Seems to be a trend with multiple countries now, there was an article about Russia "unplugging" recently. More nails in the coffin of a borderless internet.
China is the shining example that there’s a whole lot of sovereignty to be gained and not
much of anything to be lost by cutting off American tech firms. My guess is that the internet divides along old geopolitical lines: the Anglosphere, continental Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia, China and its sphere of influence, India, etc.
The same thing was said about China. Furthermore, it's likely that foreign tech companies will just bend over backwards to self-censor, without having to resort to a GFW. They wouldn't want to be shut out of both China and India.
Economic effects don't matter during election time. The central parliament will be dissolved in about three months, and there's going to be the world's biggest democratic election in the month of May. That aside, those in power also gain from such policies.
Fake news does need to be tackled, people in India have been lynched. Although the article tries to make the deathes seem lighter than it is, it can always happen again. It's either this or actually verifiable news with legitimate sources can only be posted.
Perhaps encouraging better education and instilling critical thought in a population is better? Having an arbitrary line of censorship based on what a handful of people deem "fake news" and preventing it being seen by millions is a dangerous path to walk down.
> Perhaps encouraging better education and instilling critical thought in a population is better?
In a population of > 1 billion where access to schooling is spotty, and the quality of said schooling is spottier?
"Critical thinking" is a state of mind that takes generations of progress to develop, and can still be reversed. The US population in general may be more educated on average, but if presidential opinion polls are anything to go by, a minimum of 40% of the population arent' practicing critical thought.
Elect fascists, get fascism. Indian governments are always flirting with complete authoritarianism and are always eager to randomly ban things (e.g., any mention of Gandhi in a negative light, smoking in movies and tvs). Not a surprise that the nationalistic fervor whipped up my Modi's government provides a perfect moment to push these desires further. Watch how the public lines up behind this and unwittingly censor themselves in the name of religious protections and nationalistic sentiment. Also fascinating how Mukesh Ambani is shilling for this law to convert Reliance Jio to an Indian Tencent. Amazing how fascists and monopolists are always in bed.
I see what you're saying, but there is a disconnect here: elect fascists [a strong claim] get fascism but then you say the public lines up behind it. So, it appears to be democratic?
This is a bit odd:
>Under the proposed rules, Indian officials could demand[removal of content due to being] invasive of privacy... but also: "Another provision would weaken the privacy protections of messaging services"
Is this ambivalence towards your claimed authoritarianism a relic of the republic's more socialist days when it was non-aligned-aligned with the USSR?
Yes, but not all populist leaders work on killing freedom. Or diluting Right to Information. Or making political funding opaque through anonymous bonds. This is not even close to Godwin's law. The government is curtailing freedom. The government is letting criminal/lynchers/gaurakshaks loose. Even people who kill policemen are on the loose for months now.
Recently Amol Palekar was brazenly stopped from talking against the government, and this whole thing happened infront of media.
There's a sort of paradox of democracy which analogous to the paradox of tolerance. The problem is that you can elect people who destroy democratic institutions. i.e. you can democratically destroy democracy. If you tolerate those who would destroy democratic institutions, eventually those who would destroy democracy will get voted in and democracy will be destroyed - you therefore do have to limit democratic freedoms slightly to exclude those people if you wish to preserve democracy itself.
I think that's where the concept of the Republic and the Constitution come into play. For example, if the Constitution places a limit on the number of terms of a rogue Government then it is not possible to elect them again. Of course this assumes that amending Constitution is either impossible or quite difficult.
> I see what you're saying, but there is a disconnect here: elect fascists [a strong claim] get fascism but then you say the public lines up behind it. So, it appears to be democratic?
In the era of fake news and propaganda that would put "1984" to shame, people supporting something doesn't mean it's favorable to others and to themselves. There so called "IT cells" of some political parties that spread misinformation and bring out nationalistic pride.
There is a dualism that's commonly seen in India: any foreigner who has visited would've encountered random people wanting to take photos with them (even if those people would never see the photos, but that's not as much an issue nowadays since many people have camera phones), and this is because they consider white skinned people as superior, richer, exotic, and fast and loose (this last one is about women), etc.; at the same time, many people are also made to believe (through fake news and propaganda created by the government and its ministers) that India had a rich history of cultural and scientific advancement unlike any other country in this planet's existence and that foreigners have stolen all these as well as constantly suppress the "facts". This latter point brings about a wellspring of support on various policies, even without understanding how these may be bad for the citizens supporting them.
