Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says
214 points by iamdual 5 years ago | 213 comments- briefcomment 5 years agoIn a dictatorship, cracking down on social media is a no brainer. But I think social media undermines democracies as well.
Social media vastly amplifies loud minorities. Democracy assumes that the majority of people are reasonable, so majority rule will also be reasonable. Loud minorities undermine majority rule. Loud minorities have always existed, but social media is now amplifying them to the point of obscuring what the majority of the country actually wants. This is why we can have an election outcome that no one in the media predicted.
Add to that the fact that social media is highly game-able and scalable, and you have small groups of people working against the majority of the country.
Social media is also a prime playground for international enemies.
In that light, I'm moving away from the idea that all social media should be allowed, and seeing actions like this as something worth exploring. I hate imposing restrictions, but social media is a strange and unbelievably influential paradigm, which needs to be handled "like a weapon instead of some toy".
- salmonfamine 5 years agoI think we're encountering a fundamental conflict between an unregulated free market and a digital economy that doesn't have any notion of scarcity or cost. The old paradigm just doesn't fit. And the result is that a handful of tech employees and billionaires can wield outsized influence over the dominant media channels and public forums of the entire world without any democratic input or regulatory oversight. The fact that anyone on the so-called Left supports the rights of these corporations to wield that influence by appealing to laissez-faire principles -- ("they're private companies, they can do what the want!", "If you don't like Twitter's policies you can go start your own site!") -- is mind-boggling.
I think we need social media to operate as a non-profit like Wikipedia, and I think drastic action is the only way to do so. Building alternatives won't work. A for-profit model is just not compatible with the nature of social media.
- briefcomment 5 years agoLots of worthwhile points here.
> And the result is that a handful of tech employees and billionaires can wield outsized influence over the dominant media channels and public forums of the entire world without any democratic input or regulatory oversight.
This is probably the biggest threat to democracy, and to 90% of the population
- Hoasi 5 years ago> A for-profit model is just not compatible with the nature of social media.
I agree and would add that the same argument stands for the traditional press as well.
- salmonfamine 5 years agoI think before the advent of mass-media it probably worked reasonably well. A subscription-based revenue model seems to work ok.
I think a reliance on advertising is what has pushed things to the degenerated state we have now. And social media has practically dictated that reliance.
- salmonfamine 5 years ago
- ferzul 5 years agoso how does that work? i cannot think of a workable solution short of an end to the world wide web, and the beginning of a system of national internets and data ports (as in, places you send your data to to export them from one country and import them to another).
otherwise, the democratic oversight will just be whatever the u.s can manage.
the internet is already falling apart; i notice many u.s media sites are inaccessible from europe. i guess national internets are less painful in europe, where almost every country has its own language, than in the anglosphere, where there are many smaller countries that use english.
it solves many problems - it puts an end to cyberattacks, for instance. but is it right? i doubt it.
- yodelshady 5 years ago> it puts an end to cyberattacks, for instance.
Luckily for infosec professionals - we are never putting the lid back on that particular box. International businesses need the internet, just as it needs encryption. It'll only be proles facing restrictions.
I can't help but echo that I'm simply grimly fascinated by how far and fast the standard of discourse has fallen, however. And a decent chunk of that political interference, gaslighting and general verbal abuse and toxicity is from the US - "progressive" and "conservative" regions alike.
- Barrin92 5 years ago>it solves many problems - it puts an end to cyberattacks, for instance. but is it right? i doubt it.
I think it's right. Countries have sovereignty over their physical territory and they ought to have sovereignty over their digital territory, that's the basis of any democracy and self-determination.
Of course it produces awful results in Turkey because Erdogan is an autocrat, and autocrats use power to enact dumb policies, in this case censoring something because his family was insulted.
However in democracies it is necessary to not be defenseless and to maintain values. Here in Europe I've always felt that we're pretty much exposed in the digital sphere to either American norms due to sheer size, and nowadays more and more to negative campaigns by countries like Russia and China as they've learned to weaponize cyberspace.
- salmonfamine 5 years agoYeah, good questions.
I'm not advocating an end to global platforms. And I don't think the democratic oversight should come from the US government. The end goal should be a website like Wikipedia -- non-profit, maintained and perhaps even funded by users.
In fact, I think a lot of the fragmentation of the internet you see abroad is a reaction against the powerlessness of users and governments against the unassailable power of these corporations. Maybe, if we are able to give users some degree of control over the design and policies of these platforms, we might be able to preserve the global internet. Some of that fragmentation -- as you see in the OP article -- is simply a result of governmental authoritarianism, which is a problem either way.
I think the first step would be to re-align some economic incentives by creating digital rights laws. GDPR is a good first step. So establishing something similar in the US. This itself is a hugely complicated step that could go very wrong, and due to the corrupt nature of US politics and the desire for large tech companies for regulatory capture, the potential pitfalls are many.
Then, if we manage to get that right, I think we need to find a way to create legislation that requires these platforms to give their users control regarding how content is presented to them -- essentially, the ability to control their feeds.
I don't know how we would manage to transition these companies to a true non-profit model. As long as they remain for-profit, they will fight and subvert these efforts every step of the way, even after they became law.
However, I think we are increasingly seeing how dangerous and unsustainable the current model is. Perhaps the best way to accelerate data rights is accelerationism -- making the exploits and faults in these platforms as visible as possible by "hacking" them.
- yodelshady 5 years ago
- closeparen 5 years ago>I think drastic action is the only way to do so. Building alternatives won't work
It sounds like you're calling for jackbooted thugs to go and shut down newspapers. This has historically not been a sign of a society headed in a good direction.
- salmonfamine 5 years agoI am not. Thanks though.
- salmonfamine 5 years ago
- TimJRobinson 5 years ago> A for-profit model is just not compatible with the nature of social media.
Agreed. I think we need to transition to something like Scuttlebutt, where no one controls the network. It solves the problems of profit incentives, government intervention and policing of content all at once. I've been writing about this a lot recently at https://adecentralizedworld.com
- nickik 5 years agoSo what? You want to ban all websites with a comment section that are for profit? What about non-profits that make the founders rich by simply paying out a huge wage? Do you mean it should only be allowed to run on donations?
What if the US bans them, and Britain does not. Do you want the US government to systematically control the internet to prevent US citizens from using that British websites?
The things you say are easy to say, but hard to actually make in the real world without running into many more complications.
- salmonfamine 5 years ago> So what? You want to ban all websites with a comment section that are for profit? What about non-profits that make the founders rich by simply paying out a huge wage? Do you mean it should only be allowed to run on donations?
No, I'm just pointing out that a for-profit structure necessarily clashes with the public value that these platforms produce. The only platform that escapes this conflict and functions quite well is Wikipedia. I don't think that's an accident.
> The things you say are easy to say, but hard to actually make in the real world without running into many more complications.
Yes, of course. My point is that we need to start thinking of solutions. If doing nothing had no consequences, I would be heavily in favor of doing nothing. But I believe it's clear that things are going quite wrong.
