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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.