Wikipedia blocked in Turkey(turkeyblocks.org)
turkeyblocks.org
Wikipedia blocked in Turkey
https://turkeyblocks.org/2017/04/29/wikipedia-blocked-turkey/
475 comments
> the whole dodge that the first amendment only applies to the government is dangerous
As a supporter of that "dodge", allow me to defend it (though I don't really disagree with your comment in general).
Freedom of speech as a principle has a fundamental tension. One person's freedom to speak must be balanced with another person's freedom to exclude that speech from their private life. Private folks having the ability to go places where they can ignore the people they've chosen to ignore is an important part of why free speech works at all. For instance, we don't need laws against Holocaust deniers, we can simply choose to frequent places where they are excluded.
Freedom of speech as a law is the release valve for this tension. If every private individual and organization in the country has chosen to ignore a person's views, that person is still free to make themselves heard with the government. They can write letters and go to meetings with no fear of punishment for the unpopularity of their beliefs. They can't be legally kept from starting their own private organization where they are not ignored and advertising it to attract others.
Personally, I just find this all to be a very good solution to a difficult problem, so I'm skeptical when I see suggestions that it should be done differently. In this case, the suggestion is that the freedom to exclude (as a principle - there is no law in this direction) should be more tightly regulated. Maybe that's a good idea because of the unique circumstances of the internet, but I'm not yet convinced that it's better than the current regime, which has existed for a long time, and which I think works pretty well.
As a supporter of that "dodge", allow me to defend it (though I don't really disagree with your comment in general).
Freedom of speech as a principle has a fundamental tension. One person's freedom to speak must be balanced with another person's freedom to exclude that speech from their private life. Private folks having the ability to go places where they can ignore the people they've chosen to ignore is an important part of why free speech works at all. For instance, we don't need laws against Holocaust deniers, we can simply choose to frequent places where they are excluded.
Freedom of speech as a law is the release valve for this tension. If every private individual and organization in the country has chosen to ignore a person's views, that person is still free to make themselves heard with the government. They can write letters and go to meetings with no fear of punishment for the unpopularity of their beliefs. They can't be legally kept from starting their own private organization where they are not ignored and advertising it to attract others.
Personally, I just find this all to be a very good solution to a difficult problem, so I'm skeptical when I see suggestions that it should be done differently. In this case, the suggestion is that the freedom to exclude (as a principle - there is no law in this direction) should be more tightly regulated. Maybe that's a good idea because of the unique circumstances of the internet, but I'm not yet convinced that it's better than the current regime, which has existed for a long time, and which I think works pretty well.
The problem with "the freedom to exclude" is that the same argument underpins, for just one example: racial segregation. If the blacks want to go to the movies, well then they can have their own movie theater. We can't abridge the proprietor's "freedom to exclude" people from his own business.
Except we can, and we did, and society was better for it. So as it turns out, the "right to exclude" is more of a guideline than a rule, riddled with dozens of exceptions. And "the current regime has existed for a long time" is not very predictive of long-term societal shifts.
So it is here. You are right that there is fundamental tension between the right of free speech and the right of exclusion.
But one of those is a right so fundamental that it appears first when you ask people to list freedoms. The other is something we regularly cede in large and small ways when we live with other humans in a society. Where the two oppose, there is only one way the arc of history can go.
Our grandchildren will be just as puzzled by the "right to exclude" argument as we are when it is made by the generations before us.
Except we can, and we did, and society was better for it. So as it turns out, the "right to exclude" is more of a guideline than a rule, riddled with dozens of exceptions. And "the current regime has existed for a long time" is not very predictive of long-term societal shifts.
So it is here. You are right that there is fundamental tension between the right of free speech and the right of exclusion.
But one of those is a right so fundamental that it appears first when you ask people to list freedoms. The other is something we regularly cede in large and small ways when we live with other humans in a society. Where the two oppose, there is only one way the arc of history can go.
Our grandchildren will be just as puzzled by the "right to exclude" argument as we are when it is made by the generations before us.
>If the blacks want to go to the movies, well then they can have their own movie theater. We can't abridge the proprietor's "freedom to exclude" people from his own business.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't disprove the OP's assertion. Doing business with someone is not the same as speech, and business in general is far more regulated than private life ever was.
As a counterpoint, (in the US) there's still nothing preventing people from excluding minorities from their homes and friendships, and even private organizations are allowed to discriminate by race or sex, and do. (Golf clubs are infamous for this.) Businesses that are "open to the public" are not allowed to; that's the compromise we made, and it's worked out well IMO. If you're a black person, it'd be really awful if you desperately needed a medication, and the one pharmacy in town refused to sell it to you. But being excluded from someone's home or golf club isn't really hurting you.
Similarly, if you run a business, there's many other regulations you must follow: collecting sales tax, using commercially zoned property if you have too many customers, various regulations on how you can treat employees, etc. And part of this is not being allowed to discriminate based on race or sex, unless you have a really really good reason for it (like you're filming a movie about JFK for instance; a black woman isn't going to get far complaining that you didn't audition her for the part). You don't have so many restrictions on your private property.
I'm sorry, but this doesn't disprove the OP's assertion. Doing business with someone is not the same as speech, and business in general is far more regulated than private life ever was.
As a counterpoint, (in the US) there's still nothing preventing people from excluding minorities from their homes and friendships, and even private organizations are allowed to discriminate by race or sex, and do. (Golf clubs are infamous for this.) Businesses that are "open to the public" are not allowed to; that's the compromise we made, and it's worked out well IMO. If you're a black person, it'd be really awful if you desperately needed a medication, and the one pharmacy in town refused to sell it to you. But being excluded from someone's home or golf club isn't really hurting you.
Similarly, if you run a business, there's many other regulations you must follow: collecting sales tax, using commercially zoned property if you have too many customers, various regulations on how you can treat employees, etc. And part of this is not being allowed to discriminate based on race or sex, unless you have a really really good reason for it (like you're filming a movie about JFK for instance; a black woman isn't going to get far complaining that you didn't audition her for the part). You don't have so many restrictions on your private property.
