[endorphone]

"Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it."

You picked three. How about Australia, Canada, European Commission, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. Are you going to examine those? Most of those are the most free, most protective countries.

"The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there."

There has always been hate. There have always been incredibly ignorant beliefs like flat Earth, anti-vaccine, etc. Usually it is isolated and the community -- the village -- keeps it in check and provides a pressure valve. Social media, however, allows us to surround ourselves with a bubble that makes us think that it's normal if not somehow heroic, our graph of similarly extreme believing people cementing our resolve. That guy who became curious and got some bad information isn't being reasoned with by rational people, he's being indoctrinated by a distributed group that only reinforced their own beliefs.

It absolutely has made the problem worse in otherwise reasonable societies.

[rudedogg]

> It absolutely has made the problem worse in otherwise reasonable societies.

I'm genuinely curious, has it really? I wonder if it's just more widely reported?

I tried looking up terrorism statistics and found this: https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism

For most countries, it doesn't look like much has changed from 1970-2017.

I glanced at hate crime stats on the FBI website (just looking at 2008 and 2017), with 7,783 and 7,175 crimes reported for each year). So not much change there either.

Obviously this is a half-assed attempt, but I just wanted to counter the idea that the world is falling apart. Hopefully someone who has more interest in these things can provide some studies with more comprehensive statistics.

[Reelin]

Many people seem unaware of how bad the 70s were, and that definitely predates Facebook.

https://www.npr.org/2015/04/05/396359930/explosive-protests-...

I suspect people just like to have a boogeyman to blame so that they feel they have more understanding or control of the situation than they actually do. "It's a bad situation and we don't know what the cause is or how to fix things" isn't something you'll hear very often, particularly from politicians.

[avereveard]

and in the 80s too. anarchist &Nazi&friends in Italy were engaging in an actual bomb marathon with huge loss of innocent life, and I'd argue that if being mean on internet is action enough today for these groups so that they disregard their traditional methods, like literally bombing places, then we are all better off with that

[stallmanite]

I can never wrap my head around the thought process. Kill innocents and somebody else will be impressed with Anarchism somehow?

[Izkata]

Think of it as hostage-taking at mass scale, intending for fear of continued bombings leading to capitulation.

[CodiePetersen]

"Are you going to examine those? Most of those are the most free, most protective countries."

I could I suppose go over more of them. The point though, that I was making when I mentioned in exempting fictitious future governments, is that it can be used NOW by real governments. Sure there will be nations that don't abuse it indefinitely, but you can't ensure a governments intent 5 years from now let alone 50. There are plenty of cases I could see in some of those nations where it could be used against the people that may be less black and white, like organization efforts for the yellow vest protests being censored and removed or any peaceful protest that could get out of hand for that matter. Or maybe even Google and Facebook making anti-tech protests less visible because black bloc may show up.

"There have always been incredibly ignorant beliefs like flat Earth, anti-vaccine, etc. Usually it is isolated and the community -- the village -- keeps it in check and provides a pressure valve."

Well for one the idea of a "non geocentric universe" literally had a man burned at the stake for blasphemy, people were burned as witches, religious wars were all over the planet, so the problem isn't technology, it's humans. And I'd argue the only thing that has made us more tolerant is the freedom of information, the freedom of speech, and the exposure to ideas. Debate changes minds, telling them to stay hermits doesn't. Not only does it not change minds though, as others have pointed out, in this age, the intolerant will spread their message somehow some way.

I would also argue, that the bubble you are talking about doesn't have much to do with the ability to connect and instead has more to do with the way social media has designed their platforms. They are just like casinos. Just look at twitter. There is no down thumb, only likes and views. So you don't get the "oh you lose" social cue, you only get the flashy bling of increasing likes and views. In normal society you get a disgusted look or ridiculing laughs to tell you if you are saying something unacceptable in public. But that's not how "social" media works. And I think that specific point is what needs to be worked on. So I think we might have a common agreement in that at least. But I still think censoring is the wrong way to go. Just let the world see the true social acceptance score and I think you will see a lot of that isolation of bad ideas.

[PorterDuff]

"...is that it can be used NOW by real governments." "They are just like casinos. Just look at twitter."

Two good, but arguably separate points. I'd say that the internet generally (besides the .0001% of it that is of bonafide intellectual content) has gone down the same road as slot machine design and they're getting better at it.

The main point (and threat) of agreements like this is that they set up a legal framework and the physical ability to control what people see from a central switch. Combine that with the ever-improving ability to both addict people to pictures on screens and to nudge them in a desired direction, it's really all about power.

I suppose in the final analysis it's all just takes the place of state sponsored religions.

[endorphone]

But for your example it isn't needed whatsoever. They do what they want without it. Denigrating a good initiative by association with a small number of suspect participants is not convincing.

"Or maybe even Google and Facebook making anti-tech protests less visible because black bloc may show up."

Google and Facebook can do anything and everything they want right now. And we know that they, among others, bring forward the most contentious and the most divisive because it draws engagement. We know that they immerse people in their own filter bubble where suddenly they live in a world where seemingly everyone is a flat Earther, or believes in Pizzagate, or whatever.

"so the problem isn't technology, it's humans"

This is specious. In a period of ignorance, ignorance reigned supreme (not to mention a theocracy, which is dangerously close to re-emerging in the US). We now, at least in some realms, have an ability to reason and to cite and use fact.

[CodiePetersen]

"They do what they want without it."

That argument goes both ways, if they can do what they want now, then there is no need to sign it and it's just a fluff feel good piece of paper. But the fact is, there is power behind people, governments, and organizations throwing in public support.

"This is specious. In a period of ignorance, ignorance reigned supreme (not to mention a theocracy, which is dangerously close to re-emerging in the US). We now, at least in some realms, have an ability to reason and to cite and use fact."

This is literally the point I'm trying to make. The hate is ignorance, and the only way to stop that ignorance is to allow the flow and freedom of information and the exchange of ideas. That's the only way we are going to be able to change any minds.

[Zuider]

>So you don't get the "oh you lose" social cue [on twitter]

You don't get the silent downvoting that occurs on sites like reddit, but you do get overt disagreement which can go viral and result in consequences in real life such as being fired and harassed. Added to that, twitter is very proactive in banning people. My point is that the absence of one form of feedback does not preclude the use of other kinds.