←back to thread

361 points gloxkiqcza | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
klipklop ◴[] No.45010448[source]
The game Alpha Centauri had the most hard hitting quote that I think applies now.

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny...Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. Commissioner Pravin Lal, 'U.N. Declaration of Rights' "

replies(7): >>45010558 #>>45010804 #>>45010816 #>>45010920 #>>45011646 #>>45011655 #>>45018553 #
amelius ◴[] No.45011646[source]
> As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny.

This had until recently been only tested for top-down information. Nowadays, everyone can be a broadcaster and we're seeing quite different results.

replies(4): >>45012021 #>>45012275 #>>45012857 #>>45018721 #
api ◴[] No.45012021[source]
I feel like totalitarians are learning to hack and exploit the free flow of information using sophisticated propaganda techniques.

Doesn’t mean a locked down system is better though. With that they don’t have to bother.

replies(1): >>45012575 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.45012575[source]
Those are two independent problems. If you have a centralized system, you're screwed, because they just capture it. If you have a decentralized system vulnerable to propaganda techniques then they do that.

What you need is a decentralized system resistant to propaganda techniques.

replies(3): >>45012585 #>>45013155 #>>45013908 #
amelius ◴[] No.45012585[source]
Yes, the question is what such a system would look like. E.g. would there be limitations of free speech?
replies(2): >>45012657 #>>45017790 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.45012657[source]
Of course not. That shouldn't even be possible in a properly designed system.

Rather what you need is a means for propaganda to be rapidly identified and refuted with counterarguments in a way that its would-be victims can see it.

replies(2): >>45012789 #>>45023963 #
amelius ◴[] No.45012789[source]
I think the problem with such an approach is that the majority of people will stop reading if the arguments become too complicated.

This is how populism works.

replies(4): >>45012882 #>>45015559 #>>45020659 #>>45023991 #
1. const_cast ◴[] No.45015559[source]
Yes, exactly.

We already have largely decentralized speech in the US via the internet. And much like how the printing press gave everyone a voice or how radio created Hitler, the internet is the modern age vehicle of populist messaging.

The reason someone like Trump can rise to power and consolidate said power is because he speaks simple and lies work in a decentralized system. Populist messaging is built on the fact that humans are naturally drawn to simple solutions and emotional responses. 90% of the time throughout American and European history, if you just tell people "this is ethnic/racial group X's fault!", that works.

replies(2): >>45020737 #>>45024042 #
2. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.45020737[source]
The US has decentralized speech on paper. Anybody can make a website, but then Google won't surface obscure blogs no matter how relevant they are. Anybody can make an account on a centralized social media platform, but that isn't the same as being seen, which depends on the whims of whoever owns it or the politicians threatening them.

Meanwhile the centralized platforms then have the incentive to maximize engagement and the power to structure things that way. And that's how you get Trump, because polarization drives engagement.

3. account42 ◴[] No.45024042[source]
> We already have largely decentralized speech in the US via the internet. And much like how the printing press gave everyone a voice or how radio created Hitler, the internet is the modern age vehicle of populist messaging.

Only if you ignore everything about what got Hitler elected.

"Populists" winning is ALWAYS a result of the status quo being unacceptable to the general population. If the establishment is unwilling to fix that then they deserve to be removed from government. Free flow of information isn't responsible for that.