(2022)
...also, threat to privacy, definitely yes, but to democracy? Unregulated social networks are a threat to democracy, but they could exist very well without Chrome.
...also, threat to privacy, definitely yes, but to democracy? Unregulated social networks are a threat to democracy, but they could exist very well without Chrome.
You know, it's not a democracy for everyone, it's just a democracy for a small group op people in power with correct opinions and a monopoly on state media.
And indeed, social media, free speech, even elections, not all elections, but elections where people vote for a wrong party, are a threat to Our Democracy(tm).
Yeah, sure, you could argue that it's not democratic to keep extreme parties out of power, but there are multiple examples across history of parties coming to power democratically and then destroying democracy from within - it happened in Germany in 1933, in Russia, in Hungary, and it's currently happening in the United States. How to prevent this phenomenon (assuming that you want to prevent it, which of course the people profiting from it don't - see JD Vance's speech at the Munich security conference) is a controversial topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy).
No, you don't ;)
Anyways, it's not only about Germany. It's the whole Europe. The establishment uses tricks, fraud, and deception to stay in power despite diminishing support and introduce policies opposed to the majority will of the people.
In Germany, one party was prevented getting into the parliament by theft. In Romania, the election was annulled, and the leading candidate prevented to candidate because he was the wrong one. In Moldova, the election was manipulated by the government deciding which diaspora has the right to vote, and which not. In Slovakia, the elected president got shot for the wrong politics. In the Ukraine, president refuses to organize an election or transfer the power to the Head of Parliament, as the constitution requires, since he's a good guy. France, Ireland, Italy, Poland, everywhere the same or similar story.
JD Vance was right. It's not democracy and not free speech and not freedom, when one group op people have the power to decide about election results, and no real opposition is allowed.
And the party you think I voted for is getting bigger and bigger, not because they offer any solution. They don't. It's because the ruling parties keep pushing policies and laws that suit only a small minority, and which a majority of people oppose. It's the current (and future) German government that is bringing us closer to 1933. You can't blame an opposition for that.
why not all social networks? Frankly being served content at whim of company optimizing profits is as bad. In best case it is a feed optimized to extract as much value from you, while serving you content from bubble that entrenches your beliefs.
In worst case scenario - company is politically motivated in similar vein to lobbying and just pushes views that fit their agenda.
Regulated(censored in opinion of some) or not - the sentiment in society exists, you just hide it from policymakers. It will spread slower, but it will fester and can explode and catch society unaware. Encrypted chats exists, and in worst case people can just talk when they meet up.
Honestly i find all the pushes for censorship to be as bad as loss of democracy - in fact, they are one and the same if you can say only approved things. It is even harder to understand why would you push for that if you come from a country that did suffer from censorship in the past. I personally didn't experience it, but my parents did - and the nightmare stories live on in my generation.
Lets not lie to ourselves - 'regulated', 'hate speech' and other such phrases are doublethink words for 'censorship that we like'. and the problem with social media runs deeper than just 'regulation' - it is an inherent conflict of interests between social media corporation itself and society - the goals of both do not align at all.
and before anyone starts defending this approach - think what happens when your worst enemy gets the same powers you give yourself.
to give example - DOGE works with such powers because one of previous Democract administration created such agency with such overreaching powers.
One point of concern is that the idea of free speech has been used by foreign influences to change the opinions of people over the years.
Anyway, counterpoint, unless there was voter fraud etc, democracy allows people to vote against democracy, so if that is the will of the majority, so it goes. Of course, one could argue it wasn't the will of the majority but of a vocal minority, which is the other problem with democracy.
when company sell people's profile and allow political parties to target them with personalized advertisement,
When journalists are allowed to be completely biased that no one trust them anymore,
When fake news are allowed to be spread across social networks without any obstacle,
You remove people's right to make an educated vote on who is best going to represent their interest.
So yeah chrome, Google and other data harvester are part of the problem with some social network and the unregulation of such an important democracy tool that is journalism.
By providing them better information.
Politics is complicated, and most people are neither interested nor qualified to determine what's "best." Even the experts often do not know or agree on how to "fix" things that are broken, so how should the voters? Most just want to be able to afford the groceries.
If a really bad thing is imposed on me when I do X, then I'm not free to do X. Otherwise we'd all have the right of free bank robbing (despite going to jail).
We can rob banks, we just have to decide whether or not it's worth paying the price of being caught and going to prison.
I literally have no idea how you've come up with such a crazy take on things.