The methods have changed, the motivation and net result is the same: opinion and thought control.
Tech has made it impersonal, clinical, obfuscated, random and ubiquitous. There is no need to "send people to gulags" or torture them in order to suppress their ability to sow dissent amongst their peers. That is the sole purpose, even if it's algorithmic and emergent without a central "dictator" controlling what can or can't be said. Essentially only approved opinions and movements are allowed to gather steam, no different to the movement of dissent and mistrust of the government that had to be stemmed previously using gulags.
So yes, you are 100% right it's not the same and we are not being sent to re-education camps. But that doesn't mean certain individuals are not being persecuted through "random" algorithms that target and marginalize them. As another poster here mentioned, censorship does not need to be absolute for it to have an effect. You also mentioned network effects earlier: I would urge you to consider what "network effects" are occurring due to mild and moderate censorship that is not absolute.
I don't see social media suppressing dissent at all. I see dissent everywhere - from anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, anti-maskers, BLM, Antifa, neo-nazis and militias. Ideologies and conspiracy theories once confined to AM talk radio and underground forums have become mainstream politics. Pedophiles have rebranded themselves "minor attracted persons" and are campaigning on social media for pedo rights as human rights. QAnon is mainstream enough to win elections. Even conservatives who are, we are told, terrified to speak openly in what they describe as an oppressive Orwellian atmosphere of left-wing censorship, somehow manage to flood social media with right-wing speech.
If the sole purpose of tech and social media is opinion and thought control and dissident suppression, it doesn't seem to be working outside of the obvious authoritarian places like China.
> I would urge you to consider what "network effects" are occurring due to mild and moderate censorship that is not absolute.
Subtle network effects and mild censorship exist everywhere - we typically refer to these networks as "society", "culture", "religion", "family,", "employer," etc. Certainly social networks can modify behavior, but typically it's easier to undermine that effect on social networks (through alternate accounts) than it is in real life, and typically the negative consequences for breaking norms on social media are less severe than in real life.
Tech has made it impersonal, clinical, obfuscated, random and ubiquitous. There is no need to "send people to gulags" or torture them in order to suppress their ability to sow dissent amongst their peers. That is the sole purpose, even if it's algorithmic and emergent without a central "dictator" controlling what can or can't be said. Essentially only approved opinions and movements are allowed to gather steam, no different to the movement of dissent and mistrust of the government that had to be stemmed previously using gulags.
So yes, you are 100% right it's not the same and we are not being sent to re-education camps. But that doesn't mean certain individuals are not being persecuted through "random" algorithms that target and marginalize them. As another poster here mentioned, censorship does not need to be absolute for it to have an effect. You also mentioned network effects earlier: I would urge you to consider what "network effects" are occurring due to mild and moderate censorship that is not absolute.