> In the era of fake news and propaganda that would put "1984" to shame, people supporting something doesn't mean it's favorable to others and to themselves. There so called "IT cells" of some political parties that spread misinformation and bring out nationalistic pride.
While some have IT Cells, others have outsourced their propoganda campaign to firms like Cambridge Analytica. So I guess almost all major parties are in the mix.
Fake news is a global problem and even US based institutions are having a difficult time dealing with it. Not sure how it can be used as an argument to point India as "fascist".
> There is a dualism that's commonly seen in India: any foreigner who has visited would've encountered random people wanting to take photos with them (even if those people would never see the photos, but that's not as much an issue nowadays since many people have camera phones), and this is because they consider white skinned people as superior, richer, exotic, and fast and loose (this last one is about women), etc.; at the same time, many people are also made to believe (through fake news and propaganda created by the government and its ministers) that India had a rich history of cultural and scientific advancement unlike any other country in this planet's existence and that foreigners have stolen all these as well as constantly suppress the "facts". This latter point brings about a wellspring of support on various policies, even without understanding how these may be bad for the citizens supporting them.
I've been made to believe that India had a rich history and culture since I was like five. Statements like India was a golden bird and what not were not rare to hear. From what I remember there was no current government or ministers at that time. Again I am not sure how this relates to fascism.
What? No. The only thing the Indian government did in this regard is demonetization, a rare act but something that has been carried out across the world.
What are characteristics of fascism?
There are several fundamental characteristics of fascism, among them are: Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc).
From Umberto Eco's criteria for fascism:
In his 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.[20] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows:
1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
8. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
9. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every me...
Not sure how you're applying those theoretical stuff to the current Indian government. As a common middle class grounded Indian, I'm pretty much free to criticize the government, curse them and even vote them out(which happened in recent state elections). That doesn't look quite fascist to me.
- There is a constant reference to how India was such a great and wonderful country and the only problems we have are because of "foreign" influence and "invaders"
- There is an active "othering" of non-Hindus - more specifically Muslims and Christians.
- Anyone who speaks against this government (note: not against the nation) is painted as anti-national
- A bunch of industrialists have extraordinary access to corridors of power (Ambanis, Adani etc) and they are utilising this power to subvert every process.
The US would have gone down the same route if WhatsApp or Instagram had happened to be acquired by a Chinese company (and hence under control of Chinese govt). Having your citizens data and communication under control of a foreign government is not something any government would be ok with in the long term. It will be interesting to see the reaction of the US government(and of Silicon Valley) when the next TikTok becomes the major communication tool in the US.
> Having your citizens data and communication under control of a foreign government is not something any government would be ok with in the long term.
I do agree, but note that currently, the US is having control over more grand area citizen's data/communication than other nations have control over US data.
I've said this before, software & tech companies are enabling this sort of authoritarian transition in countries and enabling the powerful to stifle voices of dissent.
It is more than likely that the connected world wide web will fraction itself off into regional entities soon enough. With things like data analytics and AI, controlling populations is even easier. The Chinese model will succeed.
In India, a Russian style klepto-plutocracy is slowly taking over. It's only natural that they would want this transition kept hidden.
Now, s/Grab/[Maro|RobTM|ChorTel|Loota] of India. Each of these wants to hegemonize, by leveraging technology; and ironically, this tech is mostly built by the same people (like us!)
This is nothing to do with tech companies. Government have lot more money and resources to fund such efforts. In countries such as India, people view government as a protector and provider as opposed to countries like US where people view government as something they permitted to exist with terms of and conditions of minimal interference. Well, at least in theory. Such countries are risk at authoritarian Internet. Even if tech isn’t invested, these countries will invest and make it happen.
The same companies whose product is customer data and usage patterns? That they use to develop behavioural models, affinities and recommendation engines?
