I mean, if you’re gonna engage in disinformation then at least read the wikipedia page on whatever topic you are targetting so you can come up with something that’s more believable. Disinfo is most effective when it is based on some true information taken out of context.
I didn’t use to, and I am generally against limiting access to any sort of source of information. But the last few years have convinced me otherwise - the owners of these platforms are willing to destroy our way of life for their own personal benefit. Fuck Zuck. Fuck Musk. Fuck all of these charlatans and conmen.
Edit: oh, and the EU isn’t a country (yet), it’s a supranational organization which presents unique challenges in terms of policy. Def not a country
Large if accurate
I don’t want any followers or believers. Calling it as I see it. That is all.
Not to worry, you’re simply confusing freedom of speech with obliging private actors to consume content they don’t want to consume or disagree with. The first is a fundemental principle of democratic legal systems and recognized as a perempotry norm under international law. The second is authoritarianism.
There’s a growing number of legally illiterate people who think freedom of speech is absolute and even affords one the right to oblige others consume their speech through the government. That is fundamentally wrong and a complete misunderstanding of how these key principles of freedom work and have always worked in modern democratic systems.
Newsflash - freedom of speech is not absolute. Never has been. There are very specific, explicitly codified limitations. Why? Because words are the most powerful weapons and can be used to target and threaten the freedoms of other people, including their freedom to life. Which is why rights and obligations are always balanced against each other, following the principle of proportionality.
If you feel so strongly about not being able force others to consume content they don’t want to consume, then I have bad news for you - you are opposing democracy. But it seems like you, and many other like you, are just confused, rather than actively promoting anti-democratic standpoints. The truly sad part? The impact is the same regardless of intent.
Edit: Want to know more? Details at 6.
Holding those in power accountable is a continuous process. It doesn’t just happen on a specific day or another. Politically active and concious people protest and raise awareness in an ongoing manner regardless of who is in power. The world didn’t end on 5 Nov 2024 or 20 Jan 2025 - fighting for democracy will never stop.
You would know this if you actually put your money where your mouth is, as it were.
What field was it? I like to think every field contributes to your knowledge in a meaningful way even if you don’t end up working in it
Yo, did they change the photo? I’m only seeing it in the thembnail
I’m just making fun of the biased dynamics and what often seems like a black-and-white perspective. By no means do I think that one is “good” and the other is “bad”, but I do think there is a lot of misrepresentation going around because of the latest developments around TikTok. We should also keep in kind that the executive decision was put in place over a year ago but ofcourse nobody discussed it back then because policy only becomes relevant once it factors into personal interpretations and ideology.
That’s not how I remember it. The average persin in Eastern Europe couldn’t afford to buy a car and cars were in short supply, resulting in significant waiting periods (we’re talking years). The average citizens in the USSR and the Warsaw Pact had much less purchaisng power compared to their counterparts in the West. Soviet-made cars were much more expensice relative to Western-made ones, and of considerably lower quality, generally speaking.
I guess I must be “retarded” as well - I don’t get what’s so funny about someone being impressed or otherwise stricken with the landscape of a place they’ve never been to.
Edit: typos
Thank god for bold platforms like TikTok that refuse to push US propaganda. Really smart of them to not censor valuable information as a way of fooling the US government into exposing its evil censorship ways. TikTok’s fate in the US was never a topic before the current wave of pro-Palestinian activism started. It certainly wasn’t one of Trump’s main talking points ten years ago. Good thing he changed his mind after getting his hands on some Chinese money lucrative investmenet from Chinese citizens that are not at all connected to Tencent.
None of this discourse on combatting foreign information manipulation started over a decade ago, its all about censoring pro-Palestine voices here and now. TikTok and China in general are known for their calm, collected attitudes toward Muslims. They certainly would never weaponize a contentious topic every which way imaginable in pursuit of financial and geopolitical goals. We need more of these open and bold platforms.
There are plenty of ways for governments to engage in strategic communications without having to rely on social media, especially when said platforms are disentangling the fabric of society before our very eyes. Moreover, government communication (and 99% of other communication processes) does not require the constant and immediate production and consumption of information that social media are purposefully designed for. Pretending like people are addicted to social media because we really want to stay in touch with policy is just silly.
And no, one thing is not equivalent to another thing just because they belong in the same category of things. Editorial and privacy policies, ownership structures, the extent to which a company or its owners are politically exposed - these are all things that can differ drastically from one actor to another.
How about just quiting without replacing it with something else? Everyone desperately needs to stop using social media like a crack addict needs to stop doing crack. Shitter, FB, IG, TokTik, etc - it’s all utter, utter shit.
Seems like you’re prescribing a lot of opinions to the people you’re replying to. But if you go back and read what they wrote carefully you should see that your deductions and assumptions about what they think don’t really stand the test of reason and semantics. Especially given how much of a tech-focused forum this is. Every third post is about Linux - so realistically what are the chances that you are enaging with primitivists on here?
You’re tilting at windmills. It’s not about rejecting technological advancement. It’s about ensuring its fairness and accessability.
Yes, technology can be (and is) used for social good. It can also be (and is) used to opress and supress. What’s more both dynamics are happening at the same time. The world isn’t black-and-white. The human condition is complex.
Speak for yourself. A majority of Eastern Europeans see the US as a key strategic ally, and for good reason.
Oh, I think you’re doing just fine on that front. (And let’s not pretend like “proof” or “evidence” have any relevance when making claims that not only have no basis in reality, like “conservatives don’t talk about crypto”, but obviously seek to supplant it).
But again, you’d be much more effective if you dress up facts rather than fiction. You also need to build up to the absurd, not start with it. You can’t just convince people that reality is actually the opposite of what is perceived. You first need to shake up trust in consensus based reality and basic scientific knowledge, and only then start to gradually inteoduce the spectacle in a piecemeal fashion.