4 ms·

In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for br

In my opinion, this is a good thing. It's akin to disconnecting gas mains during a bombing run or similar. War is war and we need real defensive measures for broad cyberattack. If it gets misused then we'll protest, etc. Edit: You can downvote if you like, but this comment of mine isn't made in bad faith. It's fair to worry about a global cyberwar and fair to point out that in-person protests are still a viable response to abuse.

sojournerc 4y ago
How would you organize protest with the government controlling communication? You have far more trust in the good will of those in power than I do.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Protests happened before the Internet. Before telephones, even. Neither are a requirement for people to communicate and organize.
  - jasonjayr 4y ago
    But times change and so has technology. Adversaries have access to this technology too, and it's a power multiplier. If they can shut down access to those they are oppressing, then they become far too powerful. Yes, protesters can still protest, but without access to the same tech that those they are protesting can use, they can be out-organized, their voice muted, and their effectiveness minimized.
  - ex3ndr 4y ago
    Before telephones protests were far from peaceful and usually ended up killing someone.
  - salawat 4y ago
    You're being disingenuous. Think about this. The authorities wouldn't blanket shut down the Internet, they'd do it for the protesting populace, but leave their own access untouched. Protests largely suceeded in prior times because the capabilities of the populace vs. the government were largely symmetrical. That would not be the case in this instance. You (the protestors) would be back to runners, unencrypted radio/code. They'd still have the modern comm suite. It doesn't make things impossible for protestors, but it greatly shifts things in the government's favor for containment and ability to sustain itself against a now unconsenting populace. Always remember asymmetry will be employed as early and often as possible.
  - acuozzo 4y ago
    > Protests happened before the Internet. Before telephones, even. US Population, 1870: 38,558,371 US Population, 2020: 331,449,281
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      That's not even necessarily the main issue - it's that the cultural norms around how information was spread pre-phone/internet have now been lost, so there's realistically no good way to get a message out to a huge number of people without access to modern communications technology. In a world where flyers or word of mouth or bill posters were the only forms of communication people naturally paid much more attention to them and their patterns of movement and interaction within the community enabled their effectiveness. Shutting off all electronic communication access is orders-of-magnitude more limiting than, say, a twitter ban (which I've argued before barely qualifies as a restriction on free speech).
  - TakeBlaster16 4y ago
    This argument is almost never useful. Times change. People survived hundreds of years ago without electricity or running water, so it should be perfectly fine if the government shuts off utilities for protestors, right?
  - robryk 4y ago
    We lost common access to the means that were used to communicate earlier. For example, anonymous and unrevocable access to the phone network used to exist in the form of payphones, which are being phased out.
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
If there truly is a need to turn the valve the government should have no problem getting sufficient voluntary compliance by asking politely and publicly and articulating why such action is justified.
- 1659447091 4y ago
  "Think of the children"
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
OrangeMonkey 4y ago
How would the every day person gather and protest. How would they know? Honest question - how would you know? - The problems will not be on the radio / tv. - Services that try to talk about it can be silenced. - Users who talk about things the government finds inconvenient will be silenced - its already happening. - Groups trying to organize to protest things are already banned in some cases on facebook (see Australian response to covid vaccine mandate groups). Governments can plan for and have shut off valves to silence you. Do not be so quick to trust a government who obviously does not want to trust you.
clarkmoody 4y ago
When is the last time the government has been held accountable to the people?
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  In full? 1776 In practice what happens is that some boondoggle results in a catastrophic too big to brush aside and the part of the executive branch in question decides that just not doing that thing going forward is better than the scrutiny from the legislative branch and change their policy. Nobody is ever meaningfully held accountable. Sometimes there's a token scapegoat. The above pattern holds both at the federal and state level.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > In full? 1776 That wasn't the people. That was the oligarchs disagreeing as to who got to own the slaves and reap the spoils of genocide.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      >That wasn't the people. That was the oligarchs disagreeing as to who got to own the slaves and reap the spoils of genocide. Oh come on, quit with the BS talking points. War on your territory is NEVER good for business and overall wealth and they knew that back in the 18th century too. They would have been far, far, far, richer throwing their lot in with the status quo. Many of the prominent individuals who played key roles the revolution lost their wealth and in many cases their lives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Framers_and_signers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United...
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        > War on your territory is NEVER good for business and overall wealth and they knew that back in the 18th century too. They would have been far, far, far, richer throwing their lot in with the status quo. Many of the prominent individuals who played key roles the revolution lost their wealth and in many cases their lives. So they fought and expended resources because they disagreed on which land stealing genocidal slavers got to be on top of the pile... If it was for the good of the people, 'the people' would have included people and not just the elite men.

