3 ms·

In a world that runs on technology, where rapid communication is essential to have an advantage, secure and accessible tech is a prerequisite for mass social mo

In a world that runs on technology, where rapid communication is essential to have an advantage, secure and accessible tech is a prerequisite for mass social mobilization. You need secure channels for coordination among organizers, methods for moving funds that aren’t easy to shut down, and channels for engaging with ordinary people and ensuring your message can be heard. You need ways to communicate with journalists and sympathetic foreigners. I see this kind of dismissal of activist tech all the time here, along with FUD and trolling. Enough! You’re on Hacker News. This is a place where users primarily discuss technology, which includes activist technology. There are plenty of people here interested in that sort of technology, and some who may build it and provide it to the less technically inclined over at Reddit (or some political forum). Then those people can do the work that they are more inclined to do, including the difficult work of organizing and mobilizing popular opposition. I just don’t get the point of posts like this. Would you prefer that everyone be an organizer even if they lack the skills or personality for that? Or is it some kind of accelerationist argument, and you think that people will be more willing to protest if they lack the tools to organize? We don’t yet live under a regime where technology is completely locked down and restricted; the point is to fight back now before that happens!

gjsman-1000 1y ago
You're making the assumption that if you build the tech, people will then use the tech, and then the government can't shut it down, because people are using the tech. An authoritarian government never cares about the widespread availability of anything. If anything, people using it, only becomes a greater impetus to shut it down before it gets larger. The government holds the cards for shutting it down at any time, regardless of size and popularity. > We don’t yet live under a regime where technology is completely locked down and restricted; the point is to fight back now before that happens! If we respond by adding duress PINs on GrapheneOS and encrypting the messaging to the 9s, and then bad actors use said technologies, the government has all the ammunition they need for public opinion. We made it easier to ban with a straight face, not harder.
- iamnothere 1y ago
  You build the tech, then people use it as a tool to help execute an overall strategy. The tech is not the strategy, it’s just a tool. Ideally you have multiple overlapping tools, including non-technical tools, and the loss of one does not cripple your movement. An authoritarian government can also just start rounding up and shooting anyone suspected of being a dissident. Typically that doesn’t end well for the government!
  - gjsman-1000 1y ago
    China did it successfully. Violent oppression sometimes does work without consequence - you might even become a WTO member. Military-grade technologies make you a threat to be dealt with by the military. An opponent with weapons is more directly an opponent to be crushed than an opponent with a microphone. Standing in the streets mourning with candlelight would probably be more effective than an encrypted messaging app. The encrypted messaging app definitely feels cooler though, but feelings don't determine reality. The most successful revolutions in history that built cultural inertia as morally righteous were never known for their sophisticated weapons and planning. China was more freaked out over blank paper than they would have been if tens of thousands of rebels had been armed. Heck, blank paper probably rattled China more than every citizen having Signal would have. Activism is about changing hearts and minds. It's never a logistics problem. Enter a direct competition with the government and you've already lost. From that perspective, ICEBlock has done nothing for activism.
    - iamnothere 1y ago
      Yes, it’s possible to fight and still lose. What you’re arguing for is unilateral disarmament, surrender in fact, due to fears that not surrendering may cause you to lose. Opposition, so long as it is ineffective and poses no real threat to power. > The most successful revolutions in history that built cultural inertia as morally righteous were never known for their sophisticated weapons and planning. Maybe you should spend some more time studying revolutions. Often there is a great amount of coordination that must happen, especially when going up against a strong adversary. And it’s important to match or exceed your adversary’s reaction time in order to disrupt their planning and cause them to make tactical errors of judgement. This is what leads to events like in Nepal, where the government overreacted and shut down the tools being used for organizing. This was the breaking point that led to mass mobilization, but the revolution was only possible because of the groundwork that had been laid in advance—through careful planning by activists and organizers. Planning that was carried out using modern technology! > China was more freaked out over blank paper than they would have been if tens of thousands of rebels had been armed. A hypothetical “just so” statement that (a) cannot be tested and (b) is unlikely to be true. China would see tens of thousands of armed rebels as an existential threat and would be “freaked out” enough to deploy the military immediately. If the population was unhappy enough and ground was prepared for revolution, this would lead to revolution as it did in the USSR. (The big problem with would-be revolutions in China is that the population is pretty happy overall, for now, thanks to improved standards of living. This effect will likely wear off in the future.) > It's never a logistics problem. Wrong. Activists make extensive use of technology in order to coordinate and achieve their aims. For all the reasons explained above. > Enter a direct competition with the government and you've already lost. Civil Rights era activists were in direct conflict with the FBI, police, and in some cases the National guard. They won.

