[delusional]

I don't know if it has anything to do with changes in elections directly. My government has been talking for a while making the case that social media use makes us dumber, sadder, and more scared. I believe it's true that they also see that playing out in elections, but that's not where they want to solve a problem.

Wouldn't it be strange if solving a problem didn't affect elections?

[pjc50]

This has been noticeable since Tahrir square; I used to say that Twitter gives you a revolution whether you need it or not.

But it's becoming increasingly clear how badly compromised the whole thing is with fake opinions and enemy propaganda.

I don't like either of the options. I don't like control by the state, and I don't like control by mad billionaires. I don't like the far right cesspool of 4chan, but can't disagree with their position that they shouldn't have to care about OFCOM.

[ben_w]

> I don't like the far right cesspool of 4chan, but can't disagree with their position that they shouldn't have to care about OFCOM.

While I agree with this statement, I thought there was some kind of requirement that OFCOM goes through a process like this before being allowed to ask for a domain to be blocked in the UK?

The latter is, I think, something OFCOM should be allowed to do with a restriction that it can only come after other options fail.

[pjc50]

Oh, it's much more stupid than that: OFCOM can't block websites, I just checked and it's available on my phone right now. They've issued a fine to 4chan instead. Which they are ignoring.

Imgur have gone the other direction: they have voluntarily blocked the UK (!), which is very irritating when trying to browse Reddit.

There's certainly a process, but not a good one.

(separate from all this, the Internet Watch Foundation maintains a blocklist which ISPs voluntarily follow, of actual CSAM.)

[ben_w]

> OFCOM can't block websites, I just checked and it's available on my phone right now.

Until the process is complete, that's not evidence of inability, that's just the process:

  Where appropriate, if a provider fails to comply with its safety duties, we can also seek a court order for ‘business disruption measures’, such as requiring payment providers or advertisers to withdraw their services from a platform, or requiring Internet Service Providers to block a site in the UK.

- https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-c...

> There's certainly a process, but not a good one.

Indeed. There does seem to be a mutual non-comprehension of how the internet functions amongst lawmakers and enforcers in both the UK and the USA; both seem to act like they have more sovereignty over the internet than is possible without reaching much faster for a block order for sites outside their respective jurisdictions.

[coldtea]

>My government has been talking for a while making the case that social media use makes us dumber, sadder, and more scared. I believe it's true that they also see that playing out in elections, but that's not where they want to solve a problem.

The governments themselves are "dumber, sadder, and more scared". They are worried because social media puts regular people talking on equal footing to official propagandas (being able to reach everybody else). That's what they fear, because they have the lowest approval ratings and legitimization in over half a century, and they're also making everything shittier and shittier to the benefit of their corporate overlords.

[schubidubiduba]

You couldn't be more wrong. There's no equal footing when propaganda buys you thousands of bots to parrot what you want on every related post. And there is no ability to "reach everyone" when intransparent algorithms decide what reaches who. Moreover, some kind of content is explicitly suppressed and censored.

[zrn900]

Statistics showed that bots don't change opinions. The only reason why certain establishments scream about them is to explain their election losses. People have very deep biases, and 'randos' blabbering online does not change them. It doesn't matter whether those 'randos' are bots or are real.

[coldtea]

All of that is still irrelevant if the people can still express themselves. The truth can rise on top of bots.

The problem is the algorithm and the "explicitly suppressed and censored" and that's on the governments and corporations. So that's the worst argument for giving the government more control.

[delusional]

> All of that is still irrelevant if the people can still express themselves. The truth can rise on top of bots.

That argument seems easily debunked by pointing at the effectiveness of propaganda, which is in its essence indistinguishable from bots.

[phatfish]

I will agree that governments are happy to bend the knee to corporations. But corporations control social media, so why would the corporations themselves not further their agenda using the platforms they control? Be that simply letting chaos ensue (see the UK Southport riots that were sparked by a "news story" from Pakistan) or from tuning the algorithms directly.

People have control over their government, at least in democracies that are functioning to a basic level (see Hungary recently). But they have zero control over social media, in fact the only organisations that can control global billion dollar tech companies are nation state governments...

[CalRobert]

It could be both

[malka1986]

they have the lowest approval ratings and legitimization in over half a century, because they're making everything shittier and shittier to the benefit of their corporate overlords.