We are now on the downward trend of civil rights everywhere. This makes me very worried.
Is it that we are following the pattern described in Animal Farm of Orwell?
https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/removing-coordinated-inaut...
Technology has made it real easy
And it is really shameful that the EU seems to go along with this trend. GDPR basically gives free reign to government services on the internet (but it restricts everyone else). And it has avoided all discussion of the increased censorship because of the usual suspects (cchildren/terrorism)
This was anticipated and salivated over by the likes of Zbigniew K. Brzezinski.
https://www.amazon.com/Between-Two-Ages-Americas-Technetroni...
https://archive.org/details/B-001-003-798 (for the pdf)
I enjoyed my teen years through the 90s. Some people had 24hr TV news, but very few had the internet or newsgroups for news. At that time, I found it pretty easy to find and hold skeptical viewpoints.
The pace has changed since then. The detail comes much faster, and inflections change more rapidly.
It’s society, education, and exposure to alternative viewpoints that sows the seed of critical analysis. Technology just changes the rate it happens.
> about.fb.com
You do realize American corporations routinely cover up (or even actively participate in) U.S. and allies’ intelligence operations? You’re not going to get an objective, or should I say authentic, view on which governments are most enthusiastic about almost anything from fb.com.
Of course a US corporation isn't going to list the US as a source of propaganda or a surveillance state.
Wikileaks has shown the US has a huge surveillance apparatus. I suspect the fb.com poster is either a spook, or extremely naive.
People in the west are rightfully sensitive to such matters. They have no idea how far worse it is in other corners of the internet. Sophie zhang has published many such cases, but the audience just doesn't seem so interested (presumably because they can't use it for domestic politics).
a) We do have an idea
b) Why the fuck the fact that it is worse somewhere else would make me feel less concerned when my own Government does ugly things? I worry about my own backyard first.
And last. The US is a trade-based empire, it has to care about the rest of world
This is such a laughable statement that’s dripping in American corporatism. You know full well the GDPRs main purpose is privacy protection and the main “everyone else” that is being restricted is the data glutton American tech companies.
It never needed to because criminal law already does that. You had protection from illegal search or seizure long long before the internet even became a thing.
What do you mean though? Even the French interior ministry was condemned under GDPR rules last year. A few other high profile gouvernement services too.
Curiously we have seen very little discussion about what "is a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to safeguard"
I don’t think so since the technological structure to support it was not always present.
Western societies have started to copy China because everthing else puts them at a competitive disadvantage.
there is a very helpful theoretical framework by Theodore Kaczynski, that of self-propagating systems, to better understand the evolution of societies:
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ted-kaczynski-why-th...
China State is increasingly powerful, but it also looks increasingly brittle and more likely to shatter under stress.
“The West” may have a less spectacular failure mode.
What are the signs that make you think that?
Give yourselves a round of applause, Silicon Valley et al.
(Not saying that’s a good thing, mind you.)
In all these examples, what is lacking is the rule of law, as in the FISA courts: they can do something secretly and without accountability.
There have been monarchies and dictatorships in which the rule of law was more widespread than in the present US and possibly more countries which describe themselves as “democracies”.
Do you have any examples of how the "rule of law" has been eroded in Europe with a positive public reaction? I can't think of any times where the people have cheered that the law was being wilfully broken. It was the final straw for kicking the last UK PM out.
I might agree that governments care less about their public appearance due to many factors, but it doesn't seem to ever come with public goodwill.
As for examples, look at the Dutch childcare benefits scandal. That alone should tell you enough about why GP claims the rule of law not only being eroded, but also why the majority is doing this to itself. It was a massive scandal with huge consequences for many victims. Yet, many individuals still haven't been fully compensated, the news has largely stopped reporting it, the majority has stopped caring, and the authorities in question have barely changed their modus operandi.
Afterwards, a year later unvaccinated people were denied access to public transport and even work (note that a mandate would've been lawful instead, just not the vaccine pass scheme implemented).
All of this with an overwhelmingly high support for these measures. It was a de facto tiranny of the majority.
Isnt that democracy anyway?
