PM orders internet blocked for anyone spreading info that might frighten people(chiangmaione.com)
chiangmaione.com
PM orders internet blocked for anyone spreading info that might frighten people
https://chiangmaione.com/featured/pm-orders-internet-blocked-for-anyone-spreading-info-that-might-frighten-people
116 comments
I believe PornHub was taken down because it had movies of a very influential person in the country. Not movies that would fit his stature.
Well that too; I can't quite remember but it's still the case that the default alternative platform to post videos that were harder to ban instead of YouTube was on PornHub. For those that don't know, there is/was a video of this person at a pool party with multiple women and if it were anyone else not an eyelid would be batted. Most every YouTube video even talking objectively, like the one by RealLifeLore, about lèse-majesté is blocked inside Thailand because it's easy for the government to coerce Google. There is a lot of specific censorship to save face. The Wikipedia page still exists though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9_in_Thai...) which has a section about internet censorship.
And for any Thai nationals reading this and looking for more information on how to keep themselves, friends, and family safe from various governments' spying, I recently (today) helped assist with the translations for PRISM Break into Thai (https://prism-break.org/th/).
[deleted]
Pretty much all of us at HN are against censorship, but we habitually fail to get to grips with the very real problem of deliberate lying. There's abundant evidence that the 'marketplace of ideas' is in no way self-perpetuating. I think this conception is a side effect of software development, where the computer is a pretty reliable honest referee, so ultimately either your code works or it doesn't.
The problem is that wetware is inherently messier, and it can quite profitable to mess with it. Consider this (graphic and horrifying) example of fake news I saw a troll circulating earlier today:
https://m.beforeitsnews.com/politics/2021/07/tortured-baby-c...
This website is obviously trash, but it pulls in an estimated $30k/mo in revenue: http://www.whoismark.org/beforeitsnews.com
More importantly, there are quite a lot of people who buy into this sort of nonsense, and it's a problem.
The problem is that wetware is inherently messier, and it can quite profitable to mess with it. Consider this (graphic and horrifying) example of fake news I saw a troll circulating earlier today:
https://m.beforeitsnews.com/politics/2021/07/tortured-baby-c...
This website is obviously trash, but it pulls in an estimated $30k/mo in revenue: http://www.whoismark.org/beforeitsnews.com
More importantly, there are quite a lot of people who buy into this sort of nonsense, and it's a problem.
Background: In Thailand, this is about residents and media discussing COVID updates - often including case counts released by the Thai government. It’s not an attempt to stop lies from spreading.
Thailand sets new case count and death records almost every day (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-thaila...) and the government is scared of residents talking about it. Keep in mind that Thailand is essentially a dictatorship right now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayut_Chan-o-cha).
Here’s how the AP described this order: https://apnews.com/article/business-health-media-coronavirus...
Thailand sets new case count and death records almost every day (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-thaila...) and the government is scared of residents talking about it. Keep in mind that Thailand is essentially a dictatorship right now (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayut_Chan-o-cha).
Here’s how the AP described this order: https://apnews.com/article/business-health-media-coronavirus...
Sure, but I am addressing a more general issue that always comes up in these discussions. There's another thread above where the specifics of the Thai context are being discussed in depth.
> but we habitually fail to get to grips with the very real problem of deliberate lying
Deliberate lying....like about Iran-Contra, Iraqi WMDs, IRS targeting, NSA surveillance?
I have no illusions that deliberate lying isn't a problem, but asking the fox to guard the henhouse will make it even worse.
Deliberate lying....like about Iran-Contra, Iraqi WMDs, IRS targeting, NSA surveillance?
I have no illusions that deliberate lying isn't a problem, but asking the fox to guard the henhouse will make it even worse.
I didn't propose any particular solution, I just said we should discuss the problem.
Fair enough. I think there isn't a solution.
I know of one specifically for the Government centric case. Inspector General gets moved under the Legislative and is blessed with absolute unfettered access to classified information. A timer is started on declassification the first time the Office is asked a question. Executive gets a limited number of "not yets", judiciary gets an "F you, declassify it button" in cases involving Executive privilege.
Checks and Balances.
Checks and Balances.
How does it make it worse? I agree with what you’re saying but that bit of the logic fees like an assumption.
Most reputable news organizations already control the narrative of the world for most people. Allowing them to entirely censor other opinions will block both fabrications like the example you showed, and inconvenient truths like the situation in Palestine, the general strikes in India, even the miner's union protests in New York.
In every discussion around censorship on HN we see a very large portion agreeing that censorship is good when targeting the right kind of people for the right kind of reasons, and bad otherwise. One side thinking that companies or government are enlightened enough to figure it out, the other disagreeing that such enlightened entity doesn't exist.
It is about trust, not hardware vs wetware. I would not trust a AI to do it better than an moderator. The least harmful method of censorship are strict defined legal systems written by democratic elected people, and as the article demonstrate, it has some flaws.
Everyone can agree that some people has been inspired by fake news to commit crime, leading to death and suffering. Everyone would also agree that without fake news there would still be people doing crime that leads to death and suffering. Crime is a problem, and censorship as a tool to combat crime has its up and downs in popularity. It does not however change the issue of trust.
It is about trust, not hardware vs wetware. I would not trust a AI to do it better than an moderator. The least harmful method of censorship are strict defined legal systems written by democratic elected people, and as the article demonstrate, it has some flaws.
Everyone can agree that some people has been inspired by fake news to commit crime, leading to death and suffering. Everyone would also agree that without fake news there would still be people doing crime that leads to death and suffering. Crime is a problem, and censorship as a tool to combat crime has its up and downs in popularity. It does not however change the issue of trust.
I think intentional lying is special, and should be an exception to censorship. I don't feel okay censoring things I disagree with, even strongly (e.g. hate speech, taboo topics, sexual moores, and whatnot), but on intentional falsehoods, I think it falls into a different bucket.
We have good precedent here:
- Slander laws
- Libel laws
- Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
- Etc.
The problem is that an unregulated free market will choose memes over truths. There needs to be some correction there.
I'm not quite sure what that correction ought to be. I don't think it should be mobs, tech companies, or governments. I do think the processes we have in place right now for dealing with untrue speech, with due process, make a lot of sense to me, though. Perhaps they might be expanded such that:
- There isn't a $200k barrier to dealing with slander/libel
- Some places (for example, academics and government employees) have criminal liability for intentionally lying or withholding information
I'm not quite sure, but we do need to change incentive structures, or we'll be overwhelmed with misinformation.
We have good precedent here:
- Slander laws
- Libel laws
- Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater
- Etc.
The problem is that an unregulated free market will choose memes over truths. There needs to be some correction there.
I'm not quite sure what that correction ought to be. I don't think it should be mobs, tech companies, or governments. I do think the processes we have in place right now for dealing with untrue speech, with due process, make a lot of sense to me, though. Perhaps they might be expanded such that:
- There isn't a $200k barrier to dealing with slander/libel
- Some places (for example, academics and government employees) have criminal liability for intentionally lying or withholding information
I'm not quite sure, but we do need to change incentive structures, or we'll be overwhelmed with misinformation.
