We have abundant free flow of information today and yet I see a rise of tyranny.
"This is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause." feels more grounded in reality.
"This is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause." feels more grounded in reality.
Then the counter movement happened. And let's just say by 2016 social media was firmly under control and became a force against the people
But social media is also uniquely good at developing "negative polarization". Some of the counter movement was organic simply because people hated the progressive wins they saw.
Of all the things at risk, the loss of an objective reality is perhaps the most dangerous. The death of truth is the ultimate victory of evil. When truth leaves us, when we let it slip away, when it is ripped from our hands, we become vulnerable to the appetite of whatever screams at us the loudest. (from S2 Andor)
The loss of objectivity is one of the greatest losses. People who are online to want their trench to “win” are advocates for loss. People who abuse their position to only proclaim their side is the best, the all-knowing, the superior, or whatever the flavor is of the day, are advocates for loss.
And as we have seen, we are losing a lot by losing objectivity.
We have an abundance of allowed information today, there is more restriction than ever of the distribution of information. Social media censoring, takedown requests, shadow banning, government censoring.
I don't think it sounds true. Pre-internet, information distribution required access to specific technical tools, and physical transportation efforts. As one of USSR dissidents noted, risks of distribution grew almost exponentially with amount of pages (and it's about imprisonment, not account deletion). For comparison, emailing so far works even in very repressive countries. And even narrowing the issue to the West, while free speech suffered a lot recently, shadowbanned account is probably still works better than hectograph.
If you ban or censor a book, you immediately make the book seem more valuable. Because governments aren't omnipotent and all restrictions can be overcome (see the war on drugs as a particularly recent and pertinent example), you just Streisand-effect yourself.
If, on the other hand, you take away the popularity and social status of those who read that book, branding them as gullible idiots in the popular imagination, people will have an aversion to reading it. You don't need to ban access to the book, in fact you shouldn't do that, just make sure that talking about it will get people to lose all their friends.
Social media are the modern arbiters of popularity. If social media bans a subject, people get angry. If it just quietly deboosts anybody who talks about that subject, "well let's better not do that, we tried and people really didn't like those videos I guess"
If you browse any CS career forum though, at least 60% of the complaints about "the industry" happen in most capitalist industries and typically have one or more corresponding chapters in das kapital (e.g. one of the various forms of alienation, treadmill effect, capital accumulation, the creation of a reserve army of labour).
Isn't this basically just a form of forced compliance ? I agree it's happening, but its happening because the ideas/information is not beneficial for the one who can control the distribution. Before anyone could post on usenet, add their own tinfoil hat blog if they wanted, but take the UK for now, if there is any discussion or interaction with people on your website, the government wants your ID and your users'. It's exhausting.
There's an endless source of information if you look for it. Just because social media doesn't stuff them in your face doesn't mean they're censored.
On the other hand, you can shove proof in people's faces and they'll still find reasons to argue against it. Information availability is not the problem. It's more energy consuming to search and filter information so people largely avoid doing it.
There's a trope in movies where the antagonist is secretly recorded and broadcast so regular people finally see the truth and wake up. I've seen journalists risking their carriers to expose corruption only for people to shrug and look the other way.
“Fighting disinformation” is the banner under which free flow is necessarily interrupted.
It is trivial to concoct believable lies as compared to the effort needed to debunk them in a way that is effective at social scale.
Perhaps the only weapon is to teach how to think for oneself. Who is going to invest in that in a scale necessary? Those who have the resources to do that do not have sufficient motivation. Often the motivation to do the opposite is stronger.
And the US elections in 2028? I can barely imagine.
And the massive problem is, most people I talk to still think what they see on youtube is real. But of course, people thought the TV show Survivor was real, too. It's not a new phenomenon.
But it is at crazy levels. I like your 'denial of service' designation, because even knowing the problem, maybe you can't find real info still.
Umm, wouldn't a simple solution be going back to linear news feed that only includes updates from people you follow rather than the algorithm deciding what content to push to you?
We have the solution.
_Most_ developed countries do invest in the education and teaching of critical thinking. It's not even that expensive.
In most countries, if a political party prefers an uneducated voter base, they don't win elections. Or if they do, there are enough working checks and balances (and parties in the opposition) to prevent serious harm.
Political parties are very good at making elections about manufactured issues. They strategically polarize the voters by amplifying and creating fault lines within the society.
If what you say is true in your world, I would be sincerely interested to know where would that be (my guesses would be Uruguay, New Zealand). This is not sarcasm, I am genuinely interested. In my world, India, it is as untrue as it can be.
Belgium gets a lot of criticism for moving slowing, but it also rarely breaks crucial things. The system of >10 political parties has its flaws, but it's a lot less divisive than a 2 party system. It means compromise needs to be found, and that no 1 party has full control (slows things down but reduces corruption and critical errors imo). Purposely dumbing down the population or firing 10% of government employees in order to hide malicious acts (or make corruption easier) just aren't conceivable in Belgium.
The only criticism of Belgium that I have heard are the horrors of colonialism under Leopold.
Its a picturesque country.
The colonization of Congo was indeed horrible. Inconsequential clarification: Congo wasn't actually a Belgian colony, it was Leopold's personal colony.