[HN Gopher] Internet Freedom Around the World Declines for 11th ...
___________________________________________________________________
Internet Freedom Around the World Declines for 11th Consecutive
Year
Author : infodocket
Score : 165 points
Date : 2021-09-21 15:41 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (freedomhouse.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (freedomhouse.org)
| beprogrammed wrote:
| World Scores https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-
| world/scores
| treeman79 wrote:
| Getting scary when you hold an option that's not approved while
| living in Canada and your family in China is threatened.
|
| https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2021/09/18/a-chinese-stu...
|
| How long until people with no family ties to China find they face
| legal consequences for displeasing China.
|
| Maybe you get evicted suddenly, or your employment is terminated
| because your company gets a nasty letter, or is even owned by
| China.
|
| Can't see this trend reversing, only accelerating.
| demosito666 wrote:
| As does freedom in general. Societies at large have succumbed to
| securocracy and censorship in all aspects of life. This is one of
| a few worldwide megatrends that will have major impact on future
| generations.
| fsflover wrote:
| If you want to support the fight for the Internet freedom,
| consider donating to FSF, EFF and using devices recommended by
| them, especially the first: https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11/.
| flixic wrote:
| So, China is the worst because of censorship (strictly controlled
| information), and US is in a bad spot because of too much
| misinformation (too little control on information).
|
| I'm struggling to understand this "measurement".
| EarthIsHome wrote:
| I'm very skeptical about anything coming out of Freedom House
| when its chair was the co-author of the Patriot Act... like come
| on. There is quite an obvious conflict of interest in what this
| organization puts out.
|
| More often than not, these types of organizations are used to
| justify support for western action in what they call "non-free"
| countries. It works.
|
| Instead, I think we should focus more on improving the majority
| of lives of the people in the US than focusing on countries
| abroad.
| CountDrewku wrote:
| Can you find a source that disproves what they're saying? I'm
| kinda tired of this general idea that if you dislike the
| person/source that's making a claim then the claim itself is
| inaccurate.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Generally I agree, but thinktanks exist to produce studies
| that strengthen a pre-established political position. Taking
| them as an objective source is misunderstanding what a
| thinktank is for.
| CountDrewku wrote:
| Bias and objectivity are not mutually exclusive.
| crazy_horse wrote:
| What's the alternative? I'll tell you scientists are dying for
| good information (probably really are). IN a lot of
| authoritarian countries it does not exist, for obvious reasons.
| Freedom House, yeah, it has an agenda, but at the end of the
| day it's that data or none at all. It is the job of people
| using the data, not posting comments about it to do a more
| thorough review than it has connections, therefore, not useful.
|
| Do you have a specific issue with the ratings? We have to ask
| these questions and do. We adjust our priors accordingly.
|
| > Instead, I think we should focus more on improving the
| majority of lives of the people in the US than focusing on
| countries abroad.
|
| Do me a favor and search for "human rights" on that page.
| That's kind of the whole point for a lot of but not all of
| these contributors. Oh, and if you care about the US - the US
| scores are declining.
| saurik wrote:
| > Do you have a specific issue with the ratings?
|
| A friend of mine recently said that Mexico was more "free"
| than the United States. I tried to find some analysis or
| discussion of this, and came across Freedom House, which
| rated Mexico quite poorly vs. the United States (other
| rankings or comparisons being irrelevant for this comment).
|
| He was frustrated that I used some biased source to define
| "freedom" and challenged me to find and read the explanation
| they had for why Mexico was "less free" than the United
| States. I did so on the spot. I guess I encourage you to do
| so as well, as it is related to this discussion.
|
| https://freedomhouse.org/country/mexico/freedom-net/2021
|
| As far as I was concerned, he decisively won the argument and
| effectively dismantled any ability for me to use the Freedom
| House metrics in our discussion: "ironically" (but, in
| retrospect, kind of "as expected"), Freedom House has a
| completely different way of defining "freedom" than I do.
|
| In particular, and to use some of the vernacular we use on
| the Internet in discussions of "freedom" with respect to
| things like "walled gardens": they seem to believe in
| "freedom from" rather than "freedom to". Freedom House cares
| deeply about "freedom from" even when it comes into direct
| conflict with "freedom to"; and in the article about Mexico,
| we see this in their premise that Mexico doesn't have freedom
| of the press... because another privacy citizen might kill
| you over it and get away with it due to the courts being
| shoddy? Is that really an argument that they are "less free"
| or is the issue in fact that they are "more free"?
|
| As a tech example, I consider the Apple iPhone to be one of
| the least "free" platforms ever designed: it is explicitly
| built to restrict freedom of both users and developers to
| maximize Apple's profit and control both their intellectual
| property as well as that of their licensees.
