This was and is US policy. — boethius

You have already quoted the parts of the paper that make clear that it is analysing a course of action where the US intensifies it's efforts. I'm not sure who you're trying to fool by now acting like the paper was an analysis of the existing US policy. Yourself?

You seem to be literally trying to memory hole the entire start of the war in which NATO was the main justification. — boethius

I have repeatedly argued in this thread that NATO is a secondary concern to Russia and that there was no objective reason for the russian government to worry about Ukrainian NATO membership either in 2014 or in 2022.

The authors are clear: counter escalation by Russia (such as what we see) is damaging to US interests. — boethius

But Russia losing it's entire peacetime army and having to engage in several years of grinding war of attrition with huge military expenditures is damaging to russian interests. A scenario which the paper did not forecast on account of it seeming utterly absurd in 2019.

As I explain above, you continue and increase — boethius

Trying to sneak that in here even though you already admitted that you can't actually point to any increase.

And it's all documented in honestly surprising detail (such as Merkel just telling us the Minsk agreements were done in bad faith) so you need to practice your memory holing somewhere else because I see no reason to toss pretty clear and vivid memories that have supporting documentation down the memory hole. — boethius

This honestly just sounds like you're insane. As in mentally ill. This is the actual quote by Merkel:

"The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine,"

Quoted from russian news agency TASS by the way.

Does it say "we did it in bad faith"? No. Does it say "we did it to prepare for war"? No. Does it say "we were actually planning to break the agreement right from the start? Hell no.

So just what is wrong with your reading comprehension that you read into it all these things which are not actually there?

that a ragtag group of Nazis could take on the Russian army with sheer grit and tough guy tattoos. — boethius

Russia has lost its entire peacetime army roughly twice already. Ukraine is currently fighting not the army that invaded in 2022, not the army that came after it, but the one after that.

Did anyone in 2022 and before expect that Russia would loose so much equipment in Ukraine that it would significantly deplete it's gargantuan inheritance of soviet weapons?

I think the ragtag group of Nazis has done quite enough damage, and the war isn't over.

But interestingly US already suspended the treaty in February 2019 and the RAND paper is printed in 2019, so it's almost like this paper was written, someone read it, and the US withdrew from the INF treaty. — boethius

Yes, one could imagine that, but the Wikipedia page which you yourself quoted does also say that Trump had already announced his plan to withdraw in 2018. The Rand report was published in April 2019 by the way. But obviously an unpublished version may have been around long before then.

the US and Ukraine has admitted that money and arms disappearing is a significant problem — boethius

I trust more exact quotations with source than your manipulative summaries. Anyways, the fact that “the US and Ukraine has admitted that money and arms disappearing is a significant problem” is far from being an admission or constituting evidence for the claim “the US bribes all the Ukrainian elites with billions of untraceable funds and weapons as well as essentially de facto full immunity for laundering the money anywhere in the West”. Indeed, the temptation of embezzling resources for personal profit could be common in the Ukrainian military apparatus, and fought by the central government as it is in the Russian military apparatus (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/14/russian-corruption-probe-widens-as-senior-defence-official-arrested). That has nothing to do with “bribing”.
Besides untraceable funds and lost weapons may have a strategic purpose other than just bribing : like fuelling military operations far from rats in the US administration, and assuring plausible deniability over Ukrainian clandestine operations.
On the other side when talking about actual cases of bribing, since we are in a context of geopolitical competition, I would care more about the American bribing vs the Russian bribing.

These are not sweeping assertions. They are very specific assertions that the RAND experts make, all I'm adding since the war started (as the RAND document is written in 2019) is that what RAND describes in their document comes to pass: US did escalate with more arms assistance and more boasting that Ukraine would join NATO, this caused Russia to take more territory and killing more Ukrainians, which is obviously what is called a "war" (or then a "bigger war" if you want to start the war in 2014). — boethius

So you are telling me that: “These idiots were needed to start the war (i.e. keep shelling the Donbas for 8 years), and impose a terrorizing fascist dictatorship on the Ukrainian people in order to force people to the front (i.e. just straight up assassinate anyone engaging in critical thinking), as well as be propped up as elite soldier heroes for the part of Ukrainian society that actually wants to drink the coolaid” is a quotation or contains quotations from the RAND document? Are you crazy?

Biden doesn't need to bribe CNN journalists to do specific things. If you don't see that mainstream journalists are simply on "team elite" and say what their told to say, then there's little helping you. — boethius

Impeccable.

(such as Merkel just telling us the Minsk agreements were done in bad faith) — boethius

you have both Western leaders and Ukrainian leaders, including Angela Merkel simply coming out and saying the goal of the Minsk accords was to buy time to build up Ukrainian military capacity. — boethius

As for Russia's actions, they are a signatory and so also guarantor of the Minsk agreements, both Ukraine and Western leaders have publicly admitted those accords were done in bad faith with no intention of following them — boethius

"The 2014 Minsk agreement was an attempt to give time to Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger as can be seen today. The Ukraine of 2014-2015 is not the modern Ukraine,"


Quoted from russian news agency TASS by the way.

