Social Media Harms Democracy By Spreading Rumors, Survey Shows (reuters.com) 113
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: A growing number of people think social media manipulates and divides people and harms democracy, Pew Research Center said on Thursday, echoing rising concern and tighter scrutiny across the world. Companies running popular social platforms, including Meta, Snap, and TikTok, have faced thousands of lawsuits and paid large sums to settle claims that they harmed users. Governments, meanwhile, have sought foolproof ways to protect their citizens' privacy.
Australia has proposed rules to let users opt out of algorithmically recommended feeds, after becoming the first country to ban social media for children under 16. Pew's latest survey showed that 82% of Australian adults support the government's move to restrict social media access for children. A majority of respondents said social media informs people and gives them a voice in politics, but there was a broad rise in those who now see social media as a "bad thing" compared to 2022, according to the report.
People in wealthier countries, including the US, Canada and UK, are more inclined to believe that social media is harming democracy, versus their counterparts in economies with lower gross domestic product per capita -- such as Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. The US is among the most skeptical, with 64% of adult respondents saying social media harms democracy. The share of people who consider social media bad for democracy increased in 16 of 26 countries where older data was available. Pew Research said it surveyed more than 45,000 people in 37 countries, while polling an additional 5,511 US adults on American social media use.
Australia has proposed rules to let users opt out of algorithmically recommended feeds, after becoming the first country to ban social media for children under 16. Pew's latest survey showed that 82% of Australian adults support the government's move to restrict social media access for children. A majority of respondents said social media informs people and gives them a voice in politics, but there was a broad rise in those who now see social media as a "bad thing" compared to 2022, according to the report.
People in wealthier countries, including the US, Canada and UK, are more inclined to believe that social media is harming democracy, versus their counterparts in economies with lower gross domestic product per capita -- such as Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria. The US is among the most skeptical, with 64% of adult respondents saying social media harms democracy. The share of people who consider social media bad for democracy increased in 16 of 26 countries where older data was available. Pew Research said it surveyed more than 45,000 people in 37 countries, while polling an additional 5,511 US adults on American social media use.
Is this true? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Enough said
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The propagandists say that their competitors confuse people and they won't believe the propaganda anymore.
The Horror, the Horror.
Re:Is this true? (Score:5, Interesting)
The propagandists say that their competitors confuse people and they won't believe the propaganda anymore.
The Horror, the Horror.
The problem is that there are propagandists in the first place. Here's the way I see it:
The social media dates are based on Facebook. Other social media behaved similarly at around the same time, plus or minus a couple of years.
But ultimately, it's all about companies focusing on profit above all else, without the slightest bit of concern over the negative impact of their choices. And as long as social media companies — and media and news sources in general — are predominantly for-profit entities instead of nonprofit corporations, they will be at best marginally harmful to society, and at worst, massively so. The profit gained from using hype and propaganda and clickbait and massive amounts of slant to drive viewers/readers is simply too strong a motivation to overcome as long as the focus of an organization is making profit, rather than breaking even.
And yeah, social media is part of the problem, but the mainstream media abdicated their responsibility to inform the public at least a decade earlier, and arguably three decades earlier, creating the information vacuum that social media filled. And the fact that it's a lot harder to refute a lie than to publish the truth in the first place made social media's increasingly extreme amplification of troll campaigns incredibly harmful, but the public's tendency to repost whatever garbage they see and the ease with which people can repost things they see to broader and broader audience made that problem much, much worse.
So yes, traditional social media is a large net harm to the public as a whole. Instead of helping bring us together, it has largely driven us apart. We would be much better off if Facebook groups ceased to exist and became separate discussion forums like we had before. We would be much better off if public Facebook posts were banned going forward, requiring people to actually copy and paste before sharing other people's posts beyond the friends or followers of the original person, or at most, one hop away. We would be much better off if sites like Facebook were forced to allow us to disable algorithmic spam in our feeds, including all posts suggested from people that our friends follow, groups distantly related to groups that we're in, etc. And so on.
Solution, Solution, wherefore art thou, Solution? (Score:2)
Nice FP, though yet to be modded Funny and I wish you'd had the leisure to add some more humorous examples beyond the vague "this". However in the context the reference is clear enough to establish the recursive humor. Yet it was basically an obvious and low-hanging joke.
