6 ms·
> Politicians and police are not subject to monitoring, only ordinal citizens messages’ should be wiretapped Of course, in 1984, their instruction manual, the
by _mlbt 2y ago
> Politicians and police are not subject to monitoring, only ordinal citizens messages’ should be wiretapped
Of course, in 1984, their instruction manual, the top members of the party can turn their telescreens off.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago>Of course, in 1984 Kind of funny to hear people refer to 1984 these days. We're so far past it now, and we did it to ourselves; giving up location data for maps (and mobile phone function for that matter), a Ring doorbell on every front door, participation in social media, etc. But somehow it's all OK, because it's corporations instead of the government (a blurry line itself) on the other end.
- ruszki 2y ago> we did it to ourselves Most people don't know that we did it. They still happily click on "accept all" and blame it on EU to need to do that. They don't know what the heck is that, and why they should understand what's written there. When they are asked cleanly, and simply whether they want to share their data to thousands of shady companies, about only a quarter choose yes. That's why Facebook had to force everybody in the EU to choose between paying and accepting it.
- globular-toast 2y agoEveryone I know did, because I told them. But they did it anyway. Now we wish it was only as bad as Facebook was 15 years ago. Divide and conquer tactics work. Microsoft, Facebook and Apple all use it to great advantage. The funny thing is it was always about free software. Not enough people listened to Stallman. None of this could have happened if people rejected non-free software.
- nalekberov 2y agoIt could, and it happened, not long time ago, everyone thought just because xz software was free software, it's 100% safe, but it was not. There are numerous examples. Stallman lives in his own delusional world, and GPL not only solved the problem, it created more burden, that developers decided to use other less restrictive licenses.
- globular-toast 2y ago> There are numerous examples Such as? > it created more burden In what way?
- nalekberov 2y ago> Such as? You can search the web, but as an appetiser here you go: https://jfrog.com/blog/malware-civil-war-malicious-npm-packages-targeting-malware-authors/ https://jfrog.com/blog/malware-civil-war-malicious-npm-packa... > In what way? Well, you can't bundle GPL licensed software with less restrictive one such as BSD, which is a big deal, that's why BSD and GNU/Linux are so separated in many ways. That's just one problem. It'c clear that all-or-nothing approach doesn't work in free and open source software world.
- dmm 2y ago> Well, you can't bundle GPL licensed software with less restrictive one such as BSD Sure you can. If the result is a derivative work redistribution is subject to the terms of the GPL but you can bundle all you want.
- nalekberov 2y agoTechnically yes, you are right, in practice it's a pain because of GPL's restrictions.
- globular-toast 2y agoNo it's not, it's dead easy. What restrictions are you referring to? GPL doesn't care what you apply it to and there's no restrictions on its use. The only restrictions that would matter are those of the original licence, BSD, which is permissive.
- unclebucknasty 2y agoMany know by now, but find the trade-off worth it for convenience or whatever they're getting in return. I mean, people are willingly giving up their DNA. But, if it was the government receiving all of this data, they'd be in a panic. This has basis in current day fear-mongering about government power, as well as warnings about authoritarian governments from Orwell and beyond. Not to say there's no reason to be concerned, but the casual mentions of 1984 are hilariously dated and ironic in 2024. More substantively, it also reveals the naivete of those who wish to completely disempower their democratic governments. That is, someone will still retain the power when it's taken from the government. The only question is who and whether everyday people will have a voice in their own governance. One look at corporate power and our deference there is a pretty big hint.
- throw_nbvc1234 2y agoBecause it's a narrative baked into western culture. People collectively respond to stories/narratives more then pure facts.
- _mlbt 2y agoThe fact is that we are shockingly close to the world of 1984. Two minutes hate, newspeak, and our smartphones are telescreens on steroids. Orwell was frighteningly prophetic.
- jenadine 2y agoOrwell wasn't prophetic but was a reflection of the world as it already was is 1948. That's what I learnt at school.
- seanw444 2y agoThen the message is even more dire: the world has always been a dystopia. And even 70+ years later, with more (and better) education, higher standards of living, and a wealth of dystopias to read and learn from, nothing has changed.
- lukan 2y agoTo add some details, he worked for the BBC during wartime - that was the inspiration for the job in the truth ministry of the main character in 1984. Basically inventing the truth.
- nalekberov 2y ago"than" not "then"
- rusk 2y ago> We're so far past it now, For me it was more like 2014. Though it was going on long before this … I think it was the pandemonium and ultimately the widespread acceptance … that sealed the deal!
- iamacyborg 2y agoI know you meant to write pandemic instead of pandemonium but “the pandemonium” sounds like a fun future event.
- rusk 2y agoI meant pandemonium in the wake of the Snowden revelations :)
- BSDobelix 2y ago>We're so far past it now, and we did it to ourselves No we are not, you are not forced to have a smartphone, your are still allowed to have sex and most democracy's don't torture you for speak against it. Don't just fixate on the surveillance aspect in 1984, there's much much more in the book.
- unclebucknasty 2y ago>you are not forced to have a smartphone Yes. That was my point. We are not forced to (though life would be hard without one). As I said, we did it to ourselves. >Don't just fixate on the surveillance aspect I'm referring to the context of this thread, which is largely around surveillance. That, BTW, is also the context in which references to 1984 most often arise.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- elric 2y agoYou're effectively forced to have a smartphone. It pisses me off, because aside from the privacy aspect, it marganalises a lot of people. As with many things, how true this is depends on where you are. But many restaurants refuse to hand out menus, many places require mobile payments, gyms require apps for access, etc.
- darkclouds 2y ago[dead]
- surfingdino 2y agoTime to stash some paper notebooks and pencils while they are still not banned.