You misunderstand my argument, and OP's. I'm asserting something like "our children will be protected from firings when they express an unpopular opinion." This would be a regulation that applies to business, so the arguments you construct around business being a regulated sphere are actually arguments in favor of why this will happen. It is also a point that directly disproves OP's assertion that "the first amendment only applies to the government", because here it would be applied to the average employer.
As far as I know, at-will employees can absolutely be let go for expressing an unpopular opinion. It is only illegal to exclude a quite short list of "protected classes", mostly (entirely?) defined by immutable traits like race. To be clear, I don't think this "freedom to exclude" should be protected constitutionally the way freedom of speech is, and I'm a big supporter of all the exceptions to it that I know of, but I still think it's a worthwhile concept that should be considered when discussing freedom of speech as it pertains to private entities.
This is currently true, yes. They're expressing hope/belief that this will someday seem unthinkable and strange.
You're right, I seem to have misread that comment. Too bad I can't downvote myself :)
FWIW, I don't necessarily disagree with that hope/belief, but I have some questions about how such a thing would work in practice. Clearly, some private organizations (like churches and political parties) rely on the ability to discriminate based on belief. But perhaps there's a clue there for how such a regulation could be drawn - those are not for-profit enterprises.
FWIW, I don't necessarily disagree with that hope/belief, but I have some questions about how such a thing would work in practice. Clearly, some private organizations (like churches and political parties) rely on the ability to discriminate based on belief. But perhaps there's a clue there for how such a regulation could be drawn - those are not for-profit enterprises.
Just how far are you willing to go with this? If people having opinion X, are banned on social media and no private registrar will register their website, no private search engine will index their website, no private employer will hire them, no private bank will do business with them or lend them money, no conference will invite them even for unrelated talks, no open source project will accept their contribution, no private media company will run their advertisements, and no private college will allow them on campus or admit them, are you OK with this situation? After all, they can still write to the government and go to town halls and spout their opinion.
This scenario is not that far-fetched because: 1) There has been more consolidation into fewer large companies, with less competition 2) Many companies share board members with similar opinions and sympathies and have leadership with similar sympathies. 3) Because of social media, it is easy to get a large group of people to put coordinated pressure on a company. 4) This scenario would just be an extreme example of the "no platform" movement which we already have, and which has already successfully pressured individual companies to dissociate with people or opinions.
It is respect for the principle of free speech in the general population that protects us from this scenario. If you are OK with this scenario for some opinions, be aware that throughout history, what is an unpopular opinion has changed, sometimes relatively rapidly.
This scenario is not that far-fetched because: 1) There has been more consolidation into fewer large companies, with less competition 2) Many companies share board members with similar opinions and sympathies and have leadership with similar sympathies. 3) Because of social media, it is easy to get a large group of people to put coordinated pressure on a company. 4) This scenario would just be an extreme example of the "no platform" movement which we already have, and which has already successfully pressured individual companies to dissociate with people or opinions.
It is respect for the principle of free speech in the general population that protects us from this scenario. If you are OK with this scenario for some opinions, be aware that throughout history, what is an unpopular opinion has changed, sometimes relatively rapidly.
If people having opinion X, are banned on social media
I'm not in favor of people being banned, but of ideas being flagged - not censored. For example, I don't want to do any kind of business with anyone who is advocating policies that I have a strict moral disagreement with. The nature of that moral disagreement could vary. Popular sentiment should be employed not to determine whether a given piece of media is acceptable or not, but to categorize it; and the strength of those categorial associations can then in turn inform the decisions of advertises, researchers, and so on.
I'm not in favor of people being banned, but of ideas being flagged - not censored. For example, I don't want to do any kind of business with anyone who is advocating policies that I have a strict moral disagreement with. The nature of that moral disagreement could vary. Popular sentiment should be employed not to determine whether a given piece of media is acceptable or not, but to categorize it; and the strength of those categorial associations can then in turn inform the decisions of advertises, researchers, and so on.
Just to act as a devil's advocate: it seems like only a little better change from banning something to branding it with a tag such as "racist" or "sexist" or any of the reasons why we ban things currently. I do agree that it makes it much easier to research things, since then you do continue to have access to the primary source of truth rather than screenshots from some shady websites. The problem seems to be that some things are just too vile to leave on the public internet... Personally, I'm not too sure how to deal with this. e.g. religious rhetoric can frequently be incredibly incendiary and motivate a large group of people to violence.
It's a lot better change because people can make up their own minds. It's unrealistic to expect everything to be nice all the time, there ar vile things in the world and people who promote vile ideas, and the most effective response to that is to tag them as such. Oh sure, some whiners will complain about being tagged as nazis or whatever, but too bad, if lots of people think their statements align perfectly with the nazis well then the marketplace of ideas has spoken. Tagging content is a practical idea because advertisers and the like can then choose to avoid content associated with tags that they don't want to associate their brands with.
the tagging is a function of the popular will rather than the output of an algorithm or assignment by committee, and the the tags are associable with discrete media rather than individuals.
the tagging is a function of the popular will rather than the output of an algorithm or assignment by committee, and the the tags are associable with discrete media rather than individuals.
Are they?
What things are too vile, then?
I think those things that are "too vile" are better tracked than outright banned.
What things are too vile, then?
I think those things that are "too vile" are better tracked than outright banned.
Well child porn serves as a good example. Tagging it would be effective in monitoring its diffusion, but it's not a neutral thing or a victimless crime like drug consumption; any kind of photographic child porn includes a child whose identity and sexual abuse are the subject matter of the material, and every time it is collected or viewed the rights of that person are violated anew, even if they have since reached adulthood and are thus of no further direct interest to child abusers.
I'm not sure exactly what technical measures should be employed in relation to such cases - perhaps machine-curated honeypots whose attempt to access is itself a crime.
CP raises extremely tricky moral questions. I mentioned photographic examples above because they include real people. But there's a tricky question of what happens in relation to creative works not based on reality such as drawings. It's easy to conceive of art that that would automatically be deemed illegal or at least prurient if it were photographic, but since art can be created from imagination without any real person needing to serve as a subject it's very difficult to figure out an appropriate response.
