7 ms·

They are two different worlds. There's no comparison. In the west, with cases like these, and people like Snowden, we're trying to defend our free speech and

by capote 10y ago

They are two different worlds. There's no comparison. In the west, with cases like these, and people like Snowden, we're trying to defend our free speech and privacy by our standards. We're doing alright, but there are some big problems to solve. And yes, the media needs to cover this more. But comparing this to censorship and related problems in China and Russia (single-party states with control of speech at the policy level) is just silly, for lack of a better word.

ThomPete 10y ago
I think the point was more that maybe we should spend less time on others and more time on ourselves.
bkor 10y ago
You didn't really address his argument other than to say it is silly? In China it is very clear what is happening. In e.g. US it is all considered a secret. Everyone in China is aware of the "Great Big Firewall" and all the various laws restricting what you can and can not say. Someone linked once to an article explaining that knowing of the existence of a monitoring system results in people changing their behaviors. This even though some of them support the system. Seems easily comparable to me.
tumblen 10y ago
But which direction are we moving in?
tobbyb 10y ago
This is like 2 prisoners arguing about their level of freedom.
- badmadrad 10y ago
  I would argue that true freedom doesn't exist nor has it ever existed in the purest sense so what are we all arguing for?
  - advantark 10y ago
    We're arguing for our right to due process. Something that is thrown away when secret courts make such big decisions.
partycoder 10y ago
Well, here the 2 party system is like choosing between Coca Cola and Pepsi. Not very different from what happens with Communist countries.
- hn4Trump 10y ago
  Cool, so would ya mind voting for Trump since he is the same as Hilary anyway? ok, thx!
  - tracker1 10y ago
    I don't know that I see one as concretely worse than the other though. I don't like either of them.
- capote 10y ago
  I think you have no idea what you're talking about. Since you bring up "Communist countries," my grandfather lived in Communist Romania. He was beaten to death in jail over the course of two months on charges of possessing foreign currency [0]. My parents grew up with almost no food to eat, most of the time being tracked by the secret police, everywhere, black car following them home, informants at every corner, in every place they visited. A modern "Communist country" is North Korea. You can do some research on your own regarding that. Yes, modern Russia and China aren't that bad. But comparing their single-party system (in which the party literally controls everything, and on many occasions silences dissent by "disappearing" people (read: killing them) ) with the United States, is in fact, just plain silly. Whoever pointed out that this is a bad way to argue is wrong. It is simply silly. Having the choice in two parties, where mostly anyone can, in theory, run, this is infinitely more free than a single-party state. People can make themselves known, they can speak what they want (look at Bernie), they can come out of nowhere without being carefully monitored and selected by a single party. Having the choice encourages politicians to at least somewhat work with the people's interest at heart, rather than just the interest of the party. Your Coca Cola and Pepsi comparison is very myopic. If you cannot tell the difference between the two parties, especially at a time like this, you have no place discussing politics in any forum. Quick summary: one party is a center-right party trying increase funding to social services, the other is a far-right conservative party focused on the religious majority and traditional conservative values. There are many more things to them; the differences are tremendous. Read their Wikipedia pages, and those of their candidates. Stop with these comparisons, guys. I know the state of affairs isn't great here, I know our media isn't focusing on the right things and we have huge problems with the NSA and privacy matters. But be grateful for what we have, and appreciate that you live in a country where you will not be killed by the government for speaking too loud. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Ursu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Ursu
skylan_q 10y ago
Why go to the other side of the world? What about Canada, where we have hate speech laws and the CHRC?
takeda 10y ago
> But comparing this to censorship and related problems in China and Russia (single-party states with control of speech at the policy level) is just silly, for lack of a better word. I'm not so sure, I remember when Poland was under Russian control (before 1989). At least when you were making a phone call they had courtesy to say that your call is monitored. Today the technology advanced so much that not only someone can listen your conversation, but also all of your conversation could be recorded and stored for years. Even if you don't care about that. Such information could be used to blackmail people in public offices allowing to control legislative and judicial branches. This itself endangers democracy.

by capote 10y ago

ThomPete 10y ago

I think the point was more that maybe we should spend less time on others and more time on ourselves.

bkor 10y ago

You didn't really address his argument other than to say it is silly? In China it is very clear what is happening. In e.g. US it is all considered a secret. Everyone in China is aware of the "Great Big Firewall" and all the various laws restricting what you can and can not say. Someone linked once to an article explaining that knowing of the existence of a monitoring system results in people changing their behaviors. This even though some of them support the system. Seems easily comparable to me.

tumblen 10y ago

But which direction are we moving in?

tobbyb 10y ago

This is like 2 prisoners arguing about their level of freedom.

badmadrad 10y ago
I would argue that true freedom doesn't exist nor has it ever existed in the purest sense so what are we all arguing for?
- advantark 10y ago
  We're arguing for our right to due process. Something that is thrown away when secret courts make such big decisions.

partycoder 10y ago

Well, here the 2 party system is like choosing between Coca Cola and Pepsi. Not very different from what happens with Communist countries.

hn4Trump 10y ago
Cool, so would ya mind voting for Trump since he is the same as Hilary anyway? ok, thx!
- tracker1 10y ago
  I don't know that I see one as concretely worse than the other though. I don't like either of them.
capote 10y ago
I think you have no idea what you're talking about. Since you bring up "Communist countries," my grandfather lived in Communist Romania. He was beaten to death in jail over the course of two months on charges of possessing foreign currency [0]. My parents grew up with almost no food to eat, most of the time being tracked by the secret police, everywhere, black car following them home, informants at every corner, in every place they visited. A modern "Communist country" is North Korea. You can do some research on your own regarding that. Yes, modern Russia and China aren't that bad. But comparing their single-party system (in which the party literally controls everything, and on many occasions silences dissent by "disappearing" people (read: killing them) ) with the United States, is in fact, just plain silly. Whoever pointed out that this is a bad way to argue is wrong. It is simply silly. Having the choice in two parties, where mostly anyone can, in theory, run, this is infinitely more free than a single-party state. People can make themselves known, they can speak what they want (look at Bernie), they can come out of nowhere without being carefully monitored and selected by a single party. Having the choice encourages politicians to at least somewhat work with the people's interest at heart, rather than just the interest of the party. Your Coca Cola and Pepsi comparison is very myopic. If you cannot tell the difference between the two parties, especially at a time like this, you have no place discussing politics in any forum. Quick summary: one party is a center-right party trying increase funding to social services, the other is a far-right conservative party focused on the religious majority and traditional conservative values. There are many more things to them; the differences are tremendous. Read their Wikipedia pages, and those of their candidates. Stop with these comparisons, guys. I know the state of affairs isn't great here, I know our media isn't focusing on the right things and we have huge problems with the NSA and privacy matters. But be grateful for what we have, and appreciate that you live in a country where you will not be killed by the government for speaking too loud. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Ursu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Ursu

skylan_q 10y ago

Why go to the other side of the world? What about Canada, where we have hate speech laws and the CHRC?

takeda 10y ago

> But comparing this to censorship and related problems in China and Russia (single-party states with control of speech at the policy level) is just silly, for lack of a better word. I'm not so sure, I remember when Poland was under Russian control (before 1989). At least when you were making a phone call they had courtesy to say that your call is monitored. Today the technology advanced so much that not only someone can listen your conversation, but also all of your conversation could be recorded and stored for years. Even if you don't care about that. Such information could be used to blackmail people in public offices allowing to control legislative and judicial branches. This itself endangers democracy.