| ▲ | cdfsdsadsa 2 days ago |
| FWIW I agree with the intent of the Act, and am generally in favour of a sovereign firewall. Edit: In a nutshell - almost every other transfer of goods and services across national borders is subject to quality standards. Why do we give a pass to a system that allows deep, individualised access to people's personal lives and mental processes? |
|
| ▲ | oytis 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'd argue transfer of services is not really an issue. People buying services from a foreign entity is a pretty fringe case, and most legitimate businesses will try to establish a local presence for that anyway. Sovereign firewalls are mostly used by countries that have them for censorship and surveillance, and I think letting governments use a pretext of digital services being able to avoid tolls and taxes to establish such a powerful tool would be a huge mistake. |
|
| ▲ | probably_wrong 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Right now you're downvoted for expressing an opinion that I believe deserves a deeper discussion. I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't, but I also understand that allowing a foreign power (let's say Russia, although "the US" works just as fine) to freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns without any recourse doesn't look good either. And while I agree with "when in doubt aim for the option with more freedom", I can understand those who share your position. |
| |
| ▲ | oytis 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What about domestic entities running undercover propaganda campaigns - as we have seen e.g. with Cambridge Analytica? Should we maybe focus on the more fundamental problem of our democracies being vulnerable to propaganda campaigns rather than making sure that only "good" and "sovereign" propaganda campaigns are allowed? | | |
| ▲ | cdfsdsadsa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Should we maybe focus on the more fundamental problem of our democracies being vulnerable to propaganda campaigns Step 1 is reduce your attack surface :)
As a second point, democracies are propaganda campaigns - it's a feature, not a bug. I believe that national cultural and societal norms play a key part in self-regulation. I think it's too much to ask for those balancing forces to work as effectively without first turning down the firehose. | | |
| ▲ | oytis 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Being able to implement any decision by running a targeted campaign discouraging it's opponents from voting and swaying the undecided can't be a feature or we have very different understanding of democracy. By closing up we defend us from some threats, but open gates wide for others. Foreign actors compete against much stronger domestic media machines and as you mentioned have to operate in foreign cultural environments. Gaining true influence also always involves financial flows, not just propaganda campaigns, so it is sure possible to mitigate these threats without closing information flow. Consider the opposite threat of democracies being undermined from within. If some internal "threat actor" gets control of the executive branch and of the media and also can prevent information flow from the outside, very little can be done against it. I think it is critical to keep in mind this second possibility even when the first threat seems more urgent. | | |
| ▲ | cdfsdsadsa 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There are entire political industries openly dedicated to swaying the undecided! It's a messy business, but that's what we have. Propaganda is not necessarily to gain influence or money. Eg: Country x just wants to mess with people's heads and turn them on each other to weaken a rival country. Or: Country y runs a crafted propaganda campaign against a rival. As a result, some sector of its own economy starts doing better at the expense of its rival. >If some internal "threat actor" gets control of the executive branch and of the media and also can prevent information flow from the outside, very little can be done against it. I understand the scenario (it's far from new), but that's what the design of any particular democracy is supposed to minimise. Term limits, separation of government powers, etc. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | energy123 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Something needs to be done. The outcomes are manifestly bad. I can't take the pro-freedom intellectual argument seriously unless it's coupled with a suite of pragmatic solutions to the negative side effects I am observing with my own senses. The intellectual walls of text just aren't papering over that reality. | | |
| ▲ | array_key_first 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Propaganda campaigns are one thing, but the reality is these laws target stupid ass shit like porn. Is that a made up problem? IMO: yes. That's a PARENT'S responsibility, not mine. There are legitimate arguments in favor of a national firewall. Nobody is making them. | |
| ▲ | tokai 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >The outcomes are manifestly bad. That's just as bad of an argument as so-called intellectual walls of text. Nothing needs to be done, the outcomes are not bad. My argument is as strong as yours. | | |
| ▲ | energy123 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The Internet Research Agency organizing multiple Black Lives Matter protests due to control over approximately 50% of the largest identity-based Facebook groups is just one small example on a long list of examples of social unrest and the consequential ushering in of sectarianism and destruction of democracy that the current status quo is enabling. The pro-freedom types do not even know this is happening let alone have any solutions to it. Turning a blind eye is all they have. So until they show an awareness of the existence of the issue I will be siding with the only people who have put any effort into addressing the problems. | | |
| ▲ | aydyn a day ago | parent [-] | | Lets assume you are right that there is effectively a constant stream of low level sybil attacks attempting to destabilize society, and they are effective. Censoring view points is equivalent to signal boosting other view points. Why do you trust the UK government to select the correct view points given all the strong evidence to the contrary? |
|
| |
| ▲ | int_19h 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Are you accounting for the manifestly bad outcomes in countries with "great firewalls", though? |
| |
| ▲ | cdfsdsadsa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I don't want the government to decide which thoughts I can access and which ones I can't That would be an interesting discussion in itself, but even so - accessing material in isolation over the internet removes all of the benefits of cultural and community self-regulation. >freely run undercover propaganda and/or destabilization campaigns I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost. | | |
| ▲ | stinkbeetle 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost. Who is we, and who won? What did they win? | | |
| ▲ | aydyn a day ago | parent [-] | | Im going to guess nobody? Nobody won. Everybody lost. |
| |
| ▲ | iamnothere 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > cultural and community self-regulation This is a very fancy way of saying “censorship”. > I'm of the opinion that WWW3 has already happened - it was a war for hearts and minds waged over the internet, and we've already lost. If the open, unfettered exchange of culture and ideas is such a threat to our system then we deserve to lose. If my only option is to be stuck in a system that enforces ideological conformity on its subjects, then I’d rather it be the Chinese system. At least it’s not so dysfunctional! If we are receiving all of the downsides of a liberal democracy without the benefits, what’s the point anymore? | | |
| ▲ | ants_everywhere 2 days ago | parent [-] | | You have it backwards. Ideological conformity these days is enforced by creating the illusion that everyone around you is ideologically conforming. The question is: is there a defense against this? Your answer currently is there is no defense because creating an illusion of unanimous ideological conformity counts as an exchange of ideas and that exchange must not be hindered. The debate is over whether the right to conduct Sybil attacks is more precious than the right to freedom of thought. The question is vastly harder than many people in this thread seem to believe. My personal take is that the right to freedom of thought is more fundamental and that the value of freedom of speech is via its support for freedom of thought. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | Aachen 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because it's about the free exchange of information, not another trade war |
|
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | huflungdung 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
