5 ms·

This is a clear case where we see the idea that governments should represent the will of their citizens break down completely. Every power structure serves its

This is a clear case where we see the idea that governments should represent the will of their citizens break down completely. Every power structure serves its own needs first. In areas where the interest of governmental systems and the citizens are in alignment, democracy can work - but when there is a conflict between the will of a power structure to extend its power and influence and the desires of the citizens, governments almost invariably choose to serve their own systemic interests. Internet censorship is a dramatic example of this. Even in democratic societies with large majorities in favor of free communication over the internet, the internal imperatives of governments to monitor and control trump the will of the people, no matter who is in power. In the matter of desiring to be able to read everyone's email, the governments of the world are in nearly unanimous alliance against their own citizens.

mahmud 15y ago
Counter argument: why do you want to allow gay-married Muslim homosexual commies to sneak into our country and piss on our burning flag after taking our jobs and blowing up our kindergartens? Is that what you want? puppy-AIDS and Sharia law?
- xorglorb 15y ago
  That is not an argument, that is a propaganda tool used against the easily-persuaded.
  - mahmud 15y ago
    The easily-persuaded pretty much describes the majority of the electorate, at least in my country. The average American votes against his best interest. The official response to any opposition to totalitarian tactics is .. FUD. Something only less blatant than what I have written above.
    - xorglorb 15y ago
      Sadly true.
    - oelewapperke 15y ago
      Yet America somehow manages to keep it's hands off the internet. Mostly. Compared to what you find in every middle eastern countries, the US government hardly ever touches the internet. Compared to most Asian countries (not just China), same. Opposition to totalitarianism in the US ... well, at least it exists and actually created a non-totalitarian government. More than 50% of all humans alive DO live under totalitarian governments, where it's not just a theoretical possibility to get executed for a blog post. A person sharing your name, mahmud, got arrested in Bahrain for suggesting that executing gays is (and he included maybe) not the best idea. Sadly, Bahrain is easily the most free middle eastern country. I dare you, just try living in the middle east for 6 months. Just try it. Anywhere.
    - waqf 15y ago
      I'm not saying you're wrong, but have you considered how you would disprove the alternate possibility that the "easily-persuaded majority" is a bogeyman conjured up by the media to explain why the candidate that everyone you know voted for wasn't elected?
      - mahmud 15y ago
        You assume I take my opinions from "the media". No. You can tail -f the legal Changelog of your favorite state and deduce the fuckedupness-beyond-repair of the populace.
        waqf 15y ago
        I'm confused, you seem to be assuming that my favorite state is democratic somehow? Otherwise I can only deduce fuckedupness of the politicians, which is not in dispute.
        mahmud 15y ago
        I was speaking specifically of the United States. I don't know of any state in the union that isn't democratic. I know Texas' redistricting shenanigans are sleazy, but it's still a democracy.
  - crististm 15y ago
    That is exactly the problem: you get results by persuasion, not by logical arguments.
gizzlon 15y ago
While I agree with most of what you say, I'm not so sure "large majorities in favour of free communication over the internet" Do you have any data to back this up? My guess is that if you frame it the right way, most people would vote for censoring the Internet
- oelewapperke 15y ago
  It's easy to get to the obvious point that a large worldwide majority favors censoring the internet. There has been a study showing that a large majority of Chinese are actually in favor of their internet control, over 90%. That's 1 billion people right there. Studies in muslim countries consistently show that there, too, large majorities want internet to be non-free (and in many countries it is). Again that's close to 1 billion people. And, again India supports it too. Assuming most Indian people agree with India's constitution that gives you a majority of "world citizens" without needing a single American or European vote. The sad fact is that it is obvious : a world government would be an a lot more repressive than the American government, a fact that can not seriously come as a surprise to anyone who watches UN decisions (e.g. the UN human rights council, consisting of China, Saudi arabia, Libya, ...), who derise Israel's rough treatment of 2 women at a border crossing, WHILE they are themselves comitting genocide on their own people. And, frankly, even most Europeans are in favor of outlawing "hate speech" (which basically means outlawing what are considered undesirable political movements. The problem is of course that 20%-30% (at least) of European citizens are members of these parties). I've lived in Europe for a long time, and the effects of this go from mildly-scary (such as the de-facto outlawing of research that might alter our ideas about global warming, including the study ways to fix it through "artificial" means, like artificially increasing or decreasing cloud cover (Euro governments really don't like the fact that global warming could be fixed with 5 planes, or a decent fleet of automated ships, spreading reflective particles in the athmosphere). There's also downright scary ways liberties are curtailed in Europe, such as EUCD enforcement, which is way worse than the DMCA ever will be (but even the EUCD is child's play compared to muslim, African, chinese, or Indian internet laws). America is the only country I've ever been where you can generally assume that someone you start talking to in the street is in favor of a completely free press, a completely free internet. The only one. But America is less than 5% of the world population. This is why you want internet control to remain in the US government's hands, against the "will of the people". All these countries, with the agreement of their citizens, would make the internet a tiny echo chamber that simply shows them how they were right all along. There's the hope that since Texas wants the internet to prove the earth is only 5000 year old, and Saudi Arabia want people beheaded that suggest evolution happened, or that show their own genocidal history (or is it the other way around ?), this will somehow "balance out". Frankly, I doubt it. The result will be quite the reverse, only non-offensive subjects will be allowed on the internet. Nothing even mildly suggestive. No history study at all, because most everyone objects to their own history (e.g. the American treatment of black slaves pales in comparison to the muslim treatment of black slaves. Then again, the holocaust pales in comparison to muslim treatment of black slaves). Things like GDP, that could be taken to "prove" that most countries (all except America and China) are worse than others, will be outlawed ... and so on and so forth. In general "truth" would be outlawed. Because facts hurt too many people's feelings.

