3 ms·

There's authoritarianism, where government knows what's best for everyone and keeps secrets to "protect" its citizens. Then there's democracy, where the governm

There's authoritarianism, where government knows what's best for everyone and keeps secrets to "protect" its citizens. Then there's democracy, where the government is open and honest so the people can make informed decisions on how best to run their government. In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange.

wunderland 4y ago
Which governments would you consider “open and honest” democracies?
- calibas 4y ago
  It's a spectrum, and certain countries embody the ideal more than others. I don't think a completely open and honest democracy exists yet though.
  - fmajid 4y ago
    Iceland or Switzerland?
    - hulitu 4y ago
      > Iceland or Switzerland? Yeah, right. Switzerland, where contracts with private companies are censored so the public does not see how much money they lose.
      - Gud 4y ago
        This is by democratic choice though. If the public don't want this, they can always hold a binding referendum. Unlike any other country on earth.
ip26 4y ago
Congratulations, you’ve managed to construct this into a classic “with us or against us” framework, a popular tool among authoritarians.
- calibas 4y ago
  It's two diametrically opposed political ideals, with most people (and governments) falling somewhere in between the two extremes. That's the framework that already exists, not something I've constructed to divide people. If you truly support democracy, then you accept that even the authoritarians should be given a voice, and you just pray they're not in the majority. That's very different than the "with us or against us" paradigm that's popular among authoritarians.
  - justinclift 4y ago
    > If you truly support democracy, then you accept ... Heh Heh Heh That sounds like you just did the "with us or against us" thing the commenter above you just pointed out. Very ironic. ;)
- hulitu 4y ago
  > a popular tool among authoritarians And a popular tool among the so called "democracies".
shp0ngle 4y ago
Isn't Putin nowadays for Assange and definitely for Snowden? This is a stupid test.
- taskforcegemini 4y ago
  Putin has done much worse things to people who did less than what Snowden, Manning or Assange did. Regarding Snowden, Putin is just being opportunistic.
- DANmode 4y ago
  OP is blatantly obviously referring to populace in Western nations.
- throw10920 4y ago
  Snowden and Assange are also completely incomparable situations - you're right, it's an extremely stupid test, to the point of being non-nonsensical.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange These are complex situations. If you’re basing your binary judgement of an even-more complex political spectrum (it isn’t really a spectrum) on these cases, your model is mis-tuned. I’m sure, for example, Putin would find both exemplary figures. That doesn’t make him a Solon.
throw10920 4y ago
> ask them their opinions on Snowden In your "opinion", what fraction of the documents that Edward Snowden stole were directly related to spying on American citizens?
rocket_surgeron 4y ago
>In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange. As far as Assange goes I think he is a liar. The primary piece of evidence I use to support this is that he claims that his media firm, Sunshine Press was a non-profit when its documents of incorporation list it as a private limited company. https://www.facebook.com/WikiLeaks.SunshinePress https://www.facebook.com/WikiLeaks.SunshinePress >Official Facebook Page-- The Sunshine Press (Wikileaks), is an international non-profit organization (That's all I've got as its website is dead now) Incorporation document: https://www.scribd.com/doc/47601520/SUNSHINE-PRESS-PRODUCTIONS-EHF-FOR-PROFIT-LIMITED-COMPANY-DOCUMENTS https://www.scribd.com/doc/47601520/SUNSHINE-PRESS-PRODUCTIO... Definition of EHF: https://island.is/en/limited-liability-companies https://island.is/en/limited-liability-companies A second piece of evidence is that the original release of Collateral Murder was edited to remove the armed men accompanying the journalists who were killed and the unedited version was only released after public outcry. The presence of armed men escorting the journalists may have been used to justify the attack, which occurred just a couple hundred meters from an active firefight, so the context was deleted in the initial release. A third piece of evidence is that Assange lied to John Young, a highly-respected member of the "leaking" community to get him to register the original Wikileaks domain waaaay back in the day and then the Wikileaks community turned on John when he dared speak out. https://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm https://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm Finally, a fourth piece of evidence is that they used Wau Holland (Chaos Computer Club) as an initial fundraising arm to funnel money to Sunshine Press, and Wau Holland promised an audit of the substantial sums of money being directed to Sunshine Press, but they only ended up publishing three bare-bones "transparency reports" after millions had been spent and their tax-free status had been revoked for funding a for-profit enterprise. Once it became impossible to funnel donations tax-free to the for-profit business through Wau Holland donations slowed, communications stopped, and the association between the two ended. Please note that none of the banking shenanigans going on at the time impacted Wau Holland. https://wauland.de/en/projects/enduring-freedom-of-information-wikileaks/ https://wauland.de/en/projects/enduring-freedom-of-informati... Does any of the above make me an authoritarian?

