5 ms·

Why are you pointing that out? Do you think that because governments have always been so self-serving and manipulative, that it's okay? If not, then do you thin

Why are you pointing that out? Do you think that because governments have always been so self-serving and manipulative, that it's okay? If not, then do you think that that has some relevance to the current discussion? We're talking about what Western governments are doing today, and what you're doing - saying that it's not news, and it's always been going on - is a common technique that they use for shutting down open discussion of these topics.

tokenadult 12y ago
We're talking about what Western governments are doing today What do you mean, "We"? The submitted article purported to be about a worldwide phenomenon, and on a worldwide basis, what the Western countries and their democratically elected governments are doing for Internet freedom looks quite good. On a worldwide basis, regarding Internet freedom, the performance of China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and a lot of other countries and their governments is much worse than that of the Western countries, and yet some participants here who enjoy Western freedom are trying to shut down the broader discussion here by pointing only to the wrongs of Western governments. We know a lot more about what the Western governments are doing than we do about what the other governments are doing precisely because we live in an environment of much more free press in the West than elsewhere. This bias in availability of information shouldn't bias all of our discussions of worldwide issues on Hacker News. (Disclosure: I speak and read languages other than English and have lived in a non-Western, non-English-speaking country before, so I don't have a narrow national perspective on this issue, but rather attempt to have a worldwide perspective on it.)
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  Right, but the article is not even handed when dealing with the role of Western-state-sponsored disruption that these countries are having to deal with. It dismisses the explanation that investigation and shutdown of radicalizing social media and disruptive ideas is done A.) both by Western and non-Western states and B.) that Western states radicalize social media and news media to achieve policy and geopolitical goals for the crude and inequitable implication that instead these states are just 'evil'. It just isn't that way. When Twitter is being used by competing nations as a means to incite riots in your people, what would you do if you were in power? Looking to America's present: Fusion Centers track various political groups including the Tea Party, Occupy was dismantled by federal agent intervention, access to stories, interviews and meetings is given to journalists and news corporations that 'play ball' with the government and several extremely important political stories have been repressed (Risen's first NSA surveillance story circa second Bush election) or pushed (including false stories, such as the Fallujah Psyop and the partnership with journalist Judith Miller to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq). But we don't even need to look at that. We can look at the link included in the very first post - the US government wants to be able to study radicalizing Twitter messages targeting Americans. Looking to America's past you'll see that both Red Scares burgeoned the state with extra-Constitutional capabilities to restrict American speech, as it was believed that dangerous ideas coming from the last domino of revolutions in Europe (the Soviet Union) where more extreme versions of populist ideas (the Bolsheviks) threatened the system and the status quo so fully it could foment in the end of the US government (as it had already done repeatedly in Europe). Take the Mayor of Jersey City Frank Hague during the Red Scare: "We hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, 'That man is a Red, that man is a Communist.' You never hear a real American talk like that." That is to say America does do and has done the same sort of restrictions of free speech this article, and others in this thread, would import into a sense of 'evil'. Yes, there's been a global crack down on the internet. A global one. In Western states, there has been too. It's just inequitable to attribute the crack down in non-Western states to 'evilness' and the crack down in Western states to 'practicality'. And to ignore the pressures and leverages on non-Western states placed on them by America/allies. That's what this part of the thread of the discussion is about. As far as the discussion specifically of Western governments and their use of realpolitik, I think it was mostly spurred by the comment suggesting it might be justified by Western 'spreading of freedom' (the thread then focused on analyzing this, and correctly identified IMHO that Western states don't have that track record of spreading freedom attributed to them in myth).
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  Most of us live in Western nations. And Western nations, unlike the ones you mentioned, have a veneer of pretending to be free places, but are actually as oppressive and ruthless as the others to anyone who becomes a real threat. The right to free speech is rendered impotent in the face of their ability to infiltrate peaceful protests and sway public opinion. And you are using some of the very same techniques that they do when you try to downplay the importance of it.
anigbrowl 12y ago
Actually, I do think it's sort of OK because it's preferable to nations pursuing their interests by straight-up warfare. I'm for self-determination, but not to the point of disengagement or passivity. Incidentally I grew up in a former colonial country, so I'm not offering a reflexive America-first perspective.
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  Why is the choice between this and war? Where's the option of neither?

