Via @lawfare
A new book argues that the best way to make the American internet less vulnerable to attack from authoritarian adversaries is to lock it down.
Andrew Keane Woods reviews David Sloss, “Tyrants on Twitter: Protecting Democracies From Information Warfare” (Stanford University Press, 2022).
#SocialMedia #Disinformation #Misinformation #Technology #Democracy #Propaganda #CovertInfluence
@potemkinvillage illage@a.gup.pe https://www.lawfareblog.com/if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em
@stephlamy @lawfare @potemkinvillage That's a pretty absurd argument. How can dismantling our freedoms and handing enormous powers to not always well-intentioned govts be the solution? There are better ways of protecting our freedoms. People must make the conscious choice to decentralize so as to disempower social media corporations, and the govt should regulate internet advertising.
@aristeon
It helps when you actually click on the link & read the book review :)
"You could disagree with Sloss’s prescription—as I imagine many will—and still get a lot out of his detailed account of how authoritarian states are exploiting the West’s commitment to a largely unregulated digital world."
@stephlamy @lawfare @potemkinvillage I read the book review but I haven't read the book. As far as I understand, he is suggesting governments should get involved to patrol the internet.
Maybe you think it's a good idea. I think it's a good excuse for many far right governments to implement restrictions and curtail our freedoms.
Meanwhile, regulating advertising and users' role in making or breaking tech giants don't get the attention they deserve as solutions to these issues.
@aristeon No I don't think it's a good idea. Please don't assume I think something when all I did was repost a link and the text from an original toot.
This isn't twitter and adversarial jibs like that are not welcome here.
@stephlamy @aristeon Reminds me of a discussion I just had with a close friend who wished there was "a left leaning Fox News." Their point being that the far right has organized propaganda and amplified microphones, while the other side's messaging is lame. I objected to the idea of a lefty Pravda, but the weakness is there.
If Russia/China are playing dirty in the semantic space and the "other side" tries to have scruples and present bland facts, then there is a problem.
