264
For Spain’s Sánchez, the fight against tech billionaires is personal (www.politico.eu)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 9 months ago (16 children)

So does the government ban the news from criticizing them just because they’re not anonymous? That’s not the way it works in the EU. You’re very lost it would seem…

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago (15 children)

    That’s not the way it works in the EU

    Not yet. Because they don't have the mechanism.

    And it's not about Sánchez and his government. I don't think they would do it. But governments change, sooner or later someone else will win elections. Someone who might not agree with criticism.

    And don't try to convince me "it would never happen in the EU". We have more than enough examples that eventually every country has a brush with authoritarianism. Even in the EU currently (eg Hungary). Prevention is always better than trying to fix it later.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Literally spain too. That whole Francoist Spain thing only ended in 1975.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago*

    Yes, and not thanks to the internet.

    You know the things that started happening everywhere in the democratic world from 2015 on or so though?

    Turns out the internet as is doesn’t do much to advance democracy, but it’s great for destroying it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago* (12 children)

    “Not yet”

    Spain was a dictatorship until the 70s and transitioned into a democracy without anonymous internet shitposting. The USA was a functioning democracy and transitioned into a shithole with anonymous internet shitposting.

    Anonymous internet shitposting fixes nothing, it only damages the social fabric and pollutes the public discourse. That’s why foreign actors love to weaponize it.

    Being a citizen of a free country comes with responsibilities: paying taxes, voting, expressing your opinions sensibly. Anonymous internet shitposting advances zero democratic values, it’s simply a great channel for conducting international destabilization campaigns.

    It. Fixes. Nothing. If you’re as lazy as to need anonymity to post your opinions in a free country you’re going to overthrow no tyranny. You’ll just be fed psyops by others who will break your system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    Can you sign that comment with your real name and address to be an example for all of us? Don't forget to add your phone number.

    We will of course need proof, so attaching a scan of your id would be a step towards It.Fixing.Something.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

    As I said, having a government platform doing the encrypted id check means you would get the encrypted id check and verification, and the government would read your data (as it already does). Don’t try to sell fear.

    And by the way, I’m registered as the owner and resident of my house that has an internet connection with an IP from which I’m writing, paid with my bank account, all of them well known to the government.

    The only difference is you don’t know whether I’m an individual over 18 and a citizen of the EU or a sim on a multisim device in Vladivostok. And I think that’s not good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    0 posts and 16 comments on lemmy.

    all your comments on lemmy are about justifying government controlled internet by parroting the "protect the children" and "troll farm" stereotypes. Not a credible profile, huh?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (6 children)

    A government platform you say? From the government that regularly gets hacked, leaking the IDs of millions of Spanish citizens that can now be used to commit identity fraud? https://hipertextual.com/seguridad/hackers-venta-millones-dni-espanoles-dark-web/

    and it's not like this is a rare thing to happen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    And your point is? Creating an id check doesn’t increase the potential risk, the government already has all the data.

    My question is, why do you want underage citizens to use social media platforms that a) have been proven to be damaging to their psychological health b) farm their data and store it far from our control c) don’t add anything to our economy.

    Care to explain? Because it really fascinates me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Creating an id check does increase the risk, it would be an additional attack surface.

    Social media may be dangerous, but I feel it should be supervised by the parents and that the government should provide the parents with good tools to supervise them. I do not like the idea of having websites being able to verify my identity, if it were to come to that I'd hope it would be for something more reasonable than protecting children from social media. I may prefer outlawing social media altogether at that point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    The id check already exists, they’re just planning on forcing social media companies to go through it.

    In an ideal world social media would be decentralized and free of commercial purposes, just a public square. The stuff these people offer wrapped in social media is highly addictive, that’s basically where all the internal R&D goes.

    My point is, I really doubt banning social media is democratically viable. It would get revoked shortly. Best thing we can realistically do is put in place the usual barriers and limitations we have developed over the years for other similar products and services: age, disclaimers, taxation, fines, and so on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I don't want them to use it. I agree with all your points.

    I strongly disagree that mandatory ID on the net is the solution to this.

    It also fascinates me that you'd think putting such a tool, with all the trouble it could cause if our countries stop being democracies, in the hands of government as a purported solution to children being on social media. That's throwing out the baby with the bathwater

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    The tool already exists and is used for serious stuff (dealing with the treasury department, police, banks, bond auctions), the only difference is you would be forcing mainstream social media platforms to get an OK from that government’s platform.

    Sorry but if you can’t trust your country’s system as a legitimate large scale shield then there is no possible defense against multinational conglomerates and at that point you’re better off just going bunker prepper, I don’t really know what your point is. Democracy doesn’t stick in low trust societies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    There are other ways to ban social media for minors that don't go through full fledged online IDs for everything. But you seem to want to ignore that, it's a false dichotomy.

    Banning social media for minors (or better yet, opaque algorithmic feeds for everyone) = Good.

    Trying to achieve that by giving overreaching powers to a government, that can be used as a tool of oppression when democracy wavers = very bad.

    As for low trust societies, mate, I've been gassed, beaten up and shot at with rubber bullets by riot police in Spain, for the egregious crime of peacefully protesting. It's a country where the memory of the dictatorship, and it's power structures, are still very much alive. Francoism never fully left

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent