It's not even the oppressors VS the freedom fighters, the fight going on is over who is going to be the oppressor and what exactly should be restricted.
I'm also worried that the online spaces have no accountability and that has become the norm. People and content is removed from public spaces all the time by all powerful people and algorithms, what happens if the that thinking expands beyond online forums? The existence of the individual has been forgotten and people are virtually executed at whim and I'm not sure that with the proliferation of killer drones people are not simply going to push a button and clean up the real world annoyances without thinking about the moral implications of the action.
The tendency in the West is clearly to suppress content, decide arbitrarily what is good and what is evil, what you should watch and not watch.
wrt interventionism and avoiding past mistakes: Keep in mind a big part of what has kept the north korean regime so stable is the memory of plentiful massacres that occurred during the war. Villages that were killed due to suspicion of collaboration and a south Korean dictatorship till 88 or so.
As others pointed out by others as well: Much of what ends up reported about NK ends up being fake. I have no doubt that NK is a brutal authoritarian regime but after all the fake stories i kind of tune out to news like this.
“allowed”? Who exactly did we ask permission? The government should live in fear of the governed.
Twitter recently has been a good example of desire to control information, with half of the political class and even head of states (Macron) saying that it should be "controlled" to restrict "fake news", by fake news they of course mean someone talking about H.Biden's laptop, or someone saying that there are only two genders.
Just recently, a bunch of conspiracy freaks in my country were raided by police, since they were found out to be preparing for a coup. Funnily enough, it was once again people from right-wing parties, Qanons and one descendant of former royalty in Germany.
>> Yeah yeah i know. That's pretty much copy-paste what any totalitarian regimes says when they shutdown the internet, cf. Iran lately. And no thanks, I don't need you to decide for me if a content is rubbish or not, I can work it out for myself...
By the way, you wanna talk about how "unfounded" the "conspiracy theory" on H.Biden's laptop was ?
What i do see all the time here in Germany, are a bunch of bots and funny accounts with random numbers artificially pushing primarily far right topics on Twitter trends and other social media. And that is a problem indeed. As we have seen with those incidents, like that guy at a gas station being shot in the face for demanding the customer to wear a mask...
>> Yeah, I'm not surprised, you seem to be fed directly by what Twitter and Youtube are telling you is worth knowing about, so no wonder you have never heard of certain things.
And again, "he's a bot pushing far-right topic" is textbook what any totalitarian regimes say when they justify shutting down the internet, I don't think you realize how much you sound exactly like the Ministry of Information in Iran, in Moscow, or in North Korea.... "oh, but i'm leftist, it's ok when WE do it".
Ah yes, that must be it. Not the fact that this topic is mainly pushed by a known sensationalist crap show of a "news station", or a bunch of corrupt politicians whose followers tried to overthrow the government.
> And again, "he's a bot pushing far-right topic" is textbook what any totalitarian regimes say
Dude, if you don't even recognize accounts being about 2 months old, with literal serial numbers on it and not a single tweet until a certain point in time... Mixed with legit accounts of known party members of the AfD, a far right party, and people who follow the Russian propaganda of RT or literal Nazi blogs and have the "Reichsflagge" somewhere in their profile. It's so damn obvious, you'd have to be blind not to notice it.
Also, it's not about shutting down the internet. It's about applying existing law against mega cooperation who seem to think they stand above it. For some dumb reason, that seems controversial to you guys. No country in the world wants you to stand outside and scream "overthrow the government" or something. Why should it be allowed on the internet, then?
>> When many BLM protesters, even US Senators (of Illinois if memory serves me right), advocated VIOLENT protests to take down the establishment, using rhetoric like "this is a war", leftists applauded, and none was censored by GAFAs. Double-standards ?
And how do you make a tweet saying that there are only two-genders, equivalent to "overthrow a government" ? Sounds like a pretty convenient excuse to censor pretty much anyone you want... again, just like Iran... in Iran, removing head-scarf is deemed equivalent to wanting to "overthrow the government".
Where did i make it equivalent? Stop putting words in my mouth. I'm talking about people who are actively trying to subvert the democratic process. Because contrary to what they say, it's not that two-gender nonsense that gets them in trouble. It's a puppet they use to pretend to be victims. An age-old trick to get you to follow them.
You responded to this bringing the FSB.
The former sets up an argument that these rights are superfluous, and the latter fails to recognize areas where the west does poorly at upholding rights, especially the limitations on speech imposed by many western governments.
Luxury has more than one meaning [1]. If you prefer the language of counting blessings, so be it, though I could also pedantically quibble it implies a divine underwriting of our fundamental rights.
> the latter fails to recognize areas where the west does poorly at upholding rights, especially the limitations on speech imposed by many western governments
This crosses from pedantic quibbling to missing the forest for the trees.
Ok enough I quit hacker news
But who knows, maybe if you'd genuinely asked and heard them out instead of going all, "we don't like your kind here", you might've found yourself agreeing with them. Who knows, but this is about the genuine and free discussion of ideas, not baiting flame wars.
Edit: this is a long comment. It's the first one I've posted after seeing growing number of anti-discussion, reddit-like behavior. It's personally frustrating to me because this is where I go to get away from stuff like this. I hope this isn't too angry or judgy, and I hope everyone's doing okay.
"Excuse me, sir. Please keep your voices down. This is a family restaurant."
"Oh please, dear. For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!"
Is social media moderation worth discussing? Sure! Is, "Teens may or may not have been executed for distributing movies, but on the other hand they deleted my tweet" a conversation worth having? Debatable.
;-)
https://eji.org/news/black-children-are-six-times-more-likel...
It's bad enough, you don't need to add fantasy to make it seem worse.