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.