
The rise of the internet and a new age of authoritarianism - empath75
https://harpers.org/archive/2019/01/machine-politics-facebook-political-polarization/
======
stcredzero
_One of the deepest ironies of our current situation is that the modes of
communication that enable today’s authoritarians were first dreamed up to
defeat them_

If you want to find corruption, then "Follow the money." If you want to find
authoritarians, you can follow the flow of fundamental things in much the same
way:

    
    
        - Who is doing the silencing?
        - Who is engaging in coercion?
        - Who wishes for the power to coerce?
        - Who is using violence?
        - Who is distorts the truth to push agendas?
        - Who eschews the universal for the momentarily convenient?
    

The answer nowadays is the same answer as in other times and places: angry,
toxic parties who tend towards the far ends of the political spectrum, both
left and right. It's the fringes that want discourse to end and take normal
people for an excursion into chaos. It's the fringes that want to roll the
dice for their chance at power.

The best thing to do is to let people have their voice. There's no
authoritarian nonsense, no matter how virulent, which lasts forever and is
immune to general good sense. It might take awhile, but people eventually come
around.

A note of caution: there are a lot of villains who thought they were on the
side of good, who turned out to be the opposite. When you've given up on
convincing, and you're starting to shout, to hate, and to want to coerce
people, you're probably on the wrong side of history.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Just a friendly reminder: no one on the left (the actual left, not the soft-
right mainstream American left) wants authoritarianism.

That's a decidedly right-wing power fantasy.

The people on the left using violence are using it to fight the extreme right
directly.

E: for clarity, I am speaking from a modern left-wing position, specifically
the libertarian left, which is the strongest left-wing current today.
Unfortunately the so-called "left"-wing in many Western countries has drifted
to the right, which is absolutely deleterious.

~~~
fsloth
Um, I'm pretty sure my coyntry has had it's share of socialists who were also
stalinists.

Not sure of the context you meant, but in the general context left can be
bullish on authoritarianism.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Fair point, stalinists are authoritarian.

They're also a relatively tiny group of ridiculous LARPers that no one takes
seriously.

~~~
someguydave
Except for that time in Russia when they murdered millions of people because
those people were trying to normalize fascist speech.

------
8bitsrule
Unfettered education (non-proscribed and auto-didactic forms in particular)
has always been a threat to authorities. And, as always, a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing.

And, as Engelbart predicted, it has created a race. Lets take a look on online
content, and we see that - because of vested interests - there's very little
in-depth content available (at any price) and plenty of superficial content to
foster the dangerous. (What's there has largely _not_ been a concern of SV.)

Television (and FM radio before it, as the creators of both complained) played
a similar role (with better control-rods) before the net. Pouring out
thoughtless sludge creates the expected result.

~~~
ggm
_Unfettered education (non-proscribed and auto-didactic forms in particular)
has always been a threat to authorities._

Yeeeesss but, and it's a huge but, auto-didacticism in particular has huge
risks. Misapprehension of core knowledge self acquired is remarkably hard to
shift. Hence, huge numbers of ant vaxx, anti agw and like movements with self
sustaining belief about science data and it's interpretation.

Monkton is a prime example. Tries to claim authority vested in his own
interpretation of the science inputs.

I guess I'm agreeing.

~~~
emiliobumachar
What is "anti agw"?

~~~
sverige
Apparently it stands for "anthropogenic global warming."

Never mind the documented cases of data fraud, it's because "auto-didactic."

~~~
graeme
Autodidact contrarians on this subject seem intensely vexed by data fraud.

If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the
theories no? This "fraud" of which you speak appears to be a non-issue amongst
scientists.

~~~
fromthestart
>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the
theories no?

That's a dangerous way to think. Isn't data fraud, particularly when in line
with an alleged agenda, something that should be vexing? You don't think it's
possible that the same shunning that occurs in non academic settings towards
deniers might occur in the sciences? In which case perhaps scientists aren't
willing to risk careers and funding to go against the grain, if they are even
concious of any bias. I imagine most young people are entering into this field
now treating agw as confirmed fact.

And if you combine that with the all of the ways in which the scientific
institution is currently broken (p value abuse/misuse, publish or perish,
reproducibility crisis), it's very possible for an artificial, or massaged,
narrative to come to dominate discourse even if it isn't quite true...

~~~
graeme
I was being somewhat facetious. There does not appear to have been data fraud.
OP was referring to this:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy)

The only people I've seen who are worried about it are either propagandists or
autodidacts.