The other one would be the anti-social media thing, but it's still early in the discussion and perhaps someone will do a good version. Getting harder and harder to remember the "good old days" when Slashdot was some sort of social media...
H
Re: (Score:2)
Groundwork for censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
And here we have the groundwork being laid for censorship, all in the name of the "greater good".
I hope everyone remembers; whatever tools you give "Your Side" will be used against you.
Re:Groundwork for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, censorship is bad. But what is worse is humans like garbage, especially uneducated ones that can't tell the difference. There use to be news, with editors that would filter out the nonsense, and really only people that cared would read the news, you had to buy a paper or view a news site. Now we have social media companies that purvey garbage on purpose because it lines their pockets with ad revenue. So yeah you can get censorship, but a better thing would be to turn off the money spigot to companies and say you can't promote garbage, how you do that is up for discussion. But we have a problem on our hands that is equal to censorship, there are vast portions of the population that believe and purvey lies and garbage (we all know what they are, I'm not going to wax political) and that is a big problem that needs solving.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> There use to be news, with editors that would filter out the nonsense
You must be a Boomer. I've been involved in several news stories and most of them were somewhere between nonsense and outright lies.
What you and the people pushing this censorship want is a return those Good Old Days when people were only able to read Government-Approved Nonsense and not whatever nonsense other people posted online.
"OH NOES! PEOPLE AREN'T VOTING FOR THE CANDIDATES WE TELL THEM TO VOTE FOR! OUR DEMOCRACY IS IN DANGER!"
Re:Groundwork for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
"You must be a Boomer."
And you are both ignorant and bigoted.
"I've been involved in several news stories ..."
Yikes. That settles it.
"...when people were only able to read Government-Approved Nonsense..."
There's that ignorance again.
"Their democracy is where they tell us who to vote for and we vote for them... and that's failing hard in a world where people aren't limited to whatever "news" the Telescreen feeds them."
Trump said if we elected him in 2024 the country wouldn't need to vote again. Sound good to you?
"...and that's failing hard in a world where people aren't limited to whatever "news" the Telescreen feeds them."
Your solution is more unconstrained social media? Have that "Telescreen" feed even more?
We know you're MAGA, the fascism is what you voted for. Some of us prefer actual democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is not insane, a dimwit, or Hitler. If you compare his positions with those of US voters, he remains firmly in the mainstream of voters.
Surveys showed both Democarts and Republicans were, until Trump, BOTH to the left of their supporters.
But a similar analysis of Trump's detractors show markedly different results. Further the overreaction from the left is a pattern US voters have endured for several generations, going back to at least to the 1960s.
This also explains moderate and liberal Democrats refu
Re:Groundwork for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
when people were only able to read Government-Approved Nonsense
Correction: When people were only able to read William Randolph Hearst-approved nonsense.
The media moguls of those days, Hearst, Pulitzer, Insull and others would be rolling over in their graves at the thought of plebeians having a voice that they, the elite didn't control. And they controlled the government too. Just try to run a campaign for office during the days of the old media kings and the era of the owners of the new social media. Who provide editorial control in much the same way. Just the new generation of elites that Hearst would be quite comfortable with.
Re: (Score:2)
I will not tell you how, but your assumptions are wrong about me.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree: Twitter, podcasts, Youtube, Fox News told everyone to vote for Trump but the USA didn't vote for Trump in 2024, the election was stolen.
Re:Groundwork for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo, it's not good that we have an entire alternative media ecosystem that just, well, it just lies all the time. Influencers, poasters, podcasters, article writers, all considered "media" and many of them don't just report ambiguously, don't just exaggerate but simply lie and are focused on totally partisan misinformation.
Censorship is bad but a media culture that just shrugs it's shoulders at lying also is quite bad.
Our Vice President: "If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that's what I'm going to do." It's just OK to lie if it helps your political goals!
A couple things I have seen proposed is some sort of determination for who constitutes "media" and from that point your financials needs to be public record and you can't be anonymous. As we saw when X exposed where everyone got registered from some of the most politically active accounts spreading this stuff are anonymous foreign actors. Are they funded from other nation states? We don't know!
