I think it would be better to make social media unprofitable with heavy regularion on data collection, trading and sharing.
Totally agree. Especially since in my country, young people are swallowing far-right propaganda at a higher rate than boomers. Canada’s Tater Tots are trying to elect a MAGA candidate right now. Age is not the problem - the well of information has been poisoned.
China, now the leading global super-power, took drastic measures decades ago to make sure their population wasn’t getting indoctrinated by outside influences.
They also used this power to cover up genocides and such, but I feel like a healthier balance could be maintained if we could just get our population to understand that their unfettered access to literally anything is like opening up a wound to the world’s bacteria.
China didn’t do that cause they care about their citizens. They did it so only they can control what propoganda their citizens consume, teaching children critical thinking and emotional regulation early in their life is a better approach than trying to turn the external world into some safe walled garden
Yeah, stripping adult people from some of their basic rights sound like a perfectly fine idea.
you should realize this is half a joke
When someone talks about murdering everyone he doesn’t agrees with or taking away basic human rights only because of the demographic then it stops to be a joke in my eyes. We have seen times and times again how it ends, and it is never good.
But yes, I think enough words have been said here, everything else is pointless redundancy.
It’s better than the alternative. Trust me.
So what basic rights should we strip them also? The right to vote? I mean, if they are not capable of making valid decisions about what to watch/read/think then they can’t be capable of making valid decisions to vote! And lets remove Freedom of Speech fully, it only gets misused to enable nasty opinions and thoughts that “the correct and good” people don’t like.
Right to vote? Yes I think people who have been found to be senile by a committee or at least two doctors should not vote.
That is called disenfranchisement and there are laws for that already.
No rights are being removed. If they choose to come to you for free IT support, they are choosing to accept how you set up their devices…
That is not helping or support, that is enforcing your will on someone else in the disguise of help. Oh and I am sure that they will be fully informed about that cost and its implications.
Remember that at a point in time they setup yours…
Good. If my mental faculties are at the point where I consume and actively seek out disinformation, then someone else should step in.
We can influence the behavior of our loved ones, we can’t meaningfully influence sociopathic corporations. While not feasible, it still feels like the best of a bunch of shitty options.
There is a huge difference between “influence the behavior of our loved ones” and acting as a dictator who censors where the adult and mentally fit loved ones can get their information from.
See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Propaganda can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.
Now we have them exposed to content that is arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. voting). And this isn’t opinion stuff or debates. These are outright lies catered to them. There were no dogs being eaten in Springfield, and yet I could hear the old dudes at my gym discussing it while they walked the mezzanine. At what point does their right to play with their phone cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?
The same can be used to ban alcohol for everyone:
See the trick is this: does “mentally fit” apply, even in the case of otherwise mentally healthy individuals? Addiction can affect anyone and the less tech savvy more so. We have no issues with limiting the physical behavior of the people we care about when they cannot handle it anymore (e.g. we’ll drive grandpa around when he can technically do it, but shouldn’t). While some do kick a fuss about it (for understandable reasons) ultimately, society at large is pretty OK with the whole deal.
Now we have them exposed to substances that are arguably harmful to their health and the health of the people around them (e.g. drug-related crime). At what point does their right to drink alcohol cede to their mental health? For anyone really? We cede rights to do things when they harm ourselves and others often. Why is this different?
So are you ok with a new prohibition
Not the gotcha you think it is. And also, big difference between bans and regulation, let’s not conflate them.
We install breathalyzers in cars and revoke licenses when people refuse to act responsibly. It’s a common requirement of probation and parole to remain sober. We do what you (/I) describe often. In fact, it’s kinda the basis of operation for law at large: we limit the behavior of individuals to reduce harm to people. Be it saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick”. So yeah, I’m OK with what you described. If people cannot mange their substances, we can and do force them to stop with punitive measures.
- Freedom of speech (and with that the right to get information from every legal source) is a basic human right
- Your examples are punishments for breaking laws, but censoring what older people can watch, hear or read is a limitation of a basic human right enacted without any prior law breaking.
So your examples are all reactive while censoring older people would be proactive. That is a huge difference.
Oh and saying “stabbing people is bad, now go to time out” or “don’t drink raw milk, you’ll get sick” is not limiting the behavior of people, it is giving them information to change the behavior on their own… or they don’t and then they (and the people around them) have to live with the consequences.
The law the grants freedom of speech exists to protect opinions and texts that some (or even most) people find offending or don’t agree with. A law that only protects speech that everyone agrees with is a law not needed, because nobody will ever fight that words or wants to censor them.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Rights and freedoms are not unlimited. Freedom of speech ends at things that put people in danger (e.g. shouting fire in a crowded space). Guns are available pursuant to a well regulated militia (or should be, but let’s not open that can of worms).
