I have no doubts the next surveillance and encryption backdoor bills will be based upon the incidents happening right now. It's far better for society to keep discussions in plain sight, even if they are woefully misguided.
Social media in its current form is essentially an enormous, unregulated casino that now encompasses the entirety of the U.S.
This unregulated casino essentially monopolizes people's time and expression through addictive patterns, tested and re-deployed with realtime feedback, pushing people more and more toward destructive ends.
If we're not talking about regulation-- and again, casinos are heavily regulated and most people I've met do not object to the idea of casinos being regulated-- then we're not talking about the core problem.
As for speech:
If there were suddenly an enormous uptick in larger and larger groups of people doing 3-day coke benders, I think it goes without saying that I would defend their right to free speech. But why would I be talking about their free speech in the first place? More to the point-- if the dealers fueling those benders only ever wanted to talk about free speech-- while at the same time doing piecemeal censorship of the most shocking things their addicts say-- shouldn't I surmise it was a cynical, last ditch effort of drug dealers only looking to cash in and avoid responsibility?
Edit: clarification
Come now, that withstands zero investigation. Even with zero censorship, millions upon millions would fall into terrible rabbit holes already. The sad fact is some people love conspiracies and love thinking they're the real informed ones amidst the sheeple.
The real effect of censorship on FB and other insanely wealthy and powerful social media would be forcing the platforms to reckon with the garbage collection they've never solved. If Zuckerberg can donate 99% of his wealth to charity, maybe he can apply that to his own company and use those resources to stop problems at their inception.
civilized
Your depictions of the very disturbed, impoverished and desperate people involved in the DC/Capitol building fiasco are heartless, cruel, and completely uncivilized. You clearly have no idea what is going on in their lives, just as so many of them were unaware of what the BLM marches were all about.
This is probably the interesting bit - a retaliatory move by a regime trying to silence the opposition. I don't think this has too many parallels (except for blocking of accounts) with the current US events, which is why this is probably being upvoted?
He is, after all, running for like his 10th term now.
We long ago learned that you can't be 'on' 24/7, yet we let ourselves fall into it with digital media/social networks.
Which is boring to them and essentially doesn’t attract the extra eyeballs they need to make enough revenue.
https://citizentv.co.ke/news/bobi-wine-cuts-short-interview-...
https://www.dw.com/en/uganda-presidential-candidate-bobi-win...
with an informative top comment from a Ugandan HNer.
It seems significantly different to me to not be a dupe, and yet I really appreciate how you moderate HN so I leave that decision up to you. Thanks for your work!
Do you know if what https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25711941 says is true, that they do this every election? That seems relevant if so, and the comment sounds credible.
Everyone keeps making these same points in every thread, and no minds are changed.
The reality is that CNN, MSNBC, Huffington post, New York Times, FOX, etc. all are shoving fluffed up pieces with an extreme bias. Every media outlet is doing this.
> Everyone keeps making these same points in every thread, and no minds are changed.
I agree with this. This is why we have always defaulted to "free speech" in America, while saying calls for violence are illegal. Currently, however, only one side's ideas are being banned; even if they don't call for violence, only if they "make people angry".
With and estimated ~200 protestors entering the building, we've effectively silenced tens of millions in response.
Why do you think so?
Let's say that without social media, you constrain who is able to manipulate the opinion to the dominant groups in the Country: The rich family that owns the favorite TV/Radio channels, the Army general supported by the riches, the man from the working classes that never worked, and so on...
Does a multi-country-specific social media company already exist? In any case, the 2020's will be an interesting decade for this space.
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help" -- run, run for your fucking life.