Lynching represent a public belief that whatever systems are in place are insufficient to bring justice. They happen regardless of what rights are declared in some legal text or whatever. The solution to building a better democracy always returns to building better, more trusted institutions, and building thr peoples trust that they are fair, and inalienable rights are just another such institution.
You missed this part. When protection of one's rights is enforced it does not matter if particular group, even the majority looses a respect.
Sorry, but if the majority of people decided to democratically elect the same people in charge, who's at fault here?
If political misbehavior is not punished though votes, then what's left?
Maybe the people should learn to vote better.
A pure democracy is garbage because it never protects a minority from the greed of the majority. No amount of education can stop populists if the education is covering the fact that your framework technically legalizes unethical behavior.
The majority of citizens in any system are going to have frustrations from some of the many trade offs made to keep a system and would rather not have the total of that frustration hit a topic where they are in the minority.
This is why a well educated wealthy person and a racist populist are often the same person, if you come from wealth then better a race argument than a class argument causing a violation of civil rights whenever the republic wrongly gives ground to the democracy.
Some times ago, there use to be constant demonstrations against the government in Paris. The police governor of the region requested police to do a lot of harmful and possibly unlawful actions and tactics. Resulting in a lot of casualties (broken eyes, concussions, ...) And more trouble as the strategies were forcing people in more aggressive and violent positions that they would have been.
All of these methods were previously forbidden especially because it was known to be harmful and against civil rights.
Still they continued without conséquence as they said that "they are the police, they can decide what is the understanding of the law".
Same things for the police using "drones" to monitor civilian without authorization. But still, no consequence...
In my view those are two very different things.
People support tyranny by supporting policies that feed on the perception of public fears.
Reactions are just reactions and my judgment don't really hold as much value as making personal changes and being an example to the world.
In practice it really doesn’t work that way, though.
Something similar happens with unelected commissions and bureaus.
Are presidential governments more resistant to this kind of executive overreach?
> countries which describe themselves as “democracies”
I thought it was common knowledge that any country that has the word "democratic" in its official name is anything but. Same for "republic". And for the true bottom of the barrel, "people's".
It may be high time to add "united" to that list.
I'd prefer that system much more TBH, if nothing else it would reduce the noise.
As long as it's a constitutional rule of law respecting individual human rights I really couldn't care less about how decisions are made.
Fukuyama sets 3 conditions for a liberal democracy : strong state, rule of law and accountability
Notably, majority rule isn't sufficient for full democracy, and isn't necessary or sufficient for minimal democracy.
The autocracy of the majority is mob rule, not democracy
It’s always meant that [1]. Elections are essential. But since antiquity it’s been recognised, first through custom then by law, that they had to be balanced against e.g. minority rights and tribal partisanship. Reducing democracy to elections is a modern American/British phenomenon.
- P.S. Sorry if my belief took your statement out of context.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell
But as so many even here keep repeating so idiotically, "We live in a society. We live in a society. We live in a society..." Gotta keep trading that liberty for more safety. Gotta keep 'em safe.
Anyone see the new messages you get on Twitter when its AI pre-judges your tweet to be Intellectual Spam?
Good job Twitter employees, if you're reading. Keep up the great work. Keep us safe from code points arranged in wrong orders.
I mean the latter isn't ideal but it feels more fair and democratic.
The past century, information has exploded and the mental strain on individuals has increased massively. It's trivial to hide most of this information and these decisions, when major news outlets won't digest and show them to the people. Even digests are largely outrage for a day, only for people to return to the status quo.
We don't even elect individuals who know much about technology. On top of that, we have trouble electing individuals capable of solving problems they should know about. Problems that are far more noticeable and immediate to the common folk.
Heck, the majority of voters are still technology illiterate.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/live/976_549/images/live...
I like this. Mental strain is an important side effect to what is going on. Strain from information overload I think, and powers expect this and use it to there advantage.
For number 2., there seems very little work on mitigation, rather, just locking down control of the population.
https://time.com/6201951/dutch-farmers-protests-climate-acti...
So they'd seem to be worried about controlling a population while creating food shortages.
On the other hand, in Russia police don't use dogs against protesters, so maybe Netherlands are not that far.