wunderland 4y ago

Which governments would you consider “open and honest” democracies?

calibas 4y ago
It's a spectrum, and certain countries embody the ideal more than others. I don't think a completely open and honest democracy exists yet though.
- fmajid 4y ago
  Iceland or Switzerland?
  - hulitu 4y ago
    > Iceland or Switzerland? Yeah, right. Switzerland, where contracts with private companies are censored so the public does not see how much money they lose.
    - Gud 4y ago
      This is by democratic choice though. If the public don't want this, they can always hold a binding referendum. Unlike any other country on earth.

ip26 4y ago

Congratulations, you’ve managed to construct this into a classic “with us or against us” framework, a popular tool among authoritarians.

calibas 4y ago
It's two diametrically opposed political ideals, with most people (and governments) falling somewhere in between the two extremes. That's the framework that already exists, not something I've constructed to divide people. If you truly support democracy, then you accept that even the authoritarians should be given a voice, and you just pray they're not in the majority. That's very different than the "with us or against us" paradigm that's popular among authoritarians.
- justinclift 4y ago
  > If you truly support democracy, then you accept ... Heh Heh Heh That sounds like you just did the "with us or against us" thing the commenter above you just pointed out. Very ironic. ;)
hulitu 4y ago
> a popular tool among authoritarians And a popular tool among the so called "democracies".

shp0ngle 4y ago

Isn't Putin nowadays for Assange and definitely for Snowden? This is a stupid test.

taskforcegemini 4y ago
Putin has done much worse things to people who did less than what Snowden, Manning or Assange did. Regarding Snowden, Putin is just being opportunistic.
DANmode 4y ago
OP is blatantly obviously referring to populace in Western nations.
throw10920 4y ago
Snowden and Assange are also completely incomparable situations - you're right, it's an extremely stupid test, to the point of being non-nonsensical.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange These are complex situations. If you’re basing your binary judgement of an even-more complex political spectrum (it isn’t really a spectrum) on these cases, your model is mis-tuned. I’m sure, for example, Putin would find both exemplary figures. That doesn’t make him a Solon.

throw10920 4y ago

> ask them their opinions on Snowden In your "opinion", what fraction of the documents that Edward Snowden stole were directly related to spying on American citizens?

rocket_surgeron 4y ago

>In my opinion, one of the best ways of identifying an authoritarian is to ask them their opinions on Snowden or Assange. As far as Assange goes I think he is a liar. The primary piece of evidence I use to support this is that he claims that his media firm, Sunshine Press was a non-profit when its documents of incorporation list it as a private limited company. https://www.facebook.com/WikiLeaks.SunshinePress https://www.facebook.com/WikiLeaks.SunshinePress >Official Facebook Page-- The Sunshine Press (Wikileaks), is an international non-profit organization (That's all I've got as its website is dead now) Incorporation document: https://www.scribd.com/doc/47601520/SUNSHINE-PRESS-PRODUCTIONS-EHF-FOR-PROFIT-LIMITED-COMPANY-DOCUMENTS https://www.scribd.com/doc/47601520/SUNSHINE-PRESS-PRODUCTIO... Definition of EHF: https://island.is/en/limited-liability-companies https://island.is/en/limited-liability-companies A second piece of evidence is that the original release of Collateral Murder was edited to remove the armed men accompanying the journalists who were killed and the unedited version was only released after public outcry. The presence of armed men escorting the journalists may have been used to justify the attack, which occurred just a couple hundred meters from an active firefight, so the context was deleted in the initial release. A third piece of evidence is that Assange lied to John Young, a highly-respected member of the "leaking" community to get him to register the original Wikileaks domain waaaay back in the day and then the Wikileaks community turned on John when he dared speak out. https://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm https://cryptome.org/wikileaks/wikileaks-leak.htm Finally, a fourth piece of evidence is that they used Wau Holland (Chaos Computer Club) as an initial fundraising arm to funnel money to Sunshine Press, and Wau Holland promised an audit of the substantial sums of money being directed to Sunshine Press, but they only ended up publishing three bare-bones "transparency reports" after millions had been spent and their tax-free status had been revoked for funding a for-profit enterprise. Once it became impossible to funnel donations tax-free to the for-profit business through Wau Holland donations slowed, communications stopped, and the association between the two ended. Please note that none of the banking shenanigans going on at the time impacted Wau Holland. https://wauland.de/en/projects/enduring-freedom-of-information-wikileaks/ https://wauland.de/en/projects/enduring-freedom-of-informati... Does any of the above make me an authoritarian?