Access to information feels to me like a human right. Blocking that by any means (legal blockade, price unrealistic high) feels like an infringement on a Human Right.
I know this isn’t the way the world works yet, but a Human can dream.
Idealistically, I agree with access to information. But how do you square that (and I don’t have a solution) with the proliferation of misinformation used to manipulate the population or the access to dangerous information such as building bombs and bio weapons?
That knowledge is already available and generally people don’t build bombs or bioweapons. Otherwise they could still go to university and learn all that if they so wish
It is available, and searching for it is a good way to end up on a list. It is hilarious how you gave “go to university” as an option, as if all universities were accessible to anyone and taught classes on this.
I also couldn’t help but notice you completely glossed over the much more important point of misinformation for manipulation.
Misinformation is unfortunately also available. And contrary to "information to build bombs and bioweapons", it's doing actual harm. To societies, economies and above all, to individuals.
Societies don’t have the right to decide what is and isn’t false information and prevent people from accessing or spreading it. (They think they do, and that’s a problem.)
Fighting misinformation has to happen through establishing and maintaining trust, and providing trusted counters to misinformation. Establishing trust requires alignment with the people you want to trust you.
Interference (as opposed to participation) in the free flow of information and the process by which truth is determined is a great evil.
Ok but what about "being directly interfered with by foreign actors"?
This is what's happening right now in Spain. Foreign interference (Ceuta, Dept. Of Homeland evidence...), followed up by foreign social media manipulation campaigns.
Currently, it looks like these campaigns will replace the current government.
Is it a threat to democracy if citizens gather facts from foreign actors when their domestic government attempts to suppress those facts? On a general level, not speaking to this situation in particular. Just curious.
The domestic government holding a monopoly on information is a threat, and foreign information can be a relief, yes.
Foreign misinformation is also a threat, and domestic government shutting it out can also be a relief.
So you have to ask yourself, where are we? Is Spain (or any European country that is not currently bootlicking, for that matter) a dictatorship that needs Freedom messages in a bottle from the USA, or is the USA directly subverting their democracies with espionage?
Why did the USA give millions to Morocco earlier this summer? Why did the Dept. of Homeland (so espionage) produce decade old evidence of corruption in a former administration that would be linked to the current one, at this precise time? Just asking questions here.
All nations are under pressure to hide information from their citizens, whether it’s for covering up political scandals or suppressing political opposition. If you give them the tools, they will eventually use them. So you can’t give them the tools.
The democratic way to fight misinformation is with public trust, a well educated population, and by publishing true information to counter misinformation. Anything less treats citizens as children who can’t be trusted to form their own opinions.
Beautiful on paper, in practice you surrender national security to foreign actors.
I agree on the philosophical part, letting our governments act opaquely under the veil of national security, inevitably leads them to turn on their citizens. But total transparency will be exploited by foreign powers (likely with domestic cooperation), until those that once defended it are removed from power.
Who decides what is allowed to be covered up? Surely not the public, if your goal is to hide those same “dangerous” things from the public.
Historically, this kind of control has always been a favored tool of the corrupt. If you build an apparatus of censorship, it will be used to harm the public.
> Beautiful on paper, in practice you surrender national security to foreign actors.
> But total transparency will be exploited by foreign powers (likely with domestic cooperation), until those that once defended it are removed from power.
You know, democracy obviously has its downsides. Should we abolish democracy because of that?
We already have. These foreign misinformation actors we're talking about have already convinced a majority of the voting population that democracy is bad, and they have voted to end democracy, and now democracy is in the process of ending.
This could have been prevented by blocking foreign misinformation.
But in case of the democracy there is no paradox. Democracy is about will of people defining the government. When it is the other way around (the government defines the will of people), it is called authoritarianism.
So basically you are arguing for the authoritarianism against the democracy. It is just so you seemingly does not like the word authoritarianism and like the word democracy, and are trying to justify the discrepancy by some kind of paradox (which there is none).
Even IF you are right about people will destroy the democracy by their will if that will does not formed by the government, there is still no paradox and that is still called the authoritarianism. By that, you simply point out one of the weakness of the democracy, and suggest the authoritarianism as a better alternative (even if you are refusing to use the correct definitions).
> When it is the other way around (the government defines the will of people), it is called authoritarianism.
Not the definition: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
You should really read those Wikipedia articles. Creating and explaining your own definitions and circular logic make you sound like a fool.
