4 ms·
I didn't mean to say every regulation and enforcement is totalitarianism. The only non-totalitarian ways a state can defend its people from information warfare
by qwerty456127 5y ago
I didn't mean to say every regulation and enforcement is totalitarianism.
The only non-totalitarian ways a state can defend its people from information warfare are education (propagation of rational thinking, awareness of manipulative techniques and fallacies, factual knowledge), enforcement of mandatory fact-checking in mass media and prosecution of proven spreaders of intentionally malicious fake news.
Nevertheless many governments prefer to apply the same manipulative techniques to their own people (and avoid educating them to keep these efficient), suppress "undesirable" opinions and facts falsely labeling them as fake and spy on them (their people) as thoroughly as reasonably possible. I consider such governments totalitarian, wildly or mildly.
- wolverine876 5y agoI get the idea. For what it's worth, I think 'totalitarian' means one party has 'total' political control.
- qwerty456127 5y agoWhat if there are more than one faction within the party, neither has total control but the whole party has? To me it seems this describes many single-party states as well as some multi-party states (where the parties can be logically considered factions within "the government" party) What if the party has sub-total yet a huge degree of control and continuously strives to increase its control by applying all offensive techniques it reasonably can on the people?
- wolverine876 5y agoInteresting questions. I'm not going to get into fine points of definition (I posted to GP to avoid misunderstanding), which I don't think is important here. I think the significance is whether there are multiple entities who compete for power, or one that dominates everything. Of course, there are grey areas in everything.