> What if the US bans them, and Britain does not. Do you want the US government to systematically control the internet to prevent US citizens from using that British websites?
I don't want anything to get banned. I don't want any government to unilaterally control the internet. I just want people from every country to have some democratic input into the massive tech platforms that heavily impact their daily lives. Perhaps international data rights legislation is the solution. I don't know. But we need to start taking these problems seriously and discussing real solutions -- not just creating federated Twitter clones that offer an unwieldy UX that the average user will never adopt.
- salmonfamine 5 years ago
- closeparen 5 years agoDemocratic input and regulatory oversight over discourse is in the same category as total surveillance: a perfectly benevolent operator would certainly be able to produce a better world with it, but we cannot trust anyone with that kind of power.
- salmonfamine 5 years agoBut we have before, at least in the US. It worked pretty well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine
Just because there would be some democratic input doesn't mean there would be total democratic control. I think that's a pretty un-substantiated slippery slope.
- salmonfamine 5 years ago
- rorykoehler 5 years agoConvert them into utilities
- briefcomment 5 years ago
- snarf21 5 years agoYou're not wrong but it is a little more complicated. We have lots of "news" organizations that also amplify the same nonsense and have the ability to undermine majorities. FOX News and CNN seem endlessly able to paint all issues as facts with polar opposite conclusions.
I think the thing that has happened with social media is that we've moved even more to a sound bite and headline world. This is no critical thought or consideration. The headline said X so it is true. The "news" is willing to do anything for eyeballs. All information has become click bait to sell ads.
- Jtsummers 5 years agoI think the bigger problems is that people seem to have developed an inherent trust of information they find on the internet, same as with what they hear on the radio or TV before (well, and still). Perhaps the trust is when the information agrees with their already present biases and preconceptions, but the trust is there. It's dangerous, and hard to overcome. And encouraging a general distrust doesn't help either, because there is good information out there.
And restrictions won't do any good. It's the Internet. Practically, you can't stop E2EE communication at this point. Social media can become decentralized (with Mastodon and similar systems) or even p2p (with Secure Scuttlebutt). All restrictions would do would be to curtail the speech of people who don't know about them, and increase the utilization of these other social networks. Net effect: No change to the nature of speech, just to the places they happen.
- luckylion 5 years ago> Perhaps the trust is when the information agrees with their already present biases and preconceptions, but the trust is there.
I believe that's spot on, and it's essentially the same with newspapers and TV, at the very least today. 30 years ago, there was only one truth, and it was spread via mass media. Now, there are competing narratives, both in mass media and on the Internet, and everybody picks and chooses what fits into their understanding of the world.
> Net effect: No change to the nature of speech, just to the places they happen.
And the degree to which you can observe and influence what is said. If you force people to adopt secure communication en masse, you lose a lot of possibilities. I don't know how much this is a concern for governments, but I don't think that they will be able to win the crypto wars, so pushing people into secure comms by overreaching today means they will have a much harder time tomorrow. But maybe they won't be in charge tomorrow, so it's not really their problem.
- luckylion 5 years ago
- ecocentrik 5 years agoThe loudest minorities have owned media outlets and been major political contributors. Dictators and plutocrats both have the same need to control the narrative and mute counter-narratives that challenge their authority.
When most people complain about social media they use their previous relationship to media as a benchmark for normality but centrally controlled media never really existed and is no longer strictly possible. Cheap media is always going to be attractive to cranks. Years ago it was pamphlets, AM radio, tabloids and cable news, now it's social media and email campaigns (yes, they still exist). Our relationship to media keeps changing and people learn to deal with the political discourse, disinformation and outright crankery being amplified by these platforms the same way they learned not to pick up an issue of the National Enquirer and tune out the nuts on AM radio.
- umvi 5 years ago> This is why we can have an election outcome that no one in the media predicted.
I'm surprised you chose this as the prime example. I think things surrounding George Floyd protests are more apt examples (tearing down arbitrary statues, cancel culture, CHOP/CHAZ, social media mobs, etc).
- pjc50 5 years agoThe statues are not arbitrary and many of them have been objected to for years.
Similarly, US police have been routinely murdering people for years. What social media has done is allow the creation of a "headless" protest movement that can outrun attempts to take it down.
In both cases, some people have leapt in and gone too far because they enjoy the chaos, but don't let that obscure the real issues.
No, the problem of social media is reactionary movements arising against entirely fake problems, like "pizzagate".
- umvi 5 years ago> The statues are not arbitrary and many of them have been objected to for years.
Christopher Columbus and Francis Scott Key aren't arbitrary? It's not like they were removed by a democratic process. The majority had no say. A loud minority decided they needed to come down for arbitrary reasons and did it without permission. Anyone challenging them would be browbeaten by the loud minority mobs on social media and cancelled (employers pressured to fire them, etc.). Loud minorities have effectively been making entire corporations cower and kowtow on social media during recent weeks.
- stronglikedan 5 years agoGrant is most certainly arbitrary.
- google234123 5 years agoYour statement that US police have been routinely murdering people for years is exaggerated.
- umvi 5 years ago
- briefcomment 5 years agoYes, those are better examples.
- pjc50 5 years ago
- willvarfar 5 years agoPerhaps Social Media has “democratized” lobbying?
Historically, only the vocal minorities with money could afford to influence politicians.
Now minorities without much money can get politicians attention too?
- briefcomment 5 years agoI think it's more that social media secretly gave lobbyists another avenue. In addition to paying decision makers directly, then can pay for a small army of loud people. Before social media, that small army might make up a protest in the street or something. With social media, that small army can seem much larger than it actually is.
- briefcomment 5 years ago
- kunfuu 5 years agoI disagree with your factual statements as well as political theoretical statements.
Regarding political theoretical statements:
There are different paradigms of liberal democracy currently. Some of them can be regarded as appealing to the will of the majority for legitimacy, but essentially they don't assume that the majority are reasonable, but merely that we shall respect the will of the majority and base policies on their stance.
Disregarding illiberal democracy paradigms, all liberal democracy paradigms recognize the value of minority voices and recognize that their rights shall be protected, the right to freely express included.
Regarding the factual statements:
The mainstream US media didn't take social media as an input of significance for understanding the majority stance of US population before 2016. Those journalists had their echo chambers and represented a vocal minority in their echo chambers.
Social media, on the other hand, provides a meaningful alternative allowing some different opinion groups to express their opinions beyond the echo chambers of mainstream media. The liberal-leaning mainstream media now has a tendency to exaggerate the influence of some niche circles on social media (e.g. the so-called alt-right), though.
- Florin_Andrei 5 years ago> Add to that the fact that social media is highly game-able and scalable, and you have small groups of people working against the majority of the country.
I started in this industry in the '90s, I like to think of my cohort as the generation who "built the Internet" (or the commercial version of it).
We've created a monster. Or at least the means to unleash it.
- briefcomment 5 years agoI think a useful abstraction is that the internet has enabled an extremely potent form of _anti-social_ human interaction. When you have to talk to people face-to-face, there are a whole lot of checks and balances, both conscious and subconscious, that come into play and that tend to keep interactions reasonable.
