3 ms·

why dont you tell us, nazgulsenpai? I mean why bother resist against a tyrannical government right? sheesh. Relevant username.

nazgulsenpai 2y ago
I'm not sure what my username has to do with anything, or why the combative tone. It's intended as a thought exercise, if a revolution in the spirit of the French revolution were to happen today, with the surveillance at the government's disposal, how quickly would it be justified legally (declared terrorists) and neutralized. The more time passes, the more technological advances are used for mass surveillance and propaganda, the less likely it seems.
- metalman 2y ago
  there is a presumption on your part, that control of the net, is absolute revolutions of the past,have all included some control of the press and we can see, everywhere, the frantic efforts to control the net, and digital currency the old axiom of "control the press and the mint, and they can have the rest" is now bieng put to the test, internaly and externaly. the truth bieng that the level of control now possible, real realy realy, is cramping everybodys style, and so the forms of protest and revolution are evolving, and matching the wierdness, insanity for insanity, there IS absolute control , but there is no sure way to describe what exactly is bieng controlled, no revolutionary symbols,check no calls to kill the leaders,check billions of worky workers, worky working, check, trillions of hours spent grinding out an entirely new and evolving memetic language of comunication in a vast never ending seathing quest for some meaning, uh huh.
  - nazgulsenpai 2y ago
    The only presumption I'm making is that technological superiority rests with governments when it comes to implements of surveillance and violence and will likely continue to widen the gap. There's also another somewhat related consideration -- it would be a lot harder to get a military unit of citizens to fire against their fellow citizens than it would be for some operator somewhere to push a button to deploy the murder drones.

nazgulsenpai 2y ago

I'm not sure what my username has to do with anything, or why the combative tone. It's intended as a thought exercise, if a revolution in the spirit of the French revolution were to happen today, with the surveillance at the government's disposal, how quickly would it be justified legally (declared terrorists) and neutralized. The more time passes, the more technological advances are used for mass surveillance and propaganda, the less likely it seems.

metalman 2y ago
there is a presumption on your part, that control of the net, is absolute revolutions of the past,have all included some control of the press and we can see, everywhere, the frantic efforts to control the net, and digital currency the old axiom of "control the press and the mint, and they can have the rest" is now bieng put to the test, internaly and externaly. the truth bieng that the level of control now possible, real realy realy, is cramping everybodys style, and so the forms of protest and revolution are evolving, and matching the wierdness, insanity for insanity, there IS absolute control , but there is no sure way to describe what exactly is bieng controlled, no revolutionary symbols,check no calls to kill the leaders,check billions of worky workers, worky working, check, trillions of hours spent grinding out an entirely new and evolving memetic language of comunication in a vast never ending seathing quest for some meaning, uh huh.
- nazgulsenpai 2y ago
  The only presumption I'm making is that technological superiority rests with governments when it comes to implements of surveillance and violence and will likely continue to widen the gap. There's also another somewhat related consideration -- it would be a lot harder to get a military unit of citizens to fire against their fellow citizens than it would be for some operator somewhere to push a button to deploy the murder drones.