Asked by
Birds of the sky (2 Golds)
Sunday, 01 Dec 2019, 12:32 PM
at (Technology
Internet)
|
|
|
|
How much does technology change? From the techniques of writing a person's diary to its contents - technology can change everything. And since the individual is a state-of-the-state, it must have a direct impact on politics. The talk of technology is coming, due to some recent events. After widespread criticism, social media like Twitter and Facebook have expressed their position with political advertising. In the meantime, Twitter has announced the termination of political advertising on their platform. Even though Facebook has not yet taken such steps, there is a great deal of criticism. In this situation, the question is whether the control of the unrestricted world of the Internet is in conflict with democracy? If confrontational, who will do the job of imposing control over it, the authority of the tech companies, or the politicians? Such controversy, however, is not new. If the Internet is considered to be the latest communications technology, its astounding predecessor is called the Telegraph. After the discovery and use of the telegraph, there was a lot of speculation. The New York Times published reports on the impact of the telegraph on politics. In a report published in 7, the newspaper commented that the telegraph was doing much to refine politics. The keynote was that telegraphs were spreading around people's demands. As a result, it is difficult for politicians to take on different roles in one place. Isn't that the same reality now that the Internet has appeared? The Internet, for the better, is a social media platform for the benefit of any person can express their opinion in any event in the state or the world. This is making the work of politicians more difficult; And politics. The question is, whether the control of the unrestricted world of the Internet is in conflict with democracy? If confrontational, who will do the job of imposing control over it, the authority of the tech companies, or the politicians? Needless to say, the scope of this free expression is causing a lot of mischief. Controversial views expressed on social media by using someone's name often cause people in a particular region or tribe to be in danger. This fact has been seen at least a few times in Bangladesh. Again, there are also incidents of affecting the political views of the common people through false information. US President Donald Trump has a reputation in the field. The last presidential election of the United States and the UK's Brexit referendum are in a rush. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is also in the queue. It is said that today's politicians are using social media very efficiently to take an opponent's hand. Social media is becoming stronger day by day in terms of politics, key business, advertising range. A decade ago, the online advertising market was much smaller. And now half of the world's advertising is online. This is a danger when advertising is political, or if it is to influence politics. UK-based magazine The Economist reports that Facebook, such as Elizabeth Warren, who announced her candidacy for the next presidential election in the United States, directly blamed Facebook for saying that the organization was spreading money for money. He said there was a political ad campaign on Facebook before the last presidential election, where Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg endorsed Donald Trump. This information was completely false. The same situation is in the UK. The ruling Conservative Party of India has renamed its Twitter account 'FactCheckUK' on November 7 on account of spreading false information. It goes without saying that the party has taken this step to get rid of the anarchy and accusations leveled against the Internet. This can be called an attempt to restore their image. This is because the Internet is playing a significant role in the cultivation and dissemination of lies, while also providing opportunities for easy access to many important information. And the combination of these lies is endangering people and politics for people. There has been widespread criticism and this is happening. The issue is now one of the major issues around the world. Many countries around the world are enacting laws to regulate human activities on the Internet, some of which are undoubtedly a threat to democracy. In this situation, the Internet, politics and democracy are at the center of the debate. Although Twitter announced almost all political ads would be banned, Facebook is still reluctant to impose political speech. However, they said they were working on the matter. The Internet is playing a significant role in the cultivation and dissemination of lies, while also providing opportunities for easy access to many important information. And the combination of these lies is endangering people and politics for people Although apparently skeptical of Facebook's position, Zuckerberg's stance was justified in fine judgment. This is because if US-based social media organizations start to control political advertising, opinions, reactions, etc., it can be a detriment to democracy all over the world. Because the US will determine the political discourse of these institutions, it will determine the political views of the authorities of that organization. As a result, the whole world is subject to this control Answered by Birds of the sky (2 Golds) Sunday, 01 Dec 2019, 12:33 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|