I’ll grant the proactive/reactive in a sort of way. If anyone (not only old people drink the fox news poison) starts up with some hyper racist shit, is restricting them not reactive to their emergent behavior? Would it be that big a stretch to codify the effects of propaganda as a sort of mental injury that needs treated? (Yes it would). Point is, at this point we’re splitting this hair rather fine and getting away from the important bits.
So the real way to handle the propaganda is to punish fox and their ilk for being wildly irresponsible and setting up racist fascist bullshit. Corporations are much easier to regulate than individuals (theoretically). They should be sued into the ground for all they’ve done, but we live in an oligarchy so that’s not happening anytime soon. This shower thought emerges because free market capitalism refuses to have any morals whatsoever and people are desperate to stop the big companies from hurting everyone. And the thing that’s easiest for everyone to see is the people they love start repeating horrible things and being helpless to pull them out of the echo chamber.
No, the shower thought isn’t good. It shouldn’t get that far. But right now, the only thing we can affect is the people next to us because the rich are never held accountable, so we’re stuck with bad and worse solutions.
My parents are already fully indoctrinated. I don’t think there’s a way back
Man so much hate in this thread I’m not about what’s happened at all with the USA but I’ll still protect my family and show them a better way rather than let them rot and die. So many self righteous people thinking they know whats good.
That’s a feature, not a bug. They show that stuff intentionally.
Yes, let’s normalize censorship.
If the majority of people cannot handle information on their own, how can we maintain democracy?
Are senior cititzens more stupid? Otherwise how do we know that we believe the right things, and not just what is acceptable by the mainstream which will change for the next generation?
Yes, senior citizens are more stupid. That’s why scams targetting them exist. You can tell them about something being a scam and they will fall for it anyway. They will get fished by “huge savings” and “sales” despite being millionaires. Once someone starts “sliding back”, it doesn’t matter how smart they used to be.
I wish I could do that with my own and from what I can tell my algorithms don’t even put them in as much as other folks.
My parents are full blown terrorists. But their so fat they can’t actually do anything about their beliefs. I’ve warned them that if a Civil War starts. They will be the first to die because medications wont be available to keep them alive and I won’t care when it happens. They voted for this and support this trash.
My wife stayed at an Airbnb last week, I tried to convince her to turn the parental controls on and block OAN and Fox.
What’s OAN? Never heard of that.
One America News. They used to be a fringe right-wing conspiracy website. Now they have a “news” broadcast on cable TV and a presidential administration that boosts them. It’s basically your drunk Qanon uncle rambling about lizard people, but with professional production.
Farther right than Fox. Yes, it’s possible.
So they straight up have swastikas in the background of their set, behind the anchors? Damn, that’s gnar.
On the surface it looks just like Fox. * Fox eases you into the bullshit, They choose what they want to cover newswise and just kind of let that tell their story. They let the real propaganda jump in and special events and with their opinion people. If you already have the right mindset and lack the ability to sniff out propaganda you would easily confuse Fox News for being just regular news.
OAN anchors come right straight out with the propaganda. When Biden was getting inaugurated they were freaking out with all the fences around the Capitol, when it was their own people that caused that to need to be there. They’re not covering the news to make the narrative they’re making the narrative and just fitting in whatever pictures they can to tell their story.
Another far-right shit hole
no, WE THE PEOPLE should have global networks that simply remove that kind of brain rot and delete the people that perpetuate it.
The first step in trustable networks is securely validated identity.
On the internet nobody knows if you’re a dog, a Russian Troll, or a corporate shill.
You can be all three at the same time!
Jokes apart, how would you prevent trolls and shills from trolling and shilling?
We already have a problem where real accounts get stolen because they have a history so it’s harder to be flagged as bots. And one person can open multiple accounts in multiple networks. Hell, Facebook forces people to have phone numbers and there’s still so many bots and shills there.
I don’t want this to sound like a straw man, I think there’s so many ways for bots to happen that it’s like playing wack a mole.
This is the one thing I hoped for out of crypto/blockchain.
You, commenter, don’t need to know that I’m “Brian Brianson, a citizen living at 123 Abenue Avenue”. But, it’s good to know that the person commenting is a real person who has been seen and verified by someone, as a simple true/false flag. If there were good ways of verifying basic conditions of people you interact with online, without exposing personal details, then it could curb botnet opinionation as well as be useful for a lot of things.
If there were good ways of verifying basic conditions of people you interact with online, without exposing personal details
The problem there is: seen and verified by who? What’s your “chain of trust” behind that blue checkmark or whatever signifies a “verified person”?
Even an “anonymous identity” if it runs long enough eventually gives away the person doing the writing under the pseudonym. They may refer to experiences indirectly, unconsciously even, and those narrow down the subset of who they could be, until eventually there can be only one person on the whole planet who fits all the available clues.
