Ausage
Well-known member
In what way are Facebook and Twitter "unelected"? They're entirely optional components of your life. You literally elect them every time you log in. Compare that to casing a single vote among tens of millions every 3-4 years for someone who probably won't even do what they promise when they get in. Our line of feedback to these companies is far more direct. We have far more control over the actions of the Facebooks of the world than we do our governments.I appreciate your views. I just wanted to hear other thoughts rather than my own musings on the subject. It seems to me, that one way or another, that we ARE going to be judged to the micro level on everything that is done. If for no other reason than everything we do is becoming public domain, which is unavoidable, short of going bush.
When things become unavoidable, I believe it is better to have a government (after proper public debate) legislate the scope and limitations rather than leave something like this to the people. This will need legislature, at some point, and that has always been the domain of the government. We currently have a mess with Face Book, the Media and Twitter, Credit History agencies, among others, all free to publicly shame people, all done by unelected people. Many of those examples cited in the article, I agree, seem like a step too far. However, it is no use hiding your head in the sand and saying "Naughty China" while ignoring that we are headed in a seemingly unavoidable similar direction. Keep in mind, that the supposed scope of this thing relates to what is already law. Taking kickbacks under the counter? That is already prohibited and punishable. Speeding? Already prohibited and punishable. This is just preparing a system to openly deal with the fact that this information is becoming accessible by everyone and setting guidelines for how people should react.
Even if you accept that government should be involved in ensuring its citizens are able to navigate the internet more freely, the position you're taking is so obviously the wrong way to go about it. Legislation around what companies can store on individuals would at least be consistent with that from an aims perspective (though I personally wouldn't be in favour). I said it before but you're advocating for petrol on the fire, a cure worse than the disease etc.
No I'm not wrong. I can still post (more or less) entirely anonymously on the internet. If I start posting offensive nonsense on CW I risk my CW access, not my job, my family, my personal relationships etc. The absolute majority of people who have received real world ramifications for their online ideas are people who have tied their online persona with their offline identity. They've de-anonymised themselves. How can you possibly think de-anonymising everyone will make this problem better? Morality will still exist, it will still vary widely among the citizenry and people will still push it's boundaries.You are wrong that the ramifications are limited to some people disagreeing with you. We already have accounts of people being fired from their jobs for opinions said outside the scope of their job. We have accounts of people being shamed, and having all their personal details made public, effectively running them out of their lives, due to some overzealous warriors. The Chinese system would have provided flashing lights before things got to these stages. An unmanaged system has no warning lights. One day you wake up 'dead'. Harsh has pointed out that business now scours whatever they can to determine whether you are suitable for jobs. How long until universities do the same? How long until supermarkets determine who gets priority on food? In our system, there is no reward for good deeds, yet evil China has this? How so?
And "Tsk tsk, naughty China" isn't a good summation of what's going on here (at least for me). "Damn that's ****ed up, we need to make sure we don't give the state that kind of power in <country I'm living in>" is a far better one.
I can see a day coming where that will not be the case. It will come much much faster if people who make the argument you're making have their way.Whilst I am currently grateful that consequences are limited to people disagreeing with me, I can see a day coming where this will not be the case. That is exactly what I am considering when asking whether social moulding is necessarily a bad thing and, consequently, how this should be dealt with and to what extent. This is not a progression that is going to end well with self regulation. It is going to need to be limited by government intervention, on our behalf, to limit what is 'right and wrong'. Personally, I'd tilt towards the limitation being placed upon the collection and use of information. However I think this will not happen. Perhaps, society will revolt and stop using every site that collects information. Perhaps it is too late as this power is already largely centralised and able to flex it's might against competitors. Too often competitors are just bought out and join the system.
Social moulding is necessary. That's why my I'm spending time on a cricket forum arguing against terrible ideas. It's these changes to attitudes need to occur at the ground level, rather than be imposed from above.
Uh, wut?For what it's worth, because some conflate my contentious ideas with my beliefs, I just do that to get some meaningful discussion. This thread was going to teach me nothing if I just agreed with everyone and said "Naughty China". I pretty much agree with you, except for thinking it unavoidable for our own governments to soon get involved to limit this, and I'm afraid without answering the question of what levels of social moulding are acceptable, they will make a mess of it, like China appears to be doing.
Here's a thought. Don't be a coward just to avoid conflict. You've made extensive arguments along these lines over several posts now. Just own what you're thinking.