Does it say "we did it in bad faith"? No. Does it say "we did it to prepare for war"? No. Does it say "we were actually planning to break the agreement right from the start? Hell no. — Echarmion

Indeed not only Merkel has NOT admitted what he claims she has, but it can not even be inferred from what she actually said or equated with what she actually said: reinforcing Ukrainian military not only is not incompatible with pursuing a cease-fire but it could also be instrumental to preserving a cease-fire.
Concerning "bad faith" accusations, apparently it's more plausible that Putin (arguably an expert in disinformatia) was duped by the Europeans (however interested in pacifying the conflict to come back to do business as usual with Russia, reason why they have been already rejecting/postponing NATO membership for Ukraine all along), than that Europeans were taking countermeasures against Putin's palpable bad faith back then (having Putin already violated various international and bilateral treaties by illegally annexing the Crimean peninsula and committing acts of armed aggression against Ukraine, and being very much interested in keeping a conflict in Donbas alive, to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, or to allow further annexations). LOL.

So why the hell did Russia invade? — Echarmion

Started with an uncompromising decision in the Kremlin circle some time ago.
Probably not an overnight thing, but ended up an easy enough sell (among some folks).
:shrug:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-targets-western-russian-regions-with-drones-russian-officials-says-2024-09-18/

Zaluzhny has now come forward and openly stated he was against the Kursk incursion plan, but that Zelensky chose to go ahead with the plan anyway.

By now it is obvious the Kursk incursion has turned into a costly disaster, and predictably so. Committing scarce offensive reserves to an irrelevant part of the battlefront, to capture territory that one is unable to hold, while crucial parts of the battlefront are on the verge of collapse can't even be called amateurish - it's worse than that.

Here's what I said about it two months ago, on the first day of the incursion:

The previous Ukrainian offensive was a costly failure, and that's probably what this offensive will turn out as well since it makes zero military sense. — Tzeentch

Lucid, or just stating the obvious?

Remember also all the faux pundits who praised the Kursk 'masterstroke', or delivered supposedly 'balanced analysis' on what was clearly an astronomical blunder from a military perspective. Some of you desperately need better sources...


The question that remains to be answered is why Zelensky insisted on pushing the Kursk incursion. The answer is that this decision was almost certainly made for political reasons. Reasons which probably cannot be spoken out loud, which is why the Ukrainian president has so far failed to produce a credible explanation for his decision. Therefore we have to speculate.


My lingering sense is that the Kursk incursion was a scheme concocted in Washington, with as its purpose to make negotiations before November impossible.

Remember that at any point during the incursion, the Ukrainians could have said "This isn't working, let's cut our losses, pack up and leave", but that isn't happening. This means someone is getting what they want out of this debacle. I think that someone is Uncle Sam.

surprise surprise

Putin surely just loves rewriting history. Or changing it altogether.

Now mass graves known to be from Stalin's purges are now made to be mass graves of people killed by Finns at Sandarmokh. Also earlierly rehabilitated killed people are made again to be "enemies of the state".

Putin really has taken to heart and believes the saying that those who are in power rule history too.

Jesus. Which is why I'm never on Twitter/X/Elon's propaganda toy.

Which is why I'm never on Twitter/X/Elon's propaganda toy. — Benkei

Yes. @SophistiCat's post just shows that the Brazilian Supreme Court made an effective judicial decision to ban «X» (which reminds me of a deodorant brand) in Brazil. I wish the judicial authorities of our countries could follow the same path in the future.

It's crazy, but true. How Russia has gone back to the Soviet era is telling.

Jesus. Which is why I'm never on Twitter/X/Elon's propaganda toy. — Benkei

Actually, I would like that the bullshit is there to be shown... to those that refer to Putin's views and speak of them (here the historical interpretations) as truthful. I think it's really important to see what these global players (like Russia) really officially say.

Also do note it wasn't only the German Foreign Office, but the "readers added content".

For example Wikipedia still serves the truthful version of history, not the version promoted by the Russian ministry of foreign affars (MFA).

I think all social media is a blight on information sharing. Bullshit certainty exceeds truth and thoughtful doubt by a factor 1,000. As far as I'm concerned everybody should be deplatformed, Facebook, Instagram, X; the whole lot should be burned to the ground.

People sharing bullshit wouldn't be much of an issue if democracies such as ours would foster healthy public debate. Governments are trying to crackdown on social media precisely because it disrupts the echo chambers they're so keen on maintaining.

The reason governments can't foster healthy public debate is because they are peddling their own bullshit which then would not pass the test either.

So social media is a symptom of a deeper problem, and banning platforms, rather than solving anything, would just put the power in the hands of one bullshit-peddler over the other.

As far as I'm concerned everybody should be deplatformed, Facebook, Instagram, X; the whole lot should be burned to the ground. — Benkei

So NO facebook, Instagram, X?

:yikes:

People sharing bullshit wouldn't be much of an issue if democracies such as ours would foster healthy public debate. Governments are trying to crackdown on social media precisely because it disrupts the echo chambers they're so keen on maintaining. — Tzeentch

I don't think you have insight into how social media platforms function. They earn more money on engagement and ads, which means, going by psychology research, negative comments and posts generate more engagement while attention bait and rage bait generate more ad revenue.

So you have things backwards, the current form of public debates is a result of catering to how people interact on a large scale today, i.e how people act on social media. Changing public debates will not do a single thing towards changing how people interact. Only transforming social media from market driven algorithms into fostering an algorithm that is neutral for the sake of normal interactions, without any ads or market driven influencers consisting of the majority of views and interactions, as well as a clear line drawn on behaviors reflecting what a normal public space would allow behaviors to be would generate a true social media for the people and not corporations.

