Ask HN: Problem of social unrest and shutting down Internet
18 comments
EDIT: Notice I find OP's line of thinking "dangerous". My reaction is not to appeal to any authority and have anyone censor, ban, or de-platform them. I combat it with speech.
I see this line of thinking extremely dangerous and misguided.
> is very important... but it is also causing harm to the society
Let me stop you right there. You can literally make this case about every noun ever. History is littered with a long list of do-gooders that tried to ban books, alcohol, some sort of human sexuality, gambling, and on and on. I believe this is roughly where the saying "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" comes from.
In the United States, we believe in freedom. Freedom has the same properties that can lead to good or bad outcomes. People can choose good or bad. They can choose the right political candidate or the wrong candidate. They can believe what they want to believe. They can choose different paths that may lead to prosperity or to poverty.
Censorship or banning things mostly don't work and banning it just because it can cause harm is not defensible. Censorship, especially, creates a large amount of harm itself by reducing trust in the government. Reminds me when I was a teenager and I asked for a hacking book for Christmas. My relative refused to get it for me because of the harm it could do. My response was that knowledge was neither good nor bad. It's what you decide to do with it. My argument was that that same knowledge of computer hacking, while can be used for bad or evil, can also be used for good or defense against those wishing to do harmful things.
In the United States we have experience with alcohol and other drug prohibition, and it's been an absolute disaster. And the thinking about that is the same alarming attitude that is displayed here regarding free speech.
The reason the United States has a 1st Amendment that prevents the government from restricting speech is because it's incredibly dangerous to allow anyone or any group to decide what speech is allowed. It may start out with good intentions, but is far too dangerous to even allow the beginnings of it to exist.
I see this line of thinking extremely dangerous and misguided.
> is very important... but it is also causing harm to the society
Let me stop you right there. You can literally make this case about every noun ever. History is littered with a long list of do-gooders that tried to ban books, alcohol, some sort of human sexuality, gambling, and on and on. I believe this is roughly where the saying "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" comes from.
In the United States, we believe in freedom. Freedom has the same properties that can lead to good or bad outcomes. People can choose good or bad. They can choose the right political candidate or the wrong candidate. They can believe what they want to believe. They can choose different paths that may lead to prosperity or to poverty.
Censorship or banning things mostly don't work and banning it just because it can cause harm is not defensible. Censorship, especially, creates a large amount of harm itself by reducing trust in the government. Reminds me when I was a teenager and I asked for a hacking book for Christmas. My relative refused to get it for me because of the harm it could do. My response was that knowledge was neither good nor bad. It's what you decide to do with it. My argument was that that same knowledge of computer hacking, while can be used for bad or evil, can also be used for good or defense against those wishing to do harmful things.
In the United States we have experience with alcohol and other drug prohibition, and it's been an absolute disaster. And the thinking about that is the same alarming attitude that is displayed here regarding free speech.
The reason the United States has a 1st Amendment that prevents the government from restricting speech is because it's incredibly dangerous to allow anyone or any group to decide what speech is allowed. It may start out with good intentions, but is far too dangerous to even allow the beginnings of it to exist.
[deleted]
>> causing harm to the society
This will continue in this life. If you give all power to government, then they will cause the harm. If you give all power to the public sector, they will cause the harm. A balance is required between the two and that based on agreement.
To the issue you bring up, specifically. Become a trusted source of information that the public sector can rely on. Trust, once lost, becomes difficult to re-obtain.
This will continue in this life. If you give all power to government, then they will cause the harm. If you give all power to the public sector, they will cause the harm. A balance is required between the two and that based on agreement.
To the issue you bring up, specifically. Become a trusted source of information that the public sector can rely on. Trust, once lost, becomes difficult to re-obtain.
I have been thinking about the same problem. Apparently the damage of misinformation is done once it is out, apparently it can not be reversed. Then I come up with an idea: why don't we fight misinformation with misinformation. The only thing someone who believe in misinformation can only be misinformation.
You are confused between "internet" and "social media". Should we shut down internet ? hell no. Right now, my business would literally die if we shut down the internet because that is the only thing that keeps us going. Do I care about social media ? Not so much. SOme of it is important, some of it is cool and most of it is downright nasty. I particularly wouldn't care too much if the likes of FB/Twitter went down for a short period but again, some people also make money from those platforms and possibly have a livelihood tied to them (marketers ?)