This just isn't correct. In fact democratic government around the world are, almost universally, more transparent and more accountable than they ever have been. The kind of abuses details here have been done in the past, the only thing that changes is the tools used to do it. So, sure, the Netherlands may try to roll back regulation. But their senior civil servants quit if they try. The NSA may hoover up the whole of the internet, but Snowden leaks it anyway and the industry moves to pervasive HTTPS.
Things are better, not worse. This kind of fatalism serves no one except conspiracy theorists and extremists.
Because sugar coating is not helping at all. The majority seems to like it.
No, stop. This is exactly the nonsense I was talking about. There are no objective measures by which out society is getting worse in terms of government overreach or abuse of power. Things are getting better. Would you rather live under Hoover's FBI? In an internment camp? In a segregated neighborhood?
It's good you see problems you want to solve. It's extremely bad that people have convinced you that you have to tear down the government to solve them. Because you know what you get when you tear down a government? Another government, with all the same conflicts of interest and none of the established rule of law. Historically, revolutionaries make things worse almost 100% of the time.
Why does abandoning ship when the ship is set on fire or under threat to be set on fire save the ship?
Worse if the abandoners are the good ones to be replaced by more fire starters.
One is where everyone has a vote on every option, and the other is where one person (the representative) represents thousands (millions?) of people, for 4-5 years, making all the decisions on their behalf, with no repurcussions for that representative if they lie, cheat or enrich themselves in their role during that time. In fact, the representative only has to be perceived less bad than the other alternative, and they will likely get back in!
This has nothing to do with how much power the government has or wants over its citizens. As long as they can vote on different representatives, I don't see a problem for "democracy". I do however see a problem with privacy and freedom, or like you say, a downward trend of civil rights.
We have a democracy in name only. We elect people who rubber stamp laws that have been written by lobbyists.
We elect people from a pool of people many of who are running only because of donations from rich people and organisations with agendas, or that they are rich enough themselves and move in certain circles.
Breaking campaign promises is not a crime anywhere that I know of.
If we accept your definition, then "democracy" isn't a form of government; it's an event that occurs every 4-5 years. In between polls, "citizens" have little input into decisions. With that definition, almost every government in the world is "democratic" - most of them have elected presidents. Just that they were elected 40 years ago, or they fix the elections.
Even the use of the word "citizen" is open to question; are US felons citizens? Why is it permissible to deny citizen-felons a vote?
There were no democracies in the first place (probably that's why you quoted). If you accept lobbying (legalized corruption if you ask me), and the super rich pay less tax percentually than then middle class, it's not a functioning democracy in my book.
> This makes me very worried.
We worries me it that people still believe the "democracy" narrative. It is very clear now with Putin "invading a sovereign country"... While the US has been doing this over and over since WW2, now suddenly it is a problem, suddenly Putin is a dictator, Ukraine is democratic so must be helped, bla bla. It's just the next resource war, and frankly Putin plays it nicer than the US did in Iraq.
> We are now on the downward trend of civil rights everywhere
Yups, I think the 70s/80s were the peak of human civilization, and we're going down hill now.
Of course it is worrying that secret services get more power, but
> We are now on the downward trend of civil rights everywhere. This makes me very worried.
when civil rights get abused or the rule of law cannot be upheld, society and the goverment have to react. There is no easy fix for this. I wish they'd expand the powers of intelligence services more carefully, but such is not the political climate at the moment.
And please, don't put democracies between scare quotes. You're not quoting the article.
Second, if you just think that the book was just about communism, then you did not understand it very well.
The morale of the book is the "people" throwing out what they see as dictators abusing them, replacing it by a democracy/ free society. But then, the people enslave themselves to go little by little into another from of dictature. But they drive themselves to the butcher voluntarily by allowing each time new restrictions on their liberties and rights because it looks justified. Not realizing where this is leading them and forgetting the past. They think that they have free will but they don't really have because they are manipulated.
It happens that communism implementation did fit very well into this pattern. But if you look at it, communist China and Russia also pretends to be kind of democracy and only the voice of their people.
I’d say 1984 plus Brave New World.
