4 ms·

I don't see human rights coming down either side of the argument here. It's about what type of society you want to live in. Scandinavia tend to want to identify

I don't see human rights coming down either side of the argument here. It's about what type of society you want to live in. Scandinavia tend to want to identify as a more social culture whereas others will want an individual based society. I think the one word someone from the outside should take with them about Scandinavia is "relax". Most things like these matter less than you think.

jomamaxx 10y ago
Why don't you tell Chinese citizens who have government control their online behaviour 'for the purposes of social betterment' to 'relax'? "Scandinavia tend to want to identify as a more social culture whereas others will want an individual based society." Why do you speak for 100% of Scandinavians? How about the large portion of those who want nothing to do with this law? Shouldn't they be able to opt out? Let those who want to 'be social' (as you say it) publish their information online. The rest can have their basic rights to privacy protected. While I agree that it's probably not a huge deal overall - it is definitely a issue of rights and privacy, and a fairly serious one.
- Numberwang 10y ago
  We have something called democracy going on up north. We decide our laws by vote. So those that are on the losing side of an issue will just have to live with it until laws change. Similarly to how various restrictions apply to drugs in the US.
manarth 10y ago
> I don't see human rights coming down either side of the argument here. Article 12 [1] begins "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy" I don't agree that publishing income is a breach of human rights, but I can see how people would argue that point. [1] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
- Numberwang 10y ago
  Well they can argue that way, but they would fail. arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

jomamaxx 10y ago

Why don't you tell Chinese citizens who have government control their online behaviour 'for the purposes of social betterment' to 'relax'? "Scandinavia tend to want to identify as a more social culture whereas others will want an individual based society." Why do you speak for 100% of Scandinavians? How about the large portion of those who want nothing to do with this law? Shouldn't they be able to opt out? Let those who want to 'be social' (as you say it) publish their information online. The rest can have their basic rights to privacy protected. While I agree that it's probably not a huge deal overall - it is definitely a issue of rights and privacy, and a fairly serious one.

Numberwang 10y ago
We have something called democracy going on up north. We decide our laws by vote. So those that are on the losing side of an issue will just have to live with it until laws change. Similarly to how various restrictions apply to drugs in the US.

manarth 10y ago

> I don't see human rights coming down either side of the argument here. Article 12 [1] begins "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy" I don't agree that publishing income is a breach of human rights, but I can see how people would argue that point. [1] http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Numberwang 10y ago
Well they can argue that way, but they would fail. arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."