6 ms·

Duh this should be common knowledge by now and it s only getting worse. Yes you should be freaked out about living in a world without privacy, but no, democracy

Duh this should be common knowledge by now and it s only getting worse. Yes you should be freaked out about living in a world without privacy, but no, democracy is not in danger, freedom is in danger. In fact, democratic people voted for this shit and they keep voting for more regulation/spying because "think of the children/terrorists". Authoritarian control has gotten hold of both democracies and non-democracies and people are fine with it. So, maybe blame the majority along with the phones.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Authoritarian control has gotten hold of both democracies and non-democracies and people are fine with it. And how is democracy doing in places where authoritation control has gotten out of hand? After all, you are claiming that democracy is not in danger. So, have people who noticed that they weren't that keen on authoritarianism after all regularly voted the authoritarians out of office successfully, then?
- buboard 7y ago
  > how is democracy doing in places where authoritation control has gotten out of hand? Not well, but not too bad either. Everyone is happy because of this: https://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/number-of-democracies-over-time.png https://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/number... Surveillance democracy is a thing, as is surveillance communism/putinism/erdoganism. The difference is that democracies have found a way to manufacture the consent of the majority, while in autocracies it's easier to pin the blame to one person. > have people who noticed that they weren't that keen on authoritarianism after all regularly voted the authoritarians out of office successfully, then? There are relatively few people who aren't keen on surveillance. most people are on board with UK level surveillance and most americans still think badly of Snowden. Don't expect it to be voted out soon
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > Surveillance democracy is a thing, as is surveillance communism/putinism/erdoganism. The difference is that democracies have found a way to manufacture the consent of the majority, while in autocracies it's easier to pin the blame to one person. Well, is it really, though? I mean, no doubt there is a thing that people call "surveillance democracy", and I would agree that it's actually a distinguishable thing. But for one, just because something is called "democracy", doesn't make it a democracy, so the question would be: What makes a democracy a democracy, and would a "surveillance democracy" fit those criteria? But also: Is a "surveillance democracy" even a place where authoritarian control has gotten out of hand yet? Maybe as long as you could still vote the authoritarians out of office, it's not out of hand yet? But then, what if there is actually no real way to achieve this, for whatever reason, and those places are destined for a situation where it is generally accepted that the authoritarians can not be voted out of office, even when people might ultimately change their mind about that whole authoritarianism thing? Maybe then it is out of hand after all? But then, is democracy actually fine if it is unavoidably destined for a place where it is impossible for a majority to elect a new government? Your analysis so far seems not too far from a line of thought that would conclude that the GDR was a democracy (they had elections, and they even called themselves democratic!)--not sure whether you would agree with that, but the GDR sure was and is not considered a democracy by many. > most people are on board with UK level surveillance But are they really? My impression is rather that people simply have no fucking clue what surveillance does or what the risks are. So, while it might well be true that most people don't think of surveillance as a problem right now, that doesn't answer the question of whether people are actually OK with it, as in what their opinion would be once they might be directly confronted with the consequences. And that was my point: There sure are and have been plenty of places where people are not happy with authoritarianism anymore, and those do not tend to be the places where people just vote the authoritarianism out. Authoritarianism is not compatible with democracy, by its definition: It is kindof fine just as long as there is still enough democracy left to potentially remove the authoritarians, so people don't realize the danger they are in, but it becomes unbearable exatly at the point where that power does not exist anymore, because that is also the point at which the authoritarians don't have to care about public opinion much anymore.
    - buboard 7y ago
- pjc50 7y ago
  > So, have people who noticed that they weren't that keen on authoritarianism after all regularly voted the authoritarians out of office successfully, then? A big problem today is that people can be very keen on authoritarian measures used against people they don't like. Or can be persuaded to hate by a media campaign.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> Authoritarian control has gotten hold of both democracies and non-democracies and people are fine with it. And how is democracy doing in places where authoritation control has gotten out of hand? After all, you are claiming that democracy is not in danger. So, have people who noticed that they weren't that keen on authoritarianism after all regularly voted the authoritarians out of office successfully, then?

buboard 7y ago
> how is democracy doing in places where authoritation control has gotten out of hand? Not well, but not too bad either. Everyone is happy because of this: https://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/number-of-democracies-over-time.png https://thinkbynumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/number... Surveillance democracy is a thing, as is surveillance communism/putinism/erdoganism. The difference is that democracies have found a way to manufacture the consent of the majority, while in autocracies it's easier to pin the blame to one person. > have people who noticed that they weren't that keen on authoritarianism after all regularly voted the authoritarians out of office successfully, then? There are relatively few people who aren't keen on surveillance. most people are on board with UK level surveillance and most americans still think badly of Snowden. Don't expect it to be voted out soon
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > Surveillance democracy is a thing, as is surveillance communism/putinism/erdoganism. The difference is that democracies have found a way to manufacture the consent of the majority, while in autocracies it's easier to pin the blame to one person. Well, is it really, though? I mean, no doubt there is a thing that people call "surveillance democracy", and I would agree that it's actually a distinguishable thing. But for one, just because something is called "democracy", doesn't make it a democracy, so the question would be: What makes a democracy a democracy, and would a "surveillance democracy" fit those criteria? But also: Is a "surveillance democracy" even a place where authoritarian control has gotten out of hand yet? Maybe as long as you could still vote the authoritarians out of office, it's not out of hand yet? But then, what if there is actually no real way to achieve this, for whatever reason, and those places are destined for a situation where it is generally accepted that the authoritarians can not be voted out of office, even when people might ultimately change their mind about that whole authoritarianism thing? Maybe then it is out of hand after all? But then, is democracy actually fine if it is unavoidably destined for a place where it is impossible for a majority to elect a new government? Your analysis so far seems not too far from a line of thought that would conclude that the GDR was a democracy (they had elections, and they even called themselves democratic!)--not sure whether you would agree with that, but the GDR sure was and is not considered a democracy by many. > most people are on board with UK level surveillance But are they really? My impression is rather that people simply have no fucking clue what surveillance does or what the risks are. So, while it might well be true that most people don't think of surveillance as a problem right now, that doesn't answer the question of whether people are actually OK with it, as in what their opinion would be once they might be directly confronted with the consequences. And that was my point: There sure are and have been plenty of places where people are not happy with authoritarianism anymore, and those do not tend to be the places where people just vote the authoritarianism out. Authoritarianism is not compatible with democracy, by its definition: It is kindof fine just as long as there is still enough democracy left to potentially remove the authoritarians, so people don't realize the danger they are in, but it becomes unbearable exatly at the point where that power does not exist anymore, because that is also the point at which the authoritarians don't have to care about public opinion much anymore.
  - buboard 7y ago
pjc50 7y ago
> So, have people who noticed that they weren't that keen on authoritarianism after all regularly voted the authoritarians out of office successfully, then? A big problem today is that people can be very keen on authoritarian measures used against people they don't like. Or can be persuaded to hate by a media campaign.