|
|
|
|
|
|
by jchw
310 days ago
|
|
|
I live in the United States and it baffles me just as much, trust me. Fine, maybe I didn't have the biggest expectations for the general public, but I really expected the Internet to react much more viscerally to what is happening. In the past, the Internet was much more defensive about Internet policing that was significantly less dystopian. Now, it feels like no matter how rapidly things decline, it's just another Tuesday; most people are unwilling to make any sort of sacrifice or risk for any cause, and nobody (including me, I guess) is really sure what to do anyways. It really wasn't that long ago that we were all talking about SOPA. |
|
|
Large gatekeepers get flack from politicians if they allow "the wrong people" to organize. First they claim there is a huge problem with terrorists/nazis/pedos/etc., maybe even find a couple of real instances of those things, and use that to demand that the gatekeepers Do Something, i.e. set up a censorship apparatus.
But the modern ones are subtle. You don't try to read something and get refused, it just goes to the bottom of the feed where you won't see it. Take advantage of the human failing that busybodies will take petty satisfaction in causing harm to strangers they've been told are their enemies. Let them issue false reports against anyone pointing out the emperor has no clothes. Have the algorithm take those reports seriously, with useless or non-existent customer service that can do nothing about adversarial report brigading. Make it known that this is what happens to people who don't toe the party line so people self-censor and people who don't get shadow banned.
It's an assault on the ability of the public to defend itself from bad ideas.
Large gatekeepers delenda est.