It's one thing when you are a device maker and are required to provide in-country servers and backdoor access as a condition of doing business. Blackberry (then RIM) caught heat for that in 2011 when they provided that to India and the UAE.
It's a different thing entirely when gargantuan companies like Amazon or Google that control a significant part of the Internet's infrastructure begin to shift away from public-facing business models and towards high-margin contract work for governments.
You said it yourself:
> Government have lot more money and resources to fund such efforts
and they're adept at wasting it as well. You don't think Amazon, Google etc look at IT contracts in the public sector and salivate at the opportunity?
On one hand, I disapprove of this with the fear of India becoming all watching and dissent suppressing like China. On the other hand, India has a real national security need to know everything that goes on, thanks to its neighbor(s?).
On a parallel note of "foreign" technology companies, I believe we will see data sovereignty being a fundamental right/resource of nations (like natural resources) as a means to fairly redistribute internet technology generated wealth.
> On the other hand, India has a real national security need to know everything that goes on, thanks to its neighbor(s?).
The good old "national security" crutch. It's always used by those in power to spread surveillance, censorship, restrict freedom of expression, etc. A lot of the issues within India as it concerns the likes of Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc., are internally manufactured...and the main culprits are the largest political parties themselves. [1]
India does have constant threats from Pakistan and China, but censorship within the country is not going to help tackle those.
Why would the US care? There's no political capital to be gained by coming out against a policy that will likely make US software and surveillance firms rich.
No, it won't. It will enable India to cut out U.S. service providers as much as they want. That hurts us more than economically, it reduces our governments ability to gather intelligence there as well.
This level of state control if the internet is a very bad thing for the U.S. even if you don't take any humanitarian considerations into account.
India has never been a country with a good amount of freedom of expression. This censorship and (as usual) vaguely defined laws and policies will slowly kill democracy. Organizations like Internet Freedom Foundation [1], SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre) [2] and others are fighting against these policies from a legal standpoint as well, but the courts are very, very slow (as I've mentioned in the past here) and don't take cognizance of grave matters like this in a timely manner.
Anyone here who's an Indian citizen and is living in India — please donate to the Internet Freedom Foundation [1], which recently started a membership program for funds and SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre, whose site seems to be down at this moment) [2]. Others, please do not send money in any form since these organizations are not legally allowed to get foreign money! Instead, encourage your friends and acquaintances in India to donate.
Disclaimer: I'm not associated with these organizations in any way.
42 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] threadIn a population of > 1 billion where access to schooling is spotty, and the quality of said schooling is spottier?
"Critical thinking" is a state of mind that takes generations of progress to develop, and can still be reversed. The US population in general may be more educated on average, but if presidential opinion polls are anything to go by, a minimum of 40% of the population arent' practicing critical thought.
This is a bit odd:
>Under the proposed rules, Indian officials could demand[removal of content due to being] invasive of privacy... but also: "Another provision would weaken the privacy protections of messaging services"
Is this ambivalence towards your claimed authoritarianism a relic of the republic's more socialist days when it was non-aligned-aligned with the USSR?
It would greatly help if we don't use Goodwin's law everywhere and use terms like Nazism, Fascism, Hitler etc. where they are actually due.
In the era of fake news and propaganda that would put "1984" to shame, people supporting something doesn't mean it's favorable to others and to themselves. There so called "IT cells" of some political parties that spread misinformation and bring out nationalistic pride.
There is a dualism that's commonly seen in India: any foreigner who has visited would've encountered random people wanting to take photos with them (even if those people would never see the photos, but that's not as much an issue nowadays since many people have camera phones), and this is because they consider white skinned people as superior, richer, exotic, and fast and loose (this last one is about women), etc.; at the same time, many people are also made to believe (through fake news and propaganda created by the government and its ministers) that India had a rich history of cultural and scientific advancement unlike any other country in this planet's existence and that foreigners have stolen all these as well as constantly suppress the "facts". This latter point brings about a wellspring of support on various policies, even without understanding how these may be bad for the citizens supporting them.
While some have IT Cells, others have outsourced their propoganda campaign to firms like Cambridge Analytica. So I guess almost all major parties are in the mix.
Fake news is a global problem and even US based institutions are having a difficult time dealing with it. Not sure how it can be used as an argument to point India as "fascist".