Right, but let's say someone claims that something is a conspiracy. Are they intentionally lying, or do they believe it? How can you tell the difference?
Many people claim that each instance is emphatically not a conspiracy, but sometimes it turns out it really is a conspiracy. People on both sides of the argument believe they are correct, but one side is wrong. (And probably even both sides, when it comes to details.)
I don't think "I believed it" is much of an excuse in the situations you list above. I searched a bit.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-sla... says that there are 3 ways it could be defamation: lying, disregarding the facts, or acting negligently.
So it's kind of about lying, but more than that.
Many people claim that each instance is emphatically not a conspiracy, but sometimes it turns out it really is a conspiracy. People on both sides of the argument believe they are correct, but one side is wrong. (And probably even both sides, when it comes to details.)
I don't think "I believed it" is much of an excuse in the situations you list above. I searched a bit.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-libel-sla... says that there are 3 ways it could be defamation: lying, disregarding the facts, or acting negligently.
So it's kind of about lying, but more than that.
I think the standards in the law are pretty clear: "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" for criminal law, and a "preponderance of evidence" for civil law.
Most of the instances I've seen that I really care about fall very far in the clear of those standards:
- My local school administration lies for political benefit and to "manage" parents. That's 100% legal right now. It shouldn't be.
- A stalker is spreading false rumors about me. That's illegal, but would require a massively expensive litigation to bring within control.
- A local elite university fabricates data to support professor startups. That's at the edge of legal. It should be illegal.
... and so on. If we had effective enforcement for stuff that's NOT in the gray zone, I'd be pretty happy.
As for the who-killed-JFK, fake moon landing, area 51, etc. type conspiracies, I think those should generally fall under free speech. If you can document a news network is intentionally fabricating conspiracies for ratings and money, that another matter, but if it's a crazy uncle in tin foil hats? He might be crazy, but that shouldn't be illegal.
And ultimately, I think people ought to be able to discuss conspiracies. There are a lot of conspiracies. I've seen a few, and most aren't things the public ever finds out about. There are:
- Actual conspiracies, which generally do a lot of harm.
- Conspiracy theories, most of which are unfounded.
There's little (but not zero) correlation between the two. Ultimately, though, uncovering actual conspiracies requires wading through fake ones too.
If the conspiracy comes from a fake news network where there's _documentation_ that they're intentionally lying? That's a different story.
And yes, I know most won't get caught. But even if a few do, market incentive structures change dramatically, especially for larger organizations.
Most of the instances I've seen that I really care about fall very far in the clear of those standards:
- My local school administration lies for political benefit and to "manage" parents. That's 100% legal right now. It shouldn't be.
- A stalker is spreading false rumors about me. That's illegal, but would require a massively expensive litigation to bring within control.
- A local elite university fabricates data to support professor startups. That's at the edge of legal. It should be illegal.
... and so on. If we had effective enforcement for stuff that's NOT in the gray zone, I'd be pretty happy.
As for the who-killed-JFK, fake moon landing, area 51, etc. type conspiracies, I think those should generally fall under free speech. If you can document a news network is intentionally fabricating conspiracies for ratings and money, that another matter, but if it's a crazy uncle in tin foil hats? He might be crazy, but that shouldn't be illegal.
And ultimately, I think people ought to be able to discuss conspiracies. There are a lot of conspiracies. I've seen a few, and most aren't things the public ever finds out about. There are:
- Actual conspiracies, which generally do a lot of harm.
- Conspiracy theories, most of which are unfounded.
There's little (but not zero) correlation between the two. Ultimately, though, uncovering actual conspiracies requires wading through fake ones too.
If the conspiracy comes from a fake news network where there's _documentation_ that they're intentionally lying? That's a different story.
And yes, I know most won't get caught. But even if a few do, market incentive structures change dramatically, especially for larger organizations.
Why abandon all priors? Take the case of someone whose previous statements show an acknowledgement or awareness that proposition X is not true.
If they go back to claiming proposition x the next day and the next and the next, then they're lying. This isn't a philosophical problem.
If they go back to claiming proposition x the next day and the next and the next, then they're lying. This isn't a philosophical problem.
> Some places (for example, academics and government employees
Got a list? I've got a list of incidents of government employees intentionally lying to their overseers that just keeps growing, so I really have problems with the assertion that these measures exist in any other way than mere unenforced notional statutes.
Got a list? I've got a list of incidents of government employees intentionally lying to their overseers that just keeps growing, so I really have problems with the assertion that these measures exist in any other way than mere unenforced notional statutes.
I do have a list, but it's not one I'm planning to go public with.
As far as I can tell, no measures exist:
* It's perfectly legal for most government employees to lie.
* Academics can lie so long as they don't engage in research fraud as defined by the OMB, which is a rather complex line. Most can find ways to lie without coming close to that line, and when they do, the punishment is a slap-on-the-wrist.
As far as I can tell, no measures exist:
* It's perfectly legal for most government employees to lie.
* Academics can lie so long as they don't engage in research fraud as defined by the OMB, which is a rather complex line. Most can find ways to lie without coming close to that line, and when they do, the punishment is a slap-on-the-wrist.
I don't see the point of your comment. I made it very clear that I agree with the basic proposition that censorship is bad, but that we should also talk about vexing problem of intentional lying.
It's perplexing to me that you launched into an attack on an argument that nobody was making.
It's perplexing to me that you launched into an attack on an argument that nobody was making.
Agreed, and furthermore, I think it’s easy for most of us to take for granted the influence of our domains of work and study. In general, many of us have backgrounds which pride themselves in their methodology, consistency and pursuit of understanding (whether or not we actually work in line with these values is another matter.) A lot of people outside of these circles aren’t privy to that sort of training (self-taught or otherwise), so adequately analysing the news that shows up on news feeds and timelines is difficult. Any news on the pandemic and the varying responses of the general public are a fine example of this. There’s always room for differences in opinion, but the intense variability highlights the race across the internet between access to all sorts of information and educational material that was previously unavailable, and the ill-intended trash like the link you shared.
Don't pat yourself on the back too much. "We" are just as susceptible to propaganda, it's just that different mindsets require different approaches to manufacturing consent.
You may not always see it, but it's there
You may not always see it, but it's there
> I think this conception is a side effect of software development
No, it’s been a pretty consistent concept for about 250 years at least.
No, it’s been a pretty consistent concept for about 250 years at least.
Times have changed radically since it was first mooted. Broadcast and social media didn't exist then, so the 250 year old model has no mechanism to handle market failure.
Yeah it sure has changed. People on social media today are more polite toward eachother than the revolutionary era founders of the US were toward eachother. The politics has calmed down considerably.
Not true. There is no shortage of rude or aggressive commentary today, and just because rude aggressive commentary existed in the past doesn't mean it was the default or median.
Nothing has changed. Presidential candidates were vicious in the US early on.
> old model has no mechanism to handle market failure.
“market failure” has absolutely zero relationship to free speech.
> old model has no mechanism to handle market failure.
“market failure” has absolutely zero relationship to free speech.
