obligations to cast a vote in any later ballots (resulting in the failure of several key ballots, bringing ISO to a standstill) only strengthens the claim that their actions were genuine grassroots activity. No. Doubt. Megacorps never use their massive gobs of money and influence to co-opt processes that require all participants to mostly operate in good faith. Nope. > States take years and years to make policy change. The USian post-9/11 hysteria would like to have a word with you. Authoritarians rarely miss an opportunity to manufacture (or inflame) a crisis in order to present their pre-prepared rules changes that just happen to further expand their power and influence. > I think the state's true goal is more about foreign influence. ... From the perspective of the state, they already know who you are when posting domestically. Not in the US, no. Not without a fair bit of legwork. Though, I don't know much about the situation on the ground in countries like Britain and Germany. Perhaps things are so now bad there that you need to attach your Posting Loicense/Papers to everything you post, IDK. > What they're gaining is an enhanced ability to ban externals from posting. Yeah, here it is. "Keep those fuzzy foreigners out of our discussions!". For the sake of discussion, let's assume that banning and/or jailing "Those People" is a reasonable thing to want to do. [0] The problem with this is that once you deploy and normalize this sort of "social technology", it always, always creeps further. Today it's "dangerous foreigners" with their "subversive ideologies". Five, ten years from now, it's whoever is the equivalent of today's LGBT&etc underclass. [0] It's absolutely not. The remedy for bad speech is more speech. The remedy for falsehood is truth. The remedy for invalid attempts to sow discontent is to show how those attempts are not grounded in fact.

intended 7mo ago
> Sure. And the outpouring of support for ratification of OOXML as an ISO standard wasn't motivated by Microsoft. Nor was the large influx of new "P" members who arrived just in time to vote to adopt OOXML. Absolutely. Yes - Meta is most definitely taking advantage of the situation, but it’s surfing the waves, not generating them. > [0] It's absolutely not. The remedy for bad speech is more speech. The remedy for falsehood is truth. The remedy for invalid attempts to sow discontent is to show how those attempts are not grounded in fact. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this defense (more speech) has been defeated. We (humanity) have developed attacks that avoid these defenses. Our defenses were primarily against government control of data. The current attacks leverage the mechanized production of speech, and achieve influence via an abundance of content. Between attention seeking algorithms, the death of classifieds and the revenue sources for independent journalism, the creation of party+media entities, and actual foreign influence operations - theres a surfeit of content traps to catch voters up. “Flood the zone”, so to speak. It’s very similar to the sub prime mortgage/ NINJA loan scenario: On the one hand you have professional teams / media market makers which specialize in figuring out content that works. On the other side you have the average joe who is entering the marketplace with their wits and experience. This iteration of the market place of ideas result in unfair fights between the average person, and whichever entity decides they have the money to spend.
- simoncion 7mo ago
  > ...this defense (more speech) has been defeated. Very loud incorrect buzzer The minute humans gathered into groups larger than one could talk in-depth to in a week -let alone a year- we've had the "too much information" problem. So, we've had that problem for hundreds or thousands of years. It's nothing new. Censorious authoritarians want to convince people that it's new and that the best solution is (obviously) to curtail free speech and association, but that's also nothing new.

intended 7mo ago

> Sure. And the outpouring of support for ratification of OOXML as an ISO standard wasn't motivated by Microsoft. Nor was the large influx of new "P" members who arrived just in time to vote to adopt OOXML. Absolutely. Yes - Meta is most definitely taking advantage of the situation, but it’s surfing the waves, not generating them. > [0] It's absolutely not. The remedy for bad speech is more speech. The remedy for falsehood is truth. The remedy for invalid attempts to sow discontent is to show how those attempts are not grounded in fact. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but this defense (more speech) has been defeated. We (humanity) have developed attacks that avoid these defenses. Our defenses were primarily against government control of data. The current attacks leverage the mechanized production of speech, and achieve influence via an abundance of content. Between attention seeking algorithms, the death of classifieds and the revenue sources for independent journalism, the creation of party+media entities, and actual foreign influence operations - theres a surfeit of content traps to catch voters up. “Flood the zone”, so to speak. It’s very similar to the sub prime mortgage/ NINJA loan scenario: On the one hand you have professional teams / media market makers which specialize in figuring out content that works. On the other side you have the average joe who is entering the marketplace with their wits and experience. This iteration of the market place of ideas result in unfair fights between the average person, and whichever entity decides they have the money to spend.

simoncion 7mo ago
> ...this defense (more speech) has been defeated. Very loud incorrect buzzer The minute humans gathered into groups larger than one could talk in-depth to in a week -let alone a year- we've had the "too much information" problem. So, we've had that problem for hundreds or thousands of years. It's nothing new. Censorious authoritarians want to convince people that it's new and that the best solution is (obviously) to curtail free speech and association, but that's also nothing new.