How about Tenet media which paid American and Canadian influencers (including American fuck-stick liar Pim Toole) via a Russian state slush fund. Case also dropped by the Trump DOJ because of course!
Yes, people should be smart and research and blah blah blah but scale matters and when you have hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands pushing these false stories something drastic needs to be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Why shouldn't foreigners have a say? You racist? You'd give them a say if they ran across the border and wanted a say.
Foreigners can have a say but they have to declare they are in fact foreigners. No pretending to be American. Also American's ahve to disclose if they are being funded by foreign entities. That is not a 1A violation.
You're so inconsistent. You only want people who agree with you to have any say about anything.
No it only look inconsistent to you because you have been spoiled by having such a favorable media environment for so long, you already ahve a media system where the only people who say anything agree with you. It's very Trumpian of you to see rules applied equally as being unfair, you've bee
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Yeah, censorship is bad. "
Except it's not. Bad is bad, censorship is neither good nor bad. It is what is censored and why that is potentially bad. And there isn't censorship here, only the OP's bogeyman.
And with AI and social media, lack of government oversight IS GIVING TOOLS TO THE OTHER SIDE.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Groundwork for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship is bad. There are ways to moderate trolls, spam, and misinformation that don't involve censorship. We've seen that censorship serves to promote conspiracy theories (because it actually is a conspiracy.)
Moderation is censorship by definition. So no, there cannot be ways to moderate those things without censorship.
What you mean is that governments requiring companies to censor things is bad. And in general, I agree.
Corporate-driven censorship is also generally bad, where corporations censor things to protect their interests or boost their revenue without a legitimate public interest in mind.
The real problem is that social media does not give the public control over what they consume, and subjects us to increasingly low-quality garbage from increasingly distant voices in a desperate attempt to drive interaction in spite of a declining user base. And that effectively becomes corporate censorship, as the garbage drowns out the organic content from our friends that we actually went to the site to see. Yet it is by design. Sites like Facebook appear to completely ignore our "I don't want to see this" signals and continue to shovel this garbage. As a result, I go to Facebook an order of magnitude less often than I did ten years ago, but at the same time, I know that other people find the algorithmically driven shovelware to be compelling, and they're the ones being manipulated by this stuff.
With that said, I don't want government censorship. I want government to require social media to give control to users, to publicly disclose how their algorithms shape what users see, to allow independent audits to ensure that their algorithms are working for the public good rather than just for the corporate good, etc. We need more access to information, not less, but we also need to be able to filter what we see. Because if news media, etc. is not serving as a filter to show us the most important information and filter out unverified information and clear misinformation, then we need tools to help us moderate what we see, and maybe by sending those signals, also influence what our friends see and reduce the garbage a bit.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderation is censorship by definition.
False.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why I specified "as practiced here," meaning on Slashdot. I don't visit Reddit or know anything about how it works, and didn't include them in my statement. Please don't assume that I meant anything other than exactly what I wrote.
Re: (Score:2)
Moderation is censorship by definition.
False.
Censorship means suppression of speech or expression by a governing authority. It can be prior restraint (blocking publication) or censorship after the fact (take-downs, bans, etc.).
In the strictest sense, you could maybe argue that soft moderation in the Slashdot style where people who want to see what has been moderated down doesn't qualify as censorship because there's a way around it, but the net impact is still that most of the potential audience doesn't see it, so that argument is on somewhat shaky g
Re: (Score:2)
The form of the idea can be limited without it being censorship: for example, you can't protest with a bullhorn in the middle of the night.
Free speech doesn't mean everyone has to listen to you, it means the people who want to listen to you are able to. Youtube demonetizing a video is not censorship. Removing videos because they don't like the ideas in the videos is the worst kind of censorship, because they are trying to control you.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is other rights, some of which are as important as free speech or more important. Freedom of Association, the classic is the cupcake forum censoring anything off topic, especially political speech.
Some would argue that censoring spam is bad due to free speech, once again, fuck your free speech as I don't want to associate with spammers.
Security of body, should we put up with speech preaching violence?
Re: (Score:2)
Some would argue that censoring spam is bad due to free speech, once again, fuck your free speech as I don't want to associate with spammers. Security of body, should we put up with speech preaching violence?