We now see an explosion in selfish and cowardly interactions. Good faith conversations obviously abound, but they have been effectively buried under co-opted hysteria.
- briefcomment 5 years ago
- netcan 5 years agoA lot of these issues, and similar ones, have been present all along. Pamphleteers basically started democracy. Media influence, gameability, loud minorities, media corruption, & infiltration by foreign provocateurs...
Media is a "pillar" of democracy. I think social media destabilized that pillar.
- oarabbus_ 5 years ago>Loud minorities undermine majority rule. Loud minorities have always existed, but social media is now amplifying them to the point of obscuring what the majority of the country actually wants. This is why we can have an election outcome that no one in the media predicted.
Dewey Defeats Truman.
- analyte123 5 years agoLegacy media amplifies a loud minority too: owners, managers, and employees of media corporations. Most of the "controversy" around social media, stoked by legacy media, comes down to the old loud minority not liking that a different loud minority might get a say.
- adrr 5 years agoDo you think extreme fringe beliefs like QAnon would gain traction without social media?
Legacy media boundaries are dictated by advertisers.
- analyte123 5 years agoScientology is considered a fringe belief group by many and managed to get hundreds of thousands of adherents long before social media. Just as an example that everyone always brings up, advertisers didn't stop the New York Times and many other allegedly credible sources from falsely claiming Iraq had WMDs, the result of which has killed approximately infinity times the number of people that QAnon has. Just like social media users, legacy media outlets distort the truth and stir up rancor in the populace ("hands up, don't shoot", president is a secret Russian agent, Obamacare is a government death panel, climate change isn't real: pick your poison).
- analyte123 5 years ago
- adrr 5 years ago
- 5 years ago
- baybal2 5 years ago> Loud minorities have always existed, but social media is now amplifying them to the point of obscuring what the majority of the country actually wants.
A millennia old truth: take care of the politics, or politics will take care of you
- bmmayer1 5 years ago> social media undermines democracies as well
It's a good thing that power in democracies is determined by secret ballot and not likes on social media then!
- umvi 5 years agoPower in democracy and power in society are two different things. If someone is wielding un-democratic power in society, that power is undermining democratic power.
- umvi 5 years ago
- chr1 5 years agoInstead of trying to silence the loud minority, a better solution would be to return a proportional voice to the silent majority. One way for that would be open voting where people vote not for political parties but directly for laws, and can trade votes between each other.
- rorykoehler 5 years agoGiven what happened with Brexit I think this idea can only work with a highly educated populace living within a society underpinned by intellectually honest political discourse. We have neither at the moment.
- chr1 5 years agoWith brexit people had only one opportunity to vote, so it was possible to mislead a large number of them, about unknown things happening in the future. With a system like this they could change their mind as the situation changes, so agitation would not have the same effect.
As the saying goes "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time", so this would in fact be a safeguard against things like Brexit.
- chr1 5 years ago
- rorykoehler 5 years ago
- SllX 5 years agoIt’s the new printing press. Gutenberg’s printing press also caused massive social upheaval and without it, it is unlikely we would have seen the accelerated pace of scientific progress, the Reformation spread as quickly as it did, the decline of Latin, just to name a few things. It’s often forgotten, but freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment refers to actual printing presses because you used to be able to be prosecuted for what came out of your printers.
Some people liken Section 230 to being the First Amendment of the Internet, and they’re not far off. That doesn’t mean social media isn’t dangerous, but fire is dangerous. Print is still dangerous. Guns are dangerous. There’s a lot of dangerous things out there, so where do you want to draw the line? We’re not very good at dealing with social media as a society yet, but you don’t develop antibodies to this crap without first exposing yourself to it.
- 8bitsrule 5 years ago>Loud minorities undermine majority rule.
Including loud minorities that own most of the newspapers, television networks, radio networks, publishing concerns, banks, movie distributors, etc.
> ... obscuring what the majority of the country actually wants
Ain't that the truth.
- vmception 5 years agoDepartment of Health and Human Services should put some social media sites inside a federal public health order, effectively banning them.
- dantillberg 5 years ago> This is why we can have an election outcome that no one in the media predicted.
I presume you're referring to the 2016 presidential election in the US, and if so that's patently false. FiveThirtyEight estimated a ~28% probability[0] that Trump would win, and other major media outlets had similar outlooks prior to the election. Many willfully interpreted "28% chance" as "with any luck it won't happen," but you can't say that the media didn't think it was possible.
[0]: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
(edit: updated with link to actual prediction by FiveThirtyEight)
- rorykoehler 5 years agoI predicted a Trump win. Actually I said that Trump would win against Hillary but lose to Bernie. I still believe that to be the case. Though I like many of Hillary's ideas (such as freedom of movement in the western hemisphere) Hillary had too much baggage to win. She doesn't have the charisma to shake the baggage. Added to that after the DNC debacle (also after my prediction) there was no transfer of support from Bernie to Hillary. This was the final nail in her campaign. The main surprise to me was how close it ended up being. In hindsight Trump is the inevitable result of decades of gas-lighting. It may also be the pivotal moment in US democratic history where the majority re-assumes responsibility for their government. An awakening of sorts.... if it doesn't get hijacked by subversive political operatives.
- boreas 5 years agoAlso relevant to note that Trump wasn't supported by a majority, as OP seems to be implying. He won in the arbitrary schema of the electoral college.
- rorykoehler 5 years ago
- raffraffraff 5 years agoSo how do we, um.. destroy them all?
- hyko 5 years agoBut Turkey is not a democracy?
- netcan 5 years ago> Turkey is not a democracy?
It's a democracy in terms of the electoral process, mostly... at least historically. Flawed, but the people select their leaders by election.
It's not really a democracy in terms of political culture and rights. Very weak free speech, right to organize, right to assemble, freedom of the press, etc. They jail a lot of journalists, on charges like "subliminal messages announcing the military coup."
- m_a_g 5 years agoTurkey has been a democracy for almost a century now.
However, it all comes down to this, what happens when people of a democratic country elect a president that has totalitarian tendencies?
- rayiner 5 years agoThis happens all the time, and the criticisms are, in my mind, directed at policy as much as anything about the people having “totalitarian tendencies.” In Muslim countries, in particular, like Turkey and Egypt, totalitarianism is usually invoked to keep out proponents of political Islam. Erdogan was replacing authoritarians who maintained Turkey’s secular regime against a religious populace. When Egypt’s dictator fell, the people replaced him with a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Then a military dictator toppled him to restore secularism.
- SecurityMinded 5 years agoOn the paper, Turkiye is a democracy. In reality, since 1950's it was not. It is a dictatorship or oligarchy at best, funded by the big money of the world, mostly from the US. Rigged elections, placing puppet governments (like Tayyip) is an ongoing theme. At the time of election, people are given the impression of who they are electing as it is in a democracy, while the result is already known by the powers that be. Other than few military takeovers of the country since 1960, this country have never had fair and clear elections. Hence, Tayyip's puppet government has ben brought to action by the same powers that be, to decimate the Turkish armed forces, so, no more of those nasty military take-over actions can be repeated. Turkiye has turned into a Banana republic for what it is worth.