Take this forum as an example. Imagine if there was an algorithm that pushed just the most conflict ridden topics to the top and only the ones who pay for algorithm priority raises to the top, flooding the entire front page with their topics, most of them being rage baits in order to earn money through influencing people to buy a certain product. And the mods ignoring most of the obvious racism, threats of violence and bad behavior that we see on other platforms.

Be very thankful this forum is free of such bullshit and that the mods actually ban people for misbehavior. It's actually impossible to be on social media platforms today, and so this forum has for me become a sort of oasis for online debates and discussions as it's not driven by the bullshit that makes up most online communication today.

So NO facebook, Instagram, X? — ssu

I am of the opinion that there needs to be a neutral social media platform, funded by a UN type collaboration so that there's enough money to run the site, with no incentives to push market driven algorithms or influencer economies. A decentralized, but collaboratively driven global social media platform that features similar functionality as a combination of the major ones.

Since there's a lot of people, like me, who have been present on social media a lot in the past, but who have now seen its decline in quality with the rise of ads and bullshit and losing it's fundamental core values of connecting actual people; having a neutral alternative, that is backed by an open source, non-profit global collaboration for the purpose of being a space for the people and not market forces, would be an obvious choice to move over to.

If people choose to stay on the trash pile that is modern social media compared to that, then let them rot there in that brain rot until there's nothing left but a pile of meat with an inability to do anything outside consuming endless pages of AI produced engagement-trash.

The post was from Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs official account, in case that wasn't clear. Russian government agencies are not banned on X/Twitter, though Twitter is banned by the Russian government (same with Facebook and Instagram).

Russian government agencies are not banned on X/Twitter, though Twitter is banned by the Russian government — SophistiCat

This is true also for Iran. X/Twitter is banned in Iran and China, yet Iranian and Chinese state media outlets and officials have accounts on the platform.

Note that I acknowledge the problems of social media. I am pointing to a deeper problem which has to do with the way modern governments function.

[...] the current form of public debates is a result of catering to how people interact on a large scale today, i.e how people act on social media. — Christoffer

Nothing that happens on social media is what I would consider public debate, and certainly not healthy public debate.

And that's my point: healthy public debate is lacking.

One of the reasons it is lacking is because governments have forsaken their task of impartial news providers in favor of trying to create propaganda echo chambers.

Imagine if there was an algorithm that pushed just the most conflict ridden topics to the top and only the ones who pay for algorithm priority raises to the top, flooding the entire front page with their topics, most of them being rage baits in order to earn money through influencing people to buy a certain product. — Christoffer

That's almost exactly how government agenda-setting functions, hence my point about governments being fundamentally unable to solve this problem. In fact, giving them more power in this regard is more likely to make things worse.

Only transforming social media from market driven algorithms into fostering an algorithm that is neutral for the sake of normal interactions, without any ads or market driven influencers consisting of the majority of views and interactions, as well as a clear line drawn on behaviors reflecting what a normal public space would allow behaviors to be would generate a true social media for the people and not corporations. — Christoffer

For that you would need impartial decisionmakers, which we have just established the government is not.

Frankly, people flinging shit at each other on the market square doesn't concern me one bit. Orwellian, government-controlled echo chambers on the other hand concern me greatly.

Nothing that happens on social media is what I would consider public debate, and certainly not healthy public debate.

And that's my point: healthy public debate is lacking. — Tzeentch

I think you need to read what I wrote again. The public debates that should be the core of forming rational opinions in a democracy, have been taking on the behavior of how social media function, meaning the lack of healthy public debate is the cause of how social media operates by these large tech companies. It doesn't matter if the public debate is in the public or in traditional media or wherever, the attitudes, herd mentality biases and emotional fallacies have taken over as the primary focus for any debates.

Without social media, in its current form, influencing and programming the public into a toxic debate behavior, you will have healthy public debates showing up. It's the rejection of these toxic market algorithm-driven social media platforms that will lead to better care for democracy.

We already had a major problem with traditional media channels that were reporting biased news, but nowadays it's everyone's behavior due to how these algorithms push people into narratives that align with what makes most money for the tech giants. They simply do not care about healthy democracy until war is on their door step. Because these companies have zero intellectual insight into the broad consequences of their actions, as proved by documentaries like The Social Dilemma and thinkers like Lanier.

That's almost exactly how government agenda-setting functions — Tzeentch

What does what I said have to do with that? I'm talking about how algorithms on social media corrupts the perception of knowledge and change people's behavior into a corrupted mass herd with a lost ability to form a healthy democratic movement.

For that you would need impartial decisionmakers, which we have just established the government is not. — Tzeentch

It becomes impartial by it's decentralized nature, open source structure and global form. You can only be truly impartial by including as many different voices as possible so that it forms a broad consensus, otherwise it will always lean towards someone specific. And if the funding is a neutral fund that cannot be infused by lobbyists and alike, but rather a form of global tax for every nation in the UN to fund, it will both be a very low cost for the world, but also impossible for any government to influence to the point of corruption. Add to that even further structures of how to democratically rotate leaders of it's operation, have impartial oversight reviewers, and it becomes even less prone to corruption.

