5 ms·

Isn't it? You don't have secret ballot in your country's elections?

by jakub_h 10y ago

vegabook 10y ago
that's not freedom of speech. Secret ballots are probably indispensible for democracy, but it is debatable (note I said "debatable") whether anonymity is necessary for freedom of speech and democracy. After all we've had many revolutions and regime changes in societies past where there was no anonymity of communication. Now arguably you could say that said regime changes might have occurred with less blood had anonymity been available, but then it is also arguable whether anonymous communication is anything like as forceful and persuasive as someone prepared to risk themselves by taking a public stance. IE we could argue that anonymous stances would not have created the regime change in the first place. A whole bunch of avatars screaming a slogan is not persuasive.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  I think when people talk about the importance of anonymity in communication, they aren't talking about the people talking to each other not knowing who the person they are talking to is. What they are talking about is the ability to talk to other people without a third-party (namely the government) knowing who you are talking to. Pre-internet, this was accomplished in many ways. Secret meeting groups, anonymous newsletters, etc. With modern communication and data collection, it is much easier than ever before to know who is talking to who. If a government always knows who is talking to who, it becomes much easier to suppress detractors.
- twr 10y ago
  John Adams' Thoughts on Government (published in 1776) seems appropriate here as an example of anonymous communication, one that helped formulate the very notion of US democracy. It was written during a revolution, too.
- jakub_h 10y ago
  > that's not freedom of speech. I didn't say that, I was talking about the value of anonymous communication in a democracy. Surely voting is a form of communication.

Isn't it? You don't have secret ballot in your country's elections?

by jakub_h 10y ago

Isn't it? You don't have secret ballot in your country's elections?

that's not freedom of speech. Secret ballots are probably indispensible for democracy, but it is debatable (note I said "debatable") whether anonymity is necessary for freedom of speech and democracy. After all we've had many revolutions and regime changes in societies past where there was no anonymity of communication. Now arguably you could say that said regime changes might have occurred with less blood had anonymity been available, but then it is also arguable whether anonymous communication is anything like as forceful and persuasive as someone prepared to risk themselves by taking a public stance. IE we could argue that anonymous stances would not have created the regime change in the first place. A whole bunch of avatars screaming a slogan is not persuasive.

cortesoft 10y ago
I think when people talk about the importance of anonymity in communication, they aren't talking about the people talking to each other not knowing who the person they are talking to is. What they are talking about is the ability to talk to other people without a third-party (namely the government) knowing who you are talking to. Pre-internet, this was accomplished in many ways. Secret meeting groups, anonymous newsletters, etc. With modern communication and data collection, it is much easier than ever before to know who is talking to who. If a government always knows who is talking to who, it becomes much easier to suppress detractors.
twr 10y ago
John Adams' Thoughts on Government (published in 1776) seems appropriate here as an example of anonymous communication, one that helped formulate the very notion of US democracy. It was written during a revolution, too.
jakub_h 10y ago
> that's not freedom of speech. I didn't say that, I was talking about the value of anonymous communication in a democracy. Surely voting is a form of communication.