Why exactly is this such a problem? People have been making up bullshit stories to sell a narrative since there have been printed media (before even) and the world hasn't been harmed by this in any way that's remotely comparable to how much harm giving governments powers of censorship for the sake of "protecting truth and morality" has caused in real human lives and repressions.
As a basic general rule, private people absolutely should have the right to lie and spread lies in most contexts except those where contractual or professional obligations intervene, or where a legitimate criminal investigation is underway or in the case of government employees in positions of trust with the public.
As a basic general rule, private people absolutely should have the right to lie and spread lies in most contexts except those where contractual or professional obligations intervene, or where a legitimate criminal investigation is underway or in the case of government employees in positions of trust with the public.
> Why exactly is this such a problem? People have been making up bullshit stories to sell a narrative since there have been printed media
You've answered your own question. It's tough to get your bullshit spreading when you need to yell it in the town square. When you have instant access to hundreds of millions of idiots, it's far more dangerous.
You've answered your own question. It's tough to get your bullshit spreading when you need to yell it in the town square. When you have instant access to hundreds of millions of idiots, it's far more dangerous.
Oh my god, Yes! let's use new media types as an excuse to justify the same bullshit reasons for censorship of the kind that has always been so wisely, carefully used by politicians, ideologues and states throughout history. Because obviously no authority has tried that before....
Mass media is nothing new and you greatly over estimate how differently rumors and gossip circulate today vs any time in the last couple centuries. It's far too early to tell if anything about modern social networks in any way makes them comparably dangerous to the apparent proposed alternative of some authority figure dictating what people should be allowed to say. This new love of crushing certain opinions in the name of fighting misinformation is all the more surprising coming from tech types, who I remember being more oriented towards messy freedom.
Mass media is nothing new and you greatly over estimate how differently rumors and gossip circulate today vs any time in the last couple centuries. It's far too early to tell if anything about modern social networks in any way makes them comparably dangerous to the apparent proposed alternative of some authority figure dictating what people should be allowed to say. This new love of crushing certain opinions in the name of fighting misinformation is all the more surprising coming from tech types, who I remember being more oriented towards messy freedom.
Can we not with the performative histrionics please?
Media today is certainly different in that information spreads much faster. We do have some quantitative evidence that lies transmit faster than truth eg https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146
We know there can be economic and political incentives to spread false news, and we also know that false information can result in avoidable suffering, eg by contributing to the spread of disease https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/
I'd be great if we could address these quantifiable negative externalities as a technical rather than an emotional issue, where we would like to minimize the resulting loss of life.
Media today is certainly different in that information spreads much faster. We do have some quantitative evidence that lies transmit faster than truth eg https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146
We know there can be economic and political incentives to spread false news, and we also know that false information can result in avoidable suffering, eg by contributing to the spread of disease https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6137759/
I'd be great if we could address these quantifiable negative externalities as a technical rather than an emotional issue, where we would like to minimize the resulting loss of life.
> Mass media is nothing new
You literally used "before printed media" as an example.
> you greatly over estimate how differently rumors and gossip circulate today vs any time in the last couple centuries
No, I'm pretty sure I'm correct in saying that the Internet has made broadcasting (mis)information easier.
You literally used "before printed media" as an example.
> you greatly over estimate how differently rumors and gossip circulate today vs any time in the last couple centuries
No, I'm pretty sure I'm correct in saying that the Internet has made broadcasting (mis)information easier.
The internet has certainly made broadcasting information and misinformation both easier and faster, but that doesn't take away from my argument that the rapid mass spread of rumor and information in times previous to the internet was a definite thing.
Furthermore, most importantly of all, does the ability to spread ones personal or group views rapidly via digital media justify censorship? No, it does not to anyone making a serious claim of respect for freedom of expression.
Furthermore, most importantly of all, does the ability to spread ones personal or group views rapidly via digital media justify censorship? No, it does not to anyone making a serious claim of respect for freedom of expression.
Are you implying that censorship is necessary? If so, who are the non-liars that will police the liars?
The COVID lab leak hypothesis was not called outright "deliberate lying", because it was a hypothesis, however, it was banned from open discussion by even experts who feared the wrath of social media platforms and their members. It was called "False" by various "fact-checking" groups too, which many took as "it's a lie". Way before the internet people would say, “If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell to you”. You cannot legislate intelligence, so stop trying to filter and ban things being written and said, if you don't agree with censorship especially from big tech or gonvernment. I always enjoyed reading the trash newspapers while waiting on the checkout line at the supermarket for fun (aliens (sorry, I doubted you, Kevin!), conspiracies, etc...). I knew they were false, and I know some people who actually believed them, but there will always be gullible people. Then there are facts as plain as day like the Uighur concentration camps in China being forced to make goods for the West (pick cotton, etc. Nike, Zara, H&M) and elsewhere, and Disney makes a movie in the same vicinity, and it's business as usual - profits before principals. Don't tell me it's different today with social media. I think it's the same, but social media has amplified ignorance by ameliorating facts and rewarding narcissism. I left LinkedIn and Facebook years ago.
Where did you see the troll circulating that page earlier today? You want to link to the post, wherever it is?
If you want to see people trying to spread conspiracy theories on HN, turn on showdead in your profile and, soon enough, you will. It's not all that common, but it does happen, and has proven a fairly fertile source of search terms for my own occasional research interest in the subject.
Would that that interest could remain as academic as it was when the Internet and I were both young, and the stuff was all UFO abductions, or similarly innocuous and rather silly. On the other hand, it tickles my historiographical curiosity to watch a new iteration of American revivalism, rehashing the "Satanic ritual panic" of a few decades ago, evolve in near real time. So I suppose at least there is some consolation for the regret.
Would that that interest could remain as academic as it was when the Internet and I were both young, and the stuff was all UFO abductions, or similarly innocuous and rather silly. On the other hand, it tickles my historiographical curiosity to watch a new iteration of American revivalism, rehashing the "Satanic ritual panic" of a few decades ago, evolve in near real time. So I suppose at least there is some consolation for the regret.
A weird extra effect this time around: a sizeable chunk of the internet is trying to trick journalists into talking about the silliest thing imaginable as if it were something people really believed.
(I wasn't around for the first Satanic panic, nor am I American, so perhaps that was happening the first time too and I just don't know about it?)
(I wasn't around for the first Satanic panic, nor am I American, so perhaps that was happening the first time too and I just don't know about it?)
People really believed it then, and really believe it now, in both cases I think because they need to believe something - as do we all; if there's any one thing that distinguishes humans from all other animals, a strong candidate is that we both make and need meaning - in a time when old verities seem to crumble ever more by the day, and chaos seems ever more ascendant.
If you're young, a time like that can be immensely exciting, as the future feels open to be remade and you have the chance to help shape it. If you're not, the same time can be terrifying, as the ways in which you've always understood the world seem suddenly no longer to work. As with any "conspiracy theory", the schemes of reference we here discuss can serve the purpose of restoring that sense of understanding how things work, and I think that's a big part of their appeal - for all that these are not accurate ways of understanding the world, they certainly can be compelling, and for a lot of folks the one is as good as the other.
