It seems that a strong state (ie. US) can effectively use Internet to
homogenize the population into desired directions, while the weaker
states suffer from its divisive effects. Which makes it effective
weapon, like democracy.
On 5/22/19, 02:31, Carsten Agger wrote:
The author is complaini
The author is complaining that "encryption would render everything
conveniently impenetrable"; whether that is for the government or the
platform itself is immaterial.
In fact, I'd say there is *no difference* whether communication is
monitored by governments or by platforms like Google and Facebo
Curious—the article doesn’t ever call for government surveillance. It does call
for transparency, but the government (or government factions) is expressly
called out as the source of bad actors. Transparency allows people to see how
the bad actors are operating.
Making the leap that public tran
However, his point of view seems to be, among other things, that the
problem is that if people ("the children") are allowed to communicate in
private so the government or the platforms on behalf of the government
("the adults") can't monitor them, all kinds of havoc will ensue. What
we need is for
Nice key-word: 'hyper-politics' ...
Original to:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/13/big-tech-whatsapp-democracy-india
Is India the frontline in big tech’s assault on democracy?
John Harris, The Guardian, Mon 13 May 2019
Social media such as WhatsApp may enable voters, but