Not using the term propagandiat loosely. Referring to people at industry
funded think tanks. But others who thrive on being "contrarian" and self
educated always seem to reference this "fraud" even though there seems to be
nothing to it.

Added some quotes to my original post to clarify.

------
sneakernets
The problem with fascism is that its endgame always ends up with its adherents
attacking each other. It always fails, it is not sustainable. Too bad its
followers never got that memo. I thought the Internet would just make the next
attempt that much faster to die out, but apparently I was wrong!

In related news, a relative of mine complained that he was receiving fascist
posts on Facebook. Thing is, he didn't follow those groups, but one of his
friends _did_ , and Facebook's stupid algorithm thought it would share what
his friend liked in his news feed, without asking.

~~~
c3534l
Historically, fascism has collapsed because free societies tend to have better
economies. Indeed, democracies are very new in the grand scheme of history.
The US is going 200 years strong, but slavery was part of that is still younge
in the history of civilization.

~~~
XorNot
It's also worth noting that all of this is a historical anomaly - it's in no
way clear that our present technological civilization requires free society to
keep the economy going.

Which is to say we need to be clear about our objectives: if free society and
individual liberty is important to us, those need to be the goals potentially
at the expense of short-term economic growth.

~~~
roenxi
Do you have a source on that? It is easy to underestimate just how _stupidly_
a non-free society can behave. I'm not even talking democracy vs other (there
can be non-free democracies, or notionally authoritarian regimes that are
quite free in practice), I mean the really basic "if you can work to better
yourself, then go for it" style liberty.

The system of corporations we have today is a super-civilised way of wresting
power and control from existing structures - if you can do something better
and cheaper than the company currently in power, you can displace them quickly
and with minimum fuss.

The core of that mechanism in the west is if you think a companies management
are just clueless you can start your own company and compete. That is a big
component of what freedom is - if you think you can do it better you can try
to do it better.

Non-free societies would almost certainly disrupt that mechanism as the first
thing they did. Given how complicated a modern economy is, I'm not sure they'd
be competitive with a free society. The inefficiencies would build up to
spectacular levels.

~~~
balfirevic
Genuine question - how does China fit into this narrative?

~~~
Nasrudith
Well China is building up its inefficiencies even as it makes other advances.
They created quite a few time bombs for themselves.

1\. They have set themselves up massive health time-bombs with their pollution
and ineffective regulations. Not to mention prevalence of smoking. 2\. China's
Social Credit plan is creating a turn-key rebellion as the newly created lower
caste has nothing to lose but their chains and the high social credit scores
means they have a purge list for when bloody repression begets bloody
revolution. 3\. They have enough people laundering money for 'emergency escape
hatches for when they fall out of favor' that they are blowing up real estate
prices internationally in major cities. Optimistically it could just be
fallacious beliefs that real estate is a foolproof investment but that doesn't
make things much better. 4\. The party leadership flat out know that they
cannot survive a recession and try to prop things up constantly.

They may be the most viable example but they are still vulnerable to collapses
- not a guarantee by any means but there is definite precedent.

------
opwieurposiu
Author proposes the solution to authoritarianism is more laws and more
government intervention. That's not the solution, that's the definition!

~~~
danans
> That's not the solution, that's the definition!

A legislature passing laws is not authoritarianism, but is instead the normal
functioning of a legislature in a representative democracy, whether or not one
agrees with the laws themselves.

From
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism)

"1\. Limited political pluralism, that is such regimes place constraints on
political institutions and groups like _legislatures_ , political parties and
interest groups"

Authoritarianism is, among other things, about the head of government
constraining the legislature from performing oversight of the head of
government.

It's about the head of government being effectively above the law, either by
the law itself being changed to codify that, or by the non enforcement of laws
against the head of government when they break them.

------
gdubs
It’s almost like a bunch of people in the 60s dropped acid and decided it’d be
a great idea to connect every person on the planet to every other person on
the plant. Oh wait...

Kidding aside, this brings back memories of Clifford Stoll’s book, “Silicon
Snake Oil.” I’d love to read it again. I know, he’s been panned for making
really wrong predictions (“no one’s gonna use a credit card over the
internet”), but I’d love to read it again standing on the other side of the
internet experiment. I feel like for all the stuff he got wrong, he got a lot
right when it comes to there being more to being human than the internet has
ever been able to deliver.

~~~
hnuser355
Hmm, I read a book a few months ago where the author spent a lot of time
discussing the intellectual background for Silicon Valley and why he thought
these guys ruined journalism and probably lot of other stuff. It was called
“World Without Mind” I believe.

