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 @stephlamy @lawfare @potemkinvillage "People must make the conscious choice to decentralize so as to disempower social media corporations, and the govt should regulate internet advertising."
1. That has not been working that well so far.
2. "govt should regulate internet advertising." Is problematic. If you have governments like North America, they are owned by the advertisers. If you have governments like the EU, you have the examples of Poland and Hungary to show where that can go off the rails.
It sounds kind of like wishing we had a different species of social primates than Homo Sapiens. Which might, in fact, be the solution. At least, that is what Nietsche posited.
@rrb @stephlamy @lawfare @potemkinvillage Decentralization hasn't worked because not enough people wanted it. That's not a reason for not promoting it and trying to change the zeitgeist. It certainly doesn't cause any harm to democracy to advocate for it.
But when you propose government intervention to lock down the internet, you're supporting a solution that's worse than the problem it purports to solve.
@aristeon @stephlamy @lawfare @potemkinvillage I think not enough people "wanting it" is actually a consequence of commercial entities deciding not to make it an alternative. They did not know how to monetize it.
Or, it has been actively prosecuted (Napster, bitcoin) by financial interests seeing it as a threat.
The masses (narod) have not really been allowed to have this as an alternative. When they have been allowed it (for a few fleeting moments) it was quite popular.
I prefer distributed tools/systems for many reasons.
@rrb @lawfare @potemkinvillage In the past I tried to convince people to move to other social networks, but the responses I got were usually either that everyone was on Twitter and that was the place to be, or that we couldn't cede that space to the far right.
If people don't want to hold corporations accountable, then corporations win.
@aristeon @lawfare @potemkinvillage
Image from Balai Citoyen demonstrations that convinced the dictator to resign (twice):
https://www.burkina24.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/152.jpg
Public opinion can change. Convincing people is hard. I have worked with groups that have created peaceful democratic regime change in 3 countries. Some of them have had recent coups supported by the Wagner group.
Getting things done is hard.
@aristeon @lawfare @potemkinvillage
"I struggle to understand why the worst proposals gain traction and credibility."
Money.
Stupidity.
Laziness.
Let's face it, we are domesticated primates. We have not advanced beyond slinging feces in each other's faces.
About 90% of our efforts are dedicated to establishing our position in our primate dominance hierarchy.
Money works well because it serves as a numerical score card in the process.
@aristeon @lawfare @potemkinvillage
"asking the government to swoop in and follow the model of authoritarian regimes will destroy the internet really fast. "
I am not certain that the government is going to do worse than Silicon Valley and the profit motive has done.
I am also not certain what there is left to destroy of the Internet.
Which is why much of my time is spent finding new ways to use the network surreptitiously.
@rrb @lawfare @potemkinvillage I'm just astonished. Having the govt "lock down" the internet is the worst idea, I'm 100% opposed to this government takeover and destruction of our freedoms. What's there left to destroy? Our freedom to create content and share it like we're doing on Mastodon. I don't want our internet to be like in China. Your argument sounds like when Trump said "what have you got to lose"? It turns out: all the freedoms and rights ppl take for granted
@rrb @lawfare @potemkinvillage Changing people's minds takes time and maybe the change we can achieve is limited, but asking the government to swoop in and follow the model of authoritarian regimes will destroy the internet really fast. I struggle to understand why the worst proposals gain traction and credibility.