We could say that the simple lack of actual human victimization should OK the production of such content, but form a practical point of view it's possible to create hyperrealistic art works that are almost indistinguishable from a photograph, and computers are making it easier and easier to produce renderings that approach photographic quality, a trend which will only continue because of the huge economic incentives to instantiate virtual puppets rather than pay people to work. I'm sure this has been employed to produce crude CP already (based on its use in non-contraband porn). It's difficult to make an argument for expressive freedom when the only expression involved in its creation is that of the desire for activity that's illegal, but on the other hand nobody would think of arresting someone for a painting that depicted one person stabbing another notwithstanding the possibility of the inspiring idea being illegal.
This issue matters since it's a demonstration of art's power to subvert norms by realizing the creation of an image depicting a reality where desirous activities occur, but with the added complexity of leveraging mechanical assistance to produce something that's indistinguishable from a recording of real activity, at least to the casual or untrained observer.
(by the way, anyone thinking of dismissing these concerns with a 'think of the children' cliche - don't bother. I know numerous people who were abused and exploited in child pornography. It's not a rhetorical argument when it is something that happens to real people and which continues to impact their adult lives, and if you attempt to dismiss it on rhetorical grounds you are in effect asserting that the bad experiences of some people don't matter compared to some hypothetical liberty interest in consuming depictions of their exploitation.)
I'm not sure exactly what technical measures should be employed in relation to such cases - perhaps machine-curated honeypots whose attempt to access is itself a crime.
CP raises extremely tricky moral questions. I mentioned photographic examples above because they include real people. But there's a tricky question of what happens in relation to creative works not based on reality such as drawings. It's easy to conceive of art that that would automatically be deemed illegal or at least prurient if it were photographic, but since art can be created from imagination without any real person needing to serve as a subject it's very difficult to figure out an appropriate response.
We could say that the simple lack of actual human victimization should OK the production of such content, but form a practical point of view it's possible to create hyperrealistic art works that are almost indistinguishable from a photograph, and computers are making it easier and easier to produce renderings that approach photographic quality, a trend which will only continue because of the huge economic incentives to instantiate virtual puppets rather than pay people to work. I'm sure this has been employed to produce crude CP already (based on its use in non-contraband porn). It's difficult to make an argument for expressive freedom when the only expression involved in its creation is that of the desire for activity that's illegal, but on the other hand nobody would think of arresting someone for a painting that depicted one person stabbing another notwithstanding the possibility of the inspiring idea being illegal.
This issue matters since it's a demonstration of art's power to subvert norms by realizing the creation of an image depicting a reality where desirous activities occur, but with the added complexity of leveraging mechanical assistance to produce something that's indistinguishable from a recording of real activity, at least to the casual or untrained observer.
(by the way, anyone thinking of dismissing these concerns with a 'think of the children' cliche - don't bother. I know numerous people who were abused and exploited in child pornography. It's not a rhetorical argument when it is something that happens to real people and which continues to impact their adult lives, and if you attempt to dismiss it on rhetorical grounds you are in effect asserting that the bad experiences of some people don't matter compared to some hypothetical liberty interest in consuming depictions of their exploitation.)
> it's not a neutral thing or a victimless crime like drug consumption
Then we ban it. We're not banning the speech; we're banning the child abuse. Take a look (figuratively, not necessarily literally) at loli/shota hentai - that's legal (at least here in the USA) because real people are not being harmed. Actual CP with actual children is banned because real people are being harmed. It's not suppression of free speech; it's protection against abuse.
Then we ban it. We're not banning the speech; we're banning the child abuse. Take a look (figuratively, not necessarily literally) at loli/shota hentai - that's legal (at least here in the USA) because real people are not being harmed. Actual CP with actual children is banned because real people are being harmed. It's not suppression of free speech; it's protection against abuse.
They are doing this to Scott Adams, Trump, Snowden and others on twitter. I'm following their accounts and seldom times see any updates from them, the updates are filtered (shadowbanned).
Scott Adams himself mentions the same: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159566176596/am-i-shadowbanned-...
If you tag people with whom you have a strict moral disagreement to avoid doing business with them, this is actually what national socialists did back in the 1930s with their own Jewish community. It is a slippery rope.
Scott Adams himself mentions the same: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/159566176596/am-i-shadowbanned-...
If you tag people with whom you have a strict moral disagreement to avoid doing business with them, this is actually what national socialists did back in the 1930s with their own Jewish community. It is a slippery rope.
It's a slippery slope, not a slippery rope, and you also failed to read my post correctly. I did not say anything about tagging people - in fact I specifically said I was against that - but about tagging content or specific ideas.
It is extremely dishonest of you to attempt to alter the terms of my argument like this and just goes to show how weak your own position is.
It is extremely dishonest of you to attempt to alter the terms of my argument like this and just goes to show how weak your own position is.
>One person's freedom to speak must be balanced with another person's freedom to exclude that speech from their private life. Private folks having the ability to go places where they can ignore the people they've chosen to ignore is an important part of why free speech works at all.
That's not how it works. The "public square" is supposed to be open to all opinions. If you want protection, you have to retreat into the cloister of a private establishment that disallows this. In the past, it was not possible to bypass the public square, and thus to avoid exposure to the sentiment of anyone who cared to stand there and hand out his papers or cry his opinion. This was a necessary part of travel between private establishments that used their limited property rights over a small piece of land to exclude such stumping within that small parcel only.
The internet is blurring the lines of the public square. We no longer need to traverse the public streets where all views are free to be expressed; via the internet, people are instantly teleported from cloistered space A to cloistered space B. People are starting to feel it is their right to go about their businesses without being exposed to things they dislike, which, whether they realize it or not, is a very worrisome disavowal of the principles undergirding our freedoms. The effect of this on discourse, democracy, and all of our freedoms should not be understated.
Ironically, rather than unifying mankind and increasing sympathy and understanding, we are using network technology to maximize comfort by crafting artificial "safe spaces" where patrons never even have to be exposed to thoughts they dislike. That's bad.
The divide has never been more palpable than during the last election cycle. Nearly half the country was so misinformed that they didn't even believe the outcome was possible, and hostility and misunderstanding are reaching frightening heights, in some cases escalating into violence (post-election rioting, Berkeley).