Not as many in either case believe it as as participate in it, you're right about that - as ever, much of the most apparent heat and hype is generated by hucksters cunning enough to spot an emerging market and unscrupulous enough to exploit it without concern for whatever harm they cause by so doing. But if nobody really believed it, to whom could they sell?
(If you're curious, my own scheme of reference is informed primarily by historiography, but I think the essential difference is that I understand the meanings I make are the meanings I make. So, when I say that in my analysis this looks very much like a rehash of the 70s "malaise" years, I know I'm saying that at least as much because I want to believe there is precedent for times like these, and for them being not catastrophic in the way they can sometimes feel, as because my study of US history strongly suggests as much. That said, I'm not without sympathy for those who believe in the way we here discuss; I think they're foolish to do so, sure, but I've been a fool myself betimes, and I may feel very differently two or three decades hence, when I can no longer help but feel myself always under the ferryman's eyeless gaze.)
If you're young, a time like that can be immensely exciting, as the future feels open to be remade and you have the chance to help shape it. If you're not, the same time can be terrifying, as the ways in which you've always understood the world seem suddenly no longer to work. As with any "conspiracy theory", the schemes of reference we here discuss can serve the purpose of restoring that sense of understanding how things work, and I think that's a big part of their appeal - for all that these are not accurate ways of understanding the world, they certainly can be compelling, and for a lot of folks the one is as good as the other.
Not as many in either case believe it as as participate in it, you're right about that - as ever, much of the most apparent heat and hype is generated by hucksters cunning enough to spot an emerging market and unscrupulous enough to exploit it without concern for whatever harm they cause by so doing. But if nobody really believed it, to whom could they sell?
(If you're curious, my own scheme of reference is informed primarily by historiography, but I think the essential difference is that I understand the meanings I make are the meanings I make. So, when I say that in my analysis this looks very much like a rehash of the 70s "malaise" years, I know I'm saying that at least as much because I want to believe there is precedent for times like these, and for them being not catastrophic in the way they can sometimes feel, as because my study of US history strongly suggests as much. That said, I'm not without sympathy for those who believe in the way we here discuss; I think they're foolish to do so, sure, but I've been a fool myself betimes, and I may feel very differently two or three decades hence, when I can no longer help but feel myself always under the ferryman's eyeless gaze.)
Curious, so I turned on shadowdead, but what does it actually do?
From my understanding, with that option enabled HN will now show you all the comments (and submissions) that are marked [dead], which are not visible by unregistered users and users that do not have that option enabled. Comments are marked [dead] due to being flagged by too many users, or the user is shadowbanned, which I believe means their comments default [dead] unless vouched.
I may be mistaken here.
I may be mistaken here.
All correct as far as I know.
It can be a bit From Beyond at times, albeit sadly impaired by the lack of Jeffrey Combs.
It can be a bit From Beyond at times, albeit sadly impaired by the lack of Jeffrey Combs.
No, I don't want to link to it. It was not on HN.
So I'm just supposed to take your word for it that you saw someone circulating it earlier today? You can link to the misinfo itself but not your source for it?
Sure, why not? I don't save the URL of every troll post I see. This is the originator if you want to follow their posts. https://disqus.com/by/lore11/comments/
Well, it’s sort of a hard issue isn’t it? Because as it turns out Mao was sort of right about the importance of controlling the story your society tells.
I’d argue that we don’t actually have a problem with deliberate lying, but that we have an issue that too many people are doing it. Because our democracy has always been build on a certain degree or twisting facts to whatever purpose. The difference is that until very recently we had a society where the public narrative was controlled by a set of institutions and authorities. With too many billionaires and populists questioning those institutions for too long, we now have split narratives where people have to chose the lies they believe in, and that’s turning out to be a bigger problem than anyone ever imagined. It’ll likely also end up biting some of those billionaires and populists in the ass when enough people decide to follow the same path of lies.
It’s a tad ironic that we’re likely witnessing another relatively free and liberal society fall due to too much decadence between the ruling class who have failed to live up to their responsibilities. Either because they were too stupid to realise the fire they are starting or because they were to greedy to care, but in either case, you need a coherent story to have a functional society where it’s different members don’t turn on each other because their world views become too different.
A lot of libertarians believing in total free speech, and a lot of HNers share this. Which is understandable, because when you are part of the technical elite of a society you tend to value the essence or basic human rights and personal liberties. So much like the masons of the past formed the free masons, you too see engineers going down similar lines of thought. But the thing is, if you look at history, that’s just not how society works as a whole. Which brings me back to my opening statement about Mao, because while we little about Mao beyond the cultural revolution and the hunger travesties and attribute most of the sway of socialism and communism to Marx and Lenin in the west. The true brilliance of Mao is still at play in the core of what is modern China, in that the revolution never actually ends and that you need a tight grip on information and the public discord on matters that effect society as a whole if you want to control society.
Unfortunately we are currently very busy proving him right. The populists may have taken some hits recently because the reality caught up to their stupidity, and the world has woken up to the foreign influence, but we still don’t have strong enough support behind our democratic institutions to have any form or safe future for our western ideologies. Unless that changes, we’ll soon become what China used to be for us. Not because we didn’t strike down on lies, but because we didn’t mutually agree on one of the lies.
I’d argue that we don’t actually have a problem with deliberate lying, but that we have an issue that too many people are doing it. Because our democracy has always been build on a certain degree or twisting facts to whatever purpose. The difference is that until very recently we had a society where the public narrative was controlled by a set of institutions and authorities. With too many billionaires and populists questioning those institutions for too long, we now have split narratives where people have to chose the lies they believe in, and that’s turning out to be a bigger problem than anyone ever imagined. It’ll likely also end up biting some of those billionaires and populists in the ass when enough people decide to follow the same path of lies.
It’s a tad ironic that we’re likely witnessing another relatively free and liberal society fall due to too much decadence between the ruling class who have failed to live up to their responsibilities. Either because they were too stupid to realise the fire they are starting or because they were to greedy to care, but in either case, you need a coherent story to have a functional society where it’s different members don’t turn on each other because their world views become too different.
A lot of libertarians believing in total free speech, and a lot of HNers share this. Which is understandable, because when you are part of the technical elite of a society you tend to value the essence or basic human rights and personal liberties. So much like the masons of the past formed the free masons, you too see engineers going down similar lines of thought. But the thing is, if you look at history, that’s just not how society works as a whole. Which brings me back to my opening statement about Mao, because while we little about Mao beyond the cultural revolution and the hunger travesties and attribute most of the sway of socialism and communism to Marx and Lenin in the west. The true brilliance of Mao is still at play in the core of what is modern China, in that the revolution never actually ends and that you need a tight grip on information and the public discord on matters that effect society as a whole if you want to control society.
Unfortunately we are currently very busy proving him right. The populists may have taken some hits recently because the reality caught up to their stupidity, and the world has woken up to the foreign influence, but we still don’t have strong enough support behind our democratic institutions to have any form or safe future for our western ideologies. Unless that changes, we’ll soon become what China used to be for us. Not because we didn’t strike down on lies, but because we didn’t mutually agree on one of the lies.
I am talking about straight up counterfactuals, not narrative construction or discursive selectivity. While I agree with much of what you're saying, I'm trying to stay out of the political/philosophical realm and focus on the issue of outright falsehoods.