~~~
Nasrudith
Personally I feel "journalism" (read: media companies) ruined itself by going
for profit at the expense of fundamentals - a recipe for downfall in any
business. Now it is now shooting the messenger. Just like the corrupt blaming
destruction of trust on the whistleblowers instead of their misdeeds.

Actual journalism is doing better than ever - just look at the state of the
art of fact checking and detailed refutations of the tripe published in
comments.

------
Animats
Something's missing here.

Computers have conquered scale. Before cheap computing and networking, large
companies had trouble getting out of their own way. There were inefficiencies
in companies that got too big. Most of those problems seem to have been
solved, and the intrinsic limits to corporate growth have been removed.

So now the US has three big banks. Three big drugstore chains. Three big
delivery services. Three big cell phone companies, if Sprint and T-Mobile get
to merge.

Big companies don't have to have regional subsidiaries any more. In the Bell
System days, AT&T had about ten regional operating companies, each with
somewhat independent management. Today, they don't bother. Amazon is run as
one big company.

In the US, government hasn't really gotten into this in a big way. Too many
governmental units with their own local authority. China, though, or the UK,
where the central government has total authority...

(This is not about Trump. He's an old guy who does things the 20th century way
- broadcasting to large numbers of people and hands-on project management.
When we get someone who's similarly authoritarian but understands modern
scaling technology, we'll have a real problem. Peter Thiel, maybe.)

~~~
uabstraction
> Big companies don't have to have regional subsidiaries any more. [...] In
> the US, government hasn't really gotten into this in a big way.

It is a mistake to assume that the solution which works in industry is equally
applicable in government. Businesses and governments are very different
institutions. They have different missions, different stakeholders, different
legal obligations, and different responsibilities.

Surely, things would be more efficient if we just had one large uniform,
monolithic state institution, but a (small R) republican state cannot exist
without extensive delegation. It is only though the process of delegating
power to states, counties and municipalities, that we can even attempt to
execute the will of the people.

This all comes with tons of redundant infrastructure - thousands of city
councils, mayors, police departments, courts, and school systems. 50
governors, 50 state cabinets, 50 independent boards of elections, 50 different
state legislatures - but each community has its own needs and its own
ambitions, and nobody knows those needs better than the community itself.

~~~
Nasrudith
The main issue I have seen with the smaller divisions is that they manage to
do thing worse while not providing any true accountability because they are
too small to be watched effectively and lack the oversight infrastructure of
larger organizations - which is really saying something given how infamously
ineffectual the watchers are at watching themselves.

------
norswap
Maybe. What isn't seen isn't taken into account: what would have happened if
the internet hadn't been. Maybe things could have happened that didn't. It's
hard to tell, but it's quite possible.

------
cheezymoogle
I wrote a response to this article that ended up being way too long:

[http://txti.es/technorealism](http://txti.es/technorealism)

tl;dr: Like every other long-term and protracted crisis, people predicted it
was going to happen, but everyone acts surprised when it actually does.

~~~
Nasrudith
That seems worthy of posting as its own article.

------
mikedilger
This article is mostly political, and not very technical. I don't think it is
appropriate on HN. But as that is not my call...

The Data & Society report by Rebecca Lewis (quoted in this article as a
source) is very poorly done. It brands people who are clearly on the left as
"alt-right" because they have either once spoken to an alt-right person, or
even (in one case) simply been at the same event (not an alt-right event) with
an alt-right person (Tim Pool, evidence in his YouTube videos on the subject).

I'm defending the 4/5 people who have been labelled "alt-right" by groups like
Data & Society and by articles like this one, who believe in equal
opportunity, legal immigration, individualism, and principles of the
enlightenment. Most of them are progressives and several of them are jews.
Lumping them in with "fascists," "racists", "nazis", or people who yelled
"Jews will not replace us!" is factually wrong, morally wrong, and has done
real-world damage to them. This includes people such as Jordan Peterson, Tim
Pool, Eric Weinstein, Dave Rubin, James Damore, Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, and
yes even Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad).

I am NOT defending Richard Spencer, Stephan Molyneux or Milo Yiannopoulos.
I've listened to them, I disagree with them, and I think "alt-right" is an
appropriate for them.

There seems to be a mass delusion going on here. Folks on the left talk about
the boogy-man "alt-right" and label people at whim, and then everyone is
scared to actually go and fact-check lest they be discovered watching "alt-
right" material. The predictable result? The set of people labelled "alt-
right" just gets bigger and bigger.

~~~
KozmoNau7
All of the people you mentioned are working to further fascism and inflame
hatred and division. Don't just believe what they say, do some actual digging.