mahmud 15y ago

Counter argument: why do you want to allow gay-married Muslim homosexual commies to sneak into our country and piss on our burning flag after taking our jobs and blowing up our kindergartens? Is that what you want? puppy-AIDS and Sharia law?

xorglorb 15y ago
That is not an argument, that is a propaganda tool used against the easily-persuaded.
- mahmud 15y ago
  The easily-persuaded pretty much describes the majority of the electorate, at least in my country. The average American votes against his best interest. The official response to any opposition to totalitarian tactics is .. FUD. Something only less blatant than what I have written above.
  - xorglorb 15y ago
    Sadly true.
  - oelewapperke 15y ago
    Yet America somehow manages to keep it's hands off the internet. Mostly. Compared to what you find in every middle eastern countries, the US government hardly ever touches the internet. Compared to most Asian countries (not just China), same. Opposition to totalitarianism in the US ... well, at least it exists and actually created a non-totalitarian government. More than 50% of all humans alive DO live under totalitarian governments, where it's not just a theoretical possibility to get executed for a blog post. A person sharing your name, mahmud, got arrested in Bahrain for suggesting that executing gays is (and he included maybe) not the best idea. Sadly, Bahrain is easily the most free middle eastern country. I dare you, just try living in the middle east for 6 months. Just try it. Anywhere.
  - waqf 15y ago
    I'm not saying you're wrong, but have you considered how you would disprove the alternate possibility that the "easily-persuaded majority" is a bogeyman conjured up by the media to explain why the candidate that everyone you know voted for wasn't elected?
    - mahmud 15y ago
      You assume I take my opinions from "the media". No. You can tail -f the legal Changelog of your favorite state and deduce the fuckedupness-beyond-repair of the populace.
      - waqf 15y ago
        I'm confused, you seem to be assuming that my favorite state is democratic somehow? Otherwise I can only deduce fuckedupness of the politicians, which is not in dispute.
        mahmud 15y ago
        I was speaking specifically of the United States. I don't know of any state in the union that isn't democratic. I know Texas' redistricting shenanigans are sleazy, but it's still a democracy.
- crististm 15y ago
  That is exactly the problem: you get results by persuasion, not by logical arguments.

gizzlon 15y ago

While I agree with most of what you say, I'm not so sure "large majorities in favour of free communication over the internet" Do you have any data to back this up? My guess is that if you frame it the right way, most people would vote for censoring the Internet

oelewapperke 15y ago
It's easy to get to the obvious point that a large worldwide majority favors censoring the internet. There has been a study showing that a large majority of Chinese are actually in favor of their internet control, over 90%. That's 1 billion people right there. Studies in muslim countries consistently show that there, too, large majorities want internet to be non-free (and in many countries it is). Again that's close to 1 billion people. And, again India supports it too. Assuming most Indian people agree with India's constitution that gives you a majority of "world citizens" without needing a single American or European vote. The sad fact is that it is obvious : a world government would be an a lot more repressive than the American government, a fact that can not seriously come as a surprise to anyone who watches UN decisions (e.g. the UN human rights council, consisting of China, Saudi arabia, Libya, ...), who derise Israel's rough treatment of 2 women at a border crossing, WHILE they are themselves comitting genocide on their own people. And, frankly, even most Europeans are in favor of outlawing "hate speech" (which basically means outlawing what are considered undesirable political movements. The problem is of course that 20%-30% (at least) of European citizens are members of these parties). I've lived in Europe for a long time, and the effects of this go from mildly-scary (such as the de-facto outlawing of research that might alter our ideas about global warming, including the study ways to fix it through "artificial" means, like artificially increasing or decreasing cloud cover (Euro governments really don't like the fact that global warming could be fixed with 5 planes, or a decent fleet of automated ships, spreading reflective particles in the athmosphere). There's also downright scary ways liberties are curtailed in Europe, such as EUCD enforcement, which is way worse than the DMCA ever will be (but even the EUCD is child's play compared to muslim, African, chinese, or Indian internet laws). America is the only country I've ever been where you can generally assume that someone you start talking to in the street is in favor of a completely free press, a completely free internet. The only one. But America is less than 5% of the world population. This is why you want internet control to remain in the US government's hands, against the "will of the people". All these countries, with the agreement of their citizens, would make the internet a tiny echo chamber that simply shows them how they were right all along. There's the hope that since Texas wants the internet to prove the earth is only 5000 year old, and Saudi Arabia want people beheaded that suggest evolution happened, or that show their own genocidal history (or is it the other way around ?), this will somehow "balance out". Frankly, I doubt it. The result will be quite the reverse, only non-offensive subjects will be allowed on the internet. Nothing even mildly suggestive. No history study at all, because most everyone objects to their own history (e.g. the American treatment of black slaves pales in comparison to the muslim treatment of black slaves. Then again, the holocaust pales in comparison to muslim treatment of black slaves). Things like GDP, that could be taken to "prove" that most countries (all except America and China) are worse than others, will be outlawed ... and so on and so forth. In general "truth" would be outlawed. Because facts hurt too many people's feelings.