Ignore, for a moment, the idea of freedom versus authority. That topic is really important, always timely, and full of nuance.
Just for the next hour or two, go down a rabbit hole of reading about the history of Thailand/Siam/Ayutthaya, for no other purpose than learning something about a group of humanity very different from the Western experience.
After that, take a breath, then re-read this article. Your reaction will probably be the same, but it'll have a more interesting story behind it.
Just for the next hour or two, go down a rabbit hole of reading about the history of Thailand/Siam/Ayutthaya, for no other purpose than learning something about a group of humanity very different from the Western experience.
After that, take a breath, then re-read this article. Your reaction will probably be the same, but it'll have a more interesting story behind it.
I feel that you have something that you feel is important but just stopped short of saying it. If that's the case, would you mind elaborating on it?
I am interested because I am one of those people whose "reaction will probably be the same". I think I do appreciate cultural and historical differences between different groups of people, but I don't understand how having a more interesting story behind [insert injustice] would lead to a better outcome for everyone.
These days I tend to avoid real life discussions about these issues with people because whenever someone pulls out the "you don't understand their culture and history" card it's pretty much the end of a conversation or just an argument between beliefs.
> learning something about a group of humanity very different from the Western experience
Just want to note that I think there are lots of people from non-Western backgrounds, or have a very good understand of both Western and non-Western cultures here.
I am interested because I am one of those people whose "reaction will probably be the same". I think I do appreciate cultural and historical differences between different groups of people, but I don't understand how having a more interesting story behind [insert injustice] would lead to a better outcome for everyone.
These days I tend to avoid real life discussions about these issues with people because whenever someone pulls out the "you don't understand their culture and history" card it's pretty much the end of a conversation or just an argument between beliefs.
> learning something about a group of humanity very different from the Western experience
Just want to note that I think there are lots of people from non-Western backgrounds, or have a very good understand of both Western and non-Western cultures here.
The sad irony today is that it would literally take any group that is discussing this topic 10 minutes to collectively google, wikipedia, and summarize some real facts to lead the discussion to something higher level than historical facts that almost no one knows.
This phenomenon isn't limited to this topic by any means. Lately I've been noticing how so much of conversation is filler by people attempting to figure out readily available facts by sharing anecdotes and making generalizations from those. Not to mention when people get upset because they're both convinced they're right, when a quick search could clear it up instantly. Do people genuinely enjoy this part of socializing or is everyone still not used to the idea of having infinite search power in the palm of our hands at all times?
This phenomenon isn't limited to this topic by any means. Lately I've been noticing how so much of conversation is filler by people attempting to figure out readily available facts by sharing anecdotes and making generalizations from those. Not to mention when people get upset because they're both convinced they're right, when a quick search could clear it up instantly. Do people genuinely enjoy this part of socializing or is everyone still not used to the idea of having infinite search power in the palm of our hands at all times?
> Do people genuinely enjoy this part of socializing
I don't think it's so much "enjoy" as just that many people treat knowledge as a social phenomenon, not something to gather from external sources on your own. It's not so much "what are the facts" as "what are my peers thinking and saying about this?"
This also goes a long way towards explaining the popularity of comment sections on sites like HN and reddit, as well as why there are large groups of people who treat non-factual information as though it were factual.
I don't think it's so much "enjoy" as just that many people treat knowledge as a social phenomenon, not something to gather from external sources on your own. It's not so much "what are the facts" as "what are my peers thinking and saying about this?"
This also goes a long way towards explaining the popularity of comment sections on sites like HN and reddit, as well as why there are large groups of people who treat non-factual information as though it were factual.
I have encountered this.
Many people just don't appear to know how to search and filter information on the internet. I regularly get asked questions I don't know the answers to but can quickly search and refine down to either an exact answer or something useful to the questioner.
They often ask me "What did you search for?" or "How did you find that out so fast?". My guess is that most people using HN will have significantly above average search and analysis skills.
The socializing aspect you highlighted may also stem from desire to be polite. I was recently accused of committing a "pub foul" when I used my phone to search for information on a question raised at a pub lunch. Personally I prefer to know the answer so I can put the question out of my mind (I'm more introverted). To other people (more extroverted), not knowing the answer may be preferable to briefly disengaging from the conversation.
Many people just don't appear to know how to search and filter information on the internet. I regularly get asked questions I don't know the answers to but can quickly search and refine down to either an exact answer or something useful to the questioner.
They often ask me "What did you search for?" or "How did you find that out so fast?". My guess is that most people using HN will have significantly above average search and analysis skills.
The socializing aspect you highlighted may also stem from desire to be polite. I was recently accused of committing a "pub foul" when I used my phone to search for information on a question raised at a pub lunch. Personally I prefer to know the answer so I can put the question out of my mind (I'm more introverted). To other people (more extroverted), not knowing the answer may be preferable to briefly disengaging from the conversation.
No, no friend, you are actually wrong.
I have recently found that a sizeable amount of people will completely seriously tell you to your face that Wikipedia isn't facts and anything you find on the internet (that doesn't conform to their views/gives them confirmation biS) is lies and propaganda by big tech.
It's insane, and there's no fighting it. Really, they will not budge in the slightest. I cannot think of anything that can possibly save things other than massive education reform.... and given the fact education (in the US) has been being completely dismantled in the past 40 so years, I do not think that savior is coming.
I have recently found that a sizeable amount of people will completely seriously tell you to your face that Wikipedia isn't facts and anything you find on the internet (that doesn't conform to their views/gives them confirmation biS) is lies and propaganda by big tech.
It's insane, and there's no fighting it. Really, they will not budge in the slightest. I cannot think of anything that can possibly save things other than massive education reform.... and given the fact education (in the US) has been being completely dismantled in the past 40 so years, I do not think that savior is coming.
My father is like this. If he already agrees with what something says, then he’ll parrot it around. But, if he doesn’t, then “anyone can put anything on the Internet”
> tell you to your face that Wikipedia isn't facts
It is not. Why do you think so?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU
It is not. Why do you think so?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU
> and given the fact education (in the US) has been being completely dismantled in the past 40 so year
Actually teaching objective facts, maybe to some degree yes, but the education system today is the strongest and best funded it has ever been.
Actually teaching objective facts, maybe to some degree yes, but the education system today is the strongest and best funded it has ever been.
Yet it is completely useless. Doesn't teach critical thinking, epistemology, etc. There's a "science" class, and that's it. The rest is lexical knowledge memorization about past stuff (wars, plays, novels, poems, politics).
It makes sense that this generates political strife as citizens age through school and out into industry. The current world economy is dependent on knowledge work. Knowledge work requires an ability to interweave, discover and generate novel mental models. If our economy is not generating these types of workers, and labor becomes supplanted by machines, the margin-of-opportunity will continue to decrease as machines take over knowledge work.
The economies and states who are in control at the logical end of that technological progression will be the ones that decide what the future of humanity looks like. Do we get UBI? Do we get social nets? Do we get human rights?
The economies and states who are in control at the logical end of that technological progression will be the ones that decide what the future of humanity looks like. Do we get UBI? Do we get social nets? Do we get human rights?