Kill the message, not the messenger. If Social media is easy to mis-spread information, teach people how to use it better.
Kill the message, not the messenger. If Social media is easy to mis-spread information, teach people how to use it better.
I think it's still quite feasible to shut down Internet access in some regions -- look at Kashmir. However, there electricity and water are still provided because almost nothing can function without those.
If the internet is made indespensible, as water and electricity are considered, then access cannot be shut off.
But even where IPs are being passed around, it has been possible for some governments like Turkey's and China's to block access to certain sites, especially if they have architected their communications topology to support that (e.g. having few transport links outside their country).
If the internet is made indespensible, as water and electricity are considered, then access cannot be shut off.
But even where IPs are being passed around, it has been possible for some governments like Turkey's and China's to block access to certain sites, especially if they have architected their communications topology to support that (e.g. having few transport links outside their country).
IMO, it is better to educate the society not to trust the forwards people randomly send them. In fact, there should be consequences for the people who start the spread.
Blocking the internet is out right foolish and harmful.
Blocking the internet is out right foolish and harmful.
The solution is not technological. It is social. We should not cynically dismiss the average person’s capacity for rationality. Through sustained effort, we can produce a society where people penalize provocative, sectarian memes and reward scientific, rational, progressive efforts.
If that seems quaint, consider the alternative. The internet gives nuclear-scale ammunition to fear mongerers and foreign agents. Scientific nation building, moderated by democratic humanitarianism, is a necessity not a fantasy in this day and age.
If that seems quaint, consider the alternative. The internet gives nuclear-scale ammunition to fear mongerers and foreign agents. Scientific nation building, moderated by democratic humanitarianism, is a necessity not a fantasy in this day and age.
Do you shutdown electricity/water during riots? Food for thought.
shutting down the internet entirely would be an unmitigated disaster. the internet is my only source of information from the outside world, since I have no TV or radio in my apartment. since monday, it has been illegal for me to go outside unless it's a short walk for exercise or a trip to the grocery store. if I didn't have access to the internet, I would have no way of knowing this.
a slightly more reasonable alternative would be for the government to censor misinformation during the crisis. this raises the usual questions: what will be censored? at what level will it be decided? I certainly do not trust the trump administration to curate my news.
a slightly more reasonable alternative would be for the government to censor misinformation during the crisis. this raises the usual questions: what will be censored? at what level will it be decided? I certainly do not trust the trump administration to curate my news.
The spread of true information is much more powerful and prevalent than misinformation.
Internet and other forms of communications should not be shut down or censored.
But if there is bad information on there, then the government and/or anyone else who has good information should add the good informations too.
But if there is bad information on there, then the government and/or anyone else who has good information should add the good informations too.
This implies there's not only an arbiter of what misinformation is and is not in all cases, but that the arbiter is your government / local authority over the internet.
Solution volunteer to quit social media. Including these messengers.
Call friends instead
Call friends instead
Today I came across a very disturbing news of health workers being attacked while they visited a suspected Covid-19 infected patients house in India (and many other countries). The cause of attack has been attributed to misinformation being spread on a Whatsapp group. This news is not a one off incidence of Internet services leading to a social unrest.
As a solution, often Indian government lean to shutdown the internet in such places during riots, or any kind of social unrest. Indian government did the same in Kashmir recently as a per-emptive measure in 2019. This was criticized and our Supreme court went on to say Internet is a fundamental right.
So here lies my dilemma. On one hand Internet - which of course includes Facebook, Insta, whatsapp, Signal etc services - is very important and considered as a fundamental right, but it is also causing harm to the society. How can such problem be solved, which from my vantage point is becoming more frequent? Can it be justified to shutdown internet or censor internet during crisis? If not, then how to tackle this problem from a governance point of view when you know the cause from where the problem is arising.
I am giving examples from India, but this problem is becoming very global according to me, and would like to hear your views from a global perspective, is there some country handling this in a better way? And I humbly request, please do not indulge in any political arguments.
[1] https://www.news18.com/news/india/four-arrested-in-indore-for-attacking-spitting-on-health-officials-during-covid-19-contact-tracing-2561659.html (Whatsapp part mentioned towards the end of article)