tokenadult 12y ago

We're talking about what Western governments are doing today What do you mean, "We"? The submitted article purported to be about a worldwide phenomenon, and on a worldwide basis, what the Western countries and their democratically elected governments are doing for Internet freedom looks quite good. On a worldwide basis, regarding Internet freedom, the performance of China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, and a lot of other countries and their governments is much worse than that of the Western countries, and yet some participants here who enjoy Western freedom are trying to shut down the broader discussion here by pointing only to the wrongs of Western governments. We know a lot more about what the Western governments are doing than we do about what the other governments are doing precisely because we live in an environment of much more free press in the West than elsewhere. This bias in availability of information shouldn't bias all of our discussions of worldwide issues on Hacker News. (Disclosure: I speak and read languages other than English and have lived in a non-Western, non-English-speaking country before, so I don't have a narrow national perspective on this issue, but rather attempt to have a worldwide perspective on it.)

xnull2guest 12y ago
Right, but the article is not even handed when dealing with the role of Western-state-sponsored disruption that these countries are having to deal with. It dismisses the explanation that investigation and shutdown of radicalizing social media and disruptive ideas is done A.) both by Western and non-Western states and B.) that Western states radicalize social media and news media to achieve policy and geopolitical goals for the crude and inequitable implication that instead these states are just 'evil'. It just isn't that way. When Twitter is being used by competing nations as a means to incite riots in your people, what would you do if you were in power? Looking to America's present: Fusion Centers track various political groups including the Tea Party, Occupy was dismantled by federal agent intervention, access to stories, interviews and meetings is given to journalists and news corporations that 'play ball' with the government and several extremely important political stories have been repressed (Risen's first NSA surveillance story circa second Bush election) or pushed (including false stories, such as the Fallujah Psyop and the partnership with journalist Judith Miller to falsely justify the invasion of Iraq). But we don't even need to look at that. We can look at the link included in the very first post - the US government wants to be able to study radicalizing Twitter messages targeting Americans. Looking to America's past you'll see that both Red Scares burgeoned the state with extra-Constitutional capabilities to restrict American speech, as it was believed that dangerous ideas coming from the last domino of revolutions in Europe (the Soviet Union) where more extreme versions of populist ideas (the Bolsheviks) threatened the system and the status quo so fully it could foment in the end of the US government (as it had already done repeatedly in Europe). Take the Mayor of Jersey City Frank Hague during the Red Scare: "We hear about constitutional rights, free speech and the free press. Every time I hear these words I say to myself, 'That man is a Red, that man is a Communist.' You never hear a real American talk like that." That is to say America does do and has done the same sort of restrictions of free speech this article, and others in this thread, would import into a sense of 'evil'. Yes, there's been a global crack down on the internet. A global one. In Western states, there has been too. It's just inequitable to attribute the crack down in non-Western states to 'evilness' and the crack down in Western states to 'practicality'. And to ignore the pressures and leverages on non-Western states placed on them by America/allies. That's what this part of the thread of the discussion is about. As far as the discussion specifically of Western governments and their use of realpolitik, I think it was mostly spurred by the comment suggesting it might be justified by Western 'spreading of freedom' (the thread then focused on analyzing this, and correctly identified IMHO that Western states don't have that track record of spreading freedom attributed to them in myth).
FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
Most of us live in Western nations. And Western nations, unlike the ones you mentioned, have a veneer of pretending to be free places, but are actually as oppressive and ruthless as the others to anyone who becomes a real threat. The right to free speech is rendered impotent in the face of their ability to infiltrate peaceful protests and sway public opinion. And you are using some of the very same techniques that they do when you try to downplay the importance of it.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Actually, I do think it's sort of OK because it's preferable to nations pursuing their interests by straight-up warfare. I'm for self-determination, but not to the point of disengagement or passivity. Incidentally I grew up in a former colonial country, so I'm not offering a reflexive America-first perspective.

FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
Why is the choice between this and war? Where's the option of neither?