In my experience (not American, so your experience might vary) it's usually tied to toxic masculinity.
Being the one who provides information, rather than the one who's corrected, has implications for some people in terms of ego and perceived social status, so they see a discussion as sort of a verbal fight for territory.
The same person would gladly accept the exact same information without an issue in any other context, provided that they had not just supported a different idea, but the moment they support one side they have to hold the fort.
In that context bringing up a Google search in the discussion feels to them like you're pulling out a gun in the middle of a fist fight. Sure it's effective, but the escalation is read as "I'm going to win this at all costs", rather as "I want to check the truth", and most importantly, you leave the other party no room whatsoever to save face, which is seen as an asshole move.
The same person would gladly accept the exact same information without an issue in any other context, provided that they had not just supported a different idea, but the moment they support one side they have to hold the fort.
In that context bringing up a Google search in the discussion feels to them like you're pulling out a gun in the middle of a fist fight. Sure it's effective, but the escalation is read as "I'm going to win this at all costs", rather as "I want to check the truth", and most importantly, you leave the other party no room whatsoever to save face, which is seen as an asshole move.
What exactly is relevant about a kingdom from the 14th century when it comes to banning IP addresses?
I don’t mean to sound flippant, but the suggestion of “if you only knew the entire history of this area/group, you’d understand…” smacks of smugness at best, and some sort of dog whistle at worst.
If you could kindly share what about the incredibly broad area of study you’ve suggested we all become experts on would be helpful here, I think many of us would appreciate it.
Otherwise the only piece of information I’ve cleaned from this post is “I have an opinion that’s informed by… something I’ve read. I decline to share neither the opinion or what information it’s based on.”
I don’t mean to sound flippant, but the suggestion of “if you only knew the entire history of this area/group, you’d understand…” smacks of smugness at best, and some sort of dog whistle at worst.
If you could kindly share what about the incredibly broad area of study you’ve suggested we all become experts on would be helpful here, I think many of us would appreciate it.
Otherwise the only piece of information I’ve cleaned from this post is “I have an opinion that’s informed by… something I’ve read. I decline to share neither the opinion or what information it’s based on.”
In this case, I was trying to convey that Thai culture comes from a more authoritarian background, and the recent rebellion against that is more significant than most Westerners realize.
So, basically, I expected people to react to the article with "well, that's shitty, but I bet the people are going to do something interesting about this..." instead of just "well, that's shitty."
So, basically, I expected people to react to the article with "well, that's shitty, but I bet the people are going to do something interesting about this..." instead of just "well, that's shitty."
For anyone wanting to add to their perspective how some younger generations are bringing in their thoughts on freedom/authority:
- https://thisrupt.co
- https://thestandard.co/homepage/ (Thai language only, but you can attempt to Google Translate)
- https://thisrupt.co
- https://thestandard.co/homepage/ (Thai language only, but you can attempt to Google Translate)
How do thisrupt authors not get arrested? The commentary seems very inflammatory
Edit: I don't mean that I think they should - I mean that given e.g. Lese Majeste, I would have expected them to be persecuted.
Edit: I don't mean that I think they should - I mean that given e.g. Lese Majeste, I would have expected them to be persecuted.
And I thought I'm the only one following thisrupt. I'm living in Bangkok and would like to discuss some things with you. How can I reach you the best?
This seems like a risky response - this is exactly what a intelligence agent would ask (w a brand new account to boot).
Here it is with further analysis, from another good long-standing source of information about human rights
and repression of journalism in Thailand...
https://prachatai.com/english/node/9368
https://prachatai.com/english/node/9368
Websites can be translated automatically using:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
I’d add: https://www.thaienquirer.com/ (English)
Got a starting point for us?
This is a good one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayutthaya_Kingdom
From a book perspective, I adored A History of Thailand by Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayutthaya_Kingdom
From a book perspective, I adored A History of Thailand by Chris Baker and Pasuk Phongpaichit.
I can agree, A History of Thailand is an excellent recommendation.
In the world today: only the government, the media, the entertainment industry and certain protected groups are allowed to frighten people. Thank God for progress
Individuals with dangerous and, God forbid, frightening ideas are the real threat to the stability and peace of our world. They cannot be permitted to exist.
They must be stamped out within civilized society, because the standard of morals in civilized society that separates good from bad is if someone, somewhere might be frightened by it, then it, whatever it is, must be bad. Otherwise, it might be good. Fear is the overarching principle around which we ought organize our world. Ask not what you can do for your country, rather ask what things you might be frightened of that you need to report to Miniluv.
Individuals with dangerous and, God forbid, frightening ideas are the real threat to the stability and peace of our world. They cannot be permitted to exist.
They must be stamped out within civilized society, because the standard of morals in civilized society that separates good from bad is if someone, somewhere might be frightened by it, then it, whatever it is, must be bad. Otherwise, it might be good. Fear is the overarching principle around which we ought organize our world. Ask not what you can do for your country, rather ask what things you might be frightened of that you need to report to Miniluv.
Also, only entertainment companies are allowed to push your buttons, outrage you, grind your gears and send you into a tailspin of social media "criticism" of that content, because that is their attention economy business model.
If private people do it, it's hate speech, the most vile thing that destabilizes civilization.
If private people do it, it's hate speech, the most vile thing that destabilizes civilization.
> allowed to frighten people.
No, no. They call it "awareness"..
No, no. They call it "awareness"..
Currently in Thailand.
This is probably a reaction to a recent art works display protesting the goverment's handling of the current delta wave: https://www.thephuketnews.com/police-probe-staged-protest-ph...
On the ground, the situation is rapidly going from bad to worse and people are both scared and also growingly discontent. The level of public outcry is getting higher and higher, specially in context of harsh laws to try to silence opposition.
This is probably a reaction to a recent art works display protesting the goverment's handling of the current delta wave: https://www.thephuketnews.com/police-probe-staged-protest-ph...
On the ground, the situation is rapidly going from bad to worse and people are both scared and also growingly discontent. The level of public outcry is getting higher and higher, specially in context of harsh laws to try to silence opposition.
> It prohibits anyone from “reporting news or disseminating information that may frighten people or intentionally distorting information to cause a misunderstanding about the emergency situation, which may eventually affect state security, order or good morality of the people.”.
What's even more frightening is that we see this same kind of language used in liberal democratic countries.
What's even more frightening is that we see this same kind of language used in liberal democratic countries.
[deleted]
He's saying the quiet part out loud. You're supposed to collaborate with tech companies to de-rank and filter people with undesirable opinions.
That's the democratic way. Pointing this out won't be well received on a site used by people who are in favor of censorship, many of whom work at the companies that are collaborating with governments to enable it.
This is only a slightly more exaggerated version of what's going on in Canada:
>Cabinet would appoint a chief censor, called the Digital Safety Commissioner, to provide “advice on content moderation” and issue compliance orders on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other service providers under threat of $25 million fines.
>Censored content was not defined but anonymous complainants could trigger an investigation over websites deemed to “distort the free exchange of ideas by discrediting or silencing targeted voices” or “threaten national security, the rule of law and democratic institutions,” wrote staff.
