[ranyume]

This is my humble opinion, but such a coordinated action from the governments around the world at this particular time has a certain smell. It smells like they're worried about losing governmental narrative control. It could be about foreign powers, but tech nowadays allows regular people to contest power from the government so they become a target as well. AI, the internet, anonymity/cryptography, a probable war with china and/or russia, all exacerbate this worry.

In short, governments want to retain control and prepare for the future, and to retain control they need to control the flow of information and they need to have a monopoly on information. To achieve this they need an intelligence strategy that puts common people at the center (spying on them) and put restrictions in place. But they can't say this outloud because in the current era it's problematic, so the children become a good excuse.

This is particularly clear in governments that don't care about political correctness or are not competent enough to disguise their intentions. Such an example is the Argentine government, which these years passed laws to survey online activity and to put it's intelligence agency to spy on "anyone that puts sovereign narrative and cohesion at risk".

[Aurornis]

This isn’t the product of shadowy government figures meeting together and plotting to take over the internet. It’s an obvious byproduct of the current moral panic around social media.

Just look at the HN comments. There are people welcoming this level of government control and using famous moral panic topics to justify it, like Andrew Tate or TikTok.

[rightbyte]

You can be in "moral panic" without instigating what you think is government overreach.

People and especially kids drink too much soda but I don't think bans are appropriate.

[myrmidon]

I do agree mostly, but the threat is not empty:

If democratic outputs can be sufficiently controlled via media that is for sale, then you already have a de-facto plutocracy.

Similarly, allowing foreign interests a significant media presence (and control) in your country is a very real threat to the basic principles of a democratic nation.

[krapp]

Who do you think is responsible for the current moral panic around social media?

That shit didn't just happen. Social media only became ontologically evil once it presented a threat to the status quo by allowing the underclasses to organize and establish political power, and when it started to undermine mainstream propaganda narratives.

It's no coincidence that TikTok is being described as a CCP weapon of war and indoctrination when it starts leading people to question their government's foreign policy and capitalism. Can't have that.

[everdrive]

I think the problem you lay out is interesting. Back when the Arab Spring was brand new, the narrative was something like "Twitter has finally given power to the people, and once they had power they overthrew their evil dictatorships."

A decade and some time later, my personal opinion would be that the narrative reads something like this: "access to social media increases populism, extremism, and social unrest. It's a risk to any and all forms of government. The Arab dictatorships failed first because they were the most brittle."

To the extent that you agree with my claim, it would mean that even a beneficent government would have something to fear from social media. As with the Arab Spring, whatever comes after the revolution is often worse than the very-imperfect government which came before.

[ranyume]

> To the extent that you agree with my claim, it would mean that even a beneficent government would have something to fear from social media

I'd say that governments are beneficial to the extent that they adapt to the people they're governing. It's clear that social media poses a grave danger to current governance. But that doesn't mean that all forms of governance are equally attacked.

My belief is that the current governance is just obsolete and dying because of the pace of cultural and technical innovation. Governments will need to change in order to stay beneficial to people, and the change is to adapt to people instead of making the people adapt to the current governance.

[techjamie]

> access to social media increases populism, extremism, and social unrest.

I don't think this is necessarily a byproduct of social media, itself. But rather, the byproduct of algorithmic engagement farming social media that capitalizes on inciting negative emotions for retention. Which, I concede, is all of the large ones.

I'm sure, also, that some amount of cause will also be concern of foreign adversaries using social media to sway young people against their government as well. Since they're easier to influence than your typical adult.

[rightbyte]

It is unsettling how frank and clear your post is. However, at the time, the algorithms were way "nicer", right? Or was it that people were nicer and or people on social media were nicer?

[rightbyte]

Maybe. But the thing is that I think there is a legitimate cultural need to minimize mass exposure to these centralized social media platforms. And I think people realised this about now.

I don't advocate legal bans. And people need to stop using it. The risk is great that there will be legal overreach ...

[alecco]

Gen Z can't make it till end of month, can't get married, can't get a mortgage, many graduates struggle to get a job... Meanwhile they see pensioners having a blast and telling them they are lazy/stupid, and keep rising their rents.

You betcha the gerontocracy sees something brewing.

[myrmidon]

Counterpoint: Sufficient media control kills a democracy because it enables you to control public sentiment and election outcomes.

A democracy that yields sufficient media control to (single) individuals, corporations or foreign nations is basically commiting suicide.

[dragonwriter]

> Counterpoint: Sufficient media control kills a democracy because it enables you to control public sentiment and election outcomes.

That's just as true when the entity seizing control is the government, such that the entity that control public sentiment and election outcomes is the incumbent administration.

[canadiantim]

Heaven forbid that individuals in a democracy would dare influence election outcomes!

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

From my point of view I see a coordinated effort against age verification probably because money.

[oliwarner]

Dark conspiracy... Or collective acknowledgement of the harm of being constantly online has done to a generation of young people. How it amplifies abuse, entrenches deeply negative tribes.

It's not stupid —at a national future-of-society level— to want to do something about this. I agree, it's possible to overreach and just get it wrong, but doing nothing is worse.

[omnicognate]

I'd rather my government control the narrative my children are exposed to than Andrew Tate.

Edit: To expand, this is not just a flippant remark. People ignore Andrew Tate because he's so obviously, cartoonishly awful, but they are not the audience. It's aimed at children, and from personal experience its effect on a large number of them worldwide is profound, to the extent that I worry about the long term, generational effect.

Children will be exposed to narratives one way or another, and to want to (re)assert some control that over that isn't necessarily just an authoritatian power play.

[ranyume]

The targets to control are not children. They don't need to be controlled, from an intelligence point of view. Government's attention is not infinite, and between worries of losing power and worries about the wellbeing of children, one of the two is the winner, and it's not the children. If children's well-being was the priority, you would see other stuff being made.

[6LLvveMx2koXfwn]

This sort of makes sense if our governments are, on the whole, 'better' than Andrew Tate, for some definition of 'better'. But as the slide goes on there will be a tipping point where our governments are worse, meaning them surveilling me becomes problematic. Best shout about it now than then.

[mariusor]

Do you decline any responsibility in the moral upbringing of your children? I think you should be the one that decides how they interact with dubious content, not your government.

[century19]

It’s not about Andrew Tate, it’s about Gaza.

[Nextgrid]

Counterpoint: Andrew Tate resonates with the younger generations because modern society (at least in the UK) appears to be an ever-growing middle finger to them and Tate promises a (fake, but believable) way out.

When your future looks like endless toil just so you can give half of the fruits of your labor to subsidize senile politicians/their friends (via taxes) and the other half to subsidize boomers (via rent), Tate's messaging and whatever get-rich-quick scheme he's currently hawking sounds appealing.

You can ban Tate but without solving the reason behind why people look up to him it's just a matter of time before another grifter takes his place.