Contrary to what you believe, we lefties do actually fact check, and it's not
looking good for Jordan P. et al.

~~~
brynjar
‘working to further fascism’ Examples please!

~~~
KozmoNau7
By normalizing alt-right and trad right rhetoric, and by creating distrust of
minorities.

~~~
badpun
Please give examples for creating distrust of minorities, specifically for
Jordan Peterson.

Also, how does "normalizing trad-right rethoric" equal "working to further
fascism and inflame hatred and division"? Where do traditional right values
equate fasism, hatred and division?

~~~
KozmoNau7
Jordan Peterson repeatedly and strongly denies the existence of any white
hetero cis male privilege. He also refuses to acknowledge trans people and gay
marriage, he somehow ties feminism to Muslims because "women desire strong
men", and he lashes out against any art that challenges traditionalist
perceptions of the world and society, tying it all into his "cultural marxism"
conspiracy theory.

His list of absolutely nonsense racist, bigoted and misogynistic statements is
basically endless, it's in everything he says.

He leans on the MRA/MGTOW side of things, which has a clear and documented
link to the alt-right right, a neo-fascist movement.

Regarding trad right, that is simply an ideology of exploiting the working
class for the benefit of capitalists, to the overall detriment of society and
life in general.

~~~
badpun
> He also refuses to acknowledge trans people

Have you listened to him? He specifically speaks that he's been in good
contact with trans people, who often thank him for his actions. As for the
rest of the items you listed, they look like your opinions on him, not facts.
I was hoping for direct quotations from Peterson. For example, how do you back
your claim that he's speaking "absolutely nonsense racist and misogynistic
statements"? I've listened to probably about 100 hours of Peterson and I
haven't ever heard any. Please give citations.

~~~
KozmoNau7
Read these excellent critiques, that'll be easier than just a selection of
quotes, or having me rewrite everything in this post.

[https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/why-are-so-many-
young-...](https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/why-are-so-many-young-men-
drawn-to-jordan-petersons-intellectual-misogyny/)

[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-
dangerou...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-
jordan-b-peterson-the-rightwing-professor-who-hit-a-hornets-nest)

[https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-
to...](https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-to-sue-
feminist-critic-kate-manne.html)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/8kw3ig/jord...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/8kw3ig/jordan_petersons_misogyny_a_collection_of_tweets/)

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-profound-
sadness...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-profound-sadness-in-
jordan-petersons-antidote-to-
chaos/2018/05/09/8e1be3a4-53bd-11e8-9c91-7dab596e8252_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f1f11adcdabf)

[https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-jordan-
petersons...](https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons-
political-arguments-312153eac99a)

[https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/05/199599/jordan-
peter...](https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/05/199599/jordan-peterson-men-
masculinity-quotes)

Jordan Peterson is not a person to admire nor adore.

~~~
mikedilger
I started reading these, but they are so full of misrepresentations that I
couldn't stomach the whole list. You can't judge someone by reading second
hand opinions. From the first link: * Accusations of mysogyny and bigotry
without quotations as evidence. Immoral. * Claims Peterson thought bill C-16
was a violation of free speech; in fact he was only concerned about
"compelled" speech. Immoral misrepresentation. * Author purports to understand
what Jung meant better than everyone else who supposedly have all
misinterpreted Jung, with no humility or self reflection whatsoever. Immoral.
* Suggests indirectly that differences between men and women come from
"questionable data". While literally anything could be questioned, misleads.
Immoral. I've only gotten through 3 paragraphs, but my instincts tell me to
stop reading this trash. It's clearly not honest.

My impression is that Jordan fears dystopia. He has studied the psychology of
totalitarianism, both on the right and the left. He has concluded that the
atrocities could not have been committed were it not for the failings of
individuals, a failure to remain true, to remain moral. As a result, Jordan is
very careful to remain as moral and ethical as humanly possible. He very
carefully choses his words so as to not accidently say something that isn't
quite true. People are drawn to him because his ethics and morality are many
levels higher than anything anybody has seen in generations, and it is
striking.

~~~
KozmoNau7
All of these critiques are full of actual quotes from Peterson. The Reddit
thread is even full of _direct_ Twitter links to posts made by him, on his
verified account.

The man is a fraud and a charlatan, and you exhibit the clear signs of having
been taken in by a convincing speaker, with little regard to what he's
_actually_ saying and preaching. A so-called "True Follower", with a complete
lack of understanding for criticism against the Adored Idol, in this case
Peterson.

