Censorship and Communism

It seems many people are convinced that some ads or some news stories circulating Facebook are enough to change the outcome of an election. Mark Zuckerberg stated in a recent interview with CNN that a large part of his job is now about protecting the integrity of elections. Facebook aims to do this by using advanced AI to block certain sources and ban anyone deemed to be a "Russian bot". Zuckerberg goes onto explain how they implemented these tools for the recent French elections and in his opinion the outcome was much better there since Le Pen lost. The truth is Hillary lost for two main reasons: the DNC leaks and the FBI investigations, neither of which were fake news, Hillary was being investigated and the leaks were real.

Other companies like Twitter and Google are now also taking active measures to filter out information that may be deemed unacceptable for public viewing. Of course they are private companies and they can do what they like, and it doesn't particularly affect me anyway since I don't use Facebook or Twitter. However, another argument I have seen crop up quite a bit recently is that we need this sort of censorship because people just aren't smart enough tell the difference between fact and fiction, once again it's for the greater good. I'm even seeing people use China as a great example of how to block fake news, they actually seem to think the entire internet should be filtered using something similar to the Great Firewall of China, in order to "uphold social stability".

The Great Firewall of China (abbreviated to GFW) is the combination of legislative actions and technologies enforced by the People's Republic of China to regulate the Internet domestically. Its role in the Internet censorship in China is to block access to selected foreign websites and to slow down cross-border internet traffic.[1] The effect includes: limiting access to foreign information sources, blocking foreign internet tools (e.g. Google search, Facebook) and mobile apps, and requiring foreign companies to adapt to domestic regulations.[2][3] Besides censorship, the GFW has also had an impact on the development of China's internal internet economy by nurturing domestic companies [4] and reducing the effectiveness of products from foreign internet companies.[5]
---
In 1998, the Communist Party of China feared that the China Democracy Party (CDP) would breed a powerful new network that the party elites might not be able to control.[11] The CDP was immediately banned, followed by arrests and imprisonment.[12] That same year, the GFW project was started. The first part of the project lasted eight years and was completed in 2006. The second part began in 2006 and ended in 2008. On 6 December 2002, 300 people in charge of the GFW project from 31 provinces and cities throughout China participated in a four-day inaugural "Comprehensive Exhibition on Chinese Information System".[13]

Great Firewall of China

If your political opponents ever gain too much traction just lock them up, because obviously their existence is a threat to social stability. Or better yet, lets just have the same guy lead as long as he feels like, who cares about elections right, changing leaders will only upset the social stability, so lets forget about that nonsense and streamline the process for the greater good. China has recently decided that is a great idea and most of their citizens seems to agree... they actually think this is a good thing because it provides security and stability and from what I can see there isn't much resistance. I'm really amazed how the elite communist leaders have managed to mold such a placid population, it's truly outstanding.

Mainland Chinese Internet censorship programs have censored Web sites that include (among other things):

* Web sites belonging to "outlawed" or suppressed groups, such as pro-democracy activists and Falun Gong
* News sources that often cover topics that are considered defamatory against China, such as police brutality, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, freedom of speech, democracy sites.[29] These sites include Voice of America and the Chinese edition of BBC News.
* Sites related to the Taiwanese government, media, or other organizations, including sites dedicated to religious content, and most large Taiwanese community websites or blogs.
* Web sites that contain anything the Chinese authorities regard as obscenity or pornography
* Web sites relating to criminal activity
* Sites linked with the Dalai Lama, his teachings or the International Tibet Independence Movement
* Most blogging sites experience frequent or permanent outages
* Web sites deemed as subversive

I'm betting they aren't allowed to visit ATS since it may be classified as "subversive" or "defamatory against China". Sheesh they don't even let you read about the Dalai Lama because apparently he's a super evil dude and a separatist who threatens the social stability of China. And this fear of anything pro-democracy is truly revealing of their insecurities, if your ideology is the right one then you shouldn't have to force people into believing it. This is the fundamental flaw with communism, the only way to implement all the nonsense it calls for is through force because some people are always going to resist. Just look at China's so called Culural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, the result was wide spread death and poverty.