- rayiner 5 years ago
- brnt 5 years ago
- pnako 5 years ago"Democracy is like a train: when you reach your destination, you get off" -- Erdogan
- 5 years ago
- briefcomment 5 years agoEdited for clarification.
- netcan 5 years ago
- myopenid2 5 years agoIt's amazing to see the bulk of HN users turn into self-aware wolves within a month.
- salmonfamine 5 years ago
- hetspookjee 5 years agoIt's all too interesting what is happening in the region. Some say he's going back Ottoman empire with his entire navy and claiming pieces of Cyprus to the disliking of Cyprus and Greece. While also performing enormous military exercises under the guise of Mavi Vatan, which also bears symbolic reference to their history.
Meanwhile Erdogan is set on keeping the steady flow of immigrants coming for as long as he's the gate holder, the EU will bow to many of Erdogans demands.
Concurrently Russia is said be rerunning the USSR book and is desperate in acquiring more territory. For as long as I've lived I can recall the USA being somewhat the voice of reason in these situations but USA is too occupied with their own stuff currently.
I think theirs trouble on the horizon as Erdogan and Puttins position become more and more unsustainable with the citizens of said countries being more and more unhappy with them.
- nickik 5 years agoI don't think Russia is 'desperate in acquiring more territory'. If anything its desperate to not lose more of them. The Cold War was ended in negotiations with the Soviet Union that stipulated that no NATO expansion towards Russia would happen. But then it did, and again, and again. Not to mention that the US basically broke all the missile treaties as well.
Belarus is staring to realize this and look West, so did Georgia and the Ukraine. Russia is desperate not to lose all influence over these.
They were desperate to keep the Crimea. But to be fair Crimea wasn't even part of Ukraine until 1960 when Khrushchev wanted to increase is own power base. Not really Ukrainians who live there and the region was never much for Ukrainian nationalism.
Russia is desperate not to get parceled up by China, Europe and the US. Russia is declining power, its population is collapsing, it has major brain drain, half of the Russian life outside of Russia. Putin is good at seeming strong but the long term battle is basically lost already.
> USA being somewhat the voice of reason
You mean the voice with the most financial and military power that told others what do? Are you rally so naive to think that 'reasonableness' is what made these things happen?
In the 90s the Russian were sticking mad as hell about this stuff, they just didn't have the power to do anything about it. In the last 15 years the have learn that they can, so they do.
- mantas 5 years ago> The Cold War was ended in negotiations with the Soviet Union that stipulated that no NATO expansion towards Russia would happen
There was no such negotiations with binding promises made public aside from interwebs rumors, frequently reposted on RT/Sputnik/etc. The end of Cold War was USSR unilaterally dissolving by agreement between Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
Furthermore, Yeltsin publicly said that eastern europe can join NATO if they wish. The only request was that there would be no nuclear weapon moved to new NATO members. And there were talks about limiting conventional weapons. That's why current NATO forces in Baltic states and Poland are "rotational" rather than permanent.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/18/world/yeltsin-now-seems-r...
> In the 90s the Russian were sticking mad as hell about this stuff, they just didn't have the power to do anything about it. In the last 15 years the have learn that they can, so they do.
As an ex-USSR citizen, Russia was damn friendly in early 90s. Russian SSR (separate from USSR) supported Baltic states during January events of 1991. Russian army was rather swiftly removed. Separation was rather smooth thanks to mutual understanding. Things started to change in late 90s though. Not sure where the braking point was.
- nickik 5 years ago> There was no such negotiations with binding promises made public aside from interwebs rumors
I have heard from multiple cold war scholars some that were in government at that time that they promised this to Gorbachev. That said, it was never formally ratified.
This is just one example, another one is the non-adjustment of borders without agreemnt. But this was broken in the 90s when the US created Kosvo.
The missile treaties were broken by Bush.
> The end of Cold War was USSR unilaterally dissolving
Arguably the Cold War ended with the treaties between the Soviet Union and the US before it devolved. That is at least what US negotiators believed and you can listen interviews with them.
They are actually quite angry that people now say that the cold war ended because the Soviet Union collapsed.
> Furthermore, Yeltsin publicly said that eastern europe can join NATO if they wish.
Yeltsin was weak and had to agree to a lot of stuff that he didn't like. The Russian elites certainty never wanted the NATO to expand east.
> As an ex-USSR citizen, Russia was damn friendly in early 90s.
They are incredibly friendly right at the point in the history where they are weakest. Lenin was so friendly he signed over half of European Russia.
- nickik 5 years ago
- AnimalMuppet 5 years agoFirst: Russia lost the territory in 1989 (Warsaw Pact) and 1991 (breakup of USSR). It hasn't lost any Russian territory since, or was it in any danger of doing so. It was (and is) in danger of losing influence over territory that is not Russia's, but nobody was going to invade Russia to steal territory.
But the way you and Russia talk about it shows that they still consider that to be their territory, even though it is now a different country. That attitude leads Russia to think they have a right to meddle in their former territory.
Second: Why did those countries join NATO? Because NATO held a gun to their head and told them they have to join? No, because Russia kept talking and acting in ways that made them afraid that they were going to get pressured, meddled with, invaded, and/or annexed. They wanted something bigger than their own military to protect them, so they pushed to join NATO.
All of which leaves Russia feeling surrounded and encroached upon. But the cause of that has been the Russian habit of trying to treat former territory as still their own, rather than the evil machinations of the West.
- nickik 5 years agoYou can call it what you like, Russian statesmen and elites thought of many of these territories as Russian. Ukraine above all. Lots of these regions had been part of Russian empire for 100s of years. Some still have Russian military bases and space ports in them and some speak Russian.
Russia has lots 'non-Russian' regions inside of its border that they also think are part of Russia.
> But the way you and Russia talk about it shows that they still consider that to be their territory, even though it is now a different country. That attitude leads Russia to think they have a right to meddle in their former territory.
I'm explaining wat the Russian perspective is, I'm not taking Russia side.
Yes they do. Like literally ever great or regional power does. US literally claims dominance over a gigantic region, basically half the world. See what happens when China tries to put Mexico under a nuclear umbrella.
These issues need to be considered in diplomacy.
> Second: Why did those countries join NATO? Because NATO held a gun to their head and told them they have to join? No, because Russia kept talking and acting in ways that made them afraid that they were going to get pressured, meddled with, invaded, and/or annexed. They wanted something bigger than their own military to protect them, so they pushed to join NATO.
I agree. Where did I deny that? Of course these countries want foreign protection. They are well aware of their own weakness.
But just because somebody ask me to fight for them, doesn't mean its a good idea for me to do so. Maybe they would be better helped with other kinds of support.
