4 ms·

> Are they saying Andrew Lee got an NSL for freenode? no of course they are not saying that, they would be punished if they did (because it would be illegal).

by bsedlm 5y ago

> Are they saying Andrew Lee got an NSL for freenode? no of course they are not saying that, they would be punished if they did (because it would be illegal). now, that such a thing exists in a "democracy"... is a topic on its own broader scope.

fmajid 5y ago
Apparently it’s in the UK, where judges are prompt to issue “superinjunctions” where even discussing the injunction is contempt of court and can incur a prison sentence. Whether a monarchy without a written constitution, or separation of Church and State can be considered a democracy is left as an exercise to the reader.
- Pet_Ant 5y ago
  The constitution is entirely written, we're just not sure which documents are part of it...
  - jkaplowitz 5y ago
    Source? Everything I've ever heard about the UK constitution is that it has both written and unwritten elements. Indeed, no statute or court ruling even defines the important head of government role of Prime Minister.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  > Whether a monarchy without a written constitution, or separation of Church and State can be considered a democracy is left as an exercise to the reader. That's begging the question, since it assumes an objective answer. Rather, "it is up to the reader whether they consider a monarchy without a written consistution, or separation of Church and State, to be a democracy". Even that is rather silly, since it's drawing arbitrary lines on a spectrum of more/less democratic. Some are pretty clean, e.g. direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy; an elected head of a republic is more democratic than an inherited head of a monarchy. Others have more overlap, and hence aren't strictly ordered in the abstract, e.g. written versus unwritten constitutions, sortition versus election, etc.
  - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
    >Some are pretty clean, e.g. direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy // Unless the people want representational democracy but are forced into direct democracy. Or, in theory (and I can't stress that enough that this is theoretical), representational democracy could better represent people than they can represent for themselves .. I can fix my own windows, but the glazier will probably do a better job. In the same way a group of professional politicians, in theory, could more closely represent the combined will of the demos than could direct democracy -- like how an adult stops a child from eating cake before they're sick -- knowing what is best for oneself, and what's best for society according to ones own choice of self-societal balance, is a hard thing that needs professional input. I might add I think UK (and probably USA) democracy is seriously broken and that representational democracy isn't working well; but direct democracy is too easy to pervert with propaganda.
    - chriswarbo 5y ago
      > Unless the people want representational democracy but are forced into direct democracy. That's a category error; you're comparing a decision-making process to a decision. A totalitarian dictatorship is not more democratic than a body of elected representatives, even if the people voted to implement that dictatorship. It's like the XKCD comic which claims the number 4 is random, because it came up in a die roll. > Or, in theory (and I can't stress that enough that this is theoretical), representational democracy could better represent people than they can represent for themselves Sure, but what has that got to do with the relative level of democracy between those systems? "Democratic" isn't a synonym for "good" or "best". It's perfectly possible for a more democratic system of governance to produce outcomes which are "worse" (according to whatever measure we care about). The rest of your comment seems to be further conflation between "democratic" and "good".
      - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
        I don't think I made a category error, the process is not democratic and the continued decision making by the demos would be contrary to their desire (to have a less direct democracy) so would remain undemocratic. Votes within the system would be democratic inasmuch as they were 'by the people' but they wouldn't have supreme power -- as they couldn't choose to change the system -- and so it would fall short of being democratic. It was, and remains, a cutesy and non-productive comment. >A totalitarian dictatorship is not more democratic than a body of elected representatives, even if the people voted to implement that dictatorship. // To press the useless point: yes, a dictatorship is less democratic as the people no longer have the power vested in them (and would have to reclaim it by a coup, or similar). On your second point, you're right. My go to for reflecting on democracy is 'government by the people and _for_ the people' and that has coloured my response. I do think there's an element of necessary agency, which suggests a qualitative aspect, however. But strictly, I concede, government to the utmost detriment of the demos could be democratic in the primary sense of the word.
- linuxftw 5y ago
  When a God-appointed King tells his subjects they live in a democracy, the subjects agree.
rsync 5y ago
"... now, that such a thing exists in a "democracy"... is a topic on its own broader scope." In other news, the rsync.net Warrant Canary turned 15 years old last month: https://twitter.com/rsyncnet/status/1387090538273206274 https://twitter.com/rsyncnet/status/1387090538273206274
- cle 5y ago
  Are these reliable? Can a judge compel someone to continue publishing a canary to prevent leaking the information?
  - remram 5y ago
    And is it unthinkable someone would do it without a legal requirement, to keep their business afloat?
    - mynameisvlad 5y ago
      Actually, yes. Likely fewer people would leave and there would be far fewer repercussions to be honest about the canary than for someone to discover it was falsely put up. The longer the charade goes on, the worse the blowback will be.

by bsedlm 5y ago

fmajid 5y ago

Apparently it’s in the UK, where judges are prompt to issue “superinjunctions” where even discussing the injunction is contempt of court and can incur a prison sentence. Whether a monarchy without a written constitution, or separation of Church and State can be considered a democracy is left as an exercise to the reader.

