For me at least, that opinion came from a time when the internet wasn’t dominated by corporations, and giant coordinated misinformation campaigns weren’t a problem.
When the main actors on the internet were individuals, I agree, government interference would limit their freedom.
But as it is now, corporations determine who gets access to information, how it gets filtered, which voices get amplified and which get silenced.
One of the only effective ways we’ve seen in recent years to force corporations to do the right thing, and restore some freedom for individuals, is by government regulation.
Yeah. People need protection from big companies and the wealthy, which are constantly seeking to manipulate. It’s a fuckin shame, though, I was one of those people who was really optimistic about the internet when it first started becoming a thing. But money creeps in everywhere and its agenda is never altruistic.
yes. they’re “censoring” algorithms designed to create engagement=profit, which are causing massive harm to society. i don’t see anything wrong with it at all. and like you, i’m on the fediverse because there isn’t an algorithm, our exposure is curated by us, not by engagement-bot-5.
Speaking for myself ofcourse but I am glad the EU has regulations for the use of personal data for targeting consumers, voters and for example patients.
You might translate this as “censorship” but I think of it as “responsible use”.
Over the past years (and certainly in the case of Xitter) it has become blatantly clear that people like Musk wipe their #ss with responsibility.
This is not necessarily true, while they are censoring people from spreading hate speach they would like they are protecting people who other wise wouldn’t be able to live a somewhat ok life.
If you’re not critising minorities, or spreading false information typically you would be fine. You can still talk about say capitalism, or even socialism in a bad light (freedom of speech) but you can’t just have freedom to just bully and harass minorities.
It’s not all about censorship just because, it’s to ensure everyone can safely spread their own speech and viewpoints.
Those mass disinformation campaigns are being done by (sometimes “almost”) nation state level actors. Governments are going to counter only some of them.
As for my own opinion - in 2020 during Artsakh war there were a few Turkish immigrant events in European countries where they’d march, yell Turkish neo-Nazi stuff, yell that they are looking for Armenians and so on. I don’t remember governments of those countries (who are already in charge of regulating fascists on their streets) doing anything about that.
I think this is going to be the same here - a regulation is a price tag in disguise. Smaller actors will be barred from doing those disinformation campaigns, bigger ones or friendly with the right governments will not be.
Killing and splitting corporations is better, but the previous part about price tag is the exact reason they are not doing this. Those governments want to have bot campaigns of their own, to manufacture consent, to see what people are saying, to control the public discourse. They just don’t want others to do it too.
This is a toad fucking a viper, as they say in Russian.
If the Australian government is going to regulate ex-Twitter, it’s going to be writing a law that applies to all websites (or maybe: all websites above a certain size), including here on the fediverse; not just to ex-Twitter.
The internet is regulated in every country. Several countries have demanded information be removed from that site, and he complies. He only doesn’t like to comply when its about things he disagrees with.
It was a more optimistic time, perhaps a more naive time depending on your perspective. A time when most people felt that crowds were wise and the truth would surface spontaneously. Where the internet would help us spread knowledge and democracy and none of the bad things. Where conspiracy theories, disinformation, outright hatred and bigotry were considered fringe phenomena that could be kept at bay. When people would point to 4chan as the worst the internet had to offer, if they even knew about it. Where politicians and their voters could argue passionately, without necessarily feeling that other side are “extremists” or “fascists” who would literally “destroy our country” if they win an election.
The world is cracking at the seams lately and this leads more people to wanna put the brakes on the internet. Liberals especially, witnessing with horror the surge of the far right and attributing it in part to the internet’s ultimate ability to amplify anything, any voice, any shitty little take, no matter how extreme, how misinformed, or bigoted. Most likely misinformed and bigoted with someone like Musk at the helm, the thinking goes. In short, liberals have shifted from the exuberant naïveté of the past to protection mode, trying to stem the tide of right wing populism and perhaps ultimately fascism. And thus will come off as overbearing censors to anyone who doesn’t understand why they do what they do or is still optimistic that a lack of censorship will only lead to good things.
Freedom only works with a social contract in place, some consensus, some ground truths about the world that we can all agree on. Or that a solid, relatively stable majority at least can agree on. When that starts to break down, freedom to say and do whatever you want online may in fact bring the downfall sooner by stoking the fires of division. Of course the likes of Musk probably do think that they are fighting the good fight and are championing free speech, but increasingly he seems to be shifting to the right politically, and rather fighting for his presumed right to shape the world in his image and grow his business empire unchecked, if anything, and not some ideal of freedom and democracy. The likes of him, businessmen with nearly unchecked power and ultimately more concern for their business and personal aspirations than democracy, are probably going to become a bigger threat to our freedoms than the government of Australia. Maybe. Probably.
I personally do think that liberals have often gone overboard in their speech policing zeal, but on the other hand understand why they do what they do. Policing the internet seems like a much easier alternative than actually addressing all the major, sometimes seemingly existential socioeconomic challenges liberal democracies face today. The latter would deprive right wing populists and extremists of much of their influence, but is of course way, way harder than policing speech.
Remember when the Internet was nearly unified in believing that governments shouldn’t regulate it, or at least not much?
What happened that I am now reading here a stream of comments that say that Musk is wrong and defend the Australian government? 🙁🤮😡
For me at least, that opinion came from a time when the internet wasn’t dominated by corporations, and giant coordinated misinformation campaigns weren’t a problem.