Whatever is creating those circumstances needs to be fixed, and my belief is that a generation that is used to muting and blocking anything they dislike and spending most of their time in hyper-sanitized environments safe for corporate sponsorship and being coddled in public spaces to minimize corporate liability is no small part in this.
That's not how it works. The "public square" is supposed to be open to all opinions. If you want protection, you have to retreat into the cloister of a private establishment that disallows this. In the past, it was not possible to bypass the public square, and thus to avoid exposure to the sentiment of anyone who cared to stand there and hand out his papers or cry his opinion. This was a necessary part of travel between private establishments that used their limited property rights over a small piece of land to exclude such stumping within that small parcel only.
The internet is blurring the lines of the public square. We no longer need to traverse the public streets where all views are free to be expressed; via the internet, people are instantly teleported from cloistered space A to cloistered space B. People are starting to feel it is their right to go about their businesses without being exposed to things they dislike, which, whether they realize it or not, is a very worrisome disavowal of the principles undergirding our freedoms. The effect of this on discourse, democracy, and all of our freedoms should not be understated.
Ironically, rather than unifying mankind and increasing sympathy and understanding, we are using network technology to maximize comfort by crafting artificial "safe spaces" where patrons never even have to be exposed to thoughts they dislike. That's bad.
The divide has never been more palpable than during the last election cycle. Nearly half the country was so misinformed that they didn't even believe the outcome was possible, and hostility and misunderstanding are reaching frightening heights, in some cases escalating into violence (post-election rioting, Berkeley).
Whatever is creating those circumstances needs to be fixed, and my belief is that a generation that is used to muting and blocking anything they dislike and spending most of their time in hyper-sanitized environments safe for corporate sponsorship and being coddled in public spaces to minimize corporate liability is no small part in this.
I'm interested in why you are commenting in here, rather than (say) Youtube or 4Chan. Might it be because the active moderation here allows for a certain type of discourse?
Yes. I don't intend to say that no one should be able to organize their forums or exclude some speech; doing so is a critical part of maintaining something functional and workable.
We don't have to fling to one extreme or the other. There is a moderate position here. And remember, this is about the importance of free speech as a social principle. If we don't cherish our rights, they'll vanish. I'm not necessarily advocating any specific legal changes.
HN is a boutique site that targets a specific niche. I would guess it has a few thousand active users. It's developed and designed specifically to facilitate discussion on issues that fit its niche and target audience.
Facebook, Twitter, et al, on the other hand, are platforms that function much like public utilities. They are used by the masses to disseminate speech of all kinds. They target a generic user base and suggest that they can all use the site to follow their individual interests.
Beyond the mere target audience of "everyone", Facebook and Google have massive amounts of control. The penetration of Google and Facebook is probably almost exactly equal with the penetration of internet service (and to some extent, both have projects that take them beyond that sphere). If you use the internet, the likelihood is that significant amounts of your usage are under the direct control of these corporations.
Facebook boasts over 1 billion daily active users. That is 1/8 of the earth's population. That is MASSIVE -- far further reaching than any monopoly in the pre-internet age. Facebook is also the platform that people depend on most heavily for self-expression. It's a central hub that many people visit multiple times each day; some groups and businesses are now run entirely out of Facebook. Functionally, it is not unlike the pre-internet public square, and it's a frequent crossroads for almost all internet users. As with past public squares, it's possible to avoid it if you're trying really hard, but you essentially have to be a digital recluse.
This applies similarly to Google for search, email, and mobile.
As such, it's scary when such powerful platforms that present with such generic mission statements and see such widespread adoption start erasing political speech because they deem it "offensive" at the corporate level.
That is a ridiculous amount of control, and it's something we've never experienced before. Even the broadcasters of the 20th century were limited by the reach of radio waves to specific metros, and they usually had several easily accessible competitors (that people would actually use, unlike FB's direct competitors). We used to worry about the large influence of these people so much that it was illegal to own more than a certain number of major media outlets in the same market (that restriction was removed in 2003, IIRC). [We also used to have the Fairness Doctrine to compel broadcasters to accurately present both sides of the political issues.]
People recognized the damage to the public square posed by moving the discussion off to corporate-controlled broadcast media and wanted a way to check the power of the broadcasters. We seem to have forgotten about that risk, just at the moment when the central control of a small handful of people is most potent.
Imagine that printing press manufacturers had the ability to stop press owners from setting certain things to the page. That reflects the reality of the publishing mediums we depend on today. That should be worrisome.
I'm stopping short of suggesting a legal solution, but just speaking to this as an important social principle, we should all be disgusted with the conduct from the major online platform providers. Such general, widely-used platforms are betraying the public and our principles and values in favor of open dialogue by working to distort the landscape of public opinion and curtail the speech of the political, philosophical, or moral enemies of the corporate overlords.
We don't have to fling to one extreme or the other. There is a moderate position here. And remember, this is about the importance of free speech as a social principle. If we don't cherish our rights, they'll vanish. I'm not necessarily advocating any specific legal changes.
HN is a boutique site that targets a specific niche. I would guess it has a few thousand active users. It's developed and designed specifically to facilitate discussion on issues that fit its niche and target audience.
Facebook, Twitter, et al, on the other hand, are platforms that function much like public utilities. They are used by the masses to disseminate speech of all kinds. They target a generic user base and suggest that they can all use the site to follow their individual interests.
Beyond the mere target audience of "everyone", Facebook and Google have massive amounts of control. The penetration of Google and Facebook is probably almost exactly equal with the penetration of internet service (and to some extent, both have projects that take them beyond that sphere). If you use the internet, the likelihood is that significant amounts of your usage are under the direct control of these corporations.
Facebook boasts over 1 billion daily active users. That is 1/8 of the earth's population. That is MASSIVE -- far further reaching than any monopoly in the pre-internet age. Facebook is also the platform that people depend on most heavily for self-expression. It's a central hub that many people visit multiple times each day; some groups and businesses are now run entirely out of Facebook. Functionally, it is not unlike the pre-internet public square, and it's a frequent crossroads for almost all internet users. As with past public squares, it's possible to avoid it if you're trying really hard, but you essentially have to be a digital recluse.
