bamboozeell

No one knows except the deciding party since someone else decided that you do not get to evaluate whether it is precious.

Yet there are plenty of other ways to get "data", that until recently were the only ways to get data, that are relatively heavily censored and controlled. We didn't complain that libraries didn't give unfettered access to all information, or that we were not able to start a conversation with an aribtrary human. It's a crucial part of my argment that, thanks to the presentation of (hugely more) data on the internet, it's not possible for even the recipient to understand what's precious and what is not. Take a look around you at people consuming content on the internet. Is that "precious" data?

Right. Them proles should be working instead of entertaining ideas different feom what politburo in US is trying to ram through.

Interesting take, given that the largely US-centric internet technolgies are being used to push a largely US-centric view of the world on the rest of the world.

Would you be willing to elaborate on what exactly you have in mind? Absolute ban?

I would not be permitted, as an app developer where I live, to develop something like TikTok and allow kids of all ages free access to (in my opinion) mind poison. Again in my opinion, it's an insane state of things where we allow things we know are bad from external sources to be freely used and accessed. I also think this time will be remembered like we remember the late 1800s, where newly-discovered potent drugs were widely and legally distributed.

What's so precious about "data"? I don't argue that "things are missing" when the postal service refuses to carry certian things, or when shops refuse to stock certain items, or so on. These are restrictions imposed for our own good, as we apparently can't be trusted with unfettered access to all life has to offer. There is naunce here, but my point is - why does the internet get a free pass when we consider the balance of high ideals of free transfer of stuff against what the stuff is and what it does?

if you considered what could happen if that approach was adopted

People wouldn't waste time, energy, and soundness of opinion from taking inputs and arguing with unknowns on the internet. Kids wouldn't be able to download abitrary apps that have overall negative impacts on their health.

I'm arguing in defence of limiting external data inputs, not filtering by "misinformation".

Where did I say you said that?

In your previous comment:

>Would you want physical borders defended by locking all the citizens in as well?

The answer is no, but I don't know on what basis you asked the question. Unless, that is, you mean "If you compared the data access policy of one country to another, you must also be in favour of the physical access policy of that first country". Which, frankly, is an absurd stretch. I was very careful in the wording of my original comment.

What "free" country imposes routine restrictions on its citizens leaving?

The analogy between free physical movement and free flow of data isn't perfect, but no analogy is. There are places in the world I can't go. I must carry certain paperwork if I wish to travel at all. I am limited to certain entry and exit locations. I certainly can't invite an aribitrary human to visit me in my country.

"limit who can influence" is a form of control.

Sure is, and govenments also control what kinds of goods can be sold to me, what kind of transport I may drive, places and buildings I may enter, and so on. Are you advocating for no government? Or are you saying that all (most?) of the controls they currently exert are ok, but they must allow completely free transfer of data in and out? If so, why is the internet so special?

Why are you also qualifying "external" propaganda and misinformation?

Assuming I live somewhere half-decent, I have greater trust in the government and culture that I know.

Can you define what source of misinformation you're okay with?

None, really, although defining "misinformation" gets very tricky when you start breaking it down to local specifics. After all, we all knowingly and unknowingly spread some form of misinformation just going about our lives. In any case, why is it a good idea to allow the world's misinformation in, in addition to what we have to sort through from a bloke in the pub / my town's micro-politics / my government's constant battle with the opposition party?

Where did I say that is how I think physical borders should be defended?

In any case, even in a largely "free" country, I'm not entirely free to leave when and to where I might want.

You mis-read. I think a government has a responsibility to limit who can influence what I (and those around me) decide to do/say/think, whether that's through maintaining a physical border, implementing domestic law and order, or limiting remote access. After all, I don't want to live in a country where significant numbers of my fellow citizens have been unduly influenced by external propaganda and misinformation.

Yes, in that they don't allow unfettered access to the internet outside their borders. As a soverign nation who cares for their citizens' state of mind as well as physical security, why would you not do this in addition to defending your border?

You want to give any pseudoanonymous actor in the world access to the thoughts and desires of anyone else - you got it! Thanks Big Tech!

Honestly, China has more like the right approach when it comes to allowing its citizens access to the internet.