Summary:
Concerns About Social Media: The author draws parallels between concerns that led to discussions about banning TikTok in the U.S. and the current state of X (formerly Twitter).
X as a Threat: The author argues that X, under Elon Musk's ownership, poses a threat to Canadian democracy.
Increased Racism and Misinformation: The platform is described as having become more racist and a source of increasing misinformation since Musk's acquisition.
Content Moderation: Musk's leadership is criticized for gutting content moderation, unbanning alt-right figures, and turning the platform into a partisan propaganda machine.
"Free Speech Absolutism": Musk's defense of his actions using "free speech absolutism" is dismissed as untenable.
Canadian Law: Canadian freedom of expression law is noted to be more robust than that of the U.S., allowing for reasonable limits on speech.
Foreign Influence: The author suggests that X's current conduct would not be tolerated if it were aligned with a government like China.
Musk and Trump: Musk's close ties to Donald Trump and the potential for pro-Trump propaganda targeting Canadian voters are highlighted as a specific threat.
Echoes of the Broadcasting Act: The author draws a parallel to the Broadcasting Act of 1958, which restricted foreign ownership of broadcasters to protect Canadian discourse.
Message to Social Media Companies: Banning X would send a message to other social media companies about their responsibilities to Canadians.
Call to Action: The author urges the current Prime Minister to ban X before the next election.
Trump's annexation comments: Notes Trump's comments about annexing Canada.
X as an Anti-Canadian Propaganda Machine: Concludes that X should be treated as a real threat.
All anonymous social media threatens democracy.
I've done my best over the years, but regular people can't compete with the resources of a nation-state that decides to go on a social media influence campaign. No matter how right you are, it's near impossible to win over public opinion while having 20 times your numbers arguing against you, bandwagoning, and "helping" you by creating easily defeatable strawmans.
It's really hard to be outnumbered in an argument and then also argue with your "allies" that no, that's not what you meant. And when the average third party reads over all of that, what are the odds they pick out your small part? You need those odds to be around 70% or more, and they're just not.
And that's if you don't just get banned by hostile moderators. I don't know if you're aware of how most moderators are chosen, but it's not a job interview. And if it is a job interview, it's in Mandarin or Russian. Even if it's a legit mod, they're going to be one of those average third parties that have been subject to all those other arguments.
Today someone said, "Burn the (US) Democratic party to the ground". That's so hard to deal with. There are two parties in the US, and you chose that statement?!? The prevailing sentiment spreads. There are valid criticisms to make of the Democratic party, absolutely. Those criticisms needs to be targeted, well-researched, and specific if they're going to be helpful. So you're one or ten or a hundred people trying to improve the shitshow. Meanwhile there's a mix of natural sentiment, seeded sentiment, and fake sentiment making arguments all over the spectrum for your side, and their number in the tens or hundreds or thousands. And that's before you get to the actual opposing side, which has its own, similar nuances and outnumbering tactics.
Oh, and don't forget, you're not immune to the tide. They'll feed you false information that aligns with your arguments just to discredit you. Something like "Lottery winner pays 70% in tax. Only billionaire to be taxed properly." That's not how that works. They pay the same 37% or whatever top marginal rate everyone else does (and then state).
I think it's possible to have pseudo-anonymous social media, but some authority has to know who you are and where you're from. The giveaways of propaganda Twitter posts with Russian flags were a clumsy mistake and unlikely to continue voluntarily. Whoever that authority is will be uncomfortable for us, but the only reason we're comfortable without verification is that we're used to it.
there is no way I'd give up anonymity online.
that meme that circulated a couple days ago that showed all the ways bumper stickers make you a target is a great illustration. if my name was tied to everything I said online, I wouldn't say anything, since I'd just be making myself a target.
the solution is to spread media literacy, which is a pretty oblique attack on the problem, but it's a lasting solution.
It's more like a trusted authority would know your name and your pseudonym, and only your pseudonym and your country or county would display online.
They'd make sure you're not using ten accounts to reinforce each other, and make sure you're representing the country you say you are. Ideally, like medical records, the more detailed information would be secret.
Can you imagine people on /r/fednews, expressing what is going on if their true identities were known under the government that is in place right now? Trusted authorities can become the enemy in an instant as the US has shown to the world. All of a sudden what was considered safe expressions become thought crimes.
Hell imagine if that was how Twitter operated before the Musk purchase, and then all of a sudden him having access to that information as the trusted authority. Your concept of trusted authority relies on the trusted authority actually remaining something you believe can't be bought out or compromised.
Not to mention how often data breeches happen so trusted authority becomes everyone's information.
Can you imagine if anonymous social media was allowed to influence elections?
You'd fit right in working for Facebook.
no fucking way. even db0 doesn't know my real name.
You... do understand that the point is the problems with our social media and our geopolitics, right? It's not something that's gonna actually change.
the problem lies in media literacy. it's not only solvable, but it's "solved". taking away privacy is not the solution.
This sounds a lot like "I'm immune to propaganda".
this is a strawman