> All of which leaves Russia feeling surrounded and encroached upon. But the cause of that has been the Russian habit of trying to treat former territory as still their own, rather than the evil machinations of the West.
Any power would respond when you try to literally surround it with a nuclear umbrella.
The West pushed and pushed NATO further East, and that's a fine strategy for them and certainty made some amount of sense even if Russia didn't like it. But at some point you need to realize that Russia was gone respond if you take it to far.
The Russians quite strategically invaded Georgia to make it impossible for them to join NATO. The reason they did that was quite clearly to stop the Eastward expansion of NATO. They had over, and over and over again in negotiation said that extending NATO into Ukraine and Georgia was a vital interest for them. In a way that it wasn't with the Baltic's for example.
And again, I'm not 'on the side of Russia'. But when you are talking about practical diplomacy, I think the Western powers miscalculated. Georgia under NATO was a terrible idea. Giving Ukraine hope to be in the EU is an equally terrible idea. Not just because of Russian response, but for other reasons as well.
Blocking NATO expansion to Georgia and annexing Crima were simple sensible policies that should have surprised nobody. But they don't represent a massively expansionist policy on Russia part. I think Russia knows they can't really do that.
- nickik 5 years ago
- mantas 5 years ago
- GregarianChild 5 years agoI do not see how contemporary Russia is "desperate in acquiring more territory".
My interpretation is as following -- please correct me if I'm wrong. Note: I am not endorsing (nor criticising) Russian policies here, just trying to understand and learn. In order to learn, I try and give as clearcut an explanation as possible of my current understanding, so as to make it as easy as possible for others with more expertise to point to where I am wrong (if indeed I am wrong). My take is this: contemporary Russian policy is a variation on "spheres of influence" [1], and Russia treats its neighbours as being in its "sphere of influence", and does not accept them becoming part of NATO. I think the implicit deal with "sphere of influence" neighbours is: as long as you don't join NATO, you can do whatever you like but as soon as you try to join NATO we will stop this, including with force. Currently, Russia has borders with the following NATO countries: Norway, Estonia and Latvia. The latter two joined NATO in 2004, when Russia felt too weak to do anything about it, especially since they are not land-locked, so could be easily be defended by western Navies.
A clear example of this was the Russian-Georgian War in 2008. Russia withdrew after a couple of days (but left some "Frozen Conflicts" [2] in place that it can 'turn on' at will, as a power-lever: South Ossetia and Abkhazia). Who would have defended Georgia if Russia had decided to stay, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey? Probably not. Likewise, Russia could easily invade an keep the 'stans. Take land-locked Kazakhstan: huge, rich in resources, nearly empty, and, thanks to Stalin's policy of mixing ethnic groups, about 1/4 of the population is ethic Russian anyway (in 1989 it was nearly 40%). Who would defend Kazakhstan? Mongolia, Uzbekistan , Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan? Probably not. Ukraine is an interesting special case, and the annexation of Crimea can be interpreted in this way: Ukraine came too close to NATO, and Crimea is important for the ability of the Russian navy to project power in the Mediterranean Sea. Crimea is > 2/3 Russian from the POV of ethnic groups and Russia has a higher standard of living than Ukraine, so the majority of the Crimean population would probably have been ok with the policy anyway.
- nickik 5 years ago
- grishka 5 years agoEvery time I see news like this I can't help but wonder what would happen if federated social media becomes mainstream. All these attempts to regulate social media generally revolve around there being a "platform", it being a company, it caring about profits, it having a legal department etc. It all falls apart spectacularly if you frame social media as something intertwined with the internet itself, with no central authority whatsoever.
- ipnon 5 years agoWe see that the convenience of centralized social media is more valuable than the autonomy of federated social media. This is because the centralized social media is easily accessible, practically free and tolerably open regarding opposing viewpoints.
Solve for the equilibrium. We would expect federated social media to increase in popularity when the convenience of centralized social media is jeopardized. I believe in Russia, where people don't feel safe voicing their opinions publicly on centralized social media, ad hoc social networks have appeared on safe chat platforms like Telegram to take their place.
- grishka 5 years agoI have some ideas about making social media decentralized while keeping global search possible. They need practical testing though, which is something I haven't gotten around to yet.
> I believe in Russia, where people don't feel safe voicing their opinions publicly on centralized social media, ad hoc social networks have appeared on safe chat platforms like Telegram to take their place.
I'm Russian. Today is the last day of 7-day voting for the very controversial constitution amendments that would grant Putin two additional 6-year terms, among other things. My both VK and Twitter feeds are chock-full of posts about this. People are posting about how asinine these amendments are. People are posting about incessant violations in the voting process itself. People are posting pictures of their ballots. The feeling that people are afraid to publicly voice their opinions is certainly not there.
- ipnon 5 years agoThanks for explaining this to me, I am clearly misinformed.
- ipnon 5 years ago
- grishka 5 years ago
- luckylion 5 years agoIt will require TOR or similar systems though, otherwise each federated instance transporting some content that is deemed illegal will be targeted. Authorities can't win the war, but they can make the damage for individual targets very large, thereby making most people shy away from it at all, like they are doing for TOR exit nodes in many jurisdictions.
But once it's on TOR, it'll be similar to the DNMs for drugs: once it's out of the bag, you can stamp out individual sites, but the system is there to stay.
- ipnon 5 years ago
- diego_moita 5 years agoThere is a reason why we're seeing the rise of the autocrats (Erdogan, Putin, Jiping, Orban, Bolsonaro, Trump, Duterte, Kaczyński, ...): it is because openness and democracy triumphed before. And it won because previous autocrats failed.
Edit: my point is: starting in the late 70's, authoritarian regimes failed miserably before all over the world, therefore there's no reason to believe they'll succeed thist time. Remember Marx explaining Charles Bonaparte: history happens twice, first as a tragedy, second as a farce.
The fundamental fact is that, in the long run, autocrats are very incompetent and make a lot of mistakes, mostly by hubris and because they're surrounded by yes-men that hide them the truth. They become detached from facts, they think they can control facts until facts control them.
Erdogan's strong rule is a drug that Turkey will have to pay very dearly to get rid off.
- noworriesnate 5 years ago> it is because openness and democracy triumphed before
How do you think openness and democracy triumphing cause the rise of autocrats? Are you referring to Plato's five regimes theory, where each type of government degenerates into a different government, in a cycle?
- diego_moita 5 years ago> How do you think openness and democracy triumphing cause the rise of autocrats?
Sorry, I expressed myself badly. It doesn't "cause" it just provides a contrast that makes this look as different of what was there before.
If Latin America, Eastern Europe, Middle East and East Asia were still under the authoritarian rulers of the Cold War era, these new autocrats wouldn't be a novelty.
My point is that autocrats failed before and all those places tried democracy. It succeeded in most of them, but a few want to go back to something that is not viable anymore.
- FpUser 5 years agoThe guy (Plato) does have a point
- diego_moita 5 years ago
- noworriesnate 5 years ago
- bitcharmer 5 years agoI wonder what some mid- to long-term consequences of Turkey slipping into dictatorship will be for NATO as a whole.
