2 ms·

All the Chinese activists are truly happy about all the transparency about their person and their beliefs. I can hear them rejoicing in their cells.

• DrScientist 2y ago
  You are looking at the problem the wrong way. If you have a democracy then the laws of the land should be those that are agreed by general consent - give or take - and as such applying those laws to people in a way that means they are accountable for their actions isn't a problem - in fact it's the long standing bedrock of civilisation. The problem in China isn't that they can catch people breaking their laws, it's a problem with how those laws are set in the first place. So the real issue is stopping a move towards authoritarianism which is a whole larger conversation. So in the issue above - about the journalist - the question should be about whether the particular hate speech law is correct, rather than worrying about if they appear to breach it whether they can be caught.
  • throwway120385 2y ago
    The problem is that it is very easy to slide quickly into authoritarianism, as we're seeing in the US. I don't see how "transparency" is served by knowing who someone is or associating them with every piece of speech they've ever uttered. The only use of a system like that is to police thoughtcrime.
  • 7bit 2y ago
    No, YOU are looking at it naively. In the past 100 years the following countries have slipped from democracies to authoritarian states: Germany, Italy, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Argentina, Chile, Russia, Turkey, Nicaragua. Some of them recovered, others never did. Look at Turkey for example. If you think you are safe, you aren't.
    • DrScientist 2y ago
      So your answer is it's inevitable that any country will slip into authoritarianism so we must live as if we are in one already - and create a whole society around being able to subvert authority. Have you considered that massively enables organised criminal elements in democracies and increases the chances of a slide into authoritarianism?
    • 7bit 2y ago
      What are you talking about? I don't want to change anything. You are the one advocating that social media should require any comments being identifiable via id...
      • DrScientist 2y ago
        First I'm not advocating it - I'm saying it's inevitable - because if you want to not change society away from a model where people are responsbile for their actions, then you need enable that accountability. It's a bit like in the good-old days of the internet when everyone trusted everyone else - life was simple and good. Then the bad actors came, and so did SSL, firewalls, n factor auth etc etc. Search engine results became less good as people gamed the rankings. You have to adapt. In Europe we take a different view from America - in America mass school shootings are a price worth paying for the right to own a gun. In the UK there is a presumption that they really isn't any good reason for owning a handgun, nevermind an assault rifle, so it's pretty hard to get one. Freedom is multi-dimensional - and not absolute. I'm free of worrying my child will be shot at school, but less free to own a gun. Same goes for freedoms on the internet - in the end it's about a pragmatic choice about what's best and I'm saying that pragmatic choice is already encapsulated in centuries of legal tradition - the internet doesn't change that - people, in the end, need to be accountable for their actions.
• INTPenis 2y ago
  Your thinking is very black and white if you believe that there won't be other forums and places for activists to organize.