Nope. And this is why I object to the phrase "censorship is bad". *Unreasonable* censorship is bad. But not all restraint on speech is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Censorship is a problem when you are not free to express an idea.
The form of the idea can be limited without it being censorship: for example, you can't protest with a bullhorn in the middle of the night.
No, you're confusing the definition of censorship with what restraints on free speech are constitutional. You're defining the term based on legality in a specific jurisdiction. If you applied the same standard with a different jurisdiction — say what can legally be spoken in Iran — you would get a very different definition. This is why you cannot define censorship based on a specific legal standard. It must be defined in the abstract.
The general definition is that censorship is the suppressi
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're confusing the definition of censorship with what restraints on free speech are constitutional.
Oh, now you are trying to nitpick?
You are the one who said, "Censorship means suppression of speech or expression by a governing authority." which is a really dumb thing to say, otherwise "government censorship" or "self-censorship" wouldn't be terms.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Groundwork for censorship (Score:2)
Yeah, I know politics has always had a bit nasty but the turn over the last 10 or so years has extended into the general public.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
FTFY
Wading through the garbage, one does find a few gems from time to time. Not unfounded rumours, but verified stories with links to sources that the regular newspapers do not print for some reason, or discussions and opinions outside of your own bubble. And it becomes clear how much of a bubble mainstream publications have become. Or maybe they always were...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that too, but lets leave the idiots out of news and decisions.
Re:Groundwork for censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Who controls all 3 branches of government?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Jews?
Re: (Score:2)
Spicy take but you aren’t exactly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
Unfortunately, nobody pays attention to that crap, and runs for the piece of paper that _says_ they know some crap... on $500k of debt.
Re: (Score:2)
True. But the problem is that this survey is valid and shows truth as well. Things are not as simple as people like you would have them be.
Also, if people are held to account _after_ they spread lies, that is not censorship. That one is called "accountability" and it is absolutely critical to keep society functioning. Without it, everything descends into corruption.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who decides what's true and what's false? Who gets to hold who "accountable", and what does that look like? How does that look any different than punishing someone for speech you don't like?
Some of y'all need more than a surface understanding of the 1st amendment, with a focus on how it came about in the first place.
Amen (Score:2)
Different usage? (Score:2)
People in wealthier countries, including the US, Canada and UK, are more inclined to believe that social media is harming democracy, versus their counterparts in economies with lower gross domestic product per capita
I wonder if poorer countries' usage of social media concentrates more on the 'social' aspect - communicating, organizing, and building community. And maybe wealthier nations' usage skews to the 'media' aspect - entertaining, advertising and propaganda. (Oops... did I repeat myself)? Maybe in poorer countries social media is used more for communication, and maybe in richer countries it's used more for mindless time wasting. I really don't know - I'm just speculating.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people shouldn't believe everything they see online, and learn how to research the candidate/incumbent themselves.
Any time I get a political ad, I read at least 3 sites (as diverse as possible) and average the overall "facts" that the sites say. Maybe candidates could switch from only bad-mouthing other candidates to the candidate just saying what they're campaigning on.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people shouldn't believe everything they see online, and learn how to research the candidate/incumbent themselves.
Any time I get a political ad, I read at least 3 sites (as diverse as possible) and average the overall "facts" that the sites say. Maybe candidates could switch from only bad-mouthing other candidates to the candidate just saying what they're campaigning on.
I know you're saying this with the best of intentions, and I'm sure you're surrounded by capable, at least moderatly intelligent people because people tend to surround themselves with people like themselves. But most people are not like this. Seriously thinking this is a reasonable solution paints you as painfully naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so I (and, everyone else) should just believe everything I see?
If you tell me that you "can set a bowl of water on fire with a lighter"... I won't believe it until I can get a bowl of water from my sink and just light it on fire.
So... you've lived in your apartment for ten years, and you're telling me that fist-sized hole has always been in that wall... if I just believe what you tell me, then I should just hand you a wad of cash for your security deposit... if I use a thing called critical thinking, th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh... so, you're going to call the nerd who worked at The Geek Group for two years an idiot (which one of us babysat $250K of Haas CNC machines overnight)...(And, I made it through the high-voltage lab fire, walked away from getting hit by a car).
