7 ms·

Unfortunately this is the inevitable outcome of information and computation (and therefore control) becoming cheap. Liberal political systems can no longer surv

by ls612 1y ago

Unfortunately this is the inevitable outcome of information and computation (and therefore control) becoming cheap. Liberal political systems can no longer survive in equilibrium. The 21st century will be a story either of ruling with an iron fist or being crushed beneath one :(

rightbyte 1y ago
Information is as expensive as always it is just copying it that is cheap.
- Xelbair 1y ago
  is it? it was always easier and faster to spew bullshit than to refute it, and now we can automate it.
  - rootlocus 1y ago
    Information, disinformation, what's the difference?
    - anonym29 1y ago
      One's the kind that affirms existing worldviews, the other asks questions that makes TPTB uncomfortable, like Copernicus's questions about geocentrism.
      - jasonjayr 1y ago
        Disinformation is not grounded in any observable evidence, and often has no basis in reality or is just wild speculation. For example, anonym29, when did you stop beating up your partner?
        anonym29 1y ago
        The term 'disinformation' is also used by TPTB to discredit information that is grounded in observable evidence that goes against narratives that TPTB prefer to maintain. Accordingly, every single declaration of "misinformation" must be critically evaluated according to available evidence, as the claim itself has been weaponized by bad-faith, self-serving interests of those in positions of power and authority. The "experts" are frequently wrong, and are not inherently trustworthy. Not every word that slips past their tongue is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They are humans, and like the rest of humans, they lie, they mislead, they are wrong, and some of them and can and do attempt to abuse social consensus mechanisms, including ostracization, to bend public discourse in their favor.
dathinab 1y ago
there is a huge difference between having strict laws and enforcing them and "ruling with the iron fist" the later inherently implies using violence to suppress people
- speeder 1y ago
  That is always same thing. All laws that you want to be strictly enforced, requires violence. This is why people should ALWAYS remember when making laws: "Is this worth killing for?" I remember some years ago on HN people discussing about a guy that got killed because he bought a single fake cigarrete. IT goes like this: You make a law where "x" is forbidden, penalty is a simple fine. Person refuses to pay fine. So you summon that person to court, make threats of bigger fine. Person ends with bigger fine, refuses to pay anything. So you summon that person again, say they will go to jail if they don't pay. They again don't pay, AND flee the police that went to get them. So the cops are in pursuit of the guy, he is a good distance away from the cops for example, then they have the following choice: Let him go, and he won, and broke the law successfully... Or shoot him, the law won, and he is dead. This chain ALWAYS applies, because otherwise laws are useless. You can't enforce laws without the threat of killing people if they refuse all other punishments. I don't know if the guy you were discussing with is right or not, if digital era result in the need of "ruling with the iron fist", but make no mistake, there is no "strict law enforcement" that doesn't involve killing people in the end. Thus you always need to think when making laws: "Is this law worth making someone die because of it?"
  - Nursie 1y ago
    In most places, shooting by law enforcement is not allowed unless there is a clear and present threat to life. Your whole post falls apart right there. Person 'x' refuses to pay a fine - OK, well there are mechanisms where a fine can be automatically applied in some cases, or taken from their assets by court order, or docked from pay. In some places bailiffs/repo men can be called to take assets after fines have been delinquent for long enough. Deadly force is not really the backstop position to a fine, even a 'strictly enforced' one.
    - 1y ago

by ls612 1y ago

rightbyte 1y ago

Information is as expensive as always it is just copying it that is cheap.

Xelbair 1y ago
is it? it was always easier and faster to spew bullshit than to refute it, and now we can automate it.
- rootlocus 1y ago
  Information, disinformation, what's the difference?
  - anonym29 1y ago
    One's the kind that affirms existing worldviews, the other asks questions that makes TPTB uncomfortable, like Copernicus's questions about geocentrism.
    - jasonjayr 1y ago
      Disinformation is not grounded in any observable evidence, and often has no basis in reality or is just wild speculation. For example, anonym29, when did you stop beating up your partner?
      - anonym29 1y ago
        The term 'disinformation' is also used by TPTB to discredit information that is grounded in observable evidence that goes against narratives that TPTB prefer to maintain. Accordingly, every single declaration of "misinformation" must be critically evaluated according to available evidence, as the claim itself has been weaponized by bad-faith, self-serving interests of those in positions of power and authority. The "experts" are frequently wrong, and are not inherently trustworthy. Not every word that slips past their tongue is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They are humans, and like the rest of humans, they lie, they mislead, they are wrong, and some of them and can and do attempt to abuse social consensus mechanisms, including ostracization, to bend public discourse in their favor.

dathinab 1y ago

there is a huge difference between having strict laws and enforcing them and "ruling with the iron fist" the later inherently implies using violence to suppress people

speeder 1y ago
That is always same thing. All laws that you want to be strictly enforced, requires violence. This is why people should ALWAYS remember when making laws: "Is this worth killing for?" I remember some years ago on HN people discussing about a guy that got killed because he bought a single fake cigarrete. IT goes like this: You make a law where "x" is forbidden, penalty is a simple fine. Person refuses to pay fine. So you summon that person to court, make threats of bigger fine. Person ends with bigger fine, refuses to pay anything. So you summon that person again, say they will go to jail if they don't pay. They again don't pay, AND flee the police that went to get them. So the cops are in pursuit of the guy, he is a good distance away from the cops for example, then they have the following choice: Let him go, and he won, and broke the law successfully... Or shoot him, the law won, and he is dead. This chain ALWAYS applies, because otherwise laws are useless. You can't enforce laws without the threat of killing people if they refuse all other punishments. I don't know if the guy you were discussing with is right or not, if digital era result in the need of "ruling with the iron fist", but make no mistake, there is no "strict law enforcement" that doesn't involve killing people in the end. Thus you always need to think when making laws: "Is this law worth making someone die because of it?"
- Nursie 1y ago
  In most places, shooting by law enforcement is not allowed unless there is a clear and present threat to life. Your whole post falls apart right there. Person 'x' refuses to pay a fine - OK, well there are mechanisms where a fine can be automatically applied in some cases, or taken from their assets by court order, or docked from pay. In some places bailiffs/repo men can be called to take assets after fines have been delinquent for long enough. Deadly force is not really the backstop position to a fine, even a 'strictly enforced' one.
  - 1y ago