>"But the extraordinary case draws attention to how dictatorships are increasingly using technology to crush online dissent."<p>Yes, authoritarian regimes control communication. That's been the case for over a century of radio and mass circulation dailies. It's nothing new.<p>What is new is that even democratic countries are controlling free speech via speech laws or often the private companies engaging in evaluating what's permissible speech and not above and beyond what laws require. To wit what comprises "hate speech". It's basically come to mean "point of view in disagreement with my group's current position which may change in the future"
The whole industry of advertising as we understand it today was created by those who had done propaganda during the first and second world war, and realised they could apply their skills in the field of business.<p>To learn the history of propaganda, advertising and how it is embedded deeply in our current political machine, watch <i>The Century of the Self</i>, a 2002 documentary:<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04</a>
"Authoritarian Nations are..." makes it sound like the same trends aren't prevalent everywhere.<p>The cost of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the law is dropping very rapidly. Cameras, automated monitoring systems, etc, have all blossomed since around 2007 when phones suddenly became computers and cameras in one fell swoop.<p>It is no longer a default expectation that someone can commit a crime without being detected. Or do anything without it being recorded in triplicate on the internet. We'd better all hope we aren't doing anything the government doesn't like!
Invasive advertising is a kind of propaganda - information that is intended to manipulate people. Bruce Schneier said that surveillance was the business model of the internet, but perhaps more precisely, propaganda is the business model of the internet. At least the user facing part of it.<p>Put simply, we have come to accept that it is okay for businesses to manipulate people, so it should not come as much of a surprise that other entities will use that same well-oiled machinery for their own purposes.
It seems like this is a return to the normal. Before the internet, repressive regimes had an easier time censoring mass media, monitoring telecommunications and stop organizing efforts.<p>The major problem isn't so much the surveillance technology, but the intent and power of those governments. The solution must be political, rather than technological, if only because politics can eventually tackle any technology.
I remember, in the mid-1980s, I was attending an event called MacHack (long since gone the way of the dodo).
There was an Australian gentleman there, who was writing database code as a contractor for the Sultan of Oman.
It was basically a "people tracker," and he expressed misgivings about its use (not enough to prevent him from taking the money, though).<p>In the US, people think that keeping guns is some sort of guarantor of freedom.<p>I posit that the computer database is the single biggest threat to freedom on Earth. It's just a bit more difficult to understand databases, so we ignore them, and keep updating our Facebook status.
> If an app — let’s say Uber — adopts our tech, you would be able to use Uber [without the internet],” says Jorge Ribs, CEO of Bridgefy<p>There have been a few of these phone mesh startups (OpenGarden, RightMesh, Bridgefy) over the years, and they all seem to dramatically oversell the abilities of a phone's radio.<p>Basic physics mean that a network made up of only phones will be extremely slow, even if everyone has the app. Text messages delivered unreliably is probably the best you're going to get in the foreseeable future.<p>I'm sure it's tempting to embellish the abilities of one's technology to investors and press, but the quote above is obviously false.
It's been 150 days that internet has been blocked in Kashmir by the Indian government.<p>The Indian government routinely blocks internet in various parts of the country. They recently even blocked it in the national capital, Delhi.
This story seems to focus on the minor offenses, ignoring the huge one - not seeing the forest from the trees.<p>> Twitter employees ... spying on behalf of Saudi Arabia ... passed private information about more than 6,000 Twitter users<p>2 employees, 6,000 spied on. How about: All employees, everybody spied on? Hundreds of millions of people?<p>> For most people, the news sparked concerns that companies like Twitter are failing to keep user information secure<p>For the rest of us, no concern was sparked, because we:<p>1. Know that some companies were always about selling user information to advertisers and other interested parties, and<p>2. Noticed when Ed Snowden revealed that the large companies (Google, Facebook, Yahoo, Microsoft, Apple, maybe others) transmit all user information to the US government.<p>It seems like a lot of US media has been making an effort - one might say an active effort - to have the knowledge of mass (US) government surveillance fade out of our memories.<p>> Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg described cybersecurity as “an arms race,”<p>It's more of a quarrel among thieves. Facebook has the "loot" - users' information, which is not kept safe from the company itself (though in many ways it could!) - and whoever has access to the loot can pass it on to other seedy elements.<p>> As governments get better at imposing online censorship<p>Censorship is a crude, blunt instrument. Governments try it and mostly fail. It's much more effective to drown stories out with noise and junk and drivel; or to create strung prejudice which prevents people from being open to regime-undesirable opinions and positions.