This applies similarly to Google for search, email, and mobile.
As such, it's scary when such powerful platforms that present with such generic mission statements and see such widespread adoption start erasing political speech because they deem it "offensive" at the corporate level.
That is a ridiculous amount of control, and it's something we've never experienced before. Even the broadcasters of the 20th century were limited by the reach of radio waves to specific metros, and they usually had several easily accessible competitors (that people would actually use, unlike FB's direct competitors). We used to worry about the large influence of these people so much that it was illegal to own more than a certain number of major media outlets in the same market (that restriction was removed in 2003, IIRC). [We also used to have the Fairness Doctrine to compel broadcasters to accurately present both sides of the political issues.]
People recognized the damage to the public square posed by moving the discussion off to corporate-controlled broadcast media and wanted a way to check the power of the broadcasters. We seem to have forgotten about that risk, just at the moment when the central control of a small handful of people is most potent.
Imagine that printing press manufacturers had the ability to stop press owners from setting certain things to the page. That reflects the reality of the publishing mediums we depend on today. That should be worrisome.
I'm stopping short of suggesting a legal solution, but just speaking to this as an important social principle, we should all be disgusted with the conduct from the major online platform providers. Such general, widely-used platforms are betraying the public and our principles and values in favor of open dialogue by working to distort the landscape of public opinion and curtail the speech of the political, philosophical, or moral enemies of the corporate overlords.
Sheer size can certainly be scary, but consider that Google and Facebook got where they are by excluding stuff people don't want.
Google has used page rank from the very beginning to show popular pages. Since then, there have been a zillion other teaks to search ranking. (Not to mention that Gmail's spam filtering was an attractive early feature.)
Facebook started out excluding people who didn't go to a particular college, and later, the friend graph helped people avoid communication with strangers.
More recently, Snapchat showed that auto-deletion of photos is something people really like, even if it's technically "impossible" to do perfectly securely.
So it's not just about big companies being in control. Filtering is a really popular feature. Companies that did it well attracted users and became big.
Google has used page rank from the very beginning to show popular pages. Since then, there have been a zillion other teaks to search ranking. (Not to mention that Gmail's spam filtering was an attractive early feature.)
Facebook started out excluding people who didn't go to a particular college, and later, the friend graph helped people avoid communication with strangers.
More recently, Snapchat showed that auto-deletion of photos is something people really like, even if it's technically "impossible" to do perfectly securely.
So it's not just about big companies being in control. Filtering is a really popular feature. Companies that did it well attracted users and became big.
I think you are overestimating the importance of facebook in the lives of its users. Sure, there are people that depend on it pretty heavily, but I don't imagine that would be all of their users. Moreover, the younger generation is abandoning facebook in favor of other platforms like Snapchat. But I don't have the raw data to know which way the pendulum swings...
Why is it bad to create artificial safe spaces? You're implicitly saying that private networks shouldn't be allowed to exist. So if I set up a forum and hang a sign on the landing page saying 'commies will be banned' you're saying that That's not acceptable? Certainly I'm attempting to create comfort by establishing a virtual space where I can enjoy discourse free of communist ideology, but if I find communism intolerable why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? certainly that's an attempt to employ the network for comfort rather than doing the work of ideological disputaation, but people use the internet for comfort and convenience all the time, like any technology. I don't see how you can argue that certain thins like political ideologies should be subject to differing technological rules, that seems neither logical nor practical.
I don't argue this. I think it's fine to set up a forum that only allows pro-communist or pro-capitalist posts. In fact, I think doing so is critical to building communities that actually function.
The issue that demonstrates the loss of free speech as a social value is that a large number of people enthusiastically pursue and endorse the censorship of legitimate political discourse on the networks that have general applicability and have become the de-facto publication platforms of the modern world.
Facebook, Twitter, et al are not really networks by themselves, at least not in most respects; they're platforms for networks. You use them to build your own communities; communities of your friends, family, businesses, etc. The platforms don't present with any ideology because they present as applicable to every ideology. If they're going to make such representations, it's not unreasonable to expect them to adhere to them with some consistency.
Additionally, when 1/8 of the world's population depends on Facebook for its news and information, and Facebook presents itself as a place that's appropriate for all users, I think it is completely legitimate to hold them to a reasonably strict standard of fairness. Regardless of the legal situation, we can and should be doing this socially.
If we enshrine free speech as a social value, we should all be concerned when good-faith political discussions are removed from these platforms, no matter how repugnant we find the actual views expressed. All views must be allowed to compete on the marketplace of ideas. Forcing legitimate policy positions into hushed tones only builds a tension that leads to a violent snap.
The core question is whether Facebook, Google, et al have reached a level where their corporate-enforced censorship policies have a real effect on the aggregate political dialogue. I think that it's undeniable that they do at this point.
The issue that demonstrates the loss of free speech as a social value is that a large number of people enthusiastically pursue and endorse the censorship of legitimate political discourse on the networks that have general applicability and have become the de-facto publication platforms of the modern world.
Facebook, Twitter, et al are not really networks by themselves, at least not in most respects; they're platforms for networks. You use them to build your own communities; communities of your friends, family, businesses, etc. The platforms don't present with any ideology because they present as applicable to every ideology. If they're going to make such representations, it's not unreasonable to expect them to adhere to them with some consistency.
Additionally, when 1/8 of the world's population depends on Facebook for its news and information, and Facebook presents itself as a place that's appropriate for all users, I think it is completely legitimate to hold them to a reasonably strict standard of fairness. Regardless of the legal situation, we can and should be doing this socially.
If we enshrine free speech as a social value, we should all be concerned when good-faith political discussions are removed from these platforms, no matter how repugnant we find the actual views expressed. All views must be allowed to compete on the marketplace of ideas. Forcing legitimate policy positions into hushed tones only builds a tension that leads to a violent snap.
The core question is whether Facebook, Google, et al have reached a level where their corporate-enforced censorship policies have a real effect on the aggregate political dialogue. I think that it's undeniable that they do at this point.