|
| However, assuming you believe that this also has the side
| effect of improving security or minimizing scams or whatever
| Apple claims (let's just assume it for a moment without
| trying to examine it deeply), I bet Freedom House would
| consider that extremely "free" because users would be able to
| go out about their business with relatively lower concern of
| being targeted by hackers or being stalked or whatever people
| tend to give up freedoms in order to prevent.
|
| (You will see this same issue in their discussion of fake
| news and misinformation, on another thread here on Hacker
| News. I personally find the idea that the allowance of people
| saying incorrect things online makes people "less free"
| absurd and the idea that new attempts to restrict the ability
| to say incorrect things online is somehow "promising" for
| freedom to be a somewhat ridiculous parody of what the word
| "free" could possibly mean.)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28607451
| [deleted]
| diffCtx wrote:
| Given how easy it is to hide conflict of interest when
| presenting findings, I'd say it's commenters jobs to
| criticize the source
|
| This is forever human stuff, using a computer does nothing to
| remove bias if the inputs are the usual garbage anti-human,
| authoritarian bias.
|
| Human language preferences go out of style. Perhaps the
| Evangelicals should have had more sympathy for the indigenous
| tribes similar complaints.
|
| The leopard was never supposed to eat SOMEONES face. It
| always does.
| ldjkfkdsjnv wrote:
| I just flat out dont believe this at all. Certain areas of the
| internet are increasingly censored, but its never been easier to
| find a group of like minded people. All of these articles about
| FB/Google/Nation States and the like that are killing the
| internet are really just click bait. You cant stop the free use
| of technology, nothing will. Just recently I have been astounded
| by the amount of useful high quality open source software. The
| world is OPEN
| CountDrewku wrote:
| Take a poll of users on here. I guarantee you that 90%+ of them
| want all those places you listed censored as well. There's a
| cultural shift to shut down dissenting opinions and provide
| places where only like minded people associate.
|
| This is inherently bad for everyone. You don't change anyone's
| opinion with segregation. You just enforce their current
| stances.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Maybe you ought to actually _take_ that poll before you
| guarantee the results...
| CountDrewku wrote:
| You can look at the comments on this post and the downvotes
| I received just for saying it. EVERYTIME I mention
| something about this on hackernews I'm downvoted.
|
| The sentiment on here is obvious. How about this... prove
| me wrong. Post something about disagreement with COVID or
| Biden and see how it goes for you. You'll be lucky if you
| don't get flagged immediately.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| The downvotes don't prove that you're right. I downvoted
| you, not for saying that places are being censored, but
| for claiming that 90% of the people here _supported_ the
| censorship. I don 't think we do.
|
| You could be downvoted for two reasons: Either for
| claiming that we're pro-censorship when we're not, or for
| pointing out that we're pro-censorship when we are. My
| money is on the first reason.
| brink wrote:
| > Certain areas of the internet are increasingly censored
|
| That's the point of concern. You must think your views are
| immune to censorship.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > You cant stop the free use of technology
|
| Well... they're working hard to do so. While it's true _right
| now_ that, if you don 't like Facebook's censorship, you're
| free to start up your own site, that's only true _right now_.
| We saw that Amazon took down Twitter competitor Parler at the
| service provider level, and I really don 't think it's a
| stretch to imagine "problematic" sites being brought down at
| the hosting or even routing layer (in fact, CloudFlare has been
| dipping its toe in that water for the sites that nobody wants
| to stand up for). So, no, I don't think your suggestion that
| you _can 't_ stop the free use of technology is correct; we're
| just not there quite yet.
| VLM wrote:
| Ironic to see this on the front page along with the article
| "Misinformation on Reddit has become unmanageable, 3 Alberta
| moderators say (cbc.ca)" which is basically a sob story that
| three people are having a hard time forcing their beliefs upon
| unwilling communities. How sad we should feel that censors have
| to work so hard, etc...
| m0zg wrote:
| I think the real situation here is that people are becoming more
| aware of the profound lack of freedom that already existed. Much
| like we've become aware that our "free press", for example, is
| just a propaganda bullhorn to sell us on bullshit multi-trillion
| dollar wars and other giveaways to billionaire donors to
| politicians.
| screye wrote:
| Irrespective of the veracity of the claim, FreedomHouse is not a
| source worth trusting on an evidence loving platform like HN.
|
| A lot of other survey orgs like Pew Research or 538 are lot more
| thorough, and frequently reach conclusions in complete
| contradiction with freedomhouse.
|
| I would not take them as a reliable source for anything.
| CivBase wrote:
| > The United States' score declined for the fifth consecutive
| year. False, misleading, and manipulated information continued to
| proliferate online, even affecting public acceptance of the 2020
| presidential election results. The new administration took
| promising steps to enforce stronger protections for internet
| users.
|
| Why does the proliferation of misinformation imply a lack of
| freedom? Surely it should be the opposite.
| halfjoking wrote:
| I think this organization is a part of opposite world.
|
| - More censorship of things we don't like == Freedom
|
| - Required reporting of every bank transaction == More security
|
| - Vaccine mandates == Civil rights
| voldacar wrote:
| You have to learn to read NGO/thinktank language.
|
| Freedom = people do things we approve of
|
| Democracy = people vote for policies we approve of
| vkou wrote:
| Do you imply that freedom would be increased, if we increased
| the amount of communication 100-fold, by flooding the Internet
| with 99% spam?
|
| This seems to be a natural corollary to your argument.
| CivBase wrote:
| ...yes? Absolutely yes. Freedom would certainly increase if
| we allowed that to happen. How could anything else be true?
| It may not be healthy, enjoyable, or productive, but it would
| definitely be more _free_.
|
| I never argued that 100% freedom is good. Every law we have
| is effectively a limitation of freedom. But this isn't about
| determining what freedoms should be protected. This is about
| an organization who has taken it upon themselves to quantify
| freedom and by the looks of it their methods for doing so are
| illogical.
| titzer wrote:
| Legislative body passes a law "granting the freedom to"
| slap anyone in the face who utters the word "y'all".
| Suddenly, southerners find life a lot less free.
|
| Freedoms can be opposed to each other. In fact, it's more
| the norm than the exception; different freedoms are in
| _constant conflict_ with each other.
| CivBase wrote:
| Southerners would be no less free. They would have fewer
| rights.
|
| Rights != Freedom
|
| Freedom is the absence of restraint. A right is an
| entitlement. They often conflict with one another.
|
| We have many laws which sacrifice our freedoms in
| exchange for various rights. Depending on the trade, that
| can be a very good thing. 100% freedom is not desirable.
| acchow wrote:
| What about non-government groups organizing continuous DDOS
| attacks against certain websites with certain views
| effectively taking them down indefinitely. Is that more or
| less internet freedom?
| vkou wrote:
| If I can't communicate with you, because every
| communication channel is flooded with noise, and there's
| five people shouting in my and your ears, how am I more
| free? How is this situation any different from me being
| unable to communicate with you, period?
| fouric wrote:
| This comment made me think a bit about the natures of
| freedom of speech and spam (where "spam" partially
| includes the scenario that you're referring to).
|
| I've come to the conclusion that they're two completely
| separate problems. You can have spam with no freedom of
| speech, freedom of speech with no spam, or anything in-
| between, depending on implementation.
|
| The problem with _conventional_ spam is that e-mail
| accounts aren 't usually tied to real identities
| (although that's arguably a good thing), and phone
| numbers aren't authenticated _at all_ , and you don't
| need any sort of permission to call someone or send
| someone an email.
|
| This isn't the case with social media platforms (and
| their analogous "spam"), either existing ones or
| theoretical ones. Signups are throttled and somewhat tied
| to a real identity - although even if they _weren 't_,
| you can easily design a system where, say, you can't send
| someone a message without their permission (which some
| platforms e.g. Instagram do), or accounts are un-
| discoverable by default unless you make them visible.
|
| Additionally, virtually every social media platform in
| existence gives you the ability to block users (and, very
| few, if any, people claim that "free speech" means that
| arbitrary users on a platform can't block you - almost
| everyone focuses on bans from the platform itself - and
| you're conflating the two).
|
| Therefore, the virtual equivalent of "five people
| shouting in my and your ears" _is not an issue_ because
| there 's no virtual equivalent to "blocking" someone IRL,
| which trivially fixes this problem.
|
| You're conflating "forcing everyone to hear me" (which
| very few people think is a good idea) with "having a
| presence on a platform" (which is the issue actually
| under contention).
|
| In short, the issue that you're describing can be pretty
| trivially dealt with even when a platform has "perfect
| free speech" and does not remove any content that it is
| not legally required to.
|
| ...and, because the issue is a non-issue, it doesn't
| reduce freedom.
| CivBase wrote:
| In what scenario would the proliferation of
| misinformation result in you being outright unable to
| communicate with me? The internet is already flooded with
| spam, but AFAIK that has never had an adverse affect on
| our ability to directly communicate with one another.
| handrous wrote:
| > The internet is already flooded with spam, but AFAIK
| that has never had an adverse affect on our ability to
| directly communicate with one another.
