this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2026
1064 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
85515 readers
5574 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Kind of interesting to read something that so clearly isn't critical of the system but is advocating for something that would fundamentally require systemic change. Liberal movements to further police the internet at a state level is constructed here as the selfish acts of self-interested politicians who are simply using the system wrong, not the inevitable consequence of a system that relies on the subordination of different groups of people and therefore must control the means by which people communicate. The internet is a problem for colonialism and capitalism, full stop. They aren't citing youth wellbeing and ignoring them in legislative decisions because they forget or they are particularly inconsiderate, it's because they know the child represents the continuation of this system and they are evoking an ideal innocence associated with children to construct the internet as a corrupting force on society. They know they don't have to actually think about the kids because that would mean anything else is valued over capital.
It talks about addressing the root causes for the disingenuously cited problems that unregulated internet access poses, but then ignores the fundamental role that corporations have played in facilitating those issues exactly because the internet was inevitably commodified under this system. The fact that there is one video platform controlled by one of the largest corporations in the world that reliably kneecaps any competition was what, not an issue? That these corporate entities are beholden to the interests of almost exclusively Americand and European imperialistic interests is not a coincidence, and until quite recently their transnational operation allowed for a significant amount of informal influence on colonized spaces. The only reason they're doing this is because they know that people within the empire have effectively used it to organize resistance, and that this is avoided in this mission statement speaks to the dissonance between "democratic" internet movements and the reality that the internet exists in.
I think this greatly undermines the weaponization of the internet from other governments. Society is currently so plugged in and we've known that subliminal messaging is a real psychological problem for close to ~100 years now. Free and Open internet is cool, but not for the masses who cannot combat this kind of psychological warfare.
We have to reign in both Corporations and external entities trying to influence a Nations populace. Some how, some way.
I literally just referenced that. When I say, that Europeans and Americans have been afforded, "a significant amount of informal influence on colonized spaces," I'm talking about how they weaponize their domination of the internet to promote their shared interest with the corporations they are partnered with. Yes, they have been applying similar tactics for over a century, but you seem to be more concerned about how it effects them than their targets.
I didn't call it "external entities" or "psychological warfare," against these imperialists because, quite frankly, I don't care about how empires attack each other as much as I do how they attack colonized peoples. With this in mind, when I'm talking about the systemic causes of these issues, I am directly referring to EuroAmerican settler-colonialism, capitalism, and imperialism. Their attempt to control access to the internet within the metropole is in fact their way of interrupting communication between the imperial peripheries (colonized spaces and peoples) and that population in the metropole; their concern over "foreign actors" is more about their people developing empathy for the victims of their way of life than it is what you seem to think; which I am guessing is something along the lines of "Russian bots?" You think it's a coincidence this crackdown comes within years of popular resistance against EuroAmerican facilitation of Palestinian genocide?
You should work on formatting if you want people to read that.
What do you mean by formatting? I just read it and it is fine. And if its about length, I was able to read it during my shift, I think pretty much everyone could do easily.
I'd say the comment is readable, but could benefit from formatting and some more concise expressions on some places. Using words whose meaning is not universally understood by people with average to mid-high education is counterproductive to spreading a message.
I can't express in words how incomprehensible it is to me that you'd suggest I edit my comments for accessibility on something like Lemmy. I don't care if people who would already get mad or offended by this have an easier time reading it, and people who are curious can ask questions if they please.
Don't elevate this place to a level that demands unpaid labour. It gives more legitimacy to the libs and chuds that dominate it.
I just started to relate the other guy. Find sone grass and step on it.
You made a spelling error, I better see an "Edited" icon soon.
Nah, its fine.
I’d argue that someone who doesn’t understand all the words in that post received a lower than average education. What specific words do you think wouldn’t be universally understood by someone with an “average to mid-high” education?
And about the words you choose, I hope you don't use this language in your daily life. You would make a terrible friend for everyday conversations
If two paragraphs is too much for you, I don't care if you read it.