The internet was supposed to be a useful, convenient tool to help you in your day to day life when necessary, it was not meant to be an addictive and harmful replacement for real life social interaction and experiences
 |
 |
|
The internet was supposed to be a useful, convenient tool to help you in your day to day life when necessary, it was not meant to be an addictive and ...
when governments begin treating the internet just like every other medium of communication then it will become a tool to help you in your day to day life. the problem is we have a total free for all on the internet.
we need to have borders on the internet, we need to have the rule of law apply to it like it applies to any other medium like print mediums and so on.
this would end social media entirely, the internet would become a first reviewed and then published medium and the hosts would be legally responsible for the content.
I think this will eventually happen. I am still amazed that Russia hasn't been cut off or cut itself off from the current global internet.
This. The anarcho-lolbertardian internet experiment has resulted in a clusterfrick of bad information driving out good information and given a voice and platform for scum to coordinate and project their loathsome ideologies
If you aren't smart enough to recognize bad information, that is your fault. No one has a right to determine what information I have access to. If I want to believe dumb shit, that's on me. Fascists like you want to control information because your ego is too fragile to be questioned or you don't want your nefarious plans to be uncovered. Go back to Twitter.
Most people can't recognize bad information, and changing the beliefs of most people results in political change that affects all of society. Lolbertarians are unable to understand that things happen in the macro scale.
The issue at hand for me isn’t the fact that bad information exists. The issue is that you have two different standards of law for the very same information. If you print it in a book form and sell it then you are liable for its contents. If you publish it online, somehow you’re not liable. You can’t have it both ways. It’s not a matter of controlling information, it’s a matter of allowing the truth and opinions flourish in a environment that allows it as opposed to one that is governed by outright lies and deception which is unrestricted and uncontrolled.
>I am still amazed that Russia hasn't been cut off or cut itself off from the current global internet
They will never cut themselves off because their propaganda thrives on the internet. It's the perfect place for misinformation.
knee jerk reaction, What was wrong about catholic censorship? What was wrong about soviet and natsoc censorships, what was wrong with every philosopher having to swear first to the Khan to see, hear or speak truthes?
Generations of people under strict ideological control and the comforts that go along with it, The game isn't ban hammer, the game is coordinate out of a chinese finger trap.
As William Casey is purported to have said, We'll Know Our Disinformation Program is Complete When Everything The American Public Believes is False. - William Casey, CIA Director 1981 -
Thing is everyone has been hypotized into a subset of information,
now you can use the state monopoly on violence to coerce people into thinking like you, or you can adapt and really begin to content with not only the known-knowns of knowledge but also the known-unknowns unknown-knowns and unknown-unknowns
Censorship is not a bad thing when it is used to prevent malcontents and agent provocateurs from undermining civil society. Yes bad regimes use censorship but even democracies do this and tv, print, and radio were all censored in the 20th century.
>prevent malcontents and agent provocateurs
So i take it your judge jury and execution on what minorities constitute civil society and which ones are malcontents and agent provocateurs? I think of George Washington, the taxation without representation is not "1530s; borrowed from Middle French societé, from Old French societé, from Latin societās, societātem (“fellowship, association, alliance, union, community”)," though the crown classified them as malcontents
take pic related for example. One side claims its because loonie conspiracy theorists, and the other says its just a cross board loss of trust in the medical establishment. In all cases censorship creates centralization risk, a king can never have his eyes on the entire kingdom, but a collection of citizens (not serfs held at gunpoint by the state) with long term stake in the welfare of such kingdom
It’s simple: don’t let people perpetuate demonstratable lies under the guise of being “entertainment”
We’re at this point of people being at each other’s throats because they are living in their own bubble realities and are not drawing their facts from a common source, they’re being lied too by people with a vested political or economic interest in tearing people apart
>It’s simple: don’t let people perpetuate demonstratable lies under the guise of being “entertainment”
philosophically there is no truth but in the strictest truisms, I have a fundementally different perspective about knowledge, and that is people have to hear the lies to better determine the truth. The extremes need to speak to better find the center, which means having the most callous liars and most bolden truth seekers to both contribute their boon. Its only than is the mosaic comprehended and the greatest truth elucidated.
As long as there is desire there will be people just stringing what every combination of words together to circle jerk their dopamine loop. Censoring and than claiming to people you snuffed out all lies so its okay to trust just leaves the population naive to the greater truths the censors are too ignorant to comprehend themselves, and for good reason, the 5 human senses are adapted to survival, not seeking objective truthe
>people have to hear the lies to better determine the truth
Except that’s awfully naive and doesn’t actually lead anyone to the truth it leads them to whoever is more consistent about promoting falsehoods that validate their feelings as objective fact, which invariably means foreign governments spending lots of money to sow discontent in a bid to fragment society into warring factions. It’s digital espionage with the intent to divide and conquer, which is why media needs to be curated so people are having conversations that actually matter and aren’t being pitted against each other by bad faith actors
frick off incel
>proving ops point with a single post
I'm helping him, idiot
if he thinks the internet is harmful he should frick off
We already know and knew technology comes with the evil of dependence. This was not a mystery, and still isn't. It will continue. Everyone knows it.
"Real life social interaction and experiences" are almost universally bad.
I feel like I'd still be worse off without it coz I'd still be a friendless autist anyway. maybe I'd spend more time with nature or developing skills/knowledge though. while the internet in theory provides a resource for that there's too many distractions and too much stimulation to remain focused. still, as shitty as it is it's my only window into the outside world.
God damn that picture makes me feel warm inside. How odd.
What is that image from?
How so?