To an extent, the world needs to grow up and realize that anyone determined enough can hunt you down through your online footprint unless you’re being super careful with your identity creation, what you say, and how long you use that identity. They also need to realize that among the 8 billion+ of us, they just aren’t very interesting unless they seem gullible enough to authorize a transfer of funds…
I’m imagining something like being able to go to a lawyer, or journalist’s office - somewhere they’d have established notaries, and show them a driver’s license or other notable documentation. They wouldn’t be granted rights to record that information permanently, but would grant a cryptographic signature sourced from their office to express that their office has seen them.
This would rely on professional trust - that the people you show your info to will not record it; and, that if they for some reason have to, they won’t turn it over to warrants. By the same token, they’d be trusted that they’re not inventing people from thin air.
You’re right that someone engaging online long enough could be exposed. That would then rely on any effective “Right to be forgotten” laws to erase unnecessary data.
Maybe I’m crazy, but I don’t think we should kill large amounts of people just because they follow a different political ideology than us. 🙄 We have to be better than these extremists to truly show them a better way…
just because they follow a different political ideology than us
Good thing the actual reason is the being Nazi thing, not just having a different opinion then!
Fuck Nazis and anyone who thinks they don’t deserve a slow and agonizing death
… I think he meant delete accounts, not delete actual people, but I could be wrong lol
If so, I don’t think they would have 2 different verbs: “remove that kind of brain rot and delete the people that perpetuate it.”
Not to back up any specific beliefs/statements from OP, but the Paradox of Tolerance does exist. The woefully intollerant should not be tolerated. It just depends on how you “don’t tolerate” them that determines how upsetting of a response someone has.
For example, just literally disenfranchising them might be enough … or at least could have been. Though after the intolerant gain enough power, there remains very, very few functional options. It’s literally all of the lessons that came out of WW2…
“first they came for the socialists…”
there’s only one way to fix idiots and sociopaths.
Give them a lollipop so they shut up?
I’ll shut up. Can I have a lollipop, please?
XXX. incorrect. this is the kind of thinking that has allowed our civilization to fester. we tolerate the people who actively bring suffering into the world. we resist progress to appease an ignorant faction of the population. we sacrifice our collective future on an altar of liberty, all the while deluding ourselves into thinking that allowing this continued suffering is somehow ‘taking the high road’. BULLSHIT. taking the high road is nipping our problems in the bud.
the damage we would do now to eradicate the illogical mental contagion that is religion pales in comparison to the gains of untold future generations living in a near utopia (which is completely possible when you remove idiots from control and let informed science guide humanity).
Tolerate and slaughter aren’t the only options.
educate and build a compassionate society is obviously the correct answer, but we can’t do that because there is a portion of society that will never let that happen. remove the roadblocks. anything less is being complicit in prolonged suffering.
“We can build our utopia, we just have to kill everyone who doesn’t agree with us” doesn’t sound very right in my ears. It sounds like something where one should ask “are we the baddies?”
one of these days, maybe, you’ll come to realize that there is no objective morality. there is only the winners that decide how everyone else will live. we all get a choice in who those people are.
i choose to live in a world where rational thought dedicated to furthering humanity and ending suffering reigns supreme. the benefits of that world far outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer to achieve it. it’s just a simple trolley problem. if you can’t see that, then you are blinded by emotions.
there is no objective morality
Objectively false. People in completely different societies (indigenous, uncontacted, etc) have shown that they don’t kill people consequence-free or separated from morality.
Oh yes, I am sure that the Nazis back then said the same about cleansing the german nation, the benefits for the Volkskörper outweigh the losses that one generation would have to suffer.
Learn nuance. They’re speaking to the Paradox of Tolerance, not calling for a blind genocide…
Murder is never a valid solution to the Paradox of Tolerance.
The squad has taken care of the hacker
I feel like we are glossing over the fact that I doesn’t matter that fact if someone is young or old, we can all have good ideas! But the fact of the matter is we need teem limits in congress and SUPREME COURT. We have a problem with stale ideas.
I feel like we are glossing over the fact that I doesn’t matter that fact if someone is young or old,
Actually if you’re talking about congress and the supreme court, I think age limits would make a lot of sense. After all, the people in these positions are deciding how the rest of us get to live. If they don’t represent the generations they’re governing over, it’s inherently unfair. I think anybody who isn’t of working age shouldn’t be allowed to govern, as that’s always the most important demographic for the country.
It’s the right idea, but too narrow of a demographic. It’s not the old people that seem to be the problem. At least not only them. It’s the uneducated or intellect impaired that should be reined in. The ones that are just smart enough to use Facebook, but would struggle to understand the concept of the Dunning–Kruger effect
The amount of younger people that are sucked in hook, line, sinker, rod, boat, trailer and truck is staggering.
It’s like they decided that reality didn’t work for them, so let’s just ignore it in favour of “insert discriminatory slogan or catchphrase here”.
It’s bonkers.
Yeah, there’s a reason the orange overlord is targeting universities now. He knows that election wins come from the uneducated and poor. They either truly don’t know, or don’t care enough since they have no investments worth mentioning.
You give him too much credit. He doesn’t know any of this. But the right-wing think tanks that have been waiting for this moment do, and he’s easily manipulated into following their agenda.
It’s the uneducated or intellect impaired that should be reined in.
Are you aware that this genuinely sounds like some nazi shit? Let’s maybe not start controlling what the “intellect impaired” can do with their lives…
I think you are confusing Nazism with genuine concern. Careful with that. Hating people for opposing views is more dangerously close to what you so easily accuse me of, and your tiny tough guy attempt to mask your own bigotry just highlights that you may need to reflect a little.
To my previous point, not somehow mitigating the easily duped portion of our formerly democratic systems is a big part of what’s driving the Nazi ideals back into popularity. As long as untamed propaganda is allowed into the thoughts of the weak minded, the rest of us face an uphill battle.
If you read my previous statement about this again. You’ll notice that I didn’t say anyone should be controlled. Whether we bring facts back into law and punish those who spread lies, or bolster education to teach people how to spot the lies, it doesn’t really matter. But splitting hairs over how I said it won’t change that it is a problem.
Trying to deflect, blame or sidestep that is playing right into the MAGA/Nazi mindset. Division of the people and spooky non-issues to rally fear in the populace is what gives them control.
🙄
The amount of younger people that are sucked in hook, line, sinker, rod, boat, trailer and truck is staggering.
That demographic is a whole other problem that requires a whole other solution. Conservatives have spent a decade building the online right-wing pipeline with podcast bro’s and streamers aiming their content at young teenage boys. Now all those kids are of voting age, and a big chunk of them have spent half their lives being raised on manosphere bullshit that taught them that they are owed the world on a silver platter.
I will hand it to conservatives; they are frighteningly good at organizing and staying on message in ways that the Left can only dream of. If we could get half as organized as them, they’d never win another election.
JK Rowling is doing something extremely similar to teenage girls, and this isn’t really on many’s radar.
I’m so tired of this rampant paternalism across society. It’s exhausting.
How do you propose to counteract the spread of facism through the internet?
The same we fight it in the physical world. With debate and education and engagement.
Wild that you would express concern with spreading of fascism while advocating for technocracy. You don’t oppose fascism- you just have a preferred flavor of it.
With debate and education and engagement.
the algorithms will not show them to nearly as many consumers as it does with fascist content
Yes, we need more regulation of companies, and what they push. Not people.
This I agree with. However, I disagree with debating fascists. They don’t debate in good faith. Their aim in any debate is to wear you down by spewing more lies than you have the time or energy to debunk.
The point isn’t to convert the fascist. It’s to humiliate them and expose them in front of everyone else.
You can’t humiliate someone who has no shame. And with their firehose of falsehoods, you’ll only expose a small portion of their lies by the time they’ve already moved on. Nothing productive comes from waging a war of words with people who don’t believe in the words that come out of their own mouth.
Debate, education and engagement take time.
The algorithm is instantaneously ready with the next easily digestible bit of content to send you further down the rabbit hole into radicalization.
I worry that we need a more instantaneous cure in our current information environment.
“Instantaneous cure” sounds like you’re suggesting something super fucked up.
I’m not, really. I just don’t think we have the luxury of taking the amount of time that we would need to educate people thoroughly enough to counteract the algorithm.
Probably what we need is a limitation on free speech where blatant misinformation is involved. In the same way that shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre is harmful, so is repeating false claims to stir political discord.
The eagerness to censor people, and not the companies pushing the shit, is such peak fascist bootlicking behavior.
paternalism
Whenever I see someone complaining about this on the internet, I imagine they’re an angsty teenager mad that their mom doesn’t let them get a face tattoo.
Yeah, you’re aware of the definition of paternalism then. That’s the whole point of authoritarianism. The leadership does not believe the people can trusted to run their own lives, and treats the entire population as disobedient teenagers.
That’s the whole point of authoritarianism.
Lol no. You could say paternalism is authoritarian, but not the other way around. Authoritarianism is just about power.
But as an aside, would you mind sharing your age? You don’t need to be specific, just say if you’re over or under 18. I have a… theory about people who obsess over the concept of “paternalism”.
All paternalism is authoritarian. Not all authoritarianism is paternal.
Middle aged. Your theory sounds bunk.
How about we just don’t censor anything?
And so nothing changes and probably continues to get worse.
Also, this is an attempt to block malicious influence, outright lies, and distorted reality. You’re free to access actual reality anytime.
People who say this are usually consuming misinformation and propaganda and don’t know it. Anyone outside of those echo chambers can clearly see how it’s dangerous and harmful to democracy.
