WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 47050245

(no title)

sega_sai | 12 days ago

It is a great illustration of how transition to the authoritarianism happens (I've seen it happen in Russia in 2000s). At first you don't even need censorship, you just need to scare owners of channels/newspapers enough, so that they self-censor.

discuss

order

dsl|12 days ago

Fear is the enforcement mechanism because it can't be challenged in court.

It is long past time for everyone in tech to take a long hard look at the current situation and stop doing anything that financially benefits Musk, Ellison, or Thiel.

lymbo|11 days ago

I went to a tech founder conference recently and it was quite jarring given the current state of startups to see no lecture or discussion of ethics of products people should be building. It was all focused on demands of PE and delivering profit, no matter the moral cost, not a minute to stop and get a broader systemic reality check. “It turns profit, it must be good”. Not sure how we collectively combat these dominant forces of privacy violation, attention demands, and mass exploitation.

tim333|12 days ago

It kind of explains quite a lot of behavior of the Russian government like low level aggression in the west, interesting ways of killing people and the like. Maybe also the Epstein files - he was in touch with Moscow a lot, and the behavior of Trump who seems pretty scared by that stuff.

CGMthrowaway|12 days ago

Indeed. Mark Zuckerberg has long said the administration pressured Facebook to censor COVID-related content, including satire and humor. And now the administration has ended public funding for NPR and PBS. Chilling effect

It goes back even further, just see the 1941 FCC “Mayflower Decision” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayflower_doctrine

lern_too_spel|12 days ago

> Mark Zuckerberg has long said the administration pressured Facebook to censor COVID-related content, including satire and humor.

He said this once and did not describe the pressure. In that same letter, he said that the company didn't agree and government officials "expressed a lot of frustration." There were no threats of fines or lawsuits.

mrandish|12 days ago

When you say "the administration", it's worth noting you're describing actions by two different administrations. Both political parties have tried to silence dissenting views through soft censorship.

cyberge99|12 days ago

Didn’t Putin then run for a third term and because he corrupted the voting machines, remain in power? He started having dissenters abducted by plainclothes masked men in vans for the fear factor. Quietly, dissent stopped and everyone learned that when you go against Putin, you face defenestration.

primaryplease4|11 days ago

Does this illustration include the law that was passed an about century ago? Or does time start at a different point in the horizon?

hn_throwaway_99|12 days ago

My question is are there any historical parallels for the slide toward authoritarianism being reversed without a major catastrophe/war.

There were many "ground rules" in American society and politics that Trump has just proved can be thrown completely out the window, and it feels like there is no unringing that bell.

brimwats|12 days ago

Brazil and South Korea offer two relatively recent examples

jimmydddd|12 days ago

I think the FCC is just enforcing the rule that you have to give equal time to all candidates. The late night talk shows used to get around this policy by using the exception given to news agencies. The FCC is just saying that the late night talk shows aren't really "news" shows. Probably should have been doing this the whole time. They also noted that it would not be a problem on cable or internet broadcasts. Not saying it's not politically motivated though.

amanaplanacanal|12 days ago

Except that they haven't said that. They said they were "thinking"about it.

They evidently also don't apply this rule to talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative. Talk about putting your thumb on the scale.