If we enshrine free speech as a social value, we should all be concerned when good-faith political discussions are removed from these platforms, no matter how repugnant we find the actual views expressed. All views must be allowed to compete on the marketplace of ideas. Forcing legitimate policy positions into hushed tones only builds a tension that leads to a violent snap.
I feel this paragraph goes to the heart of your argument so I'd like to dissect it a bit.
Enshrining free speech as a social value is essentially arbitrary, and that's fine - because values are what we really care about and choose to establish the rest of our utility criteria.
But having adopted free speech as a value, it does not follow that all speech must then be upheld. It's interesting that you use the phrase 'good-faith political discussions' here, because that has significant ramifications for judging what we find repugnant.
Let's suppose for a moment that I really can't stand people in the XYZ group. Under the doctrine of free speech, I might write all kinds of things to promulgate my opinions, from asserting that the XYZs are boring and stupid, to opining that XYZ people are going to hell, and so on.
But what if I say that XYZ people shouldn't be allowed to post on the internet? Well now I'm not upholding free speech any more, in fact I'd be asserting an intention to deny it to one group of whom I don't approve. Am I really discussing my views in good faith in that case? What if I say they should be killed? OK that doesn't go directly to free speech, but since it's impossible for people express themselves freely if they're not alive I'm certainly limiting their free speech indirectly.
What I'm arguing here is that there's a qualitative difference between my saying 'I think you are bad (in some way) and I dislike you' and calling for people to have their rights curtailed because they occupy a category that I find repugnant. In the first case I'm expressing my emotional hostility, but in the second case I'm making a positive proposal that their freedoms should be reduced relative to mine.
I'm quite opposed to fascism and similar authoritarian ideologies, and lately I keep running into people who raise this free speech argument, and ask if I am not being worse than the fascists myself for arguing that their views should be driven out of mainstream discourse and marginalized or shut down as efficiently as possible.
But to mind mind, people who espouse such authoritarian ideologies are not arguing in good faith. They're not saying things like 'it's so bad that [this group] won't sign onto my ideology, oh well live and let live.' They're saying things like '[this group] is morally/ culturally/ physically deficient and should not be allowed to participate in society, or maybe even in life.'
To put it in a single sentence, I do not feel inclined inclined to defend the liberty interests of those who have expressed an intention to do harm to me - not necessarily me personally, but because of my membership in various social categories of which they disapprove. To use historical examples, it's not like if some Jews went to Nazi rallies thy were welcomed with open arms as converts to some new intellectual current; their Jewishness (or membership in some other 'degenerate' category) made them ineligible to participate in the Nazi project.
I fail to see how you can justify giving free speech protections to those who make no secret of their desire to limit other people's liberties. I don't hate Richard Spencer because he's white, male, and has a particular haircut, I hate the fact that he's actively exhorting people to join him in a project get rid of people who are not white enough.
I'm a-OK with people punching Richard Spencer precisely because he has dedicated himself for the last several years to promoting a narrow and aggressive policy of racial supremacy that includes reducing the liberty of others by killing them or driving them out of their homes. If he were to popup in public tomorrow and announce that he'd renounced fascism and that people should be judged on the quality of their behavior towards others then I would no longer support people punching him as randomly and as often as possible. But while he's advocating systemic violence against others, he is not to my mind arguing in good faith because he is not willing to uphold that free speech principle for everyone else.
The other argument I hear from some people is 'well the solution to hate speech is more speech.' That's bullshit spoken by people who don't actually know what it's like to feel that their safety is at risk. Obviously I don't reach to interfere with someone's free speech every time I hear something I dislike - a person might be crazy or just angry and offensive by announcing the fact of their prejudice or suchlike, and in most cases they're best refuted, mocked, or ignored.
but where someone is knowingly and systematically arguing [out-group] are inherently terrible people - not the same thing as saying that people in [group] have inherently terrible ideas - then I'm not willing to guard a place on the platform for those who are using that position to push others off the platform. I simply do not owe anything to people who are actively promoting harm against others.
I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to invalidate your position so much as to more fully define my own.
I feel this paragraph goes to the heart of your argument so I'd like to dissect it a bit.
Enshrining free speech as a social value is essentially arbitrary, and that's fine - because values are what we really care about and choose to establish the rest of our utility criteria.
But having adopted free speech as a value, it does not follow that all speech must then be upheld. It's interesting that you use the phrase 'good-faith political discussions' here, because that has significant ramifications for judging what we find repugnant.
Let's suppose for a moment that I really can't stand people in the XYZ group. Under the doctrine of free speech, I might write all kinds of things to promulgate my opinions, from asserting that the XYZs are boring and stupid, to opining that XYZ people are going to hell, and so on.
But what if I say that XYZ people shouldn't be allowed to post on the internet? Well now I'm not upholding free speech any more, in fact I'd be asserting an intention to deny it to one group of whom I don't approve. Am I really discussing my views in good faith in that case? What if I say they should be killed? OK that doesn't go directly to free speech, but since it's impossible for people express themselves freely if they're not alive I'm certainly limiting their free speech indirectly.
What I'm arguing here is that there's a qualitative difference between my saying 'I think you are bad (in some way) and I dislike you' and calling for people to have their rights curtailed because they occupy a category that I find repugnant. In the first case I'm expressing my emotional hostility, but in the second case I'm making a positive proposal that their freedoms should be reduced relative to mine.
I'm quite opposed to fascism and similar authoritarian ideologies, and lately I keep running into people who raise this free speech argument, and ask if I am not being worse than the fascists myself for arguing that their views should be driven out of mainstream discourse and marginalized or shut down as efficiently as possible.
But to mind mind, people who espouse such authoritarian ideologies are not arguing in good faith. They're not saying things like 'it's so bad that [this group] won't sign onto my ideology, oh well live and let live.' They're saying things like '[this group] is morally/ culturally/ physically deficient and should not be allowed to participate in society, or maybe even in life.'
To put it in a single sentence, I do not feel inclined inclined to defend the liberty interests of those who have expressed an intention to do harm to me - not necessarily me personally, but because of my membership in various social categories of which they disapprove. To use historical examples, it's not like if some Jews went to Nazi rallies thy were welcomed with open arms as converts to some new intellectual current; their Jewishness (or membership in some other 'degenerate' category) made them ineligible to participate in the Nazi project.
