I find both interesting and terrifying the dual-entanglement of modern technology: how the Internet, AI, quantum computing, and satellites provide huge economic growth and utility to the world while at the same time making war deadlier and more dangerous than ever. In the Cold War era everybody sat down and said war was too dangerous to fight anymore because of nuclear proliferation, but then found ways around that by fighting proxy and economic wars in non-nuclear areas.
Cyberwarfare is a continuation of this, allowing countries to attack each other by knocking out infrastructure and spreading disinformation. I'm scared of the instability and havoc these new developments will wreak on our world. I hope leaders have the foresight to predict and manage the harm these technologies can cause, maybe with treaties banning the proliferation of dangerous cyber capability. The world failed to do this in WW1, but was somewhat successful with nukes.
I cannot help but wonder if a free and open internet should only exist within national borders, and between treaty partners, but severely restricted, monitored, or even cut-off between rival nations.
It was the rise of information sharing that finally ended the Cold War. I would argue that inherently unfair closed internets will lead to a modern "hot war." Because when you get trapped in bubbles of positive feedback loops, with only your own propaganda being spun up like hyperdrives, you can't ameliorate extremist views with actual realities.
I'd agree with you but the scale and automation of cheap, targeted misinformation campaigns can be highly destabilizing, and can even be used to whip up animosity of the public against allies. No, I do not think a simple analysis will do in this case.
Just to give a counter point to this - I honestly think that the UK (where I live) would be better off if it didn't inherit services such as Twitter, Facebook, etc from the US. Certainly in my circles of friends and family all social media does is spread misinformation and rumours. Schools use Facebook for connecting with parents, which I think is pretty lazy of them and we should have a national system for this.
Obviously there are some services that are great for the UK which are American (AWS?), so if there were nation-only Internets then it would be good to pick and choose which services from other nations you could use in your own.
Is the problem really that Facebook et al are American, though, if the term even applies to multinationals?
Say a company based in the UK had the exact same basic business plan of collecting your data and selling it to micro-targeting ad agencies and political campaigns. Would it not have the same prime metric of "engagement" and stimulate the same rage bait and limbic system responses? Would people not end up in ideological rabbit holes? Would it then not be equally problematic? What if said company had a monopoly?
Now that you guys have left the EU, is the UK regulatory framework anywhere close to the GDPR? Are there other factors that would prevent it happening in your back yard?
In other, tongue in cheek words: what are you on about, mate?
>> Is the problem really that Facebook et al are American
Kinda. American's seem to take capitalism to the extreme (honestly I do like America and Americans). I'm all for an open market but there are limits that we should enforce.
>> Say a company based in the UK had the exact same basic business plan of collecting your data and selling it to micro-targeting ad agencies and political campaigns. Would it not have the same prime metric of "engagement" and stimulate the same rage bait and limbic system responses? Would people not end up in ideological rabbit holes?
Yes - but I don't think those companies would end up as oligarchies, as Facebook / Twitter / etc have become, due to the "national" limitation that they would endure. They wouldn't be able to influence the elections in other countries. Competition would be easier (you try starting a company to compete with Twitter, it can sway public opinion to stay top-dog).
To be clear, I meant internet should remain open between allied States, with no mention of wealth, but do imply some level of enforcement responsibility.
Cyberwarfare is a continuation of this, allowing countries to attack each other by knocking out infrastructure and spreading disinformation. I'm scared of the instability and havoc these new developments will wreak on our world. I hope leaders have the foresight to predict and manage the harm these technologies can cause, maybe with treaties banning the proliferation of dangerous cyber capability. The world failed to do this in WW1, but was somewhat successful with nukes.