Re: NewSpeak: "Fragmented Internet"
The problem of centralization of power in government is that when a change of government occurs those same laws & practices that we good when the govt was "your people" become tools of repression in the hands of their opponents.
So IMO govt power, economic power, judicial power, and religious power (which includes most kinds of movements that see themselves as above the law) need to be balanced against each other, with this separation protected by a constitution.
My own experience is of South Africa during apartheid, when certain kids of discussion were shut down by social pressure / risk of getting fired for the wrong politics (if you worked for the govt or a govt enterprise), on radio and TV broadcaster controlled by the govt, etc.
But SA had and still has a string culture of independent newspapers that drive the government nuts because the message can't be controlled. While what they said was subject to censorship, it was mostly after-the-fact (you said something true but embarrassing, so we going to shut you down). Due the number of newspapers (which is where the "fragmented internet" analogy comes in) they could *all* be shut down.
And there was one area where the govt never managed to break down the separation of powers - the judiciary. Judges scrupulously applied the law to protect independent voices and treat anti-apartheid activists fairly. No, they didn't try to bend the law, but also they didn't hand down judgements that would be an easy way out for them personally.
Based on the above, I'm deeply suspicious of handing any more power to governments, especially as in the Zuma era we have seen the post-Apartheid ANC government apply repressive laws to conceal their own corruption.
So... the monopolists? Especially when they are aligned with a political faction...? My lesson from growing up in SA is to "sup with a long spoon", but also to use multiple news outlets, understand their political connections and bias, and try to synthesize an approximation to the truth that underlies the varied twisted takes. What gets left out from media reports is often more interesting than what goes in, because that says a lot about the objectivity of the source. And if I spot a "four legs good, two legs bad" type argument then that source drops off my list.
Due to this background the free-for-all nature of today's twitter suits me better than the Meta monopoly & enforced conformity. And after some false starts twitter's algorithm has stopped giving me tweets from political nutters (of both sides) and has been trained to specialize in historic aircraft and military pics. Having made a career in the computer business I'm deeply suspicious of monopolies & for that reason I'm steering clear of anything in the metaempire.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