When people in the west start looking to China as a basis for arguments to support censorship then something is seriously wrong with western democracy. It is our openness and freedom which define our western societies, the moment we start fearing opinions and suppressing information because it's deemed harmful to the public or a risk to social stability, is the moment we give up the very principles our societies were founded upon. Even if China has attained a high degree of social stability, was it really worth the cost? China cites "internet sovereignty" as the reason why the government should have control over how the internet works, but in doing so they eradicate individual sovereignty for their citizens.

There is also the very clear risk of using censorship to silence political opponents, who gets to decide what is fact and what is false? Can we really trust algorithms to make such an important decision for us? It's obvious that these systems will be abused to suppress certain perspectives while pushing others, because the companies implementing the systems have a very clear political bias. Claiming it must be done because people aren't smart enough to detect fake news is nothing but insulting and pretentious, they're essentially saying that everyone who voted for Trump only did so because they read some fake news and were dumb enough to believe it, had Hillary won then none of this would be an issue.

Electing a women who was under active investigation by the FBI and had a long history of being a corrupt politician would have been seen as a great achievement, a display of the intellectual maturity of society. But by electing Trump we displayed what a bunch of moronic baboons we are and now something must be done to enlighten us and stop us from reading all the fake news which must be poisoning our minds. This is what I find most insulting of all, I am an experienced programmer, I've built graphics engines, I've built artificial neural networks, I've built cryptocurrencies, but unfortunately for them I'm not a socialist or progressive, I'm a right leaning libertarian, which doesn't fit their narrative that an intellectual must lean to the left.

Just look at people such as Jordan Peterson, Ron Paul, Stefan Molyneux, etc, these people are sharp as a tack and have very well developed paradigms which have a solid ideological underpinning, ideals based on liberty, freedom and individual sovereignty. People must never accept a government which thinks it should have complete control over our lives and treat us like live stock in order to maintain "social stability". Nor is it the job of private corporations to control what people read and think in order to guide the outcome of elections, the fact Zuckerberg thinks that is now his job shows just how egotistical he is. At this point they are boasting about their social engineering efforts and people are actually supporting them.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I do agree with your stance on this, but I have to say anyone who gets their news and or world views from twitter or facebook most likely is fairly daft and likely don't have the ability to think for themselves anyway, so it's no great loss in my opinion.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I'm even seeing people use China as a great example of how to block fake news, they actually seem to think the entire internet should be filtered using something similar to the Great Firewall of China, in order to "uphold social stability".

Sounds like we're becoming more like Russian's, then.

Nearly half of Russians (49 percent) believe that information on the Internet should be subject to censorship, while 58 percent would not mind it if – in the event of a national threat – the Russian segment of the Internet is shut down completely. This conclusion was reached by the authors of the report "Benchmarking Public Demand: Russia’s Appetite for Internet Control."
...
Among the most "dangerous" content that should be banned, Russians name homosexual propaganda (59 percent), social network groups linked to organizing anti-government protests (46 percent) and videos by the Pussy Riot band (46 percent). rbth.com...

CENSORSHIP: The Universal Language of Dictators

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

China never has ever blocked fake news. They only block true news, because communists hate the truth. This is why communists always use deception and propaganda to keep the heat off.

I have a lot of friends and in-laws living in China, and they all observe this over many decades. Zuckerberg speaks fluent Mandarin and is just emulating the communist party by doing this little commie act of his and pretending, (just like all communists) that he is protecting everyone from all the bad things. It is pathetic.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I do agree with your stance on this, but I have to say anyone who gets their news and or world views from twitter or facebook most likely is fairly daft and likely don't have the ability to think for themselves anyway, so it's no great loss in my opinion.

