So, who are the ones being duped by the Russians here? The end users or the American companies providing the platforms? Who set up this system in the first place?
What I've noticed over the past 25+ years as an internet user is that there are lot of companies out there promoting the illusion of safety. Every time someone gets banned or de-platformed, it plants a seed in people's minds that "someone is out there watching out for us" and that "we are safe." Otherwise, they shouldn't do it. If people perceived them as utilities instead of publishers, then people might be more wary.
So, who is doing this? Who writes these algorithms? Google or the Russians? If the Russians or other nefarious factions are using American companies and their algorithms to dupe Americans and influence the elections, whose fault is that? Why would a company like Google put our nation at such risk? And why should the government and the people of America allow it?
So, is it just a math competition? Is it "techie vs. techie"? That's what it seems like. The Russians always made the best chess players and mathematicians, so maybe they just have a certain knack for algorithms that somehow outmatches and outclasses the big shots of Silicon Valley.
Google, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook - maybe these guys just aren't all they're cracked up to be. Maybe they got too full of themselves and arrogant to the point that they're getting owned by the Russians, the Chinese, and even the Iranians. Maybe they just don't have what it takes to compete in open competition.
I think when the WWW first came into existence, most of the politicians probably didn't know that much about it. I don't think they knew how to regulate it, as a new technology, and some of the early companies might have taken advantage of that.
So, Big Tech benefited from the politicians not being tech savvy enough, but they apparently didn't realize or didn't count on people from other countries gaining enough tech savvy to compete with them. And since it crosses international boundaries and descends into the realm of a virtual criminal underground where there is no oversight, no government, no law, then we can see where there's a bit of a problem here.
Is that the situation we're dealing with here?
Even competition between criminal gangs is still within the parameters of capitalist competition in an open marketplace. Lawless or not, to try to deal with it on that basis would, as you say, lead to massive repercussions because it's gotten too big.
What some of this looks like is that, possibly, the arrogance and overconfidence of Big Tech has come back to bite them in the backside. Some of this seems like they're just upset and jealous because they're losing at their own game. Sounds like an ego problem. "Pride goeth before a fall."
Yes, I've noticed this. I notice it with Google and also when I open up a new tab in my browser and see the various links and newsfeeds. I see plenty of ads and sponsored content. Sometimes, it's obvious clickbait, but it's mostly just minor annoyances. The real world equivalent might be going to a public marketplace where various sellers are yelling out and hawking their wares. It can be noisy and obnoxious, but still legal.
However, I've learned to ignore and tune out a lot of the "junk" one might find when clicking on a page.
It's funny you mention Netflix. I have Spotify, and I sometimes chuckle when I see some of the selections they come up with in the personalized playlists they create based on my listening history. Sometimes they throw in songs I despised when they came out and were endlessly overplayed on the radio. My impression is that it seems to be formulated based on searching a few keywords, not on any kind of deep analysis. It all seems so superficial.
Well, again, I think it's much more complex than that. I recall similar arguments being made back when TV and movies were becoming more permissive and pushing the boundaries, particularly in the increase in scenes depicting sex and violence. Similar complaints were made about rock music. Tipper Gore (the wife of the man who invented the internet) went on a big crusade about how evil rock music was. People said it would ruin the children and undermine societal and family values.
While the history of the First Amendment in the U.S. has had its ups and downs, in more recent times, I've noted that most Americans tend to support erring on the side of free speech, even despite whatever risks there might be. Of course, it will always be an ongoing issue, and there's always the risk that our adversaries or potential adversaries could find ways to game our own system against us. Not just our tech, but also our system of laws and government.
As for those millions of Americans falling for the Q nonsense and the like, I can say that I've known a few among those millions of whom you speak. I've known people like that all my life, and they do abound. Maybe they're getting duped by an algorithm, but I know that many had deep-seated views even before the advent of the internet. Of course, I guess the people who write these algorithms must already know this.
In the real world, back in the old days of "realpolitik," what you're describing here would be known as "foreign agitation," and that's something that even George Washington warned against. It's the reason we wanted to eschew permanent alliances and foreign entanglements.
The technology may be new, but in essence, we're dealing with a political tactic which is very old. That's why a vigilant populace is an essential component of a robust and healthy democracy. I think what's happened is that too many people have grown complacent and take too much for granted. As a population, I don't think enough Americans are really vigilant anymore. They're not taking enough care. From the political leadership on down, there seems to be a sense of reckless myopia which other countries have obviously picked up on and have found a weakness.
Well, they have been known to ban people from their platforms. That issue has also gained some deal of attention, highlighted by Twitter banning Donald Trump which triggered Elon Musk's buyout of that platform. Twitter ostensibly did it because they thought it was the right thing to do, to protect the public from misinformation. YouTube has banned videos for much the same reason. The law supports their right to do this, as private business owners controlling what takes place on their own property. But by making a point of "protecting the public" like that, it's created the illusion of safety in the public's mind.
That seems to be a central point here, in that there's this vast number of naive, gullible people who fall prey to those who have learned the secrets of Big Tech and have figured out how to game the system which was set up by Big Tech.