So... if I didn't "understand" your post... please, correct me.
Every post or reply gets read totally... regardless of the Beaver (Leave It To Beaver).
Do these imaginary people surrounding me actually know anything?
Re: Different usage? (Score:2)
Your response was to go completely into the weeds. On what planet is $250k in equipment a lot anyway? Saddest brag ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh... you want model numbers?
Haas SR-100, Haas VF2, Haas ST20Y (Haas gave them to us, for free) (each one was worth a quarter mil).
Then, of course, we had a 2MW Tesla coil powered by two 100KVA pole pigs.
Re: (Score:3)
If you tell me that you "can set a bowl of water on fire with a lighter"... I won't believe it until I can get a bowl of water from my sink and just light it on fire.
So... you've lived in your apartment for ten years, and you're telling me that fist-sized hole has always been in that wall... if I just believe what you tell me, then I should just hand you a wad of cash for your security deposit... if I use a thing called critical thinking, th
Re: (Score:2)
1) You want to do quotes, y'know the " kinda things.
2) Your GPA doesn't matter at all. That's just a measuring stick in the mud.
3) There's no grade inflation... it's deflation that's the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe people shouldn't believe everything they see online, and learn how to research the candidate/incumbent themselves.
Any time I get a political ad, I read at least 3 sites (as diverse as possible) and average the overall "facts" that the sites say. Maybe candidates could switch from only bad-mouthing other candidates to the candidate just saying what they're campaigning on.
Any time I get a political ad, I assume that their position is questionable enough to require spamming me with ads, and therefore that I should probably do the opposite of what they're advertising.
Different usage or used differently? (Score:2)
If hist
Re: (Score:2)
No, the survey does not show that (Score:2, Insightful)
The survey only shows that PEOPLE THINK that Social Media Harms Democracy By Spreading Rumors.
Journalism 101.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at who the country voted for. You don't think social media played a part in that? Now all the farmers and truckers who voted are bitching.
Too fucking bad. We told you.
Re: No, the survey does not show that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we the people (Score:2)
Look at who the country voted for. You don't think social media played a part in that?
social media has existed for 2 decades now. if social media is really a driving factor in the current political debacle it has a damn slow effect.
maybe those "farmers and truckers" simply got fed up by real troubles, and were sick and tired of voting the establishment to no avail. so they voted for the first guy that claimed to be non-, or even anti-, establishment. dumb decision? you bet, but what you are really seeing here is the decadence of the establishment and its increasing disconnect from the people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet Harris would've done better, once she wasn't stumbling over words.
Fact of the matter (for those offices) is: it's the lesser of two evils (or lesser of two weevils (if you've seen Master And Commander) that you vote for, and your vote only counts for the popular vote... the Electoral College decides the next BIC (if you didn't get the update... BIC = Butt In Chair).
This country has become nothing more than a business... so, a business-man at the helm sounds right.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but also traditional media.
Every cable news and other publication has an absolute fetish for flying into rural parts of America, moseying on down to the local diner and asking the "real folks" what they think.
Re: (Score:2)
Well yeah. And? We framed the summary to fit what we wanted people to believe, regardless of what the reference that nobody's going to check says.
Propaganda 101.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if no people gave a shit about a subject before and today one whiny schoolgirl made a tiktok about it, protests have indeed grown.
More than that (Score:2)
Whereas in actuality it hurts democracy by giving everyone (including the stupid and the malicious) the same amplicifcation level access (based entirely on their capacity for shitposting, which in itself often positively correlates to stupidity and/or malice).
Surveys and Studies Harm Democracy (Score:2)
Among the worst of all bullshit jobs we have invented in the West are narrative pushers and their junk "science."
So do poorly xeroxed pamphlets (Score:2)
And I have it on good authority that you can legally print all kinds of conspiracy theories in a newspaper's opinion section if in fine print you explicitly state that you're just expressing an opinion.
One party's rumor is the other party's truth (Score:2)
It all depends on whose ox is getting gored.
Pretty obvious (Score:2)
There is a photo of a world leader sitting while everyone around the leader is standing.
A caption on the photo claims that everyone was standing in respect to veterans and the leader chose to stay seated. I saw the captioned photo on Tiktok.
