3 ms·

Something that has always been true: there is less freedom in bigger cities, because there are more people affected by whatever any one person does. Things that

Something that has always been true: there is less freedom in bigger cities, because there are more people affected by whatever any one person does. Things that are fine in a rural area because there’s nobody around simply are tolerated by nearby neighbors. As the Internet connects everybody together, I wonder if it is unavoidable that individual liberties will be restrained. Whether true or only perception, when we are all connected more people feel affected by stuff that, thirty years ago, nobody would have noticed or known about.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
I find the opposite to be true. Small town parochialism is cliche for no reason. Small towns have historically relied on a high degree of trust rarely given to so-called outsiders and engage in subtlety coercive acts that prevents "insider" from adopting the ways of the greater world. In a small town, an old lady whose hobby involves spying on their neighbors has a lot more power over other people's lives than most landlords in New York City. The best way to attack this subject is to first define "freedom". But if you want my opinion, the internet has created a greater expression of liberty than anything else ever invented. The issue regarding the restraint of individual liberties isn't the medium but the people and what they value.
- hnhamdani2 5y ago
  interesting point. I wonder if we need to separate the dichotomy within freedom. I definitely agree on the point of "anonymity" if it's part of the freedom. In the sense that I would have zero anonymity in the rural area on my activities or myself in general than in urban area. On the other hand, we also have "personal activity/behaviour" that we could call a part of our greater freedom as well. In rural area, you are free to do "whatever" i.e having fun in your barn, whereas in urban area, you time and space and having fun definition is more constrained.
- burlesona 5y ago
  I think we’re actually making the same point but you offer a very helpful angle. I suppose it’s not so much the population size but the closeness of connection. Go back 40 years, and it was possible for you to be anonymous living both far out in the woods, or amongst the crowd of a huge city. In a small town, though, everyone knows everyone. The internet is bringing everyone closer together and stripping us of our anonymity and privacy. There are tremendous benefits of this, but there are also costs. The close connection means that people now know about all kinds of things they simply couldn’t have in past generations. Culture clashes spanning the planet happen every day now, but 40 years ago that was just not something most people would ever experience. I think the close connection creates conflict, and as conflict escalates more and more people reach their tipping point where they would rather the state come in and suppress the conflict via law and regulation. It’s hard to live and let live when the people who offend you are in your face. It’s a big challenge for our era, and I imagine the history books will have a lot to say about how world civilization changed as a result.

Dracophoenix 5y ago

I find the opposite to be true. Small town parochialism is cliche for no reason. Small towns have historically relied on a high degree of trust rarely given to so-called outsiders and engage in subtlety coercive acts that prevents "insider" from adopting the ways of the greater world. In a small town, an old lady whose hobby involves spying on their neighbors has a lot more power over other people's lives than most landlords in New York City. The best way to attack this subject is to first define "freedom". But if you want my opinion, the internet has created a greater expression of liberty than anything else ever invented. The issue regarding the restraint of individual liberties isn't the medium but the people and what they value.

hnhamdani2 5y ago
interesting point. I wonder if we need to separate the dichotomy within freedom. I definitely agree on the point of "anonymity" if it's part of the freedom. In the sense that I would have zero anonymity in the rural area on my activities or myself in general than in urban area. On the other hand, we also have "personal activity/behaviour" that we could call a part of our greater freedom as well. In rural area, you are free to do "whatever" i.e having fun in your barn, whereas in urban area, you time and space and having fun definition is more constrained.
burlesona 5y ago
I think we’re actually making the same point but you offer a very helpful angle. I suppose it’s not so much the population size but the closeness of connection. Go back 40 years, and it was possible for you to be anonymous living both far out in the woods, or amongst the crowd of a huge city. In a small town, though, everyone knows everyone. The internet is bringing everyone closer together and stripping us of our anonymity and privacy. There are tremendous benefits of this, but there are also costs. The close connection means that people now know about all kinds of things they simply couldn’t have in past generations. Culture clashes spanning the planet happen every day now, but 40 years ago that was just not something most people would ever experience. I think the close connection creates conflict, and as conflict escalates more and more people reach their tipping point where they would rather the state come in and suppress the conflict via law and regulation. It’s hard to live and let live when the people who offend you are in your face. It’s a big challenge for our era, and I imagine the history books will have a lot to say about how world civilization changed as a result.