Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfish
But it is a good argument with the side-effect of "protecting" your people from other peoples' (read: nations) views.
Of course a country should be independent, but why not habe two national nets, one for services and one for international information.
The second the international one is turned off should tell you something is going wrong on your ****ry.
|
The issue that you are missing is the centralisation of the key internet services in the US.
This provides USG (and other US actors) not only with a unique information gathering tool (that they are known to exploit) but also with a unique influence tool - those companies can (and do) enact political editorial campaighns abroad (and at home), which are by far more powerful than any stories you have heard about the foreighn bots or political ads influencing US politics.
Should countries attempt to limit such influence, especially if it is hostile and harmful, such as FB stuffing their entire moderation teams (in Ru language sector) with Ukrainian nationalistic political activists?
Should they promote alternative services, so the users can atleast choose their poison?