gjsman-1000 1y ago

You're making the assumption that if you build the tech, people will then use the tech, and then the government can't shut it down, because people are using the tech. An authoritarian government never cares about the widespread availability of anything. If anything, people using it, only becomes a greater impetus to shut it down before it gets larger. The government holds the cards for shutting it down at any time, regardless of size and popularity. > We don’t yet live under a regime where technology is completely locked down and restricted; the point is to fight back now before that happens! If we respond by adding duress PINs on GrapheneOS and encrypting the messaging to the 9s, and then bad actors use said technologies, the government has all the ammunition they need for public opinion. We made it easier to ban with a straight face, not harder.

iamnothere 1y ago
You build the tech, then people use it as a tool to help execute an overall strategy. The tech is not the strategy, it’s just a tool. Ideally you have multiple overlapping tools, including non-technical tools, and the loss of one does not cripple your movement. An authoritarian government can also just start rounding up and shooting anyone suspected of being a dissident. Typically that doesn’t end well for the government!
- gjsman-1000 1y ago
  China did it successfully. Violent oppression sometimes does work without consequence - you might even become a WTO member. Military-grade technologies make you a threat to be dealt with by the military. An opponent with weapons is more directly an opponent to be crushed than an opponent with a microphone. Standing in the streets mourning with candlelight would probably be more effective than an encrypted messaging app. The encrypted messaging app definitely feels cooler though, but feelings don't determine reality. The most successful revolutions in history that built cultural inertia as morally righteous were never known for their sophisticated weapons and planning. China was more freaked out over blank paper than they would have been if tens of thousands of rebels had been armed. Heck, blank paper probably rattled China more than every citizen having Signal would have. Activism is about changing hearts and minds. It's never a logistics problem. Enter a direct competition with the government and you've already lost. From that perspective, ICEBlock has done nothing for activism.
  - iamnothere 1y ago
    Yes, it’s possible to fight and still lose. What you’re arguing for is unilateral disarmament, surrender in fact, due to fears that not surrendering may cause you to lose. Opposition, so long as it is ineffective and poses no real threat to power. > The most successful revolutions in history that built cultural inertia as morally righteous were never known for their sophisticated weapons and planning. Maybe you should spend some more time studying revolutions. Often there is a great amount of coordination that must happen, especially when going up against a strong adversary. And it’s important to match or exceed your adversary’s reaction time in order to disrupt their planning and cause them to make tactical errors of judgement. This is what leads to events like in Nepal, where the government overreacted and shut down the tools being used for organizing. This was the breaking point that led to mass mobilization, but the revolution was only possible because of the groundwork that had been laid in advance—through careful planning by activists and organizers. Planning that was carried out using modern technology! > China was more freaked out over blank paper than they would have been if tens of thousands of rebels had been armed. A hypothetical “just so” statement that (a) cannot be tested and (b) is unlikely to be true. China would see tens of thousands of armed rebels as an existential threat and would be “freaked out” enough to deploy the military immediately. If the population was unhappy enough and ground was prepared for revolution, this would lead to revolution as it did in the USSR. (The big problem with would-be revolutions in China is that the population is pretty happy overall, for now, thanks to improved standards of living. This effect will likely wear off in the future.) > It's never a logistics problem. Wrong. Activists make extensive use of technology in order to coordinate and achieve their aims. For all the reasons explained above. > Enter a direct competition with the government and you've already lost. Civil Rights era activists were in direct conflict with the FBI, police, and in some cases the National guard. They won.