3 ms·

The default state (and almost universal state) of human societies throughout history has been authoritarianism. Authoritarian's universally believe individuals

by kypro 5y ago

The default state (and almost universal state) of human societies throughout history has been authoritarianism. Authoritarian's universally believe individuals left to themselves make bad decisions either because they're too stupid or too cruel so we need benevolent leaders like themselves to order society. Only in the last few hundred years countries in Western Europe began to reject this and accept while some individuals may make bad decisions the cost of "benevolent" leaders is too great. Today in the West we seem to be forgetting that freedom comes with costs and this can only lead in one direction. We should understand China isn't the exception, they are the norm. It was in fact the West who was always more likely to revert to the mean than for China to embrace freedom. People like Orwell understood this very well. The more freedom individuals have the more likely individuals will say and do things leaders don't like and if our leaders no longer celebrate this disagreement as progress they will seek to restrict freedom. Of course, some actions are almost universally seen as bad and in these cases it's worth carefully restricting freedoms, but this clearly isn't one of those cases. And most attempts to limit freedom of speech also aren't.

noduerme 5y ago
No one ever had Facebook or iCloud before, though. The damage an individual could do was somewhat limited. If they wanted to produce child porn, they had to go through a complicated printing process. If they wanted to denounce vaccines or immigrants, they could stand on a box and yell about Jesus or something, but at most they might reach a few hundred people. The framework we have created has given them the ability to reach audiences that they frankly shouldn't be able to reach, because their own intelligence doesn't warrant it. To the degree that we can stripmine those platforms and shut down the bad actors, moderate the fuck out of them, send them into a black hole, I'm all for it. But personal devices? Secure files you maintain for your business? No - this is a move on the part of the 0.1% to enlist the technical priesthood in spying on the 1-5%. It's a means to try to force fear on the functionaries closer to the apex of the system. Like some other reactionary revolutions, it draws support from a lower base, but its targets are exactly the people who carry out the sensitive functions of the state. That's somewhat scary. However, it's also a bit toothless because clearly it will force anyone who needs to keep their communications private to use other channels. Until or unless that becomes prohibited, as in China. Then again, I'd never underestimate the spinelessness of the western bureaucrat when it comes to conforming to rules and regulations.
throw0101a 5y ago
> individuals left to themselves make bad decisions because they're too stupid or too cruel Which, to be fair, isn't entirely wrong. :) That doesn't mean that the "authoritarians" would make any better decision of course.

by kypro 5y ago

noduerme 5y ago

No one ever had Facebook or iCloud before, though. The damage an individual could do was somewhat limited. If they wanted to produce child porn, they had to go through a complicated printing process. If they wanted to denounce vaccines or immigrants, they could stand on a box and yell about Jesus or something, but at most they might reach a few hundred people. The framework we have created has given them the ability to reach audiences that they frankly shouldn't be able to reach, because their own intelligence doesn't warrant it. To the degree that we can stripmine those platforms and shut down the bad actors, moderate the fuck out of them, send them into a black hole, I'm all for it. But personal devices? Secure files you maintain for your business? No - this is a move on the part of the 0.1% to enlist the technical priesthood in spying on the 1-5%. It's a means to try to force fear on the functionaries closer to the apex of the system. Like some other reactionary revolutions, it draws support from a lower base, but its targets are exactly the people who carry out the sensitive functions of the state. That's somewhat scary. However, it's also a bit toothless because clearly it will force anyone who needs to keep their communications private to use other channels. Until or unless that becomes prohibited, as in China. Then again, I'd never underestimate the spinelessness of the western bureaucrat when it comes to conforming to rules and regulations.

throw0101a 5y ago

> individuals left to themselves make bad decisions because they're too stupid or too cruel Which, to be fair, isn't entirely wrong. :) That doesn't mean that the "authoritarians" would make any better decision of course.