I talk with my millennial coworkers about what's happening in the world. Out of 5, only 1, the socialist, actually keeps current on world and national events. The others are either too stoned to care, too involved in video games, or just don't seem to care. On a grander scale, I just think most people are trying to live their lives and don't want to expose themselves to world affairs. Sadly though, these same people vote. And they vote with zero information and purely on emotion or what they read on social media. THIS is why social media is terrible and what Zuck has in store is keeping these low info voters suppressed so he and social engineera like him can keep their party in power.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I'm fairly sure the U.S. already has some sort of internet "kill switch" that could be used in the event of a national emergency. I wouldn't put too much stock in one survey, but it wouldn't surprise me if many of them did want some form of censorship. No one is saying Russia is perfect, they certainly have a lot of issues, but China clearly has many more issues and if the west should be worried about any nation it's them. They carry out cyber attacks on other nations all the time and they have more resources than Russia.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I do agree with your stance on this, but I have to say anyone who gets their news and or world views from twitter or facebook most likely is fairly daft and likely don't have the ability to think for themselves anyway, so it's no great loss in my opinion.

There's a huge world out there beyond facebook and twitter. I don't understand how this is supposed to work, but like you, I'm not a social media user other than posting drivel on ATS.

Do people really rally their party lines on facebook? I thought it was just a site to keep in touch with people you don't care about. Is it a soapbox for political nonsense too?

How deep can the influence, manipulation, and censorship possibly go?? More importantly, why do people care so much to allow themselves to enter the brainwashing. Why isn't there more apathy in the face of such an obvious sham?

Are people really that dumb that facebook needs to protect them from 'dangerous' political opinions? What a crusade.

I'm just kind of taken aback right now; the whole damn world is a propaganda machine that works to influence votes?

It's a bit of a depressing epiphany.

I was about to join Antifa.
But then I read that Facebook post.
Flip, now I'm a populist right-winger!
Thank you social media.

But hey, I've always been bi-political.

The sweetest nothings you whisper to me on Facebook, and my vote is yours.

a reply to: halfoldman

Politics are a complete waste of time. Since the Citizen's United ruling the Right owns the political system in this country. Voting is meaningless. Whoever counts the votes decides the election.

But Facebook, I mean common.
Whatever your persuasion.

But the team that lost is gonna get all snotty and blame it on Facebook.

That's the funniest thing ever.

Personally i think Hillary lost due to global warming.

A woman married to a cuckold like that emits a lot of carbon.

We should have Easter Bills instead of Easter bunnies.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

I don't understand it either, I was having a conversation with a dad at my boys tennis lesson last week and we started talking about this stuff, he was amazed that many people he talks to get their world views from morning breakfast shows, one in particular is called sunrise and is hosted by a fellow named David kosh.

He was like " who the hell listens to koshy for advice anyways " ...apparently way too many people do.

No, really they blame it on Facebook!

Sorry, but that's one of the most hilarious concepts I've heard in the past decade.

O jeepers, somebody disagrees with us, they must be brainwashed.

Flip. it must be Facebook!

I'm gonna wet my knickers, that it is so funny.

What does any of this have to do with communism?

a reply to: halfoldman

O jeepers, somebody disagrees with us, they must be brainwashed.

Flip. it must be Facebook!

Haha.... that's pretty much what they're saying.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I'm even seeing people use China as a great example of how to block fake news, they actually seem to think the entire internet should be filtered using something similar to the Great Firewall of China, in order to "uphold social stability".

China do not block "fake news" they censor the real news. There's a difference. They block words, phrases and strings of words to prevent people accessing anything deemed by the repressive authorities to go against the State's carefully crafted narrative. In China by entering the word "Tiananmen Square protests", or any similar string may result in a visit by the police.

The problems of the cascade of fake news, hoaxes, and all that through Facebook and Twitter is a complex issue, but things dressed up as news, that are meant to be taken as news, and that have been created to be purposefully misleading (as opposed to being satirical) are damaging to society and to the people targetted.