From the US and Australia to France and Italy, those seeking to obliterate privacy and restrict content are on the move, says technology journalist Taylor Lorenz
I cant even think of any legit reason to do this. To protect children? The government does not care about children. Its why so many suffer in poverty. Watching tits online is the least of their problems.
The only reasons i can think of is control. Forcing people to give up more information about themselves. Because knowledge is power.
If a government says they’re doing something “for the children” or “to fight terrorism”, it’s neither of those things - it’s for control. Those are just the got-to reasons they use to push them through because they can push the narrative that anyone against it supports terrorism/child abuse.
The reason is that we all live in capitalist dictatorships masquerading as “democracy”, and are rapidly approaching a time when climate change, wealth inequality, and automation will see widespread revolt of the proles, so the ruling class is tightening its grip, and going all in on fascism.
The western democracies want to create a universal digital ID wallet and have that be required to access any site.
There are a lot of reasons they could want this. For example, there are probably tens of millions of fake accounts controlled by adversarial nations which are used to sow extremism and disinformation online. It is impossible for counterintelligence to detect these at scale. We can see the corrosive effects that social media is having on society, there are countries actively working to make the problem worse but we have no tools to stop them.
This is also why there is a big push to limit children from accessing social media. They’re often the targets for these campaigns because they’re easily manipulated and have a lot of free time to spread the misinformation once they’re indoctrinated.
I don’t think a digital ID is the way to solve this problem. But, we’re not being asked or informed about why it is happening. They’re, instead, trying to ram these measures through using moral panic about children so anybody opposing them is easily dismissed as “not caring about The Children” or “supporting sex trafficking/pedophiles/predators”.
I understand the situation, but they’re trying to go around the democratic process by not talking about the problems.
It’s really inconsequential why they want this. Their success means endgame.
The actions have consequences, and whether I’m breaking a window with a hammer to check how fragile it is or to go outside, it will have both those consequences.
We can see the corrosive effects that social media is having on society, there are countries actively working to make the problem worse but we have no tools to stop them.
You can have “disinformation and extremism” campaigns with only presenting truth or things posted by real people. Just like with political representation. Representatives are a subset of citizenry. The visible posts are a subset of all things posted. Except you can pick any subset you want, if you, say, classify posts by emotion and people by political alignment and what not.
One can have so much more believable bots today, that they won’t be distinguishable from people, but those are beneficial as pressure, making the situation clear for normies, - with transparent identities of people, signing and globally addressing posts, you wouldn’t fear bots and you wouldn’t need a digital ID to access a website. And additionally you would have a way to double check the “color” of recommendations you get.
Thus the solutions they are picking are stabilizing the “disinformation and extremism” environment. With today’s bots it will soon be utterly visibly useless to communicate over social media without what I’ve described. Which means, superficially paradoxically but really not, an end to such campaigns’ efficiency.
So the claim of this helping fight such campaigns I have disproved.
I understand the situation, but they’re trying to go around the democratic process by not talking about the problems.
There’s no “situation”. “Situations” develop much faster. Such a “situation” didn’t transpire in the early 00s Internet, despite plenty of people in it and no identities and regulation.
What “situation” would really look like, I have described - herds of LLM bots infesting social media, which would be beneficial for propaganda of a small amount of interested powerful parties, but will just make social media sour when everyone uses such. Which is fine, there is a technical solution, they just don’t like it. They want the “situation” they describe, but in their favor. It’s very convenient, a weapon evil useless jerks didn’t have for a long time.
OK, I’m in Russia and don’t affect anything. You protest, I’ll cheer.
So they’re trying to censor any influence from adversarial nations to keep people from voting on politicians that would undermine the countries integrity?
The problem of social manipulation via bots isn’t limited to intelligence operations, though I would argue that this is the most immediate danger.
We’re also seeing a huge spike in advertising bots pretending to be normal users just to push goods and services.
Because of these motives social media has become less about bringing people together and more about extracting information from people in order to more efficiently manipulate them.
It’s causing social media to become actively dangerous to society in general. Ensuring that everyone is a human is an essential first step for having ethical online social interactions.
Just look at the difference in conversations on Lemmy vs Reddit. Sure, there are some assholes here and there but it’s largely a calm place where you can have an actual conversation.
This is how online discourse used to be from the early BBS days right up until Facebook and algorithmically curated feeds discovered that fear, outrage and anger are the best drivers of engagement.
Now, in addition to the platform’s manipulation (which is largely commercially motivated) we have LLMs which let anybody with funding create massive armies of fake people who can dynamically insert themselves into conversations in order to push any messaging you can imagine.
It’s a bad situation that needs an immediate solution.
I just don’t like that the solution has been decided on, in secret, by western democracies and is being forcefully implemented in a manner that also allows intelligence/law enforcement a backdoor into everything. (A digital ID also makes it very easy to view every users complete Internet history because that data is tagged with the users actual identity).
So we must censor everything to protect us from misinformation which allows the censors to determine what is available and what is lot.
Yeah, I think this is a terrible way to address the problem and very likely a way for elites to re-assert their control over information sources using this emergency.
It’s certainly not about ‘protecting children’ in the way that they’re presenting it.
I cant even think of any legit reason to do this. To protect children? The government does not care about children. Its why so many suffer in poverty. Watching tits online is the least of their problems.
