lggdn

> I suspect a lot of anti-Zuck/'techlash' sentiment will die down if a Dem is elected next year.

If a Dem wins, the media/etc will praise tech/social media like they did after Obama won. Remember in 2008 when the media hailed Obama as the first "social media president". It's amazing how a single election shifted the narrative on an entire industry wholesale. It's like someone flipped a switch and the narrative went from positive to negative overnight.

How many remember Obama's Q&A at google?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nnj7r1wCD4

What would have been the narrative had Hillary won? Would tech be credited with helping her win rather than attacked relentlessly by the media? The real question that isn't why the news industry was so upset? Isn't the news supposed to be objective and fair?

You get the same type of nonsense in regards to east asia. Like china, japan and korea have never gotten along and had been in an eternal state of war when in actuality, they had gotten along for most of the past millennium with the 20th century being an exception.

Same thing with paywalled news. I wish Google would remove "walled content" by default.

It's even worse than feel-good babble. It's signaling TBL's shift from advocating a decentralized free internet towards a centralized censored internet.

"Free speech? Fundamental rights?" are what we want, but people who claim to want free speech and then claim they want "Support the best in humanity"? "Build strong communities"? ultimately mean that they want censorship.

It's basically what happened to social media and the internet. Remember that everyone from Reddit to Zuckerburg to news companies claimed they supported free speech a decade ago. Then money/politics/etc got involved and they started talking about ""Support the best in humanity"? "Build strong communities"?" and we have a censored dystopia on our hands.

In china, they use "harmony" as a propaganda tool to justify censorship. In the west, we use "civility" along with "best in humanity", "universal human rights", etc to justify censorship.

Why single out China, Russia, Iran?

> That's because they have such strong motivations to keep things as they are, and even make them worse.

And the EU, Britain, US, etc don't?

I know it's hard to believe, the leader of internet censorship isn't in China, Russia or Iran. It's in europe.

"Germany’s Online Crackdowns Inspire the World’s Dictators"

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/06/germany-online-crackdow...

And the leaders of tech censorship isn't in China, it's in the US since major tech companies are in the US.