>The Safety Commissioner would be empowered to block websites or “make the content inaccessible” in Canada.
Their justification for this? It might hurt the feelings of public officials:
>“We have seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families,” said Guilbeault.
>“I have seen firsthand alongside other Canadians the damaging effects harmful content has on our families, our values and our institutions.”
>Guilbeault in January 29 testimony at the Commons heritage committee went further in suggesting prohibited content should include hurtful criticism of federal institutions.
>“Canada has a world-renowned public service and it’s integral that we don’t attack them,” he said.
It's an alarming attack on freedom of expression that obviously isn't unique to Canada. We may be in for some dark times as we rediscover why democracy cannot work without free speech.
>Cabinet would appoint a chief censor, called the Digital Safety Commissioner, to provide “advice on content moderation” and issue compliance orders on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other service providers under threat of $25 million fines.
>Censored content was not defined but anonymous complainants could trigger an investigation over websites deemed to “distort the free exchange of ideas by discrediting or silencing targeted voices” or “threaten national security, the rule of law and democratic institutions,” wrote staff.
>The Safety Commissioner would be empowered to block websites or “make the content inaccessible” in Canada.
Their justification for this? It might hurt the feelings of public officials:
>“We have seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families,” said Guilbeault.
>“I have seen firsthand alongside other Canadians the damaging effects harmful content has on our families, our values and our institutions.”
>Guilbeault in January 29 testimony at the Commons heritage committee went further in suggesting prohibited content should include hurtful criticism of federal institutions.
>“Canada has a world-renowned public service and it’s integral that we don’t attack them,” he said.
It's an alarming attack on freedom of expression that obviously isn't unique to Canada. We may be in for some dark times as we rediscover why democracy cannot work without free speech.
“reporting news or disseminating information that may frighten people or intentionally distorting information to cause a misunderstanding about the emergency situation, which may eventually affect state security, order or good morality of the people.”
Note the wording. What is written left of that "or" makes the rest purely redundant and unnecessary, although it serves its purpose as smoke in the eyes. And the "good morality" part is also 100% subjective. If taken to the letter, a mere reporting of a coming tsunami wave could have someone arrested. Vague laws that can be easily bent or taken to the letter, according on whom they're applied to (friend/enemy) are always a telling sign of heavily corrupt governments.
Note the wording. What is written left of that "or" makes the rest purely redundant and unnecessary, although it serves its purpose as smoke in the eyes. And the "good morality" part is also 100% subjective. If taken to the letter, a mere reporting of a coming tsunami wave could have someone arrested. Vague laws that can be easily bent or taken to the letter, according on whom they're applied to (friend/enemy) are always a telling sign of heavily corrupt governments.
"They argued no one should be prosecuted for sharing truthful information, even when it is frightening."
Those academics are tightening the ratchet of expectations. What happened to freedom to share false information? Gone?
Those academics are tightening the ratchet of expectations. What happened to freedom to share false information? Gone?
> What happened to freedom to share false information? Gone?
In today's interconnected world, it's a very dangerous right that has resulted in deaths - be it Rohingya people in Myanmar, or even Samuel Paty in France, just to name two recent examples of the top of my head.
A good discussion needs to be had on the limits we ( per country) want to have on that right. Too many people today can't disseminate truth from bullshit, and many bullshiters, on a small or big ( e.g. Alex Jones or Fox News or Boris Johnson) scale profit from this with serious consequences for the health of people ( death, mental health for people thinking they're always under attack by X) and societies. What good is a freedom when society is falling apart because everyone hates/is afraid of each other and nobody can agree on anything?
In today's interconnected world, it's a very dangerous right that has resulted in deaths - be it Rohingya people in Myanmar, or even Samuel Paty in France, just to name two recent examples of the top of my head.
A good discussion needs to be had on the limits we ( per country) want to have on that right. Too many people today can't disseminate truth from bullshit, and many bullshiters, on a small or big ( e.g. Alex Jones or Fox News or Boris Johnson) scale profit from this with serious consequences for the health of people ( death, mental health for people thinking they're always under attack by X) and societies. What good is a freedom when society is falling apart because everyone hates/is afraid of each other and nobody can agree on anything?
Are you just that historically ignorant of how this goes?
3000 people also die a year from asprin. Everything in life is a trade off.
3000 people also die a year from asprin. Everything in life is a trade off.
And people used to die of polio and measles, why do anything about it?
And genocides happened, why prevent another one?
As they say, "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths merely a statistic". Don't fall into this trap.
And genocides happened, why prevent another one?
As they say, "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths merely a statistic". Don't fall into this trap.
Famously attributed to a man who did his best to protect the populace from misinformation, leading to millions of… statistics.
Nice try at twisting things, but no.
Stalin didn't try to protect the populace from misinformation. He tried to stay in power whatever the cost, industrialise the country and make it more powerful ( economically and militarily) and united ( aka destroy ethnic groups). People died due to those things, his stubbornness and refusal to accept reality ( industrialisation impact, Germany), his paranoia ( Great Purges, among other things), and his genocidal tendencies (poles and others) , not because they were murdered for spreading misinformation about the NEP or whatever.
Stalin didn't try to protect the populace from misinformation. He tried to stay in power whatever the cost, industrialise the country and make it more powerful ( economically and militarily) and united ( aka destroy ethnic groups). People died due to those things, his stubbornness and refusal to accept reality ( industrialisation impact, Germany), his paranoia ( Great Purges, among other things), and his genocidal tendencies (poles and others) , not because they were murdered for spreading misinformation about the NEP or whatever.
In case people are not aware here, he had seized power during the coup in 2014. Since then, he had worked hard to remain in power. This order will be used to deal with protesters and those people who oppose the government. Specifically, regarding Covid-19, Thai government managed it in a very bad way. Many people are pissed at the government for that.
https://www.asiasentinel.com/p/covid-widens-thai-class-divis...
Useful context, thank you.
The site seems to be down, so here’s a different article about the same order: https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2156803/fearmon...
AP coverage: https://apnews.com/article/business-health-media-coronavirus...
AP coverage: https://apnews.com/article/business-health-media-coronavirus...
Maybe it scared someone
probably banned in Thailand but a great background:
https://secretsiam.news/p/the-palace-and-the-pandemic
https://secretsiam.news/p/the-palace-and-the-pandemic
Not banned yet, thank you for sharing!
Well, this frightens me!
Same. Where do I report the Thai PM?
That's just how our fearless leader intended it.
Reading this from a totally naive/optimistic perspective, my first response was "wow, this just effectively shut down cyberbullying of minority groups, those with mental health issues, etc. Awesome."
And then I open the comments and face the broad spectrum of reality.
(And then of course that the opinions of underrepresented groups are not necessarily likely to have their voices heard in situations like this, not even taking the locality (which I'm completely naive about) into account...)
It's so annoying that this whole field is a minefield of mutually conflicting Pandora's boxes.
And then I open the comments and face the broad spectrum of reality.
(And then of course that the opinions of underrepresented groups are not necessarily likely to have their voices heard in situations like this, not even taking the locality (which I'm completely naive about) into account...)