It's clear Turkey is drifting away from the values held by the alliance members.
I'm so glad they haven't been accepted into the EU. That would be a disaster.
- nurettin 5 years agoThis is the sixth or seventh incident within the past 10 years. Every time economy goes to the gutter, they make a speech about how "outside forces are trying to bring us down" or "the world is envious" or "we will shut down twitter". Two weeks later, everything goes back to normal. So far, wikipedia took the longest to recover because everyone was too scared to take action without asking the president and he was probably too busy with other things like blaming trump for the devaluation of turkish lira or inciting war in idlib. It's mostly unmaintainable posturing. He got a little ruffled up after his candidate lost the election for the mayorship of istanbul last summer and the competing party started spilling out their money laundering schemes. It's usually all bark and no bite.
- FpUser 5 years ago>"Every time economy goes to the gutter, they make a speech about how "outside forces are trying to bring us down"
Thank you for discovering universal rule. If you read US/Canadian press for example you might find out that for any bad thing happening inside some evil foreign entities are responsible. Any government needs an enemy to take people's eye from their own f..k ups.
- _jal 5 years agoFor extra credit, start paying attention to how wedge issues work. "Let's you and him fight" is probably the second-oldest trick in the book.
- _jal 5 years ago
- FpUser 5 years ago
- lowdose 5 years ago> I'm so glad they haven't been accepted into the EU. That would be a disaster.
At that time though Turkey would have been a real welcome growth addition to the EU.
2005 +9% growth, the year the EU opened accession negotiations with Turkey.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Turke...
- bitcharmer 5 years agoI don't think economy is the only factor we should be considering when assessing perspective members.
- csunbird 5 years agoI am Turkish and I feel like the culture difference is just too massive to be a member of EU right now. Economically, it would be an nice addition to EU, because Germany and France would very much enjoy the free access to the this huge market, so the current situation reflects that: EU has nice access to Turkish market with the current agreements, but they do not allow Turkey to be a member.
- buboard 5 years agowould you say the cultural difference was equally massive 20 years ago, when turkey was much more aligned towards an EU future? I don't think so much has changed in turkey culturally, but a lot has changed politically
- buboard 5 years ago
- luckylion 5 years agoGrowth is irrelevant unless you're a net-contributor. The EU really doesn't need more underdeveloped economies to support, it needs to get everybody to a similar level and deal with the tax havens, not do some SV-hypergrowth model where the issues will magically resolve themselves if only you can have 15% population growth by acquiring more members.
- lowdose 5 years agoIn my view China has used exactly some SV-hypergrowth model where almost every Chinese living is 50x better off than their parents.
- lowdose 5 years ago
- ChuckNorris89 5 years agoYes, Turkey's economy was ok but how is its GDP per capita, democratic index, wealth inequality, human and minority rights like?
There's a reason EU countries have huge numbers of Turkish expats already despite Turkey's economy.
- bitcharmer 5 years ago
- buboard 5 years agoFrance just left a NATO exercise after aggressions from Turkish navy
https://www.france24.com/en/20200701-france-suspends-role-in...
- paganel 5 years agoNothing. Macron's police forces were as bad and brutal with the yellow vests movement as the Turkish police was with the Gezi Park protests back in 2013, if anything some Western European leaders are taking notes. To say nothing about the very recent meeting between Macron and Putin which ended on a very congratulatory note from both sides.
As for Germany they have been in bed with Russia for a long time, and Austria is basically one of the main conduits for laundering money coming from "bad" Russian people (who steal from the majority of the Russian population).
- haunter 5 years agoNothing.
Just like how Poland and Hungary are EU members and they are walking their own way not giving a f about anything, rewriting the constitutions and laws as they wish
- zaarn 5 years agoThey are because being kicked out of the EU requires unanimous vote and hungary and poland just veto eachother into the EU. Nobody expected two states to become fascist at the same time when the EU was created.
- bluetomcat 5 years agoBulgaria is another notable outlier. Formal EU member, democracy by constitution, government officials relatively well respected in Brussels. Inside - autocratic regime with no division of powers, facade institutions serving the interest of the political oligarchy, no authentic political parties representing the interests of the wider population.
- kebman 5 years agoI remember about 10-15 years ago, I went there during their Liberation Day. There was a TV on, and I could understand most of what was said, due to having visited Bulgaria many times before. The guy was standing on a podium, between two eagles. First they played Flight of the Valkyries. Then the guy started speaking openly, and to wild cheering form the crowds, about how he wanted to send Turks and Gipsys back to the countries they came from. I was just, "Holy hell, this is on public TV in Bulgaria? What YEAR is this???" I had to ask the shop keeper. He told me the show was live.
- hetspookjee 5 years agoI can remember Slovakia not doing all too well either on these grounds but couldn't find any so perhaps I'm mistaken.
- cat199 5 years ago> facade institutions serving the interest of the political oligarchy
seems in line with the EU approach, no?
- kebman 5 years ago
- ed_balls 5 years agoI don't think it's fare to compare Poland to Turkey. No one is jailing judges.
It extremely hard to do a major judicial reform which is needed. The ruling party argument is that that the system of election the supreme court is flawed. There is a risk of deep state influence from the previous system and ties to Russia.
When Germany was reunified they a purge of people with ties to DDR. Nothing like that happened in Poland.
- selimthegrim 5 years agoWeren’t they messing with Supreme Court in Poland?
- bitcharmer 5 years agoThe ruling party has ex-communists in their ranks and somehow that's ok with them. The whole argument about cleansing the judicial ranks is bogus and a vulgar excuse for a power grab.
- selimthegrim 5 years ago
- lki876 5 years ago> Just like how Poland and Hungary are EU members and they are walking their own way not giving a f about anything, rewriting the constitutions and laws as they wish
There are mechanisms in place to change constitutions and laws in all countries. The primary function of parliament is to legislate. In Poland, Hungary and the rest of the EU.
- bitcharmer 5 years agoThe problem (at least in Poland where I come from) is that the government/ruling party (PiS) are pushing laws that violate the constitution. The same party controls such bodies as consitution tribunal and the high court, as well as attorney general.
They can do whatever they want without having to touch the constitution. They just ignore it.
- bitcharmer 5 years ago
- hetspookjee 5 years agoAnd completely backing each other in the votes as well... It's a sham.
- new2628 5 years agoYes, it's a sham that members of an organization are exercising their voting rights. Why not take away these rights in the name of democracy when they are not voting in the proper way.
- new2628 5 years ago
- zaarn 5 years ago
- nurettin 5 years ago
- stanfordkid 5 years agoIt's easy to condemn this from afar sitting in a super-power democracy, in the ivory tower of free speech. Countries like Turkey, Syria, Egypt etc. are in the middle of geo-political chess games with propaganda coming from Russia, militant groups, militias, rebels etc.
Look at what happened with the Arab spring in Egypt... after the leaders fell, even worse parties and fundamentalist strongmen came in. It was lauded as a democratic revolution until the muslim brotherhood came in. Same shit happened in Syria -- now it's devastated.
