Hating on tech billionaires - Yes
Government control of communications - No
Those things are not mutually exclusive
So does the government ban the news from criticizing them just because they’re not anonymous? That’s not the way it works in the EU. You’re very lost it would seem…
That’s not the way it works in the EU
Not yet. Because they don't have the mechanism.
And it's not about Sánchez and his government. I don't think they would do it. But governments change, sooner or later someone else will win elections. Someone who might not agree with criticism.
And don't try to convince me "it would never happen in the EU". We have more than enough examples that eventually every country has a brush with authoritarianism. Even in the EU currently (eg Hungary). Prevention is always better than trying to fix it later.
Literally spain too. That whole Francoist Spain thing only ended in 1975.
Yes, and not thanks to the internet.
You know the things that started happening everywhere in the democratic world from 2015 on or so though?
Turns out the internet as is doesn’t do much to advance democracy, but it’s great for destroying it.
“Not yet”
Spain was a dictatorship until the 70s and transitioned into a democracy without anonymous internet shitposting. The USA was a functioning democracy and transitioned into a shithole with anonymous internet shitposting.
Anonymous internet shitposting fixes nothing, it only damages the social fabric and pollutes the public discourse. That’s why foreign actors love to weaponize it.
Being a citizen of a free country comes with responsibilities: paying taxes, voting, expressing your opinions sensibly. Anonymous internet shitposting advances zero democratic values, it’s simply a great channel for conducting international destabilization campaigns.
It. Fixes. Nothing. If you’re as lazy as to need anonymity to post your opinions in a free country you’re going to overthrow no tyranny. You’ll just be fed psyops by others who will break your system.
Can you sign that comment with your real name and address to be an example for all of us? Don't forget to add your phone number.
We will of course need proof, so attaching a scan of your id would be a step towards It.Fixing.Something.
As I said, having a government platform doing the encrypted id check means you would get the encrypted id check and verification, and the government would read your data (as it already does). Don’t try to sell fear.
And by the way, I’m registered as the owner and resident of my house that has an internet connection with an IP from which I’m writing, paid with my bank account, all of them well known to the government.
The only difference is you don’t know whether I’m an individual over 18 and a citizen of the EU or a sim on a multisim device in Vladivostok. And I think that’s not good.
A government platform you say? From the government that regularly gets hacked, leaking the IDs of millions of Spanish citizens that can now be used to commit identity fraud? https://hipertextual.com/seguridad/hackers-venta-millones-dni-espanoles-dark-web/
and it's not like this is a rare thing to happen.
And your point is? Creating an id check doesn’t increase the potential risk, the government already has all the data.
My question is, why do you want underage citizens to use social media platforms that a) have been proven to be damaging to their psychological health b) farm their data and store it far from our control c) don’t add anything to our economy.
Care to explain? Because it really fascinates me.
I don't want them to use it. I agree with all your points.
I strongly disagree that mandatory ID on the net is the solution to this.
It also fascinates me that you'd think putting such a tool, with all the trouble it could cause if our countries stop being democracies, in the hands of government as a purported solution to children being on social media. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater
The tool already exists and is used for serious stuff (dealing with the treasury department, police, banks, bond auctions), the only difference is you would be forcing mainstream social media platforms to get an OK from that government’s platform.
Sorry but if you can’t trust your country’s system as a legitimate large scale shield then there is no possible defense against multinational conglomerates and at that point you’re better off just going bunker prepper, I don’t really know what your point is. Democracy doesn’t stick in low trust societies.
There are other ways to ban social media for minors that don't go through full fledged online IDs for everything. But you seem to want to ignore that, it's a false dichotomy.
Banning social media for minors (or better yet, opaque algorithmic feeds for everyone) = Good.
Trying to achieve that by giving overreaching powers to a government, that can be used as a tool of oppression when democracy wavers = very bad.
As for low trust societies, mate, I've been gassed, beaten up and shot at with rubber bullets by riot police in Spain, for the egregious crime of peacefully protesting. It's a country where the memory of the dictatorship, and it's power structures, are still very much alive. Francoism never fully left
0 posts and 16 comments on lemmy.
all your comments on lemmy are about justifying government controlled internet by parroting the "protect the children" and "troll farm" stereotypes. Not a credible profile, huh?
I think that shit poster strawman deserves a promotion after how much you abused it.
Worry not, they’re getting promoted as we speak. That’s the whole point of it: interested malicious parties and useful idiots.
Fight against billionaires
Look inside
Surveillance and censorship of everyone else
You do realize that the billionaires are already surveilling and censoring everyone? Google sharing info with ICE, Bezos killing Washington Post, Musk modifying algorithms to promote his messages and banning inconvenient accounts, Thiel promoting his crazy agenda through Palantir and so on and so on.
When you say "government should not surveil and censor" you're really saying "only billionaires should surveil and censor".
The proper way forward is to censor the shit out of Russian bot ridden, billionaire controlled propaganda machines that is social media and move discussion back to civilized places. People who think that places like Twitter are net benefit for society are delusional. They gave us nothing but bunch of right wing populists and disinformation while real media is still doing all the actual oversight. The sooner all those places are banned the better.
And the solution to that is to give the billionaires your government ID?
Why are you implying that we would need to do that? The proposed solution in the article is an app that social media apps would need to interact with to get approval. Something like an external verification tool. All the billionaires would get is an "ok, go on" or "stop".
Is it so hard to read the article before criticizing your own hallucinations?
Yes. The solution for bots and foreign actors filling social media with propaganda is to identify its users. What's the downside, in EU specifically, to giving social media companies your ID? What are they going to do with it they don't do already?