A few days later, Tiktok was filled with propagandists all referencing the captioned photo and claiming the leader was bad for not standing to respect veterans.
I don't know if the caption is true or not. But it sure convinced a lot of people. So how do you solve this pro
Re: (Score:1)
I don't know if the caption is true or not. But it sure convinced a lot of people. So how do you solve this problem?
You slow the initial spread of posts for long enough to throw AI at the problem and analyze the factual accuracy of every post, or at least every post that any user flags as misinformation or factually incorrect.
For posts that are obvious satire (e.g. from known satire sites, etc.), flag them with a clear "This post is satire" warning at the beginning of the post.
For posts that are just flat-out lies, mass cancel the post automatically:
Re: (Score:3)
No offense meant but expecting AI to solve this is naive when the AI companies are directly interested in rewriting history and being a source-of-truth for everything, as their massive book destruction campaign would lend to. There already are companies that try automated censorship with AI on comment sections, like OpenWeb--and they all suck on top of being biased! That company in particular exists to defend Israel, but pro-Israel commenters even complained that it deletes their comments, so it doesn't eve
Re: (Score:2)
What do AI companies have to do with anything? The prompts would be generated by the company running the site, not the AI company. The quality of performance depends on the quality of the prompt and what data it has access to far more than on the model training.
Democracy (Score:2)
If so much of society is constrained by arms races to integrate technology further into life, then I don't think democracy even exists any more. For instance, what if 80% of people vote that AI shouldn't exist...it still would because of the prisoner's dilemma. Too many instances of the prisoner's dilemma preclude democracy.
No datacenter (Score:1)
Re: No datacenter (Score:2)
Spying is a primary use of AI and it makes spying on more people more feasible.
This article came up with the wrong answer (Score:2)
Those who don't know the history are not doing a fair analysis of the problems going on. The big problem is when there is an intentional distortion of events, and then you have the distortions being what gets put onto the news(traditional as well as online). You have certain groups that LIVE in a bubble where they know that most of the things they see are fake or misleading, and they LOVE the intentional distorting of reality. You see it all over, the "echo chamber" effect, and yes, that ends up being
Why tho? (Score:2)
Why might it harm democracy? This is the question that needs to be asked.
If people are so disinterested, disengaged, or just plain ignorant and won't even do the smallest amount of fact-checking......then isn't democracy actually working, and voters getting what they deserve?
(So hard not just saying people are stupid. But it's that, fundamentally. No force is more harmful to democracy than stupid and ignorant voters acting on impulse.)
Re: (Score:2)
Missing the Forest for the Trees (Score:2)
Probably the more pressing issue is how social media effectively killed the old web by writ of monopolizing internet traffic.
Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc. have been gradually consolidating their influence in digital media through a combination of pervasive algorithms, aggressive telemetry practices, and just a complete disregard for privacy or security for the average user. Surfing the web is effectively dead since the majority of users just browse the same handful of sites on a daily basis. The whole rum
No shit! (Score:2)
No Shit!
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Economies need other economies to trade with, especially when they are smaller than the USofA or China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The first point is still accurate, he's in very incriminating photos, and I think we need a full investigation on that. Association does not equate to guilt, but, some associations are extremely problematic. He weakened, or is trying to weaken cybersecurity standards, and privacy standards, which is precisely the w
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
C8 — Lets spy and digitally molest our citizens
C9 — Lets incorrectly define hate spee
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Part A:
The RCMP puts out posts on Facebook, about keeping kids safe, and understanding your kids cyber habits. One thing they don't openly point out, Carney, our disgraced Prime minster, is a child / teenager sexual enthusiast. Who do we really have to keep our kids safe from? We have to keep them safe from the government, who is trying to pass bills that force the collection of child exploitation material.
Part B:
Why does that matter? Carney was friends with Epstein, they're in photos together. Epstein died, cutting off Carney from his favourite type of material, and now, his party is forcing that collection through legal means. Effectively, Carney is just building a CSAM spank bank with government assistance. Now, that's objective, since if you wanted to keep kids safe, you'd pass bills to increase / ramp up cybersecurity, not become the cyber stocker.
Th
Re: How would objective openness hurt the people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)