There are forms of governing that are less prone to corruption and which enforce more rational decision making. Don't make the mistake of using singular government examples to dismiss ideas of functioning politics. There's no alternative to handling society than some form of governing, so it's more about systemic changes to advocate for better functioning democracies. And the form I described the global and neutral social media system is not governed by one government. I'm not sure why you interpreted it in that way.

Frankly, people flinging shit at each other on the market square doesn't concern me one bit. — Tzeentch

Well it should. You seem to think that the people and the government exist on two different planets. They're intertwined and push and pull on each other.

The reason I point out the flaws of government is because you seem to be arguing in favor of cracking down on social media, which would have to be done by governments.

Modern governments unfortunately have become part of the problem, and therefore cannot be trusted to solve it.

They could help solve this issue by creating platforms where constructive discussions can take place (as they have done in the past), but modern governments show no interest in doing so.

Why?

Because modern governments have gone all-in on propaganda (now euphemistically called 'narrative'), and they don't want their propaganda to be questioned on authoritative platforms.

In fact, governments don't want their propaganda questioned on any platform if they had their way, and that's of course exactly what they would strive for - an iron hold on public opinion à la China - a monopoly on "truth".

you seem to be arguing in favor of cracking down on social media — Tzeentch

Am I? I seem to promote that we should crack down on the predatory algorithms that these tech companies enforce on us in their social media platforms, not the construct of social media itself as I'm further pointing out that we need social media platforms free from market-driven intentional or unintentional manipulation of our perception.

Modern governments unfortunately have become part of the problem, and therefore cannot be trusted to solve it. — Tzeentch

Which government are you talking about? You're just summarizing all governments in one big pile? Things are more nuanced than that.

They could help solve this issue by creating platforms where constructive discussions can take place (as they have done in the past), but modern governments show no interest in doing so. — Tzeentch

Governments as singular entities cannot do this without the risk of corruption. It should be a global effort and collaboration since social media is a global function.

Because modern governments have gone all-in on propaganda (now euphemistically called 'narrative'), and they don't want their propaganda to be questioned on authoritative platforms. — Tzeentch

Can't do propaganda like that if you have a global collaboration and decentralized and open source nature of the system.

In fact, governments don't want their propaganda questioned on any platform if they had their way, and that's of course exactly what they would strive for - an iron hold on public opinion à la China - a monopoly on "truth". — Tzeentch

Yes, that's why the concept is to exist under a UN movement rather than any single government. You think the corporate interests of someone like Elon Musk and his conspiracy theory narratives is better than any governments handling social media? Both are equally problematic.

Which is why both singular governments, like China's own platforms and tech companies platforms should be taken down in order to replace them with globalized social media platforms that are decentralized, open source and handled by human rights overseers and directives.

Believing in social media as they are constructed now, buying into Musk's free speech absolutism etc. is ignoring how current social media operates and how it skews people's world view to the point of societal collapse. We already have elections being manipulated through it, even without any governments owning their functions. I don't think you're looking at this with enough scrutiny.

, outlaw it all?

"Putin proposes new rules for using nuclear weapons"
source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yjej0rvw0o

I am of the opinion that there needs to be a neutral social media platform, funded by a UN type collaboration so that there's enough money to run the site, with no incentives to push market driven algorithms or influencer economies. A decentralized, but collaboratively driven global social media platform that features similar functionality as a combination of the major ones. — Christoffer

Think about this for a moment.

What do you think a neutral platform would be like?

Would a UN funded / UN regulated platform start regulating what the foreign ministry of a member state (who is in the Security Council) would put out? Of course not.

A neutral platform means that all the propaganda and the biased views would be there, because the platform is neutral.The algorithms work usually to find the stuff that people want to engage in. Classic example: if a person searches for "Egypt", does he or she want to know about a) the current political situation of the country, b) the country as a travel destination or c) the history of the country? Your prior searches likely influence what you get, which is the "market driven algorithm".

In my view the micromanagement of any platform simply would have be with clear laws that limit our "freedom of speach", not with governments hypocritically being for "freedom of speach" yet then demanding behind closed doors to push down some political actors etc. This is actually what those corporations in the first place wanted. Clear legal laws what they could then check on. Naturally Western governments wouldn't give that, because there's "free speech"!

Or the worst with activists in the corporations using the platforms to attack people they don't like.

Since there's a lot of people, like me, who have been present on social media a lot in the past, but who have now seen its decline in quality with the rise of ads and bullshit and losing it's fundamental core values of connecting actual people; having a neutral alternative, that is backed by an open source, non-profit global collaboration for the purpose of being a space for the people and not market forces, would be an obvious choice to move over to. — Christoffer

This site itself is an example of what we call social media. And it is in my view a fairly neutral platform. The bannings are quite reasonable.

What I think has happened is that governments around the World have simply adapted to the new media and discovered it's potential. And I think any media doesn't itself have fundamental core values. Only people have those. Medias just give people what they actually want, not the polished image of what people answer when asked "what ought to be the social media be like?".

What do you think a neutral platform would be like? — ssu

replace them with globalized social media platforms that are decentralized, open source and handled by human rights overseers and directives. — Christoffer

That form of neutral. Adhering to the values that underpin the core value of the UN, to the actual understanding of how freedom of speech as a concept is protected, and not the skewed corrupted use of the concept that most people use as excuses for spreading hate and vile behavior.

