[froogie]

Well at simplest, if enforced, it will force a company to figure a way to comply. Either get rid of people who share such content or otherwise mute them. If not, you pay fines, preferrably way more than what you profit from letting such voices have a safe haven.

How else do you solve the problem of unwanted ideas spreading around? Serious question, as this is a constant challenge for every social group anywhere.

[dominotw]

> How else do you solve the problem of unwanted ideas spreading around?

Though education, independent thinking. Presumably ideas itself are not unwanted, things resulting from those ideas are unwanted.

[froogie]

But that does not work in practice. Social groups need cohesion to function. If you fracture that cohesion, the group may split to more cohesive subgroups which may not be tolerant of each other. Their belief systems may be so incompatible in such way (by malicious design or otherwise) that peaceful co-existence becomes impossible and infighting ensues.

The history of our species is full of that scenario happening. In the grand scheme of things every war fought ever is a variation of that.

Not all of us are ideal, and most of us act in chaotic and irrational ways. Usually we don't see it or care much about it, unless we see it in others and we think its something to look down to.

Among us there are individuals who are suspectible to thoughts and ideas, which if presnted correctly, can alter and sway their values, identity, beliefs and behavior.

How do we defend a social group, which inherently has individuals as described above in them, from a info-social attack against our group cohesion? Because education can never be a perfect solution due to human factors. We are all different and respond differently to different ideas and content presented to us. Furthermore, some of us are naive and gullible by their nature, while others are careful and reserved, even paranoid.

How do you defend against an adversary which optimally targets crafted (often truthless) messages at receptive subgroups of different personalities, backgrounds etc.?

Think of social networks, content in apps, ads, blogs, HN/reddit/etc comments, ....

[iamnothere]

You're trying to solve an unsolvable problem, based on an inaccurate premise. Social cohesion in any nation-sized group is temporary at best. The notion of a permanently cohesive society is terrifying, as it implies the end of independent thought and the elimination of organized dissent.

Conflict is an inevitable part of the human condition. Anyone who tries to "solve" human nature inevitably ends up creating a nightmare society.

[froogie]

But what I am talking about is not just nation-sized group, but any social group.

You can think of religions as an example, and as an attempt to solve these problems, with all the problems that entails, of course.

What makes you convinced, if not the infinity of time, that conflict is inevitable? To me it is clear that as species due to our cultural development and understanding (which our societies represent) has increased dramatically over the last few thousand years. Similarly, our conception of our own social group (the "us") has grown dramatically, to the point that we today may identify ourselves as parts of multiple, independent social groups. Unlike not long ago, these groups need not be local, they can span countries or continents.

Because technological development leads to globalization of the species, our social groups start covering the whole planet.

If this development continues, is it not inevitable that we will at some point get de facto global entity which governs us i.e. world government? It would be the natural next step.

What would be the responsible social action to deal with global issues like global warming and to return to sustainable resource use?

We can not, as species, decentralize our decision making to independent self-interested groups i.e. nations much longer. Our consumption of resources is neither sustainable nor responsible. What wisdom is it to leave a barren earth for our children to inherit?

[iamnothere]

> Similarly, our conception of our own social group (the "us") has grown dramatically, to the point that we today may identify ourselves as parts of multiple, independent social groups. Unlike not long ago, these groups need not be local, they can span countries or continents.

> Because technological development leads to globalization of the species, our social groups start covering the whole planet.

I think you overestimate the effects of technology and globalization. I too used to believe this, but I have found it to be an illusion created by the intersection of modern media and the Internet. If you get out of your neighborhood, your city, your state, your country, and really engage with people, you'll find that most of them are more different from you than you can imagine. People have wildly different values, interests, and beliefs about even the most basic things. It is a wonder that we function as societies at all, and a testament to the resilience and inherent flexibility of the social structures we've constructed -- at least in the 50% of the planet where stable, large-scale societies exist.

> If this development continues, is it not inevitable that we will at some point get de facto global entity which governs us i.e. world government? It would be the natural next step.

No, mainly due to the inevitable competition for resources and status that would splinter any such centralized authority. Groups of humans will not agree to give an outsize share of their resources to perceived competition, even if it is a fair exchange. Look at the present urban/rural divide, racial and religious divides, and hatred between many nations. And this may be the best it has ever been! There has never been a time in history when strategic competitors could agree to put aside their differences for mutual advantage, except for brief moments when facing a greater threat. One could argue that climate change and resource depletion are indeed greater threats, but I would contend that such alliances suffer from fatigue and eventual defection if the "war" lasts too long. (Which it will! These issues are not going away.)

> We can not, as species, decentralize our decision making to independent self-interested groups i.e. nations much longer. Our consumption of resources is neither sustainable nor responsible. What wisdom is it to leave a barren earth for our children to inherit?

You're right, we can not -- but we will, unless technology allows a small group to put a boot on the face of humanity's abundant diversity of culture and thought. Either option is terrible; we dive back into the pit of global resource conflict, or we become enslaved. The only thing that can break us out of this awful set of choices is a benevolent "strong" AI, and I personally have doubts that this can be achieved in time to save us from the next, potentially final, global war.

If I were a global power, I would be secretly putting my resources into surviving this coming war. (There are no "winners" in the next global war, only survivors.) Unfortunately, if nations are doing this -- and they surely are -- it only adds to the probability of conflict.

[iamnothere]

> How else do you solve the problem of unwanted ideas spreading around?

Make the ideas illegal. Ban discussion or propagation of the ideas, including written materials. Set up a strong system of censorship to ensure that people don't try to use irony, innuendo, or sarcasm to evade the information blockade. Ensure that cross-border communication is intercepted and inspected for illegal ideas. If someone is reported for spreading the ideas, search their home and confiscate the illegal materials. Send repeat offenders to prison. Put the creators of the material in prison. Tightly control any and all devices that could be used to spread the information.

(For the record, any country that has come close to achieving this has become a totalitarian state.)