3 ms·
> it's impossible to trust what our own governments say to us now. Sure, but throwing up our hands and assuming that all states are basically the same probably
by retsibsi 8y ago
> it's impossible to trust what our own governments say to us now.
Sure, but throwing up our hands and assuming that all states are basically the same probably takes us further from the truth.
We've got to make our own judgments somehow, and it's prety clear that despite the many flaws of our Western countries, they are meaningfully more open and tolerant of dissent, investigative journalism and the like than some other countries, including China.
Every piece of information should be taken with a grain of salt, and it makes sense to add a few extra grains when it comes to countries that we have been trained to be suspicious of. But that doesn't mean we should bury it all in a salt mine and ignore it.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago>they are meaningfully more open and tolerant of dissent, investigative journalism and the like than some other countries, including China. // I'd agree with all that. I just don't have any evidence to suggest they're watching us less or have greater ethics when it comes to invading citizens/subjects privacy in secret.
- retsibsi 8y agoThat's fair, but I also think absence of evidence is meaningful in proportion to the likelihood that, if evidence existed, it would be gathered and disseminated. In other words, the more closed the society, the more we should assume the worst when the facts are unclear. In absolute terms whistleblowing is a dangerous game in the west, so it is likely that there's plenty being successfully hidden from us -- and the evidence we do have suggests that surveillance is very intense and intrusive. But I still lean toward the belief that it is probably relatively more restrained, and less likely to be used in completely dystopian ways, than in more secretive and repressive states less constrained by the rule of law.