undefined | Better HN

0 pointscdfsdsadsa6mo ago0 comments

>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.

0 comments

stinkbeetle6mo ago

> 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?

cdfsdsadsaOP6mo ago

"We" - the West. Our opponents won a demoralised and fragmented citizenry, and economic success.

aydyn6mo ago

Im going to guess nobody? Nobody won. Everybody lost.

iamnothere6mo ago

> 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_everywhere6mo ago

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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

stinkbeetle6mo ago

> 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?

cdfsdsadsaOP6mo ago

"We" - the West. Our opponents won a demoralised and fragmented citizenry, and economic success.

aydyn6mo ago

Im going to guess nobody? Nobody won. Everybody lost.

iamnothere6mo ago

> 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 we are receiving all of the downsides of a liberal democracy without the benefits, what’s the point anymore?

ants_everywhere6mo ago

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.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse