• Replies 26 replies
  • Subscribers 37 subscribers
  • Views 1010 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

How long unti we can only say positive things on the internet

Iain

I read an article today that made me wonder if it is something that would gain traction in this country:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c39r7p47wzgo

This week, China's Cyberspace Administration launched a two-month campaign to curb social media posts that "excessively exaggerate negative and pessimistic sentiments". The goal, according to authorities, is to "rectify negative emotions" and "create a more civilised and rational online environment".

In the crosshairs are narratives like "studying is useless" and "hard work is useless", as well as stories that promote "world-weariness".

Initially I thought nah, we are still a free society but then I started thinking of the recent use of the police to patrol social media for anyone saying things in support of organisations that the government consider problematic (think of the Middle East) - if you protest you easily end up in jail, if you write something on social media then having the police turn up on your doorstep is a realistic threat.

Our freedoms only really can be defined in the Citizens Charter and these are subject to all sorts of emergency powers and erosion as bills are passed granting more exemptions for the government. The current government have a sufficiently large majority that passing laws which curb our freedoms should be easy so long as they make small changes each time.

Think digital IDs, online age verification checks etc. Each one is a way to tie us to what we say and do in a way that they can track patterns of behaviour and use vague laws to act if they choose to.

So it is possible but do you think they have the appetite for making the population more compliant?

Parents

  • I have no doubt that positivity can improve mood and make life easier and happier for many people. I believe our governments have already been using psychological manipulation through the medium of TV, radio, social media and the newspapers. Just think of Starmer’s first months as Prime Minister when he made overly gloomy and boring speeches about the state of the UK that had been inherited from the Conservatives. It went on for weeks and was probably intended to absolve Labour from any responsibility for the state of the country, but it also had a subtler intention which was to make people believe that the country was even worse than it really was, so that anything Starmer did afterwards that was bad or unpopular would not be as big a shock as it would have been. The bad news went on and on…

    The next period of government began with messages of hope (albeit delivered in a less than enthusiastic fashion) as Starmer talked about all the wonderful things that were going to happen with the NHS and so on, without actually answering journalists questions about how he would achieve these things, because he didn’t know. These (attempted) cheery messages were delivered at the opportune time after the country had listened to months of gloominess—with Starmer having been accused by some of bringing down the mood of the country. It was hoped that Starmer’s actions, after ‘years’ of gloom, would make people feel he was really doing something positive that would make a difference to each person.

    I don’t think the government will ever go so far as China in curtailing freedom of speech. Apps are already used by companies who wish to track our movements, health, lifestyle and buying habits. I would imagine the government is talking about how to maximise the ability of the digital ID app to enable it to assess the mood of the nation and more. Algorithms would translate data into mood gauges of the population which in turn would enable advantageous (to the government) timing of announcements of new laws that may not be in our interest. 

Reply

  • I have no doubt that positivity can improve mood and make life easier and happier for many people. I believe our governments have already been using psychological manipulation through the medium of TV, radio, social media and the newspapers. Just think of Starmer’s first months as Prime Minister when he made overly gloomy and boring speeches about the state of the UK that had been inherited from the Conservatives. It went on for weeks and was probably intended to absolve Labour from any responsibility for the state of the country, but it also had a subtler intention which was to make people believe that the country was even worse than it really was, so that anything Starmer did afterwards that was bad or unpopular would not be as big a shock as it would have been. The bad news went on and on…

    The next period of government began with messages of hope (albeit delivered in a less than enthusiastic fashion) as Starmer talked about all the wonderful things that were going to happen with the NHS and so on, without actually answering journalists questions about how he would achieve these things, because he didn’t know. These (attempted) cheery messages were delivered at the opportune time after the country had listened to months of gloominess—with Starmer having been accused by some of bringing down the mood of the country. It was hoped that Starmer’s actions, after ‘years’ of gloom, would make people feel he was really doing something positive that would make a difference to each person.

    I don’t think the government will ever go so far as China in curtailing freedom of speech. Apps are already used by companies who wish to track our movements, health, lifestyle and buying habits. I would imagine the government is talking about how to maximise the ability of the digital ID app to enable it to assess the mood of the nation and more. Algorithms would translate data into mood gauges of the population which in turn would enable advantageous (to the government) timing of announcements of new laws that may not be in our interest. 

Children
  • in reply to ArchaeC

    Interesting take. Some of this topic reminds me of Huxley's Brave New World (which I preferred the second part, called Brave New World Revisited)

    I think aiming for positivity is good, but not to shut down criticism or dissent, otherwise the strong criticism classed as "negativity" will move -like it was said- to the dark web.

    In a way, I like -rather I need- freedom of thought, but controlling freedom of speech is to a large extent controlling freedom of thought.