Right now, there are foreign actors helping right-extremist campaigns in Europe. Those parties' goal is ultimately converting to Authoritarianism. You can connect the dots yourself now.
> "being directly interfered with by foreign actors"?
> This is a direct threat to democracy.
You mean those foreign actors who force themselves across Spain's border? It is not a threat to democracy, it is one of the problem that democracy solving (by replacing the government that allow that to happen)
> Currently, it looks like these campaigns will replace the current government.
janandonly · · focus · HN ↗
I know this isn’t the way the world works yet, but a Human can dream.
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
anon48293 · · focus · HN ↗
latexr · · focus · HN ↗
I also couldn’t help but notice you completely glossed over the much more important point of misinformation for manipulation.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
berkes · · focus · HN ↗
iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
Fighting misinformation has to happen through establishing and maintaining trust, and providing trusted counters to misinformation. Establishing trust requires alignment with the people you want to trust you.
Interference (as opposed to participation) in the free flow of information and the process by which truth is determined is a great evil.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
The purpose of a democratic government is to reflect the will of the people, not the other way around.
the_gipsy · · focus · HN ↗
This is what's happening right now in Spain. Foreign interference (Ceuta, Dept. Of Homeland evidence...), followed up by foreign social media manipulation campaigns.
Currently, it looks like these campaigns will replace the current government.
This is a direct threat to democracy.
iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
the_gipsy · · focus · HN ↗
The domestic government holding a monopoly on information is a threat, and foreign information can be a relief, yes.
Foreign misinformation is also a threat, and domestic government shutting it out can also be a relief.
So you have to ask yourself, where are we? Is Spain (or any European country that is not currently bootlicking, for that matter) a dictatorship that needs Freedom messages in a bottle from the USA, or is the USA directly subverting their democracies with espionage?
Why did the USA give millions to Morocco earlier this summer? Why did the Dept. of Homeland (so espionage) produce decade old evidence of corruption in a former administration that would be linked to the current one, at this precise time? Just asking questions here.
iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
The democratic way to fight misinformation is with public trust, a well educated population, and by publishing true information to counter misinformation. Anything less treats citizens as children who can’t be trusted to form their own opinions.
the_gipsy · · focus · HN ↗
I agree on the philosophical part, letting our governments act opaquely under the veil of national security, inevitably leads them to turn on their citizens. But total transparency will be exploited by foreign powers (likely with domestic cooperation), until those that once defended it are removed from power.
iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
Historically, this kind of control has always been a favored tool of the corrupt. If you build an apparatus of censorship, it will be used to harm the public.
the_gipsy · · focus · HN ↗
There is a gray line somewhere between surveillance state and revealing all intel, which can serve national security and also diplomacy.
iamnothere · · focus · HN ↗
The problem is that this typically ends up shifting corruption towards these sectors, which ends up hollowing out national security.
Things like overclassification are a serious problem.
MentalM · · focus · HN ↗
You know, democracy obviously has its downsides. Should we abolish democracy because of that?
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
This could have been prevented by blocking foreign misinformation.
account42 · · focus · HN ↗
the_gipsy · · focus · HN ↗
MentalM · · focus · HN ↗
the_gipsy · · focus · HN ↗
> "the essential democratic freedom – freedom of expression – is both ingrained in and potentially harmful to democracy."
MentalM · · focus · HN ↗
So basically you are arguing for the authoritarianism against the democracy. It is just so you seemingly does not like the word authoritarianism and like the word democracy, and are trying to justify the discrepancy by some kind of paradox (which there is none).
Even IF you are right about people will destroy the democracy by their will if that will does not formed by the government, there is still no paradox and that is still called the authoritarianism. By that, you simply point out one of the weakness of the democracy, and suggest the authoritarianism as a better alternative (even if you are refusing to use the correct definitions).
the_gipsy · · focus · HN ↗
Not the definition: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
You should really read those Wikipedia articles. Creating and explaining your own definitions and circular logic make you sound like a fool.
Right now, there are foreign actors helping right-extremist campaigns in Europe. Those parties' goal is ultimately converting to Authoritarianism. You can connect the dots yourself now.
joquarky · · focus · HN ↗
MentalM · · focus · HN ↗
You mean those foreign actors who force themselves across Spain's border? It is not a threat to democracy, it is one of the problem that democracy solving (by replacing the government that allow that to happen)
> Currently, it looks like these campaigns will replace the current government.
I mean yeah, democracy is doing it's job.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
account42 · · focus · HN ↗