Not much of a reach either, we have PC for Newspeak, and lots of pharmaceutical support behind the social fabric.
Tales like Animal Farm create the impression that all we have to do is to get 'the team' back together again and just align the liberal democracies around the old methods in a struggle of good vs. bad.
We only have what we identify as civil rights from very specific material and historical conditions. It's not a coincidence that liberalism appeared around the same time that we first created a significant surplus during the industrial revolution.
You seem to be basing your view on a single book. Is there anthropomorphism in 1984? Homage to Catalonia? Consider also reading some of his essays, as well as his books.
Orwell isn't all about pigs and horses. Animal Farm was a children's book.
Perhaps 1984 itself is amusingly the best example to explain this argument. The main character's travails and the lessons therein are too anthropomorphic, but the initial insight Orwell had that would lead to the book's premise is much more interesting: the idea that nuclear weapons would either favor large authoritarian states or small groups depending on their ease of production.[0]
Maybe anthropomorphically is the wrong word to use here, and I should simply have said thinking of systems vs. thinking of stories. You can see the difference by reading Orwell's theoretical vs. more human scale essays and books, but it's his human scale that is almost exclusively remembered by most people in his case. Although I love that book, Homage to Catalonia is no less a children's story than Animal Farm.
[0] https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Of course, it's easier to just keep trying and altering your methods until people give in from exhaustion / negligence, rather than actually figuring out whether the people want it.
- Reduced access to firearms (safety, individual power) - Social Security and Medicare (financial independence, retirement, health) - Mandatory health insurance (health and financial freedom). - Formerly abortion (much less than 50%).
Gains have been for increasingly small groups.
- Sexual preference (affects about ~5% of population). - Transgender (<1%).
Then things like the Supreme Court’s recent gun cases have mostly just foreclosed future restrictions, but haven’t increased access to those sorts of small arms that would be needed in an e.g. Ukraine-type situation. This obviously leaves the American people closer to Russian, Chinese, etc in terms of their capacity forcibly defend their rights.
It's a common misperception that gay/trans rights only benefit gay and trans people. Fundamentally, gay and trans rights arise from an understanding than men don't have to do certain things a certain way merely because they're men and women don't have to do things a certain way merely because they're women. This understanding benefits anyone who's not a completely stereotypical man or woman.
I mean, it would be great if males who enjoy doing things that are stereotypically considered feminine, like applying lipstick and wearing skirts and dresses and so on, would acknowledge that they are men challenging restrictive gender norms. Instead, most of them want to be regarded as women both legally and socially.
In my opinion, this is a step backwards, as it embraces stereotypes rather than challenging them. It's also incompatible with gay rights as previously understood, because this activism redefines sexuality in terms of gender identity instead of sex.
You are right of course that there should be room for men or women to behave in a gender non-typical way without the assumption that they must therefore be trans. I’m skeptical of the suggestion that it’s trans people or advocates for trans rights who are confused about the distinction between being trans and behaving in a gender non-typical manner.
We’re in fact making progress in both dimensions, which suggests that they are not particularly opposed. For example, legal recognition of trans rights is slowly increasing, while we’re also seeing cis men being more comfortable with non-traditional dress or make up (see e.g. Harry Styles).
(Curiously, my initial comment was also flagged and then rapidly unflagged around the same time, so I expect that blocking discussion of this topic is some hidden moderator action.)
It could just be because its a controversial topic as both flagging and unflagging (via vouching) is somthing regular users can do to some extend. Would be nice if there was a public moderation log though (including user flags/vouches).
Hell, if you're in the US, your local municipality is almost certainly both a democracy, and primarily exists to funnel your tax money into what is a frequently corrupt, unaccountable, and very anti-citizen police force. Nobody cares about fixing this state of affairs, because as long as its other people that are getting brutalized, I can sleep comfortably. And that's on a municipal level!
Notice how the federal secret police is attacked in this thread, but as soon as I turn the conversation to the abuses of local police, HN consensus turns against me. People in the upper-middle class are afraid of the former, but have far less issue with brutality from the latter. The power imbalance it maintains is largely comfortable for us.
I find it quite hypocritical, but that's also not something that democracy makes any guarantees about.