There is so much outcry over TikTok being adopted in masse within the United States -- this isn't really that different. Facebook invests a lot of resources fighting fake news in the US -- I doubt it puts any efforts into propaganda (nor has the ability) that is spread in a place like Turkey.
The way to think about these countries behavior is -- imagine foreign governments were sending the KKK $100 of millions along with weapons across your borders. We got a taste of 1% of this with Russian interference -- but it is nothing compared to what happens in the middle east.
- CigerSoganli 5 years agoA little extra context missing from the Reuters article:
> "Do you see why we oppose social media like YouTube, Twitter, Netflix, and so on?" Erdogan said.
> "Turkey is not a banana republic. We will snub those who snub this country’s executive and judicial bodies," he stated.
> "We will chase those who attack a baby...," Erdogan said, referring to an insult directed at his daughter Esra Albayrak and his son-in-law, Treasury and Finance Minister Berat Albayrak upon their announcement of their newborn baby.
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/president-erdogan-vows-soc...
- linuxftw 5 years agoIt's so weird that people here usually want to regulate social media, but when some other government that doesn't share your worldview does it, it's all of a sudden oppressive.
You say the wrong thing online in the UK or Germany, the police come knocking. Everyone always thinks their reason for censorship is exceptional because their beliefs are the one-true virtuous beliefs in the universe.
- magicsmoke 5 years agoIt's because openness is a luxury and status symbol. Ohh look how open and so much better I am, and how I'm composed and stoic enough to tolerate all this dissent. But when you take away wealth and security then luxury and status are the first things to go.
- 0d9eooo 5 years agoIt's not just here. It seems like a common sentiment in a lot of places. It's confusing to me as well. There's a direct line in my mind from calls for social media to be self-regulate or be regulated (interestingly in different ways from conservatives and liberals), to these kinds of comments from Erdogan. It might be causal, it might just create a cultural context, but it's hard not to conclude that echoing calls for regulation of social media in the US aren't being coopted or leveraged in this case in a way that's very predictable.
- magicsmoke 5 years ago
- at_a_remove 5 years agoEveryone seems to want to control social media platforms these days, it just gets dressed up differently depending on how the reporting party feelings about you, after which a journalist will tack on a headline finishing with "... (And That's a Good Thing)" in a way which will never not remind me of a certain Twilight Zone episode.
- yingw787 5 years agoI feel like the more a head of state is punched from below without doing anything, the better he or she is. I think each insult that runs down the back is a great way to measure the worse paths and timelines not taken, a physical manifestation of the ghost of Christmas Future. It's also a great measurement tool because oftentimes things we do are not within our control, but the things we don't do are, because we choose not to do them.
Greatness is a small number of key visionary decisions, and not a bunch of little reactive ones.
- tonyedgecombe 5 years agoHe said social media companies would be forced to appoint representatives in Turkey to respond to legal requests, which he said were currently ignored.
Presumably they will ignore this request as well.
- 5 years ago
- 5 years ago
- nonsince 5 years agoOk I misunderstood "determined" to have its meaning closer to "discovered", and then subsequently misunderstood "turkey" to mean the animal. Definitely made me do a double take
- ashtonkem 5 years agoI doubt Turkey is a large enough market to successfully string arm the American companies into playing along; the question is if they can block places like Twitter and develop their own successfully locally.
- musicale 5 years agoAnd I am determined to control the moon.
Currently I have settled for a room-darkening shade.
- blumomo 5 years ago„... pressing ahead with government plans after he said his family was insulted online“
That’s how you frame your readers. The author doesn’t know whether there’s causal relation between the possible insult and the plans to control the social platforms. But this is how media tricks the readers in thinking so.
- learc83 5 years ago> The author doesn’t know whether there’s causal relation between the possible insult and the plans to control the social platforms.
I don't know--seems pretty clear to me.
“Do you see why we oppose social media like YouTube, Twitter, Netflix, etc...?” Erdogan asked in reference to the alleged insults of his family members. “It is imperative that these channels are brought under control.”
Again in reference to the insults:
"We experienced similar attacks in the past. The lack of monitoring on these platforms have a role in the rise of this sort of immoral behaviour. These platforms do not suit this country. We want these platforms to be banned, taken under control."
- blumomo 5 years agoIn your quotations there's nothing about any insult to his family. That means a causal relation isn't yet proven.
- learc83 5 years agoHe was being asked directly about the insults.
>"We experienced similar attacks in the past. The lack of monitoring on these platforms have a role in the rise of this sort of immoral behaviour. These platforms do not suit this country. We want these platforms to be banned, taken under control."
The "similar attacks", and the "immoral behavior" are direct references to insults against him and his family on social media.
These are from the Al Jazeera translation of the press conference if you don't trust the AP:
"Erdogan said investigations were under way against those who "attacked" his family by "abusing a newborn".
"We will keep chasing these cowards who attack a family and the values they believe represented by them through a baby."
"We experienced similar attacks in the past. The lack of monitoring on these platforms have a role in the rise of this sort of immoral behaviour. These platforms do not suit this country. We want these platforms to be banned, taken under control."
Please stop being deliberately obtuse.
- learc83 5 years ago
- blumomo 5 years ago
- hetspookjee 5 years agoIs it? Isn't this plain reporting of the events in the sequence that they occured? It's all too often that the media frames things a certain way but I'm having difficulty agreeing with you here.
- lki876 5 years agoThe "journalist" could have picked any two events. Picking these to make it seem there is causation without proof.
- learc83 5 years agoThat's not what's happening here. There's as much proof as you can have without reading the mind of Erdogan. He had entire press conference where he referenced the attacks as justification for regulating social media.
"We experienced similar attacks in the past. The lack of monitoring on these platforms have a role in the rise of this sort of immoral behaviour. These platforms do not suit this country. We want these platforms to be banned, taken under control."
This also comes after arresting and detaining several social media users for tweeting the insults.
- learc83 5 years ago
- lki876 5 years ago
- 5 years ago
- jkinudsjknds 5 years agoHe literally referenced the insults as a justification for his actions. So no, this is not media deceptiveness.
Quotes from a different article:
> "“Do you see why we oppose social media like YouTube, Twitter, Netflix, et cetera.?” Erdogan asked in reference to the alleged insults of his family members. “It is imperative that these channels are brought under control.”
> Erdogan said: “Turkey is not a banana republic. We will snub those who snub this country’s executive and judicial bodies.”"
- blumomo 5 years agoStill, no evidence of causal relation between insulting his family and the decision to control social platforms.
- blumomo 5 years ago
- learc83 5 years ago
- gargalatas 5 years agoAt least he is frank. US is doing that for ages.
- rany_ 5 years agoWhat are you even talking about? Elaborate please.