I do see the appeal. He's positioned himself as a father figure to disaffected
young white men, and he says things they want/need to hear (stand up straight
etc.). Unfortunately he also uses that platform to spread old-fashioned
misogyny and fear of the Other, and some outrageously wrong-headed nonsense. I
suggest you review the Reddit thread I linked.

As per a previous thread, you also thought Gab was entirely above-board, and
not an alt-right/white supremacist hideout with the very thinnest veneer of
legitimacy haphazardly added on top.

More critical thought about the "hidden" agendas of notorious online presences
would be very good practice.

~~~
mikedilger
I probably should stop replying to you. But you seem to have a few
misconceptions. I am not a follower of Jordan Peterson. I've never bought his
books or sent him any money or seen him in a speaking engagement. I'm not a
young man. I'm not a disaffected young white man, nor do I need guidance from
a father figure. I'm a successful, retired, independent libertarian. I
disagree with Jordan on a lot of things. I'm an athiest. I don't think
symbolism is anywhere near as important as he does. I'm not so keen on
boundaries, but I appreciate understanding the right a little bit better
through Jordan as he describes how the right care about boundaries.

But your critiques are bad. Really bad.

Gab _IS_ entirely above board. Do you know what that term means? It means not
doing anything illegal.

I'm going to assume you are young, and I apologize if I'm wrong. But what you
young tikes are getting very wrong is this idea of parallel justice, mob
justice, as if you can rewrite everything about justice that we have learned
over the centuries and draw up entirely new rules where gab is considered not
above board, where saying "women aren't men" is considered hate speech, where
people are presumed guilty, innuendo and accusation are taken as conclusive
evidence, any offence requires a lifetime permanent ban, and ideas themselves
are crime (hate, racism, misogyny... are not crimes for some very good
reasons). The idea that racism is infectious is ridiculous -- racism comes
from a natural suspicion of outsiders, and is cured by multiculturalism, not
deplatforming. Misogyny is mostly rejected men not taking ownership of their
own failure, and blaming women instead. You can't cure that by rejecting them
yet again. Sometimes I think I must be dreaming; the world can't have gotten
this crazy this fast, can it?

Go look into pre-WWII Germany and see how the holocaust came about. It all
started with pretty much exactly what social justice warriors are doing
today... the willful erosion of human rights. Back in 1933 everyone was
cheering Hitler on as the right to free speech was taken away. I'm afraid
history is repeating.

------
malvosenior
I think this author has a really odd definition of authoritarianism. People
who you don't agree with politically being allowed to have a voice isn't
authoritarianism, quite the opposite actually.

They spend a lot of time focusing on Richard Spencer which is really strange
because there's always been fringe white supremacists out there and I don't
see how the internet has made Spencer any more relevant than the Nazis Geraldo
used to have on his show in the 80s.

~~~
KozmoNau7
The internet has allowed him and his ilk a bigger voice, platforms to more
efficiently spread their ideology and organize.

In the past, neonazis and fascists had to lay low and work in the shadows. But
the internet has a hell of a lot of shadows, and they're all accessible from
everywhere. They are also getting better at hiding their true intent behind
"identity" and "heritage" and other "soft" forms of their ideologies.

That is precisely why fascism is now a real actual threat to millions of
people, and the reason why we must never let down our guard, we have to root
them out and expose them for what they are.

~~~
malvosenior
> _The internet has allowed him and his ilk a bigger voice, platforms to more
> efficiently spread their ideology and organize._

This sounds like speculation and doesn't match what I've seen in real life. Do
you have any data to back up that white supremacy is more popular now than it
was in the past?

~~~
KozmoNau7
This is not something I'm simply making up, this is verified by countless
sources, who keep an eye on white nationalists and white supremacists, and
related far-right groups.

[https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/22/number-
white-a...](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/02/22/number-white-and-
black-hate-groups-surge-under-trump-extremist-tracking-organization-
says/363978002/)

[https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-
report/...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-
report/2018/2017-year-hate-and-extremism)

[https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/hate-groups-
spik...](https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/15/politics/hate-groups-spiked-
in-2016/index.html?no-st=1545649684)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/lens/documenting-rise-
whi...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/17/lens/documenting-rise-white-
nationalism-eugene-smith-grant.html)

It is also _blatantly_ obvious to anyone who spends any time at all on social
media or forums. White supremacist and alt-right viewpoints are sneaking in,
hiding under banners such as "appreciating heritage" or by trying to co-opt
historic traditions and symbols as ethnically exclusionary.

------
LolNoGenerics
The overlays totally ruin this site. Help!

------
outoftheabyss
The solution to this 'authoritarianism' then is banning opinions the author
disagrees with (Milo, Trump etc). Bravo