I fail to see how you can justify giving free speech protections to those who make no secret of their desire to limit other people's liberties. I don't hate Richard Spencer because he's white, male, and has a particular haircut, I hate the fact that he's actively exhorting people to join him in a project get rid of people who are not white enough.
I'm a-OK with people punching Richard Spencer precisely because he has dedicated himself for the last several years to promoting a narrow and aggressive policy of racial supremacy that includes reducing the liberty of others by killing them or driving them out of their homes. If he were to popup in public tomorrow and announce that he'd renounced fascism and that people should be judged on the quality of their behavior towards others then I would no longer support people punching him as randomly and as often as possible. But while he's advocating systemic violence against others, he is not to my mind arguing in good faith because he is not willing to uphold that free speech principle for everyone else.
The other argument I hear from some people is 'well the solution to hate speech is more speech.' That's bullshit spoken by people who don't actually know what it's like to feel that their safety is at risk. Obviously I don't reach to interfere with someone's free speech every time I hear something I dislike - a person might be crazy or just angry and offensive by announcing the fact of their prejudice or suchlike, and in most cases they're best refuted, mocked, or ignored.
but where someone is knowingly and systematically arguing [out-group] are inherently terrible people - not the same thing as saying that people in [group] have inherently terrible ideas - then I'm not willing to guard a place on the platform for those who are using that position to push others off the platform. I simply do not owe anything to people who are actively promoting harm against others.
I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to invalidate your position so much as to more fully define my own.
> Ironically, rather than unifying mankind and increasing sympathy and understanding, we are using network technology to maximize comfort by crafting artificial "safe spaces" where patrons never even have to be exposed to thoughts they dislike. That's bad.
This is a bad characterisation; it was much easier to ignore stuff you didn't like before the internet. The internet is also not to blame for politics - while it helped intensify things, it wasn't the 'safe spaces' that gave you Trump, but the hysterical fearmongering that the conservatives had been doing for almost a decade beforehand.
I'm not sure how you think people were 'forced' to see views they didn't like before the internet.
This is a bad characterisation; it was much easier to ignore stuff you didn't like before the internet. The internet is also not to blame for politics - while it helped intensify things, it wasn't the 'safe spaces' that gave you Trump, but the hysterical fearmongering that the conservatives had been doing for almost a decade beforehand.
I'm not sure how you think people were 'forced' to see views they didn't like before the internet.
They weren't able to dismiss people who resisted by doing the equivalent of "unfriend"ing them. If you are in the same physical space with someone, the only way you can enforce silence (rather than just pleading for it) is to leave or compel the property owner to exert force against the other guest. In the public square, no one can exert this force over complaints as petty as "I don't like what he's saying".
Some types of public demonstrations or forums require permits and the like, but the public square is still available to anyone with a point to make, and if you're in the same physical area/space, you're going to see it, like it or not.
As the bulk of our discussion offloads from public spaces or common community gathering places to curated digital gardens where no one knows the difference if you unfollow their feed, we lose the forces that make it difficult to ignore each other. That makes it much easier to stay closed-minded.
Some types of public demonstrations or forums require permits and the like, but the public square is still available to anyone with a point to make, and if you're in the same physical area/space, you're going to see it, like it or not.
As the bulk of our discussion offloads from public spaces or common community gathering places to curated digital gardens where no one knows the difference if you unfollow their feed, we lose the forces that make it difficult to ignore each other. That makes it much easier to stay closed-minded.
You have a bizarre picture of the past if you think that people were forced to fraternise. Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically.
You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all. Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then.
You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all. Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then.
>You have a bizarre picture of the past if you think that people were forced to fraternise.
I wouldn't necessarily characterize what I was discussing as fraternization, but no, I don't think that's bizarre at all when compared against today's culture of sitting indoors looking at a screen bare minimum of 8 hours per day.
>Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically.
Obviously, this is not absolute. But it is seriously limited. If you wanted to have an active discussion of policy issues, what were your options pre-internet? Three-way calling (I think this came out in the 90s anyway)? You could write letters and stuff but that's quite the lag time. Serious discussion that kept human attention spans engaged had to happen in person.
>You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all.
First, are these necessarily mutually exclusive? Second, isn't this discussion specifically about how our freedoms are jeopardized by the closed-mindedness that arises from cultural disregard for the social principle and value of free speech?
>Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then.
I'm not saying that people were more open-minded in an absolute sense, though I think it's easy to say that the mainstream political discourse was more civil. I'm saying that the way technology and telecommunication has changed our interaction is causing us to lose regard for the principles of free speech and open dialogue.
You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand.
I wouldn't necessarily characterize what I was discussing as fraternization, but no, I don't think that's bizarre at all when compared against today's culture of sitting indoors looking at a screen bare minimum of 8 hours per day.
>Similarly, the advent of the internet doesn't mean that people no longer interact physically.
Obviously, this is not absolute. But it is seriously limited. If you wanted to have an active discussion of policy issues, what were your options pre-internet? Three-way calling (I think this came out in the 90s anyway)? You could write letters and stuff but that's quite the lag time. Serious discussion that kept human attention spans engaged had to happen in person.
>You say it's easier to remain close-minded, yet we are in a prosperous time with greater freedom across the board for all.
First, are these necessarily mutually exclusive? Second, isn't this discussion specifically about how our freedoms are jeopardized by the closed-mindedness that arises from cultural disregard for the social principle and value of free speech?
>Try being a minority fifty years ago, and see if you still think that people were more open-minded back then.
I'm not saying that people were more open-minded in an absolute sense, though I think it's easy to say that the mainstream political discourse was more civil. I'm saying that the way technology and telecommunication has changed our interaction is causing us to lose regard for the principles of free speech and open dialogue.
You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand.
> I'm saying that the way technology and telecommunication has changed our interaction is causing us to lose regard for the principles of free speech and open dialogue.