- rany_ 5 years ago
- thereyougo 5 years agoOnce your cross the line from democracy to dictator, everything becomes legit in your eyes
- DyslexicAtheist 5 years agoas a European I wonder if 2021 will be the year we read the same headline about Poland and Hungary - the latter is well on its way
- praptak 5 years agoThe former is about to reach an important fork next week. If the ruling party keep the presidential seat, they have three more years of basically unchecked power. If they lose the seat, the checks and balances are back on the menu.
- praptak 5 years ago
- DyslexicAtheist 5 years ago
- riffic 5 years agoObligatory "the world will be better off the sooner we all adopt ActivityPub" comment.
- controversy 5 years agoThe United States is not much better in terms of this. We have a free press in name only. If you are saying something that certain people don’t like, you are canceled. Your tweets will be taken down since you violated weakly worded community standards. You will be flagged on HN. Etc. Ultimately we have a dictatorship of ideas. The best answer so far is to go make a freedom platform with blackjack and hookers. Essentially we’re told to build better echo chambers.
- lovich 5 years ago>Ultimately we have a dictatorship of ideas
What an amazing way to phrase "others don't like what I am saying and don't want to associate with me". The government controlling social media platforms is vastly different from a collection of companies controlling social media platforms that they built.
There's an argument that can be made about companies needing to treat their platforms as public squares depending on if they get certain protections or subsidies from the government, but as it stands its currently their property and you don't have a right to force others to broadcast your opinions
- 127 5 years agoMadness of the crowds. It's also interesting that this phrase brings only search results from Douglas Murray, who has been widely attacked as far right (and thus untouchable). The social and psychological effect is much more meaningful and important.
To be clear I don't oppose to what is being said. I'm opposed to how it's being said. If there's only one allowed dogma, there's no chance of correcting the course and logically it will always end in a disaster.
- liberal_098 5 years ago> The government controlling social media platforms is vastly different from a collection of companies controlling social media platforms that they built
If the difference is measured by the effect produced then in many cases it is zero, that is, there is no any difference. For example,we frequently see collective censorship which effectively means the absence of freedom of speech.
In fact, there exist also other interesting forms like collective (or democratic) racism or collective (democratic) totalitarism. For normal people, the origin of these rules does not really matter.
- lovich 5 years agoFreedom of speech is specifically freedom from the government interfering with your speech. Freedom of speech does not mean you can compel others into carrying your message forward.
Take your argument to its logical conclusion. Say I want everyone you come in contact with to hear my personal thoughts on government. Are you ok with being compelled to pass along a card with my diatribe on it to all of the people you interact with on a daily basis?
- lovich 5 years ago
- mintym 5 years agoIsn't it the same thing just obfuscated by two levels of indirection, Patriot Act/Op Choke Point -> VISA/Mastercard -> Social Medias
https://old.reddit.com/r/kotakuinaction2/comments/hi47ci/dic...
- kanox 5 years ago> The government controlling social media platforms is vastly different from a collection of companies controlling social media platforms that they built.
The difference is not particularly significant.
- huntertwo 5 years agoYeah man I remember when Mark Zuckerberg came into my house and took my wife and kids for saying something on Facebook.
- huntertwo 5 years ago
- latraveler 5 years agoHN/Reddit ...
Good = Social media companies selectively controlling the platform they built
Bad = Telecom companies selectively controlling the platform they built
- 127 5 years ago
- whatshisface 5 years agoPersonally I have found that on HN there is more of a dictatorship of phrasing than a dictatorship of ideas. Here's the short list of ideas you can't say on HN no matter how you phrase them, I think you would agree that this is not excessive:
- "Individuals of one race are better or worse than individuals of another."
- "One gender is clearly better or worse than another."
- Anything about Republicans or Democrats
The origin of this list is not that the mods are biased, it's that they have a 100% correlation with foaming at the mouth.
As far as I can tell that's the whole list. Anyone care to add to it? Do not repeat the actual arguments, that will start a flame war.
- kebman 5 years agoI'm actually amazed that there was a somewhat troll-free discussion about the protests and riots going on in the USA (and the West) right now. I think this is a giant kudos to HN. It's just a great feeling that we can disagree, but in a polite manner. Thank you for this HN! This is the basis of democracy!
- michaelmarion 5 years agoSpaces versus tabs? /s
- throwaway67654 5 years ago- Anything positive about China
- Relating ad blocking to piracy
- Benefits of open offices
- 5 years ago
- flyinglizard 5 years agoThese may be controversial but you won’t be canceled.
- 5 years ago
- kebman 5 years ago
- throwaway29102 5 years agoYou have every right to stand on a street corner and preach whatever manner of nonsense you want.
There are two people doing that on the street below me right now (one is a charlatan peddling superstition, the other is a conspiracy theorist warning of the dangers of 5G). Your complaint in this context would be that my landlord isn’t giving you a stage and a megaphone?
- controversy 5 years agoMy complaint is that these corporations get wide legal protections because they claim to be an open platform. In reality there are ideologs within them that exert editorial control by exalting (by promoted content channels) or deriding by means of either outright banning or vote manipulation of speech. If they were publishers, I am fine with such behavior. Since they derive monetary benefit from the wide legal birth, I decry them openly as tinpot dictators.
- throwaway29103 5 years agoYesterday you wrote: "While I agree that we need more room for nuanced debate, this is not a wining argument. Our society needs more accountability, not less."... from a throwaway account that cannot "really" be deleted... you realize that, right?
- controversy 5 years ago
- x86_64Ubuntu 5 years agoNone of those things you mentioned are state actors taking over platforms.
- seanmcdirmid 5 years agoAt least I can says something against Trump or even the government and my posts will probably not be deleted. Free press and speech doesn’t mean everyone gets equal speaking time, just that the government is very limited in how it can interfere. It is just a restriction on government power, really.
And yes, this restriction on government power is much better than what they have in China, Turkey, etc... it is actually much better.
- new2628 5 years agoCan you say something _for_ Trump or the government though? Your posts will not be deleted, but likely downvoted into invisibility.
- catalogia 5 years agoTo be frank anti-government censorship concerns me less than pro-government censorship, due to the various asymmetries inherent to the concept of government (e.g. the government operates prisons while those who oppose the government do not.)
To be clear, I don't think it's productive. But neither does it make me fearful in the same sort of way.
- catalogia 5 years ago
- new2628 5 years ago
- huntertwo 5 years agoI think there have been ideas in every society that have been taboo and not allowed to be shared. For example, in Germany nobody is allowed to speak positively about the Nazis. This is ultimately a subjective line that is drawn by the people in power and by social forces. These platforms are just enforcing their own subjective line on bigoted viewpoints. It only seems to be negative against conservatives in most cases so personally I think it’s fine, since those bigoted viewpoints tend to come mostly from conservatives.
- lovich 5 years ago
- lki876 5 years agoHappens a lot in the west too. Reddit, Twitter and Facebook come to mind.
- augustt 5 years ago"he's a hell of a leader, and he's a tough man, he's a strong man"
expect to see parallels.
- augustt 5 years ago
- yasp 5 years agoAdvertisement for Urbit.
- riffic 5 years agoUrbit is the TempleOS of decentralized social networking.
- riffic 5 years ago