Get hacked and leak it for starters, as has already happened with Discord. And social media is a loose definition that can be expanded to include whatever you want. Currently Lemmy and Mastodon are not included but it could be. And Lemmy currently has none of my personal information so uploading my ID would be infinitely worse than what we have now. And before you say it's not feasible to force all instances to comply or be blocked that won't stop them trying.
Or the alternative... quit doom-scrolling all day long to an addictive algorithm. No one is forced to use social media.
Its not just about social media, the scope keeps changing and these laws are being used as a framework for mass censorship and surveillance of the entire internet. First it was just porn, now it's social media and next will probably be VPNs. And social media is a loose definition that can be expanded to include whatever you want, I'm sure at one point Australia were going to include github in their age verification law although I don't know if they followed through with that.
And sure for now we can escape to platforms like Lemmy which are free from both age verification and the general shittiness of the big platforms, but guarantee it won't stay that way for long.
It doesn’t work like that… it’s an open source government platform the one doing the id check.
That really doesn't ease my concern that it's just more government surveillance
I don’t know what country you’re from but in mine one has to produce one’s id to vote, access adult only establishments, go through customs or board a plane. I understand these as the usual procedures of a civilized society.
I don’t understand how verifying one’s identity and age when accessing a regulated site is any different. It fascinates me how rules that are business as usual in the physical world seem not to apply in the digital world for (??) reasons.
In the physical world if you have a business you have to pay taxes, apply for licenses, and are liable for offering illegal or harmful merchandise or services.
In the digital world you can fill a room with children and show them porn and political propaganda for (??) reasons. And not allowing it is “government interference”. So why are children not allowed in brothels or casinos in the physical world? “Government interference”?
An app that gets requests to verify access and returns ok/no is minimal surveillance. We are so past that in terms of surveillance that complaining about it seems silly.
You do realize that the billionaires are already surveilling and censoring everyone?
For more than a century. Beginning with hired private detectives and crooked cops, yellow journalism and Bowdlerized books.
Internet discourse is a public activity, journalists and demonstrators don’t hide their identities when publishing or protesting in Spain or the EU.
Why people want the internet to be any different is beyond me. The public square being anonymous is an asset only for malign foreign actors. I want to know whether people writing stuff are single individuals from my country/the EU or suspicious actors. In a free country, you can tell the government to go fuck itself without a mask, and that’s the only way to separate real criticism from manufactured criticism and foreign manipulation.
In a free country, you can tell the government to go fuck itself without a mask
Political infrastructure works well until it is not. U.S. used to have okay political infrastructure in protecting democracy, then patriot's act happened and many of its loophole identified, now president can just kidnap a foreign president as "law enforcement".
I would love a system where people don't have any need to be anynomized, it would make many things much simpler, but that seems hard to imagine for me. And I am not from the U.S. and I have lived in both U.S., U.K., and outside of the west, so it is likely not caused by "U.S. brainwashing".
I am not entirely sure what is the "EU secret sauce" to prevent Politician in utilizing these loopholes or strong centiments to gradually regulate speech. One day, they might be able to make use of these data. People in U.S. protested, they shot protester, and no one can protest forever, unfortunately. I am curious what would prevent EU to replay what US have now, except with much much more targeted data at the government's disposal.
The US is, very precisely, the poster child on how libertarianism doesn’t advance democracy.
The right to bear arms advances no democratic values, because people who are individualistic or distrustful to the point they buy a gun to protect their property won’t fight for democracy, because democracy is a collective enterprise. Where are all those very very brave and very very armed Americans now that the executive is running rampant and shutting down their institutions and agreements? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
Likewise, the right to issue public anonymous opinions advances no democratic values, because if you need them to be anonymous in a free country, either they are malicious/fake and therefore you’re afraid of legal repercussions or you’re lazy/fearful and therefore you would fight no tyranny (same as those who bear arms).
I’m not arguing against the privacy of private communications, that’s an entirely different matter (that’s the point of private/public), but when one issues a public opinion one should be responsible and sensible enough to do it non anonymously. That doesn’t even mean I have to know your name, but we could create an open source encrypted platform that identifies public personas on the internet as a)individuals b)nationals of their countries in the EU. Simply add a check close to the handle and the official verification.
Our freedom to express a public opinion is precious and shouldn’t be weaponized against us by malign foreign actors. As I said before, nobody would go to a political rally by a random Russian in a balaclava. I don’t want to ban political rallies, I just want to expose farms of Russians in balaclavas.
I am not sure Spain is the right country to make considering the laws they have and how they have been used (spanish wikipedia).
Oh yes the laws of tyrannical Spain are the ones to be feared and of course take precedent over the risks posed by the FSB, Heritage Foundation et al, and the heartfelt kindness of FB and X.
Sure, sure…
The prime minister has endured years of abuse on the social media platforms he now seeks to regulate.
Nobody would go to a political rally by an anonymous dude in a balaclava with a yank or russian accent, but somehow everybody loves to get their opinions molded by random anonymous, possibly paid and farm based, actors on the internet…
Nobody would go to a political rally by an anonymous dude in a balaclava with a yank or russian accent
You would be surprised...
The convoy idiots in Canada are a prime example of this.
I could start by leaving twitter
It’s kind of an interesting situation because it seems like he’s not in the Epstein files, and while I don’t believe he’s anything but a typical corrupt, opportunistic politician his opportunism is at least left-leaning and not pro-Zionism big tech.
Sadly this is a rare thing in today’s world, but also a reason why the surveillance tech apparatus hates him so I understand the urge to regulate them, but as usual this is at the expense of our freedom and just self-serving.
Fuck every Axel Springer Publication, which includes Politico
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
