"limit who can influence" is a form of control.

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?

>"limit who can influence" is a form of control.

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?

<<defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics

Would you not agree it is a strong argument against government wielding that kind of enormous power?

I'm arguing in defence of limiting external data inputs, not filtering by "misinformation".

In practical sense, how would one differentiate one from the other? The end result is the same: data is missing.

I understand your point, but I can't help wondering if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted.

What's so precious about "data"? I don't argue that "things are missing" when the postal service refuses to carry certian things, or when shops refuse to stock certain items, or so on. These are restrictions imposed for our own good, as we apparently can't be trusted with unfettered access to all life has to offer. There is naunce here, but my point is - why does the internet get a free pass when we consider the balance of high ideals of free transfer of stuff against what the stuff is and what it does?

>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.

<<What's so precious about "data"?

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.

>No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious.

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.

If the government published a browser extension that self censored your view of the internet (according to a regularly updated government blocklist), would you use it? Or does this scheme only work when everyone is equally suppressed from reading the same information?

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.