They got a monarchy. That means something. The monarchy serves as a kind of sacred cultural identity and attacking the monarchy is like attacking the society itself.
Places like England have more evolved monarchies, where saying something against royals won't land someone in jail, but the same sentiment is there. The only way to "dismantle it" is to wait and do it in steps over generations. Even Thailand is doing that now. The royals are largely symbolic and don't exercise direct political power. But there's still a strong cultural attachment.
Don't know how biased the Economist is on this, but they've had a number of articles talking about the increasing role of the current king. An example is linked below.
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/10/14/thailands-king...
https://web.archive.org/web/20210103234100if_/https://www.ec...
... anymore. The last prosecution for that was in 1715 apparently. But it was illegal and probably still is; see also "Sedition". In a lot of countries, Lèse-majesté has only been scrapped from laws in fairly recent history (in part because it conflicts with the freedom of speech / expression codified in a lot of constitutions): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%A8se-majest%C3%A9
I honestly can't tell if this is satire or not anymore. Where do we not see this type of uncontrolled power?
Residents of the US live in a vast oligarchy where the elite define freedom as "the ability to change which feudal lord you work for", in a system where all lords serve the same master. Our "democratic" government is largely a spectacle which has little impact on the day to day lives of citizens despite how terrified they are of its collapse.
In the united states anyone who has too deeply radical thoughts will simply be unemployable, without a means of survival, healthcare or housing. The idea that employees of a company should have a say in the practices of the company is considered highest heresy. Even the times where some sort of worker union can emerge it's only to provided limited benefit to the workers.
The US has evolved a more sophisticated form of "uncontrolled power", one so powerful that even stating its existence is fought with controversy. At least in traditional monarchy you can find a way to life your live largely away these power structures, "heaven is high and the emperor is far away". Whereas the power structures in our own society literally mesh themselves in our flesh and minds. The best part is you cannot even question them (there's a 50/50 chance this very comment will be downvoted into oblivion).
But blasphemy targeting a specific person or institution is effectively hate speech, and there are good reasons to ban it.
For comparison, recall that Santa Claus also probably doesn't exist, and examine your emotions to see how you feel about the contrast between Santa Claus and Jehovah.
Am I doing it right?
It applies strictly to religion, not people.
A robust, well reasoned argument aimed directly at the rational principle in the soul of each reader. Exactly the sort of comment I expect to see recommended by a community of educated, intelligent people.
We only question the authority of monarchy because we have moved on to a more powerful system of control. 500 years ago, when monarchs where publicly viewed as divinely ordained (a similar but less sophisticated ideology that create the idea that companies should be totalitarian) even questioning the right of a king to his thrown as seen as heretical.
And the idea that HN should be free from any critical or skeptical opinions of the current state of the tech industry is at least against the hacker spirit, which, for all of PGs faults, is at least part of the founding of this forum.
Users are also free to downvote what they want. There's a good chance you'll be downvoted for defending corporations on Reddit, for example.
In a late capitalist society a worker has no other means of survival other than to work for a corporation. In 1820, yes you could just go live on a farm and provide for you self but being cut off from a mean of living is not a small thing.
It idea that you can "just" be denied a means of living, and that this is no big deal is pretty laughable. You are quite literally paraphrasing Scrooges infamous speech about poorhouses.