The only reasons i can think of is control. Forcing people to give up more information about themselves. Because knowledge is power.
If a government says they’re doing something “for the children” or “to fight terrorism”, it’s neither of those things - it’s for control. Those are just the got-to reasons they use to push them through because they can push the narrative that anyone against it supports terrorism/child abuse.
The reason is that we all live in capitalist dictatorships masquerading as “democracy”, and are rapidly approaching a time when climate change, wealth inequality, and automation will see widespread revolt of the proles, so the ruling class is tightening its grip, and going all in on fascism.
It’s really simple.
The western democracies want to create a universal digital ID wallet and have that be required to access any site.
There are a lot of reasons they could want this. For example, there are probably tens of millions of fake accounts controlled by adversarial nations which are used to sow extremism and disinformation online. It is impossible for counterintelligence to detect these at scale. We can see the corrosive effects that social media is having on society, there are countries actively working to make the problem worse but we have no tools to stop them.
This is also why there is a big push to limit children from accessing social media. They’re often the targets for these campaigns because they’re easily manipulated and have a lot of free time to spread the misinformation once they’re indoctrinated.
I don’t think a digital ID is the way to solve this problem. But, we’re not being asked or informed about why it is happening. They’re, instead, trying to ram these measures through using moral panic about children so anybody opposing them is easily dismissed as “not caring about The Children” or “supporting sex trafficking/pedophiles/predators”.
I understand the situation, but they’re trying to go around the democratic process by not talking about the problems.
It’s really inconsequential why they want this. Their success means endgame.
The actions have consequences, and whether I’m breaking a window with a hammer to check how fragile it is or to go outside, it will have both those consequences.
You can have “disinformation and extremism” campaigns with only presenting truth or things posted by real people. Just like with political representation. Representatives are a subset of citizenry. The visible posts are a subset of all things posted. Except you can pick any subset you want, if you, say, classify posts by emotion and people by political alignment and what not.
One can have so much more believable bots today, that they won’t be distinguishable from people, but those are beneficial as pressure, making the situation clear for normies, - with transparent identities of people, signing and globally addressing posts, you wouldn’t fear bots and you wouldn’t need a digital ID to access a website. And additionally you would have a way to double check the “color” of recommendations you get.
Thus the solutions they are picking are stabilizing the “disinformation and extremism” environment. With today’s bots it will soon be utterly visibly useless to communicate over social media without what I’ve described. Which means, superficially paradoxically but really not, an end to such campaigns’ efficiency.
So the claim of this helping fight such campaigns I have disproved.
There’s no “situation”. “Situations” develop much faster. Such a “situation” didn’t transpire in the early 00s Internet, despite plenty of people in it and no identities and regulation.
What “situation” would really look like, I have described - herds of LLM bots infesting social media, which would be beneficial for propaganda of a small amount of interested powerful parties, but will just make social media sour when everyone uses such. Which is fine, there is a technical solution, they just don’t like it. They want the “situation” they describe, but in their favor. It’s very convenient, a weapon evil useless jerks didn’t have for a long time.
OK, I’m in Russia and don’t affect anything. You protest, I’ll cheer.
Bullshit. Our leaders want more power over the masses, they want to become autocrats, that’s it. Fuck them.
So they’re trying to censor any influence from adversarial nations to keep people from voting on politicians that would undermine the countries integrity?
The problem of social manipulation via bots isn’t limited to intelligence operations, though I would argue that this is the most immediate danger.
We’re also seeing a huge spike in advertising bots pretending to be normal users just to push goods and services.
Because of these motives social media has become less about bringing people together and more about extracting information from people in order to more efficiently manipulate them.
It’s causing social media to become actively dangerous to society in general. Ensuring that everyone is a human is an essential first step for having ethical online social interactions.
Just look at the difference in conversations on Lemmy vs Reddit. Sure, there are some assholes here and there but it’s largely a calm place where you can have an actual conversation.
This is how online discourse used to be from the early BBS days right up until Facebook and algorithmically curated feeds discovered that fear, outrage and anger are the best drivers of engagement.
Now, in addition to the platform’s manipulation (which is largely commercially motivated) we have LLMs which let anybody with funding create massive armies of fake people who can dynamically insert themselves into conversations in order to push any messaging you can imagine.
It’s a bad situation that needs an immediate solution.
I just don’t like that the solution has been decided on, in secret, by western democracies and is being forcefully implemented in a manner that also allows intelligence/law enforcement a backdoor into everything. (A digital ID also makes it very easy to view every users complete Internet history because that data is tagged with the users actual identity).
So we must censor everything to protect us from misinformation which allows the censors to determine what is available and what is lot.
Sounds an awful lot like China.
Geez Brits. One shit decision after another. Just like your western children.
US: Father, why did you vote for Brexit?
UK: Son, who are you to talk? You voted for Trump twice. Now shut up before your mother chimes in…
France: No wonder I took the house in the divorce and left you with your father.
US: Well at least I didn’t abandon my affair baby Haiti.
France:…
UK: Did you really have to go there son?
offtopic: The house being Normandy? Then Brits still keep a piece of the fence, as a symbol. Channel Islands meaning.
Yeah, I think this is a terrible way to address the problem and very likely a way for elites to re-assert their control over information sources using this emergency.
It’s certainly not about ‘protecting children’ in the way that they’re presenting it.