> There is a dualism that's commonly seen in India: any foreigner who has visited would've encountered random people wanting to take photos with them (even if those people would never see the photos, but that's not as much an issue nowadays since many people have camera phones), and this is because they consider white skinned people as superior, richer, exotic, and fast and loose (this last one is about women), etc.; at the same time, many people are also made to believe (through fake news and propaganda created by the government and its ministers) that India had a rich history of cultural and scientific advancement unlike any other country in this planet's existence and that foreigners have stolen all these as well as constantly suppress the "facts". This latter point brings about a wellspring of support on various policies, even without understanding how these may be bad for the citizens supporting them.
I've been made to believe that India had a rich history and culture since I was like five. Statements like India was a golden bird and what not were not rare to hear. From what I remember there was no current government or ministers at that time. Again I am not sure how this relates to fascism.
To quote Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
What are characteristics of fascism? There are several fundamental characteristics of fascism, among them are: Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc).
From Umberto Eco's criteria for fascism:
In his 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism", cultural theorist Umberto Eco lists fourteen general properties of fascist ideology.[20] He argues that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism. The fourteen properties are as follows:
1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
8. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to NOT build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
9. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every me...
- There is a constant reference to how India was such a great and wonderful country and the only problems we have are because of "foreign" influence and "invaders"
- There is an active "othering" of non-Hindus - more specifically Muslims and Christians.
- Anyone who speaks against this government (note: not against the nation) is painted as anti-national
- A bunch of industrialists have extraordinary access to corridors of power (Ambanis, Adani etc) and they are utilising this power to subvert every process.
I do agree, but note that currently, the US is having control over more grand area citizen's data/communication than other nations have control over US data.
It is more than likely that the connected world wide web will fraction itself off into regional entities soon enough. With things like data analytics and AI, controlling populations is even easier. The Chinese model will succeed.
In India, a Russian style klepto-plutocracy is slowly taking over. It's only natural that they would want this transition kept hidden.
And it is aided by the perks and privileges that the platform controllers offer (at least, initially) to lure the sheeple in.
For a more visual representation of what people see as a future, check https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpzQ8a4xmgk
Now, s/Grab/[Maro|RobTM|ChorTel|Loota] of India. Each of these wants to hegemonize, by leveraging technology; and ironically, this tech is mostly built by the same people (like us!)
Future is dark
The same companies whose product is customer data and usage patterns? That they use to develop behavioural models, affinities and recommendation engines?
It's one thing when you are a device maker and are required to provide in-country servers and backdoor access as a condition of doing business. Blackberry (then RIM) caught heat for that in 2011 when they provided that to India and the UAE.
It's a different thing entirely when gargantuan companies like Amazon or Google that control a significant part of the Internet's infrastructure begin to shift away from public-facing business models and towards high-margin contract work for governments.
You said it yourself:
> Government have lot more money and resources to fund such efforts
and they're adept at wasting it as well. You don't think Amazon, Google etc look at IT contracts in the public sector and salivate at the opportunity?
On a parallel note of "foreign" technology companies, I believe we will see data sovereignty being a fundamental right/resource of nations (like natural resources) as a means to fairly redistribute internet technology generated wealth.
The good old "national security" crutch. It's always used by those in power to spread surveillance, censorship, restrict freedom of expression, etc. A lot of the issues within India as it concerns the likes of Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc., are internally manufactured...and the main culprits are the largest political parties themselves. [1]
India does have constant threats from Pakistan and China, but censorship within the country is not going to help tackle those.
[1]: http://time.com/5512032/whatsapp-india-election-2019/
This level of state control if the internet is a very bad thing for the U.S. even if you don't take any humanitarian considerations into account.
Anyone here who's an Indian citizen and is living in India — please donate to the Internet Freedom Foundation [1], which recently started a membership program for funds and SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre, whose site seems to be down at this moment) [2]. Others, please do not send money in any form since these organizations are not legally allowed to get foreign money! Instead, encourage your friends and acquaintances in India to donate.
Disclaimer: I'm not associated with these organizations in any way.
[1]: https://internetfreedom.in/
[2]: https://sflc.in/