|
|
|
|
|
|
by Jtsummers
2184 days ago
|
|
|
I think the bigger problems is that people seem to have developed an inherent trust of information they find on the internet, same as with what they hear on the radio or TV before (well, and still). Perhaps the trust is when the information agrees with their already present biases and preconceptions, but the trust is there. It's dangerous, and hard to overcome. And encouraging a general distrust doesn't help either, because there is good information out there. And restrictions won't do any good. It's the Internet. Practically, you can't stop E2EE communication at this point. Social media can become decentralized (with Mastodon and similar systems) or even p2p (with Secure Scuttlebutt). All restrictions would do would be to curtail the speech of people who don't know about them, and increase the utilization of these other social networks. Net effect: No change to the nature of speech, just to the places they happen. |
|
|
I believe that's spot on, and it's essentially the same with newspapers and TV, at the very least today. 30 years ago, there was only one truth, and it was spread via mass media. Now, there are competing narratives, both in mass media and on the Internet, and everybody picks and chooses what fits into their understanding of the world.
> Net effect: No change to the nature of speech, just to the places they happen.
And the degree to which you can observe and influence what is said. If you force people to adopt secure communication en masse, you lose a lot of possibilities. I don't know how much this is a concern for governments, but I don't think that they will be able to win the crypto wars, so pushing people into secure comms by overreaching today means they will have a much harder time tomorrow. But maybe they won't be in charge tomorrow, so it's not really their problem.