This site itself is an example of what we call social media. And it is in my view a fairly neutral platform. The bannings are quite reasonable. — ssu

And what rules and values does this site aspire to? This forum pretty much aspire to remove the hateful, vile and propaganda spammers. All in the name of basic decency. It also has rules of engagement in which endless trash posting isn't allowed.

Basically it acts like normal society with healthy freedom of speech. It's the disconnected behavior between online and offline that creates monsters of people who are decent offline. Treating the online space as a real offline place with the same rules and social cues we have normally makes things much more healthy.

Medias just give people what they actually want, not the polished image of what people answer when asked "what ought to be the social media be like?". — ssu

Not when used as a business of the user being the product. Social media that rely on ads and algorithms for ads aren't websites for the people and users, it's for the companies that make up the cash flow for these tech companies. The business is tailoring attention towards these ads so the revenue goes up. So any algorithm and function of social media today is among the most advanced algorithms in computer science, carefully, over the course of many years in use, fine-tuned for the purpose of increasing addictive behavior in the user in order to keep their eyes on the ads and paying customers needs.

That's why I'm proposing social media free of it. Anyone who thinks that media is for the people if it's formed around ad revenue, don't understand how that business actually works.

You either have government funded public service systems and media. In low corrupted nations this can work and be neutral depending on how the laws and regulations are between state and that media outlet. But in many cases and in many nations, public service media is used for propaganda purposes. So it's not a good fit for social media to be funded by a single government.

Media funded social media is what we have now and it's obvious how malicious and negative its functions are for the people. Any other perspective would be living under a rock the last decade.

So, the only way to be able to have a social media space that is actually for the people, would be to have it under the core principles of the people as a whole. The only form of global collaboration that isn't a form of business transaction, is the UN and the UN have neutral organizations that have the purpose of overseeing the core values of human rights on a global scale. Manifesting a cooperation between nations to fund and drive a social media that is detached from business and from any single government influence, on the basis of human rights values and a normal understanding of freedom of speech, would be the only way to handle such a system.

The core here is to remove single government control of social media, and to remove market interest that make the users into products rather than the purpose of the site.

And of course, some nations don't want this human rights-based social media, since it's a threat to their state control. But that battle is a losing one since people will always find ways of reaching out beyond government control. And without the focus on ads and products, the algorithms won't push endless trash and may very well push the right kind of grass root movements that help people organize against state violence in these nations.

We've seen examples of how social media helped arming people with information and quickly organizing against governments. Imagine how it would be on social media that removes all the endless trash and ads obscuring the actual people and their movements.

At least I'm arguing for a solution to the problems of current social media platforms.

That form of neutral. Adhering to the values that underpin the core value of the UN, to the actual understanding of how freedom of speech as a concept is protected, and not the skewed corrupted use of the concept that most people use as excuses for spreading hate and vile behavior. — Christoffer

You do understand that then denying atrocities that have happened is totally normal for this neutral platform, and it simply doesn't change anything. People have to be informed to weed out the facts from the propaganda. I really don't see much difference, actually. Craving for a neutral platform really doesn't make a difference.

And what rules and values does this site aspire to? This forum pretty much aspire to remove the hateful, vile and propaganda spammers. All in the name of basic decency. It also has rules of engagement in which endless trash posting isn't allowed. — Christoffer

And is something wrong with that? Without it, people simply move away after enough ad hominem attacks and hence if someone simply wants to shut down this forum, they'll achieve their objective in no time. I've seen this happen once when the owner of a site believed in "free speech" and didn't moderate. End of story: the site was "hijacked" or dominated by one political faction (the owner didn't approve of) and simply shut down the debate/comment section altogether.

It's the disconnected behavior between online and offline that creates monsters of people who are decent offline. — Christoffer

This is totally true. This is the weird and unfortunate reality of social media. At worst it might be that we start to change even our real world exchanges with other people into the kind that are so popular in the social media, because people don't care so much anymore even if they flame in their own name.

That's why I'm proposing social media free of it. — Christoffer

Who pays for it? The one that does, holds power over the media. That fact of reality you simply cannot disregard. UN? That member countries put their tax money to the media?

First, the UN organization can itself be corrupt. If someone then wants to criticize the UN organization responsible of this free neutral social media, how if then the organization shuts down such hate speech.

Secondly, member countries will try to influence directly this "neutral" media. Many countries would just love to have the control just what is determined to "hate speech" and what is "supporting terrorism". Now it's defined usually from what country the media is from.

You either have government funded public service systems and media. In low corrupted nations this can work and be neutral depending on how the laws and regulations are between state and that media outlet. — Christoffer

In Finland we had a government funded public service that had a monopoly for example of the radio waves until 1985. Then the first commercial radio started. Guess what: young people didn't listen to the radio prior to that while they now are and have been for a long time the largest group that listens to the radio. What was the reason? They was ONE radio program ONCE per week playing Pop & rock music prior to 1985. And I'm not making this up. Yet for the public broadcast corporation didn't understand why people didn't listen to radio anymore in the early 1980's.

This is the actual reality of a government monopoly of a media. And don't think it will be different under the UN.

