4 ms·

You'd need more than an internet that could not be shut off. You'd also need an internet where communication could not be tracked. One of the most effective wa

You'd need more than an internet that could not be shut off. You'd also need an internet where communication could not be tracked. One of the most effective ways to maintain an authoritarian regime is to proactively prevent a critical mass of revolt from forming. You just need to keep a steady low volume of arrests and disappearances going for people who express discontent. If not enough people are actively expressing discontent, you fill your quota with members of a group or area that you see as a risk. History shows that your people will stay silent and meek, clinging to the belief that they personally have done nothing wrong. A means of communication which authorities cannot snoop on is absolutely essential for any oppressed population that yearns to breathe free.

robocat 3y ago
History also shows that creates instability. Everyone knows what is going on and keeps the status quo, but a shock (often external) occurs to ignite the dry wood, and disruption erupts. Demonstrations and riots can be healthy releases of tension in democracies. Bottle-in the regular microquakes, and you get devastating earthquakes instead.
- SllX 3y ago
  Demonstrations? Sure. There's nothing healthy about riots for the communities being rioted in.
- h0l0cube 3y ago
  > History also shows that creates instability I would say Russia, China, and North Korea (all well-known to disappear people) have been incredibly stable. Even countries that were quite liberal (e.g., Iran, Myanmar) have worn their populations down into compliance in their major cities. Even the liberal West is borrowing from the same playbook (e.g., police raids on investigative journalists, politically motivated prosecutions). The strategy works, but as you imply, maybe there's a breaking point... or maybe totalitarian states have figured out how to get as close to that line as possible without crossing it.
- throw9away6 3y ago
  I don’t think so. Internally all these countries are very stable, they are just weak to external forces that are out innovating then and move up on the tech/production tree.

robocat 3y ago

History also shows that creates instability. Everyone knows what is going on and keeps the status quo, but a shock (often external) occurs to ignite the dry wood, and disruption erupts. Demonstrations and riots can be healthy releases of tension in democracies. Bottle-in the regular microquakes, and you get devastating earthquakes instead.

SllX 3y ago
Demonstrations? Sure. There's nothing healthy about riots for the communities being rioted in.
h0l0cube 3y ago
> History also shows that creates instability I would say Russia, China, and North Korea (all well-known to disappear people) have been incredibly stable. Even countries that were quite liberal (e.g., Iran, Myanmar) have worn their populations down into compliance in their major cities. Even the liberal West is borrowing from the same playbook (e.g., police raids on investigative journalists, politically motivated prosecutions). The strategy works, but as you imply, maybe there's a breaking point... or maybe totalitarian states have figured out how to get as close to that line as possible without crossing it.
throw9away6 3y ago
I don’t think so. Internally all these countries are very stable, they are just weak to external forces that are out innovating then and move up on the tech/production tree.