Pet_Ant 5y ago
The constitution is entirely written, we're just not sure which documents are part of it...
- jkaplowitz 5y ago
  Source? Everything I've ever heard about the UK constitution is that it has both written and unwritten elements. Indeed, no statute or court ruling even defines the important head of government role of Prime Minister.
chriswarbo 5y ago
> Whether a monarchy without a written constitution, or separation of Church and State can be considered a democracy is left as an exercise to the reader. That's begging the question, since it assumes an objective answer. Rather, "it is up to the reader whether they consider a monarchy without a written consistution, or separation of Church and State, to be a democracy". Even that is rather silly, since it's drawing arbitrary lines on a spectrum of more/less democratic. Some are pretty clean, e.g. direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy; an elected head of a republic is more democratic than an inherited head of a monarchy. Others have more overlap, and hence aren't strictly ordered in the abstract, e.g. written versus unwritten constitutions, sortition versus election, etc.
- pbhjpbhj 5y ago
  >Some are pretty clean, e.g. direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy // Unless the people want representational democracy but are forced into direct democracy. Or, in theory (and I can't stress that enough that this is theoretical), representational democracy could better represent people than they can represent for themselves .. I can fix my own windows, but the glazier will probably do a better job. In the same way a group of professional politicians, in theory, could more closely represent the combined will of the demos than could direct democracy -- like how an adult stops a child from eating cake before they're sick -- knowing what is best for oneself, and what's best for society according to ones own choice of self-societal balance, is a hard thing that needs professional input. I might add I think UK (and probably USA) democracy is seriously broken and that representational democracy isn't working well; but direct democracy is too easy to pervert with propaganda.
  - chriswarbo 5y ago
    > Unless the people want representational democracy but are forced into direct democracy. That's a category error; you're comparing a decision-making process to a decision. A totalitarian dictatorship is not more democratic than a body of elected representatives, even if the people voted to implement that dictatorship. It's like the XKCD comic which claims the number 4 is random, because it came up in a die roll. > Or, in theory (and I can't stress that enough that this is theoretical), representational democracy could better represent people than they can represent for themselves Sure, but what has that got to do with the relative level of democracy between those systems? "Democratic" isn't a synonym for "good" or "best". It's perfectly possible for a more democratic system of governance to produce outcomes which are "worse" (according to whatever measure we care about). The rest of your comment seems to be further conflation between "democratic" and "good".
    - pbhjpbhj 5y ago
      I don't think I made a category error, the process is not democratic and the continued decision making by the demos would be contrary to their desire (to have a less direct democracy) so would remain undemocratic. Votes within the system would be democratic inasmuch as they were 'by the people' but they wouldn't have supreme power -- as they couldn't choose to change the system -- and so it would fall short of being democratic. It was, and remains, a cutesy and non-productive comment. >A totalitarian dictatorship is not more democratic than a body of elected representatives, even if the people voted to implement that dictatorship. // To press the useless point: yes, a dictatorship is less democratic as the people no longer have the power vested in them (and would have to reclaim it by a coup, or similar). On your second point, you're right. My go to for reflecting on democracy is 'government by the people and _for_ the people' and that has coloured my response. I do think there's an element of necessary agency, which suggests a qualitative aspect, however. But strictly, I concede, government to the utmost detriment of the demos could be democratic in the primary sense of the word.
linuxftw 5y ago
When a God-appointed King tells his subjects they live in a democracy, the subjects agree.

rsync 5y ago

"... now, that such a thing exists in a "democracy"... is a topic on its own broader scope." In other news, the rsync.net Warrant Canary turned 15 years old last month: https://twitter.com/rsyncnet/status/1387090538273206274 https://twitter.com/rsyncnet/status/1387090538273206274

cle 5y ago
Are these reliable? Can a judge compel someone to continue publishing a canary to prevent leaking the information?
- remram 5y ago
  And is it unthinkable someone would do it without a legal requirement, to keep their business afloat?
  - mynameisvlad 5y ago
    Actually, yes. Likely fewer people would leave and there would be far fewer repercussions to be honest about the canary than for someone to discover it was falsely put up. The longer the charade goes on, the worse the blowback will be.