And I think you should understand the real implications of your proposal: An UN mandated social media won't start to compete with the commercial medias... it would be changed by law with the commercial medias being disbanded by legal actions. Because it would be whimsical to think that some UN lead media would have the ability to compete with the other medias and somehow obtain now a monopoly situation just by free competition.

Hence basically your idea just comes down to squashing free speech and make it more bureaucratic.

The core here is to remove single government control of social media, and to remove market interest that make the users into products rather than the purpose of the site. — Christoffer

How on Earth you think that will happen with your proposal? Sovereign states do understand just how important and crucial public discourse is. Some give more leeway to this, some are totally paranoid about it. I really doubt that this would be a function that the UN as an organization could handle well.

And of course, some nations don't want this human rights-based social media, since it's a threat to their state control. But that battle is a losing one since people will always find ways of reaching out beyond government control. — Christoffer

NO IT'S NOT!
It's not a "losing battle". I would argue that it's the other way around: government's around the world now understand the new media quite well and can use it well to spread their own propaganda and disinformation. I do agree that earlier in the turn of the Milennium, many governments were still quite clueless about the new media, but that is history now.

It ought to be quite evident that people can tow the official line happily, especially if the subject is about national security, natural importance and so on. I find this is a battle that the naive IT geeks who thought that the World Wide Web would free people from the shackles of government control have already lost quite dramatically. It just took a couple of decades for the governments around the World to understand how to control the new media.

Besides, people will try to find ways to reach out beyond government control when government is totally obvious and basically ludicrous. Every Russian knows what the "freedom of speech" is in Russia when you can get jail time for saying that a war is "a war". But try making the argument on a Finn, a Swede or a Swiss. They can understand that their governments can push one agenda or another, but they aren't worried about their freedoms being trampled.

And without the focus on ads and products, the algorithms won't push endless trash and may very well push the right kind of grass root movements that help people organize against state violence in these nations. — Christoffer

Again something that people said sometime in the 1990's.

We've seen examples of how social media helped arming people with information and quickly organizing against governments. — Christoffer

If there's a will, there's a way. And today governments understand how social media can be used to attack against them. And can use quite similar tactics themselves.

I think I understand your objective, @Christoffer, but as @Tzeentch said (whom usually I disagree with), it does sound like you are promoting cracking down social media. You likely don't mean that, but that is how governments see your proposal.

You do understand that then denying atrocities that have happened is totally normal for this neutral platform — ssu

How is that an answer to what I clarified?

And is something wrong with that? — ssu

Why would it be? Why do you interpret it as wrong when I've lifted this forum as good example of neutral praxis that would conform with the same ideals that a UN based social media would do?

This is totally true. This is the weird and unfortunate reality of social media. At worst it might be that we start to change even our real world exchanges with other people into the kind that are so popular in the social media, because people don't care so much anymore even if they flame in their own name. — ssu

It wouldn't be if the algorithms didn't cater to conflict and negativity, since the research concluded that such behaviors drive attention and interactions more, which is key to ad revenues. Removing the concept of having the users as the product for the real customers (brands and marketing) and focusing on the users as the main and only focus of the platform would drastically lower the level of toxicity that occurs online. This has been researched and reported on for the last ten years so it's an obvious conclusion as to what action would fix most of the problem.

And this forum is such an example. Without any need to push ads and engagement, it kind of keeps itself in check on the basic level of human decency, even if we're operating under pseudonyms and avatars. The forum moderators lift up good behavior and shut down the bad. Social media does the opposite as much as they can without getting public criticism.

Who pays for it? The one that does, holds power over the media. That fact of reality you simply cannot disregard. UN? That member countries put their tax money to the media? — ssu

Yes, why not? Managing a social media without the purpose of pooling billions into profit means that the taxes for nations are miniscule for the output of good it will do to the world. Some nations will of course object and refuse, but there's enough nations that see the benefit to keep the social media platform afloat. And each nation might even want to join paying for it in order to be part of influencing the platform management. The more the less governed by anything other than consensus.

First, the UN organization can itself be corrupt. If someone then wants to criticize the UN organization responsible of this free neutral social media, how if then the organization shuts down such hate speech. — ssu

You're implying a totalitarian takedown of free speech criticizing the platform, which there's no evidence for would happen. Remember, the UN isn't consisting of just some top people, it is consisting of multiple organizations and overseers. The more parties involved, the more nations involved, the less it can be corrupted. Even if some are, it wouldn't equal the entirety being corrupt. Such ideas just sound like some kind of genetic or slippery slope fallacy. The UN still operates far better than the uncertainty of having singular governments or entities in control, which is the state of things now looking at both global commercial social media platforms and state owned like in China.

Secondly, member countries will try to influence directly this "neutral" media. Many countries would just love to have the control just what is determined to "hate speech" and what is "supporting terrorism". Now it's defined usually from what country the media is from. — ssu

And the consensus from which the UN operates by, is what? So far, adhering to human rights have proven to have more cases of being on the side of good morals than any specific agendas that individual governments have had. They can try and influence all they want, but the nice thing about the UN is still that they force consensus and there are usually more morally good people than bad. The worst things can get is "stupid", but "stupid" generally bounce back and self-correct better than immorality.

In Finland we had a government funded public service that had a monopoly for example of the radio waves until 1985. Then the first commercial radio started. Guess what: young people didn't listen to the radio prior to that while they now are and have been for a long time the largest group that listens to the radio. What was the reason? They was ONE radio program ONCE per week playing Pop & rock music prior to 1985. And I'm not making this up. Yet for the public broadcast corporation didn't understand why people didn't listen to radio anymore in the early 1980's.

This is the actual reality of a government monopoly of a media. And don't think it will be different under the UN.

And I think you should understand the real implications of your proposal: An UN mandated social media won't start to compete with the commercial medias... it would be changed by law with the commercial medias being disbanded by legal actions. Because it would be whimsical to think that some UN lead media would have the ability to compete with the other medias and somehow obtain now a monopoly situation just by free competition. — ssu

You're comparing the wrong things here. You speak of a single government, you speak of mainstream media that's about a binary output and receiver. Social media is nothing of this.

And yes, I think that social media should be illegal for commercially based tech companies to have the right to operate. Social media has become an infrastructure and no public would want the same operating methods of these companies to apply to other forms of infrastructure or communication. We don't operate telephones on the standards of engagement bait and ad-revenue. We aren't pooled by force into public squares in which people get into fights that grabs our attention while officials walk around with physical ad signs. The absurdity of how social media operates for something so integral to our modern world is clear once realizing the problems of tech owned social media.

Hence basically your idea just comes down to squashing free speech and make it more bureaucratic. — ssu

This conclusion does not follow the argument you made. There's nothing of what I propose that leads to squashing free speech, quite the opposite, since there's no single entity in control of it, but a collective of the world, using open source standards and by the guidelines of human rights, it takes free speech seriously and not in the pseudo-way that bullshitters like Elon Musk or Zuckerberg do.

"Free speech" is a concept that people have lost an understanding of. There's no such thing as free speech absolutism or anything like that. Free speech today has become an acronym for excuses made by those who just want to spew out their hate, not actually talk criticism. Actually, it's the promoters of free speech absolutism like Elon Musk who generally silence people who criticize them or something they like. So it's the people who scream about free speech the most who seem the most keen on suppressing it.

The beauty of collaboration and consensus among the many is that these morons like Elon Musk become suppressed in their psychopathic oxymoronic attempts to abuse the term "free speech".

What leads to free speech is keeping platform rules open source, always under scrutiny by the consensus of the world, under the banner of basic human rights. Free speech, ACTUAL free speech is part of those human rights. Tech companies do not operate under such ideals, they use the terms in marketing strategies for their own agendas.

How on Earth you think that will happen with your proposal? Sovereign states do understand just how important and crucial public discourse is. Some give more leeway to this, some are totally paranoid about it. I really doubt that this would be a function that the UN as an organization could handle well. — ssu

By concluding social media as an communication infrastructure of the world and not a business for companies to exploit.

NO IT'S NOT!
It's not a "losing battle". I would argue that it's the other way around: government's around the world now understand the new media quite well and can use it well to spread their own propaganda and disinformation. I do agree that earlier in the turn of the Milennium, many governments were still quite clueless about the new media, but that is history now. — ssu

Once again, I underscore that a global platform is under the scrutiny of the consensus and being an open platform. The openness in this means that any attempt to take control is impossible without it being seen by the public of the world.

I do not produce arguments out of some conspiracy of some cabal operating in the UN. There's more proof of corruption for how things operate today through tech companies and individual states than any notion that a consensus and collaboration on a global scale with an open source structure would ever lead to such corruption. That's just conspiracy theories as the basis for an argument.

It ought to be quite evident that people can tow the official line happily, especially if the subject is about national security, natural importance and so on. I find this is a battle that the naive IT geeks who thought that the World Wide Web would free people from the shackles of government control have already lost quite dramatically. It just took a couple of decades for the governments around the World to understand how to control the new media. — ssu

You're still speaking of individual governments, not how a consensus would operate. The only reason the UN can't do much on the global scale is because they don't have such power. But if nations in the west start to primarily ban commercially driven social media with the intent that we globally build such an infrastructure as a replacement, then they will be able to as there won't be enough revenue for the tech companies to operate social media sites.

A closed infrastructure, regardless of being controlled by an individual state or a tech company is still more in control of individual agendas than a global collaboration in an open source structure. That should be obvious.

Besides, people will try to find ways to reach out beyond government control when government is totally obvious and basically ludicrous[/i] — ssu

Yes, but what does that have to do with this? You're creating scenarios that doesn't fit how it would be so for a globally consensus-governed social media platform, but rather mix together individual totalitarian states with how the UN operates. The argument seems oblivious from the nuances here, a form of binary perspective of a governing body always being corrupt and totalitarian, even when the structure prevents such corruption from manifesting, or at least preventing it far better than tech companies and individual governments do.

Again something that people said sometime in the 1990's. — ssu

You disagree with the assessment that ridding social media of these algorithms and market driven operations would make for a better public space online? It's not an ideology, it's the truth of how social media affects society today, it's research backed knowledge, not some IT-people idealist ideas from the 90s.

If there's a will, there's a way. And today governments understand how social media can be used to attack against them. And can use quite similar tactics themselves. — ssu

Yes, so remove individual state influence and tech companies power over them. It's delusional to think that such operation is better preventing such malicious control, than an open platform that's globally collaborated on and open to scrutiny from anyone.

Power, legacy, influence? Maybe.

