←back to thread

361 points gloxkiqcza | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.286s | 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 #
1. lurker919 ◴[] No.45017790[source]
Maybe it just needs provenance. So bad actors can't flood the system.

Counter to the above is that, your bad actor may be my leader. People like convenience. When someone is expressing what you want to say, in a better and smarter way, you just reshare/retweet them. And the 'other side' will feel like your leader is a 'bad actor' who is flooding the system. So even the method of resharing/retweeting needs some sort of provenance/single use only. So you can 'agree' with your thought leader, but they shouldn't be able to mass manufacture consent. Since you might even reshare 'fake news' since you generally trust your leader. It's messy, not sure what that would look like - every post that starts getting traction needs to be fact checked? Community Notes on X is a step in the right direction maybe.