Unpopular opinion: Its a sign of the world becoming more liberal and free. These kinds of weapons don’t directly kill hundreds of thousands of people. It’s propaganda wars. Let’s hope all future wars are fought only on the internet.
Surely not a fan of China's internet censorship or India shutting down the internet whenever people protest their insane nationalistic politics, but let's not forget what the NSA from the land of the "free" does.
Fragmentation is relative, and "weoponization" in the sense described in the article is global.<p>That doesn't mean we're equally affected and government type doesn't matter. If a scary dictatorship gets access to journalist communications, for example, a scary dictatorship will more aggressively action that.<p>That said, almost any of these "weaponization" trends happen everywhere and affect everyone. Strong democracies have certain defenses, but that doesn't make them immune.<p>Spying, censorship, propoganda, media manipulation, disruption of activist or political groups... These uses are growing. Democratic norms and institutions are not absolute, or necessarily even even effective at preventing abuses of a totally new communication ecosystem.<p>It's not as if our high courts, parliaments or whatnot have been breaking new ground recently. The ground however, keeps moving regardless.
I'm trying to think of an instance where a government (authoritarian or not) hasn't used technology to advance its agenda, or more to the point of the article, for espionage. I can't think of one.
Nations are turning the internet into a weapon. It's terrible when it comes to authoritarian nations, as it's so difficult to imagine an upheaval taking place under internet surveillance, but it's even scarier with democracies.<p>The law in a democracy is not meant to describe the future. It describes what people do in the past. But democracies rely on people occasionally breaking the law in order to evolve and improve. If we use the internet to monitor and surpass every possible violation, we lose what makes democracies great.
This is why decentralized protocols are so important, especially if you live where govt censorship is rampant. Internet was designed with decentralization in mind, first and foremost.
Companies that collect what could be very sensitive information about people should be subject to criminal negligence charges if someone comes to harm because of their carelessness. This is especially true where they promote highly politicized speech to drive engagement.<p>Civil suits won't do the trick when the chiefs are super-rich. No court would ever fine Facebook enough that Mark Zuckerberg could be inconvenienced in the slightest.
What's the answer? I grew up in the late 2000s and really believed the internet would challenge existing power structures to change. I think in a lot of ways it did. Even as a fairly technically sophisticated user I can't seem to think what to do about the backslide though. Maybe good open source tools? Maybe a career in cybersecurity? It seems like the bad has more resources and incentives than the good now.
Oh those nasty authoritarians! IMHO, that's a pretty narrow point of view, reminiscent of cold-war rhetoric. There's a 2016 documentary called Black Code [1] on the weaponization of the internet. While the documentary also focuses on "authoritarian" nations, their commentary was more insightful:<p>> it feels, I think to many, exotic and different and it couldn't happen here. And I think, in fact, what you're seeing in Syria is this is what happens when the risks get higher but the technology is the same.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5937964/" rel="nofollow">https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5937964/</a>
Surprised to see India not mentioned in the article.<p><a href="https://internetshutdowns.in/" rel="nofollow">https://internetshutdowns.in/</a>
As Stallman said, this technology would have been Stalin's dream.<p>We must control the amount of data that we put in the hands of others, and we must do that avoiding the use of services that tracks us, avoid Google, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and we must use only encrypted communication. Who says that in our democratic country in a couple of years will not arrive a dictator that will use this data that was collected to repress us? To me is not only possible, but probable, seeing the cult of the strong man in power that is appreciated nowadays.
When talking about censorship, I want to discuss about zeronet.<p>It appear to be censorship free. Yes, the zite owner can apply censorship, but anyone can clone the zite and become the new admin (similar to fork in the GUI of github).<p>And there is hub mechanism so people can see aggregated content from multiple zites.<p>Zeronet may be not as good as the FANG but it's already usable.
Western business practices is the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the title. The internet has been a weapon for a while now. The authoritarians are late to the party and they are putting their specific spin on it, but we've been doing it for some time now. NSA, Cambridge Analytica, mass surveillance by big-business, general manipulation through media (e.g. news outlets, advertisement). The authoritarian regimes function differently, so they do it differently. I've no sympathy for them, but pointing fingers saying "they've weaponized the internet" is severe hyperopia.