|
|
|
|
|
|
by philippejara
1274 days ago
|
|
|
>In short, the collective well-being of humanity should always be a top priority, and this includes moderating harmful or extremist content on the internet. Who defines what is harmful or extremist in the government? Sounds like you either get in the good graces of the "intelligence community" or you are now harmful, as shown pretty clearly with the hordes of "intelligence community" people calling the biden laptop(whatever it had, its content is irrelevant) russian propaganda[0], while even the DOJ and FBI says it isn't[1]. And of course those officials making the stink are contracted by the news agencies to talk about it where journalists will just blindly accept whatever they're given. The "intelligence community" isn't your friend(neither are the proper agencies but I digress), it never was if you're not an us citizen and it probably stopped being if you are after the patriot act. [0]:https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-... [1]: https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-doj-fbi-confirm-hunt... |
|
|
An additional related question: Are they even capable of undertaking this task? Our current government officials and bureaucrats don't understand enough about how the Internet works to effectively police it. And more fundamentally, can a government act quickly enough to outwit how quickly the Internet adapts to roadblocks? Governments need to have policies, procedures, go through chains of command, etc. A lot of Internet culture, on the other hand, is driven by random people doing random things. If a topic is forbidden, instead of policing that topic, the government then has to police the 50 ways to get around the block as well as guess which one will take root.
It's similar to trying to win a war against guerrilla insurgents. The high level of organization of a government to some degree works against them.