sojournerc 4y ago

How would you organize protest with the government controlling communication? You have far more trust in the good will of those in power than I do.

ryandrake 4y ago
Protests happened before the Internet. Before telephones, even. Neither are a requirement for people to communicate and organize.
- jasonjayr 4y ago
  But times change and so has technology. Adversaries have access to this technology too, and it's a power multiplier. If they can shut down access to those they are oppressing, then they become far too powerful. Yes, protesters can still protest, but without access to the same tech that those they are protesting can use, they can be out-organized, their voice muted, and their effectiveness minimized.
- ex3ndr 4y ago
  Before telephones protests were far from peaceful and usually ended up killing someone.
- salawat 4y ago
  You're being disingenuous. Think about this. The authorities wouldn't blanket shut down the Internet, they'd do it for the protesting populace, but leave their own access untouched. Protests largely suceeded in prior times because the capabilities of the populace vs. the government were largely symmetrical. That would not be the case in this instance. You (the protestors) would be back to runners, unencrypted radio/code. They'd still have the modern comm suite. It doesn't make things impossible for protestors, but it greatly shifts things in the government's favor for containment and ability to sustain itself against a now unconsenting populace. Always remember asymmetry will be employed as early and often as possible.
- acuozzo 4y ago
  > Protests happened before the Internet. Before telephones, even. US Population, 1870: 38,558,371 US Population, 2020: 331,449,281
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    That's not even necessarily the main issue - it's that the cultural norms around how information was spread pre-phone/internet have now been lost, so there's realistically no good way to get a message out to a huge number of people without access to modern communications technology. In a world where flyers or word of mouth or bill posters were the only forms of communication people naturally paid much more attention to them and their patterns of movement and interaction within the community enabled their effectiveness. Shutting off all electronic communication access is orders-of-magnitude more limiting than, say, a twitter ban (which I've argued before barely qualifies as a restriction on free speech).
- TakeBlaster16 4y ago
  This argument is almost never useful. Times change. People survived hundreds of years ago without electricity or running water, so it should be perfectly fine if the government shuts off utilities for protestors, right?
- robryk 4y ago
  We lost common access to the means that were used to communicate earlier. For example, anonymous and unrevocable access to the phone network used to exist in the form of payphones, which are being phased out.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

If there truly is a need to turn the valve the government should have no problem getting sufficient voluntary compliance by asking politely and publicly and articulating why such action is justified.

1659447091 4y ago
"Think of the children"

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

How would the every day person gather and protest. How would they know? Honest question - how would you know? - The problems will not be on the radio / tv. - Services that try to talk about it can be silenced. - Users who talk about things the government finds inconvenient will be silenced - its already happening. - Groups trying to organize to protest things are already banned in some cases on facebook (see Australian response to covid vaccine mandate groups). Governments can plan for and have shut off valves to silence you. Do not be so quick to trust a government who obviously does not want to trust you.

clarkmoody 4y ago

When is the last time the government has been held accountable to the people?

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
In full? 1776 In practice what happens is that some boondoggle results in a catastrophic too big to brush aside and the part of the executive branch in question decides that just not doing that thing going forward is better than the scrutiny from the legislative branch and change their policy. Nobody is ever meaningfully held accountable. Sometimes there's a token scapegoat. The above pattern holds both at the federal and state level.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > In full? 1776 That wasn't the people. That was the oligarchs disagreeing as to who got to own the slaves and reap the spoils of genocide.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >That wasn't the people. That was the oligarchs disagreeing as to who got to own the slaves and reap the spoils of genocide. Oh come on, quit with the BS talking points. War on your territory is NEVER good for business and overall wealth and they knew that back in the 18th century too. They would have been far, far, far, richer throwing their lot in with the status quo. Many of the prominent individuals who played key roles the revolution lost their wealth and in many cases their lives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Framers_and_signers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United...
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      > War on your territory is NEVER good for business and overall wealth and they knew that back in the 18th century too. They would have been far, far, far, richer throwing their lot in with the status quo. Many of the prominent individuals who played key roles the revolution lost their wealth and in many cases their lives. So they fought and expended resources because they disagreed on which land stealing genocidal slavers got to be on top of the pile... If it was for the good of the people, 'the people' would have included people and not just the elite men.