While I don't agree china has it right, both approaches are wrong as humans are not livestock, we shouldn't even treat livestock the way we do, the Chinese approach is like choosing to sell 50% of all children born while Twitter is like selling as many children as buyers will take.
Quite right. No government has ever killed anyone, directly or indirectly.
Why are you also qualifying "external" propaganda and misinformation? You're fine with both of those things as long as its "internal"? Can you define what source of misinformation you're okay with?
Sure is, and govenments also control what kinds of goods can be sold to me, what kind of transport I may drive, places and buildings I may enter, and so on. Are you advocating for no government? Or are you saying that all (most?) of the controls they currently exert are ok, but they must allow completely free transfer of data in and out? If so, why is the internet so special?
>Why are you also qualifying "external" propaganda and misinformation?
Assuming I live somewhere half-decent, I have greater trust in the government and culture that I know.
>Can you define what source of misinformation you're okay with?
None, really, although defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics. After all, we all knowingly and unknowingly spread some form of misinformation just going about our lives. In any case, why is it a good idea to allow the world's misinformation in, in addition to what we have to sort through from a bloke in the pub / my town's micro-politics / my government's constant battle with the opposition party?
Would you not agree it is a strong argument against government wielding that kind of enormous power?
I understand your point, but I can't help wondering if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted.
>if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted
People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health.
No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious. There is a deep distrust in me for anyone who: 1) engages in that 2) argues that it is kosher.
< People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet.
Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through.
< Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health
I want to be with you, but I worry that you wouldn't really solve apps issue. Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban? Online id check?
It is pretty clear that we are diametrically opposed on the subject. I am continuing this conversation, because I think it is an important one to have.
Yet there are plenty of other ways to get "data", that until recently were the only ways to get data, that are relatively heavily censored and controlled. We didn't complain that libraries didn't give unfettered access to all information, or that we were not able to start a conversation with an aribtrary human. It's a crucial part of my argment that, thanks to the presentation of (hugely more) data on the internet, it's not possible for even the recipient to understand what's precious and what is not. Take a look around you at people consuming content on the internet. Is that "precious" data?
>Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through.
Interesting take, given that the largely US-centric internet technolgies are being used to push a largely US-centric view of the world on the rest of the world.
>Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban?
I would not be permitted, as an app developer where I live, to develop something like TikTok and allow kids of all ages free access to (in my opinion) mind poison. Again in my opinion, it's an insane state of things where we allow things we know are bad from external sources to be freely used and accessed. I also think this time will be remembered like we remember the late 1800s, where newly-discovered potent drugs were widely and legally distributed.
Just wondering if your desire for censorship is borne out of an idea of keeping intrusive thoughts out of your own mind, or if it's more about other people's minds.
In any case, even in a largely "free" country, I'm not entirely free to leave when and to where I might want.
Where did I say you said that? Indeed, had you, I wouldn't have asked. But surely you see the similarities: Blocking non-domestic Internet stuff is imposing restrictions on what information/systems citizens are able to access, effectively curtailing the digital equivalent of a right to travel.
>In any case, even in a largely "free" country, I'm not entirely free to leave when and to where I might want.
What "free" country imposes routine restrictions on its citizens leaving? That you may be denied entry anywhere else is a related but separate issue.
In your previous comment:
>>Would you want physical borders defended by locking all the citizens in as well?
The answer is no, but I don't know on what basis you asked the question. Unless, that is, you mean "If you compared the data access policy of one country to another, you must also be in favour of the physical access policy of that first country". Which, frankly, is an absurd stretch. I was very careful in the wording of my original comment.
>What "free" country imposes routine restrictions on its citizens leaving?
The analogy between free physical movement and free flow of data isn't perfect, but no analogy is. There are places in the world I can't go. I must carry certain paperwork if I wish to travel at all. I am limited to certain entry and exit locations. I certainly can't invite an aribitrary human to visit me in my country.
Really?