Russia-Ukraine War: Putin's Quest To Revive USSR? The Real Story Behind Russia's Expansion
^{— Jessica Goel, Akash Verma, Abhishek Vadav · India Today · Sep 27, 2024 · 3m:52s}

Why would it be? Why do you interpret it as wrong when I've lifted this forum as good example of neutral praxis that would conform with the same ideals that a UN based social media would do? — Christoffer

I don't, so we agree. But you asked "And what rules and values does this site aspire to?" so I thought you have some problem with this.

But notice that this site isn't important. It has a tiny number of active members and a small number of people that read it. With the UN site, we are talking about a far more serious issue, which many sovereign states hold to be of extreme importance.

It wouldn't be if the algorithms didn't cater to conflict and negativity, since the research concluded that such behaviors drive attention and interactions more, which is key to ad revenues. — Christoffer

The algorithms cater to what people are interested in: more people are interested, the better. And this is totally normal and can be seen for example from ordinary media, from radio, from television etc. People aren't interested in conversations where everybody agrees on the issues and perhaps differ only in nuances. Nope. A heated debate is what people want to follow. Even here in PF this is evident: the threads where people disagree get the most comments.

You're implying a totalitarian takedown of free speech criticizing the platform, which there's no evidence for would happen. — Christoffer

Perhaps not a "totalitarian takedown", but the kind of "free speech" as you and I understand isn't something that many sovereign states accept. Sorry, but that's the truth.

The Soviet Union was the perfect example of this. Did it accept the human rights declarations the UN made? Of course, but it did so by influencing just what was tolerable and what was hate speech. The simple fact is that UN makes decisions usually in the fashion of a consensus. Hence totalitarian states can influence the decisions here. For example Turkey (Turkiye) might insist that any talk supporting the Kurdish cause is terrorism. Or for China talking about the Uighurs.

It's the simple fact as with news sites: it is a real blessing that you do have news documentaries in English done by different countries, DW (Germany), France24 (France), Al Jazeera English (Qatar). One single entity would be an absolute disaster. And even if it's propaganda, I would still like to have the ability to watch Russia Today on Youtube.

"Free speech" is a concept that people have lost an understanding of. There's no such thing as free speech absolutism or anything like that. Free speech today has become an acronym for excuses made by those who just want to spew out their hate, not actually talk criticism. — Christoffer

Nah.

There's just the idiots that engage in the stupid culture war on both sides. These people are partisan people, whose arguments for "free speech" can be easily checked simply by taking an example of a heated issue, like supporting Palestine etc. Both on the left and on the right there are these people who think of themselves as being open for discussion, yet aren't actually open for discussion. With issues that they consider "dog whistles", these people show immediately their true colors.

Once again, I underscore that a global platform is under the scrutiny of the consensus and being an open platform. The openness in this means that any attempt to take control is impossible without it being seen by the public of the world. — Christoffer

What is the openness of having just ONE social media site?

Again, you don't seem to notice how the UN works. If a reasonable amount of member states (or the permanent security council members) don't want something, the UN has to adapt to it. Just look at this simple quote from a UN-webpage on democracy:

The UN does not advocate for a specific model of government but promotes democratic governance as a set of values and principles that should be followed for greater participation, equality, security and human development.

(see Global Issues / Democracy (UN)

Well, the problem is that actually democracy is a specific model of government. It has to be in order to function correctly. Yet China, Russia and previously Marxist-Leninist Soviet Union had no problem with the UN Charter, because the UN was toothless. Hence in your example of an UN controlled social media, countries simply would ask to ban discussion they aren't OK with and the UN likely would follow them. Hence it won't simply work.

I do not produce arguments out of some conspiracy of some cabal operating in the UN. There's more proof of corruption for how things operate today through tech companies and individual states than any notion that a consensus and collaboration on a global scale with an open source structure would ever lead to such corruption. — Christoffer

That's why it's important that there are different states that can have their own media. It's something obvious in the classical media landscape.

You're still speaking of individual governments, not how a consensus would operate. The only reason the UN can't do much on the global scale is because they don't have such power. — Christoffer

I agree with you that the UN doesn't have power. Hence your argument is really absurd. UN doesn't work as a Federal entity. It isn't even a Confederacy. It's just a loose club where something can happen when no Great Power isn't stepped on and the issue isn't part of the global competition.

We have seen first how absolutely meaningless was the consensus of the League of Nations. And we have seen how impotent the UN has been and will be. Hence why to think as somehow everything would change?

Yes, but what does that have to do with this? — Christoffer

It has to do with this when people are OK with their life and the way things are, they will likely listen to what their governments say to them.

You disagree with the assessment that ridding social media of these algorithms and market driven operations would make for a better public space online? — Christoffer

Firstly, you do have to understand that "algorithms" is the way how the whole thing works. If algorithms are used really to limit your capability to get information (as in China), that's one thing. Take your own computer and google images of "Tianamen square". I'm pretty confident that people in China will get another kinds of images.

That ought to be the first issue when the "Child lock" is given to everybody as mandatory.

Yes, so remove individual state influence and tech companies power over them. It's delusional to think that such operation is better preventing such malicious control, than an open platform that's globally collaborated on and open to scrutiny from anyone. — Christoffer

To think that the UN would be this white knight saving us all is very delusional too. It won't work. Far better is to have outlets from different countries, different news agencies and so on.

Just like in the traditional media.