|
| It ruins email inboxes over time, without active
| management, and lots of people no longer answer phone
| calls from numbers that aren't already in their contact
| list, to pick just two examples. Are those not adverse
| effects? If there's more total communication but a given
| person requires 20% (just to pick a number) more time for
| the same amount of communication as before, is that more
| free? It means that person's max theoretical amount of
| daily signal-not-noise communicating is lower than it had
| been, and that they have to give up more time that could
| have been spent on other things, to maintain the same
| amount of communication.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > people no longer answer phone calls from numbers that
| aren't already in their contact list
|
| It's worth noting that nobody - _nobody_ - is doing
| anything to address that. They _are_ working overtime to
| prevent Nicki Minaj from sharing a story about somebody
| she knew who had a side effect from the Covid vaccine. So
| not only are the beneficent censors shutting down
| arbitrary conversations, they 're also not working on the
| actual nuisances that everybody might agree would have
| been worthwhile.
| stale2002 wrote:
| If you have a voluntary choice of whether you want to
| filter out, or not filter out, what you are calling
| "noise", then in that situation you would be more free,
| yes.
|
| The solution to "noise" is give people the choice of if
| they want that info or not. And to allow people to choose
| if they want to see it, or choose if they don't want to
| see it.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| Presumably because of the 100-fold increase in
| communication? The parent comment's point is that the
| term freedom doesn't mean "the optimal balance of
| restrictions", it means "fewer restrictions". It may be
| the right move to restrict the behavior of specific
| actors, but that doesn't mean that restricting their
| actions increases "freedom".
|
| I get that it's in vogue to redefine every word
| (violence, freedom, harm, etc) to pretend that policy
| choices don't have trade-offs, but it's a dishonest
| strategy that's more useful for advocacy than for
| understanding.
| handrous wrote:
| There's a big difference between "what I'm allowed to do"
| and "what I'm actually able to do". Either could be
| called freedom. Personally, I tend to favor the latter,
| if I have to choose between the two, much as I'd rather
| hold an ordinary deed to an acre of land a mile from my
| house than hold the absolute and eternal title of God
| King of some galaxy a billion light years away.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > there's five people shouting in my and your ears
|
| So, accepting your absolute scenario, we have two
| diametrically opposed possibilities: one in which it's up
| to me to slog through the noise to find the signal and
| another (the one you're proposing) where somebody else
| does that for me. By now, I think it's pretty obvious
| that nobody - not you, not me, and definitely not an
| unpaid "moderator" - can be trusted to filter out just
| "noise" and not inject their own biases. So, yes, given
| just those two options I'll absolutely take the option
| where I have to do the work of filtering out spam myself
| than trusting some unaccountable partisan to do my
| thinking for me.
| vkou wrote:
| Then I'll just pile more freedom spam on, until you won't
| have enough hours in the day to do that work.
| CivBase wrote:
| What does spam even have to do with proliferation of
| misinformation to begin with?
| vkou wrote:
| It's a lever that pries open the non-qualified 'more
| speech = more freedom' argument, by demonstrating very
| succinctly that in order to maximize freedom, we,
| ironically, have to restrict it.
| pizza234 wrote:
| The infograph reports also USA among the countries arresting
| people because of social media posts, in this case, Twitter.
|
| I wonder if it's this case (or one of them):
| https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/twitter-troll-arrest....
| eynsham wrote:
| I'm generally sceptical of attempts to quantify concepts like
| 'internet freedom'.0
|
| However, the conclusion is probably right, insofar as it's
| meaningful to refer to internet freedom 'around the world', even
| going on a qualitative approach.
|
| The long-term trend is the spread of China-style internet
| controls at the very least in non-democracies.1 There is not much
| stopping this process except bureaucratic inertia. It is in the
| interests of the zhongnanhai not to have to interact with a world
| set on democratic norms contrary to its interests. It is in the
| interests of local governments to be able to control the threat
| of dissent on the internet. Although there are some unsung
| victories (e.g. in Malawi, Zambia, and maybe Sudan) in which
| incumbents were thrown out at least partly by movements in
| support of constitutional democracy, just as many countries are
| slipping away from constitutional democracy, so the pool of
| dictatorships open to Chinese-style internet controls is at the
| very least not shrinking very fast.
|
| In the West, it's very hard to find principled defenders of
| freedom of expression in any political party, and the same
| applies to internet freedom. If the legal situation is right,
| judges are more attached to it.
|
| 0: for the reasons outlined at
| https://samzdat.com/2018/03/26/enter-a-search-term-e-g-democ...
|
| 1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-internet-
| surveilla...
| 71a54xd wrote:
| Well yeah, because supposedly "free speech" is a problem now. Sad
| state of affairs, such a childish nearsighted worldview to hold.
| pyronik19 wrote:
| They arrested a dude in Scottland because he taught his dog to do
| a Nazi salut as a joke on his gf..... they actually prosecuted
| him for this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-21 23:01 UTC)