It's so annoying that this whole field is a minefield of mutually conflicting Pandora's boxes.
[deleted]
These are like iterations towards solving Info Asymmetry problems.
The politicians under pressure are always going to come up with a bunch of hacks cause there are no great solutions.
You in 10th grade dont take advantage of the knowledge gaps of that kid in 3nd grade. But its all hazy who is in what grade.
Frightening shall continue. Maybe Musk will frighten Bezos and Bezos will get him kicked off the internet.
The politicians under pressure are always going to come up with a bunch of hacks cause there are no great solutions.
You in 10th grade dont take advantage of the knowledge gaps of that kid in 3nd grade. But its all hazy who is in what grade.
Frightening shall continue. Maybe Musk will frighten Bezos and Bezos will get him kicked off the internet.
One more market for starlink to sell
The average monthly salary in Thailand is USD250.
It's unlikely that Starlink will be anything else than niche in countries where it would cost people half of their salary. Assuming that they can get the equipment at all.
StarLink may be successful in sparsely populated areas of North America and Australia and may have some success in rural areas of Europe.
Anywhere else, it won't be affordable or it won't have the local infrastructure (regional base stations), or distribution of the equipment will be banned or heavily controlled by local governments or the link access will have to follow the same rules as other internet connections, or it will just not be needed at all.
I'm curious to see how it's going to pan out given the high maintenance costs of the infrastructure, but it's clearly not going to have any effect on the average Thai's access to information.
It's unlikely that Starlink will be anything else than niche in countries where it would cost people half of their salary. Assuming that they can get the equipment at all.
StarLink may be successful in sparsely populated areas of North America and Australia and may have some success in rural areas of Europe.
Anywhere else, it won't be affordable or it won't have the local infrastructure (regional base stations), or distribution of the equipment will be banned or heavily controlled by local governments or the link access will have to follow the same rules as other internet connections, or it will just not be needed at all.
I'm curious to see how it's going to pan out given the high maintenance costs of the infrastructure, but it's clearly not going to have any effect on the average Thai's access to information.
For the cost concern, do Starlink as backhaul, and sell fractional access. They’ve already said this will
happen in some places.
But you’re right, in that scenario while it may address your cost point, the government can still censor it, so that censorship point stands.
But you’re right, in that scenario while it may address your cost point, the government can still censor it, so that censorship point stands.
Have you ever been to these countries? They are loaded with Internet cafes and that type of arrangement can easily pay the US monthly price (and that’s assuming SpaceX won’t offer lower prices in lower demand countries).
I have basically lived in those countries for the past 25 years...
Internet cafes get their internet from local ISP, which get their licenses from the government (usually the cafe also needs a license from the government/local authorities).
If you want a Starlink dish and decoder, it needs to be available and distributed in your country, which also falls under government import rules.
Say managed to get your hands on an illegally imported dish, and assume that Starlink enables your location. And how long will your access last once someone notices they can access stuff that's otherwise censored in the country? Do you really think cafe owners will jeopardise their business or their freedom for that?
Starlink can subsidise some costs, but the reality of their infrastructure is that it's always going to be very costly: they need to replace all their 1000s of satellites every 4-5 years, and build regional stations (although they claim they will have satellite to satellite comms once density is enough, but it's not operational now). That also means sending these satellites to space. Even if the price of that comes down (it won't much, a rocket is a rocket and most of it is not reusable and will still cost millions to launch). Each satellite also has a bandwidth limit.
You end-up with a fairly costly system to run, and if you really want poor countries to be able to afford it, you need to subsidise it, which cost you even more and need to rely on a limited number of high-paying customers to cover all costs and make a profit.
I personally don't think Starlink is viable in the long run. It's not a technical issue, we can clearly make stuff like this work, but the running cost is too high for what people are ready to pay, and you end up hitting hard limits.
It will probably be rescaled down and targetted to government contracts for the military, emergency services, etc, and they will limit the number of users to make it workable to those who are ready to pay a lot for it.
Internet cafes get their internet from local ISP, which get their licenses from the government (usually the cafe also needs a license from the government/local authorities).
If you want a Starlink dish and decoder, it needs to be available and distributed in your country, which also falls under government import rules.
Say managed to get your hands on an illegally imported dish, and assume that Starlink enables your location. And how long will your access last once someone notices they can access stuff that's otherwise censored in the country? Do you really think cafe owners will jeopardise their business or their freedom for that?
Starlink can subsidise some costs, but the reality of their infrastructure is that it's always going to be very costly: they need to replace all their 1000s of satellites every 4-5 years, and build regional stations (although they claim they will have satellite to satellite comms once density is enough, but it's not operational now). That also means sending these satellites to space. Even if the price of that comes down (it won't much, a rocket is a rocket and most of it is not reusable and will still cost millions to launch). Each satellite also has a bandwidth limit.
You end-up with a fairly costly system to run, and if you really want poor countries to be able to afford it, you need to subsidise it, which cost you even more and need to rely on a limited number of high-paying customers to cover all costs and make a profit.
I personally don't think Starlink is viable in the long run. It's not a technical issue, we can clearly make stuff like this work, but the running cost is too high for what people are ready to pay, and you end up hitting hard limits.
It will probably be rescaled down and targetted to government contracts for the military, emergency services, etc, and they will limit the number of users to make it workable to those who are ready to pay a lot for it.
Wtf are you talking about? An Internet cafe can afford the $100/mo cost and that has nothing to do with import/export restrictions.
> I personally don't think Starlink is viable in the long run.
It’s sustainable on just capturing US rural underserved markets. Why don’t you think it’s viable?
> I personally don't think Starlink is viable in the long run.
It’s sustainable on just capturing US rural underserved markets. Why don’t you think it’s viable?
is this optimism?
given that countries can force all the major tech companies to censor and remove selective content, what makes people think Stalink will be immune to governmental forces of oppression?
If it's not immune and I don't think it is, how could a billionaire design a system to make it immune today, as I think it's possible to at least try to make it immune from censorship.
given that countries can force all the major tech companies to censor and remove selective content, what makes people think Stalink will be immune to governmental forces of oppression?
If it's not immune and I don't think it is, how could a billionaire design a system to make it immune today, as I think it's possible to at least try to make it immune from censorship.
When the stupid think they know how civil liberties & tech work
If government officials can just order things like this, why don’t they just order everyone to be happy and order this world to be perfect? Stupid.
Study human.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the intent, just an “order” is the most ineffective thing one can do.
Study human.
I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the intent, just an “order” is the most ineffective thing one can do.
Making matters worse is there's very little awareness paid towards one's personal data in Thailand as civil unrest has grown. Everyone's using real names and posting publicly on Facebook, Instagram, LINE, and TikTok has made it cake for the government and doxxers to track people down. We saw like a month ago Google having to take down a public map of anti-monarchy, pro-democracy activists by address around the country. PornHub is now blocked because with the government being able to pressure YouTube into taking down content, PornHub was seen as the best alternative to upload protest videos. A couple weeks ago, a food delivery driver was caught in an act of protest wearing the company jacket and was fired with a statement on Twitter (which in this case led to millions of app and account deletions to the point that the delivery service disabled account deletions).