- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Summary:
Concerns About Social Media: The author draws parallels between concerns that led to discussions about banning TikTok in the U.S. and the current state of X (formerly Twitter).
X as a Threat: The author argues that X, under Elon Musk’s ownership, poses a threat to Canadian democracy.
Increased Racism and Misinformation: The platform is described as having become more racist and a source of increasing misinformation since Musk’s acquisition.
Content Moderation: Musk’s leadership is criticized for gutting content moderation, unbanning alt-right figures, and turning the platform into a partisan propaganda machine.
“Free Speech Absolutism”: Musk’s defense of his actions using “free speech absolutism” is dismissed as untenable.
Canadian Law: Canadian freedom of expression law is noted to be more robust than that of the U.S., allowing for reasonable limits on speech.
Foreign Influence: The author suggests that X’s current conduct would not be tolerated if it were aligned with a government like China.
Musk and Trump: Musk’s close ties to Donald Trump and the potential for pro-Trump propaganda targeting Canadian voters are highlighted as a specific threat.
Echoes of the Broadcasting Act: The author draws a parallel to the Broadcasting Act of 1958, which restricted foreign ownership of broadcasters to protect Canadian discourse.
Message to Social Media Companies: Banning X would send a message to other social media companies about their responsibilities to Canadians.
Call to Action: The author urges the current Prime Minister to ban X before the next election.
Trump’s annexation comments: Notes Trump’s comments about annexing Canada.
X as an Anti-Canadian Propaganda Machine: Concludes that X should be treated as a real threat.
there is no way I’d give up anonymity online.
that meme that circulated a couple days ago that showed all the ways bumper stickers make you a target is a great illustration. if my name was tied to everything I said online, I wouldn’t say anything, since I’d just be making myself a target.
the solution is to spread media literacy, which is a pretty oblique attack on the problem, but it’s a lasting solution.
It’s more like a trusted authority would know your name and your pseudonym, and only your pseudonym and your country or county would display online.
They’d make sure you’re not using ten accounts to reinforce each other, and make sure you’re representing the country you say you are. Ideally, like medical records, the more detailed information would be secret.
Can you imagine people on /r/fednews, expressing what is going on if their true identities were known under the government that is in place right now? Trusted authorities can become the enemy in an instant as the US has shown to the world. All of a sudden what was considered safe expressions become thought crimes.
Hell imagine if that was how Twitter operated before the Musk purchase, and then all of a sudden him having access to that information as the trusted authority. Your concept of trusted authority relies on the trusted authority actually remaining something you believe can’t be bought out or compromised.
Not to mention how often data breeches happen so trusted authority becomes everyone’s information.
Can you imagine if anonymous social media was allowed to influence elections?
You’d fit right in working for Facebook.
no fucking way. even db0 doesn’t know my real name.
You… do understand that the point is the problems with our social media and our geopolitics, right? It’s not something that’s gonna actually change.
the problem lies in media literacy. it’s not only solvable, but it’s “solved”. taking away privacy is not the solution.
This sounds a lot like “I’m immune to propaganda”.
this is a strawman