When the main actors on the internet were individuals, I agree, government interference would limit their freedom.
But as it is now, corporations determine who gets access to information, how it gets filtered, which voices get amplified and which get silenced.
One of the only effective ways we’ve seen in recent years to force corporations to do the right thing, and restore some freedom for individuals, is by government regulation.
That’s why I’ve changed my mind on that.
Yeah. People need protection from big companies and the wealthy, which are constantly seeking to manipulate. It’s a fuckin shame, though, I was one of those people who was really optimistic about the internet when it first started becoming a thing. But money creeps in everywhere and its agenda is never altruistic.
I am not seeing any movements by governments that would “restore some freedom for individuals”, anywhere in the world. All I am seeing is censorship.
yes. they’re “censoring” algorithms designed to create engagement=profit, which are causing massive harm to society. i don’t see anything wrong with it at all. and like you, i’m on the fediverse because there isn’t an algorithm, our exposure is curated by us, not by engagement-bot-5.
Speaking for myself ofcourse but I am glad the EU has regulations for the use of personal data for targeting consumers, voters and for example patients.
You might translate this as “censorship” but I think of it as “responsible use”.
Over the past years (and certainly in the case of Xitter) it has become blatantly clear that people like Musk wipe their #ss with responsibility.
This is not necessarily true, while they are censoring people from spreading hate speach they would like they are protecting people who other wise wouldn’t be able to live a somewhat ok life.
If you’re not critising minorities, or spreading false information typically you would be fine. You can still talk about say capitalism, or even socialism in a bad light (freedom of speech) but you can’t just have freedom to just bully and harass minorities.
It’s not all about censorship just because, it’s to ensure everyone can safely spread their own speech and viewpoints.
Those mass disinformation campaigns are being done by (sometimes “almost”) nation state level actors. Governments are going to counter only some of them.
As for my own opinion - in 2020 during Artsakh war there were a few Turkish immigrant events in European countries where they’d march, yell Turkish neo-Nazi stuff, yell that they are looking for Armenians and so on. I don’t remember governments of those countries (who are already in charge of regulating fascists on their streets) doing anything about that.
I think this is going to be the same here - a regulation is a price tag in disguise. Smaller actors will be barred from doing those disinformation campaigns, bigger ones or friendly with the right governments will not be.
Killing and splitting corporations is better, but the previous part about price tag is the exact reason they are not doing this. Those governments want to have bot campaigns of their own, to manufacture consent, to see what people are saying, to control the public discourse. They just don’t want others to do it too.
This is a toad fucking a viper, as they say in Russian.
That was a different internet. In that unregulated internet there was no moron with unlimited money trying to ruin everything.
Somehow I am managing to completely ignore the existence of ex-Twitter as well as any decisions made there. What is being ruined?
Then it’s weird that you’re defending him.
If the Australian government is going to regulate ex-Twitter, it’s going to be writing a law that applies to all websites (or maybe: all websites above a certain size), including here on the fediverse; not just to ex-Twitter.
The internet is regulated in every country. Several countries have demanded information be removed from that site, and he complies. He only doesn’t like to comply when its about things he disagrees with.
It was a more optimistic time, perhaps a more naive time depending on your perspective. A time when most people felt that crowds were wise and the truth would surface spontaneously. Where the internet would help us spread knowledge and democracy and none of the bad things. Where conspiracy theories, disinformation, outright hatred and bigotry were considered fringe phenomena that could be kept at bay. When people would point to 4chan as the worst the internet had to offer, if they even knew about it. Where politicians and their voters could argue passionately, without necessarily feeling that other side are “extremists” or “fascists” who would literally “destroy our country” if they win an election.
The world is cracking at the seams lately and this leads more people to wanna put the brakes on the internet. Liberals especially, witnessing with horror the surge of the far right and attributing it in part to the internet’s ultimate ability to amplify anything, any voice, any shitty little take, no matter how extreme, how misinformed, or bigoted. Most likely misinformed and bigoted with someone like Musk at the helm, the thinking goes. In short, liberals have shifted from the exuberant naïveté of the past to protection mode, trying to stem the tide of right wing populism and perhaps ultimately fascism. And thus will come off as overbearing censors to anyone who doesn’t understand why they do what they do or is still optimistic that a lack of censorship will only lead to good things.
Freedom only works with a social contract in place, some consensus, some ground truths about the world that we can all agree on. Or that a solid, relatively stable majority at least can agree on. When that starts to break down, freedom to say and do whatever you want online may in fact bring the downfall sooner by stoking the fires of division. Of course the likes of Musk probably do think that they are fighting the good fight and are championing free speech, but increasingly he seems to be shifting to the right politically, and rather fighting for his presumed right to shape the world in his image and grow his business empire unchecked, if anything, and not some ideal of freedom and democracy. The likes of him, businessmen with nearly unchecked power and ultimately more concern for their business and personal aspirations than democracy, are probably going to become a bigger threat to our freedoms than the government of Australia. Maybe. Probably.
I personally do think that liberals have often gone overboard in their speech policing zeal, but on the other hand understand why they do what they do. Policing the internet seems like a much easier alternative than actually addressing all the major, sometimes seemingly existential socioeconomic challenges liberal democracies face today. The latter would deprive right wing populists and extremists of much of their influence, but is of course way, way harder than policing speech.
One side’s “wisdom of the crowd”, “truth” and “knowledge and democracy” is the other’s “conspiracy theories”, “disinformation”. 🙁