Totalitarian regimes will destroy the West through social media

In the 20th century, totalitarian regimes were at a disadvantage towards democracies, as their public was able to import dissident material from democracies. The dictatorship found it difficult to control different voices, or threaten dissidents living in democratic countries, as censorship mechanisms were sabotaged by the method of sharing information.

Because democracies tend to have more media, by the very nature of internal competition, dictatorships in the 20th century were often under siege, trying to preserve information entering their country. Porous limits, radio waves, and other methods enabled people to learn what was happening outside various police states, such as the Soviet Empire.

In the 20th century, the situation has been reversed. The dictatorship was initially threatened by the internet. Suddenly, the public had access to all kinds of information. The websites appeared in different languages. Social media enabled people in countries like Iran to communicate with the outside world.

But totalitarian leaders quickly realized that the greatest potential of the internet was also its weakness. The soft Internet subset, is that everyone is suddenly online, and they can be monitored, tracked and found. For example, instead of staying hidden, with banned books and ideas, people are already online, and their ideas are there, to be seen by everyone.

What a government needs, there are some programmes to monitor what they say, and then a way to find them. But totalitarian governments are not limited to tracking people. They then shut down opposition websites or dissidents within their borders.

They prosecute publishers and journalists. For example, a new report by the Committee for the Protection of Journalists shows that there are 251 imprisoned journalists worldwide. He calls Turkey, China, Saudi Arabia and Egypt the largest prisons.

Iran is also one of the main oppressors. According to most recent reports, blogger Vahid Saiadi Nasir died on a hunger strike in an Iranian prison. Although Western media point out these stories, such as Time magazine that costs journalists the “person of the year”, the reality is that democracies are not fighting against the regimes that suppress a different opinion.

We can see this in the Western - based behavior of technological giants. Social media and online research giants had to help people interact on a global level, and as such should have been freedom platforms. But what's really happening is that these technology giants cooperate with different regimes, including major journalists' prisons, to manage content in collaboration with regimes.
This is a dark process whose details have not been fully discovered. Western democracies, which are tasked with protecting the content in social media -- which are the biggest content publishers -- have renounced their responsibility to seek transparency.

For example, we don't know why some Facebook postings are not seen by people on your <x0... your” list, or even by people who follow “and “like your page. These giants, they now control more information than traditional media companies have ever checked in history.

In fact, they do not cooperate with governments, and critical posts against certain governments receive the <x0-political label” and do not tell people. Even if you want to learn about human rights abuses in some countries, it is increasingly difficult. They thus gain totalitarian regimes.

Using his technology, they not only imprison all bloggers and free thinkers in their country, but cooperate with major social media giants in the West to stop or reduce criticism everywhere on the platform.

They also report “to users who are critical, banning them through direct requests to the social media giant, or using a group of robots to report simultaneously the same profiles. More and more, war is taking place on the internet between different regimes and their armies “virtual”, targeting users who are critical.

There's almost no reaction from democracies. Governments in the West have not understood how this new war is going on, and are squandering the opportunity to discover how their social media giants are more and more partners with foreign governments to suppress content.

They are not trying to protect the public from this pressure, or create a “Bill of Rights” for internet use. Rather, they are allowing opposition individuals to be targeted one by one. At every step, we are seeing how new technology has enabled regimes to find dissidents abroad, to use different tools to block their access to social media.

These regimes can't stop specific websites, which are abroad, but they can do it so nobody can see these websites. This is easier and easier. You don't need to stop the information if you can make it hard to find. And major technology companies give totalitarian regimes the means to do this, whether directly, through partnerships, or indirectly, allowing regimes to exploit their platforms.

Social media giants are often slow to react. They could face online extremism, or even some different types of foreign intervention in elections. But by their very nature these large companies are also preventing members from seeing the information they want.
They increasingly think they know what the best “ ” is for users, and it shows them the content, which they think is the most interesting “”. In fact, they're naming some popular posts like “not interesting”, and they just don't tell those people who are actively searching to give “ “ ”. When someone is going to ask the future about how the totalitarian regimes in the 20th century succeeded, this is said to be the case. Not in the shadows, but open.
“The Jerusalem Post” World.al