Comment by roenxi
4 months ago
> "foreign interference"
That is a very tricky one to manage on an online forum. If an American expresses an opinion about UK policy, in a literal sense that is literally foreign interference. There isn't a technical way to tell propagandists from opinionated people. And the most effective propaganda, by far, is that which uses the truth to make reasonable and persuasive points - if it is possible to make a point that way then that is how it will be done.
The only way this works is to have a list of banned talking points from a government agency. I'd predict that effective criticism of [insert current government] is discovered to be driven mainly by foreign interference campaigns trying to promote division in the UK.
This runs into the same problem as all disinformation suppression campaigns - governments have no interest in removing the stuff everyone agrees is untrue - what is the point? the flat earthers are never going to gain traction and it doesn't matter if they do - the only topics worth suppressing are things that are plausible and persuasive. The topics most likely to turn out to be true in hindsight.
> The only way this works is to have a list of banned talking points from a government agency.
How so? The "obvious" solution to me, from the perspective of a politician, would be to 1. require online identity verification for signup to any forum hosted in your country, and then 2. using that information, only allow people who are citizens of your country to register.
(You know, like in China.)
That won't stop foreign disinformation. They'll just pay some local to say it.
And China's system doesn't stop disinformation; it promotes disinformation. It it designed to make sure that only China-sponsored disinformation is available. If you want a system for that it is a solved problem; it just isn't a good idea.
Well, yes, but — again, from the perspective of a politician — if foreign agent provocateurs are forced to rely on locals to spread their messages, then you can just arrest those locals. Unlike the foreigners, the locals are under your jurisdiction. This creates a chilling effect against accepting money from foreigners to repeat those foreigners' messages.
And to be clear, "making sure that only [legislative jurisdiction]-sponsored disinformation is available" is almost always the whole point of laws like this — and what I was assuming the UK was going for here. No state wants to prevent the spread of their own propaganda; they want state propaganda to be the only legal propaganda.
Remember that your phrasing I was responding to here is "the only way this works is[...]". I think what the UK is doing here can work very well indeed to achieve their goals — it's just a question of what those goals are. Which, I think, is where we differ; I may have a far more cynical view of those goals than you.
The British legal system is a common law one like the U.S I believe, so it would be up to court interpretation.
Foreign interference would probably be interpreted as an organized campaign of interference being launched by a foreign power.
>This runs into the same problem as all disinformation suppression campaigns - governments have no interest in removing the stuff everyone agrees is untrue
at one time everyone agreed Anti-Vaxx was untrue, and now it's American government policy but still just as untrue.