You only need to go back a few decades to get to a point where you could simply handwave away an opinion because the speaker was black or a woman. You can't get much more contemptuous of free speech than just ignoring someone out of hand. Your 'principles' don't exist in the actual past; they're a fantasy world that has never existed.
Even the idea that 'you can't bypass the public square' is simply not true, neither physically nor philosphically. Cities have been divided along class lines since forever, with little in the way of mixing. Even in a small town, it's not like you had to go to the square.
> You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand.
You're saying technology is holding us back, I'm arguing it's not. But it's nice that you bemoan the lack of communication, then try this dismissal. So much for 'open dialogue'...
You only need to go back a few decades to get to a point where you could simply handwave away an opinion because the speaker was black or a woman. You can't get much more contemptuous of free speech than just ignoring someone out of hand. Your 'principles' don't exist in the actual past; they're a fantasy world that has never existed.
Even the idea that 'you can't bypass the public square' is simply not true, neither physically nor philosphically. Cities have been divided along class lines since forever, with little in the way of mixing. Even in a small town, it's not like you had to go to the square.
> You seem to be reading this from a very narrow perspective that's not ultimately relevant to the discussion at hand.
You're saying technology is holding us back, I'm arguing it's not. But it's nice that you bemoan the lack of communication, then try this dismissal. So much for 'open dialogue'...
>You only need to go back a few decades to get to a point where you could simply handwave away an opinion because the speaker was black or a woman. You can't get much more contemptuous of free speech than just ignoring someone out of hand. Your 'principles' don't exist in the actual past; they're a fantasy world that has never existed.
No, as I said, you're reading this from a very narrow perspective. Free speech is NOT about whether we choose to ignore someone. It's about whether we allow them to speak at all. In fact, choosing to ignore someone is the option consistent with free speech.
Today, instead of just ignoring content we dislike, we see publishing platforms cutting off the audience when the statements don't comply with their corporate agendas, and we have a bunch of self-righteous people approving of it, as long as the targeted people are not on their side.
That's the social value we are losing. Everyone should be concerned that real political speech is being suppressed, even if it's not happening to their side. Instead, people are actively encouraging it.
Because we no longer hold most of our political discourse in physical rooms where it's much harder to simply dismiss or ignore someone who is also present, and because we no longer have to go across an open area where anyone is able to distribute their content or peddle their ideas, the internet is contributing to the rise of a generation that has no idea how to disagree civilly.
>Even the idea that 'you can't bypass the public square' is simply not true, neither physically nor philosphically. Cities have been divided along class lines since forever, with little in the way of mixing. Even in a small town, it's not like you had to go to the square.
You're thinking too literally; I'm not referring to an actual square/hub. I'm referring to public space, where signage can be placed by anyone, where people can stand on the sidewalk and give out their fliers to people who aren't looking for them, they can get permits from the city and do a march on a public street, etc. The surrounding people can't just make these things go away by pressing "Hide". That's the point I'm making.
While these things are still possible, our reliance on the internet for socialization, shopping, work, and a lot of things that we used to have to go out into public space to do has limited the applicability and, I believe, has seriously contributed to a decline in civility/understanding. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that because I don't see you providing any actual points to discuss.
>You're saying technology is holding us back, I'm arguing it's not.
You're not talking about technology at all. You're saying that more people have civil rights today, ergo everyone is more open and enlightened. I don't think this necessarily follows. You haven't discussed how technology actually impacts our dialogue at all, as far as I recall.
>But it's nice that you bemoan the lack of communication, then try this dismissal. So much for 'open dialogue'...
It's not a dismissal, first. It's my opinion. I think that you're reading it from a narrow perspective that's not really relevant, which I've discussed in more detail here. How is that invalid commentary?
And yes, "open dialogue" includes people saying they don't think your argument is working or that your perspective is narrow. That's a very important part of it, in fact, and that's the point I'm making here. People today are used to dismissing those they don't agree with and moving on because the internet makes it really easy, and then it makes it easy to go find more people who will just keep feeding you whatever you want to hear, validating your opinions.
So, to be perfectly clear, this dialogue is still open, and nothing about this betrays any values related to free speech or open dialogue. I'm not trying to get HN to block your comments because I disagree with them. I'm not trying to get you ostracized or punished for disagreeing. I wouldn't be supportive if your comments were blocked. I'm not sure what else to say about the topic at hand, but if I can think of something worthwhile I'd be happy to offer it.
All of this sounds like an open dialogue to me. Open dialogue doesn't mean that people will agree or that you will be in an echo chamber. It just recognizes the importance of real, substantive political discussion, which includes allowing people to blatantly say they think we're wrong, and that people shouldn't be punished for their good faith efforts to pursue a dialogue, no matter how seriously we disagree.
I think the fact that I need to explain this means that technology is keeping us too isolated. We don't have enough experience having discussions with people we don't agree with, and learning to work and sympathize with them. I do posit that pre-internet, this isolation was less severe. I know you keep mentioning class and racial divides, which are totally legitimate issues, but they're not directly related to the problem of political hegemony; people in the same classes and races can and do disagree.
No, as I said, you're reading this from a very narrow perspective. Free speech is NOT about whether we choose to ignore someone. It's about whether we allow them to speak at all. In fact, choosing to ignore someone is the option consistent with free speech.
Today, instead of just ignoring content we dislike, we see publishing platforms cutting off the audience when the statements don't comply with their corporate agendas, and we have a bunch of self-righteous people approving of it, as long as the targeted people are not on their side.
That's the social value we are losing. Everyone should be concerned that real political speech is being suppressed, even if it's not happening to their side. Instead, people are actively encouraging it.
Because we no longer hold most of our political discourse in physical rooms where it's much harder to simply dismiss or ignore someone who is also present, and because we no longer have to go across an open area where anyone is able to distribute their content or peddle their ideas, the internet is contributing to the rise of a generation that has no idea how to disagree civilly.
>Even the idea that 'you can't bypass the public square' is simply not true, neither physically nor philosphically. Cities have been divided along class lines since forever, with little in the way of mixing. Even in a small town, it's not like you had to go to the square.
You're thinking too literally; I'm not referring to an actual square/hub. I'm referring to public space, where signage can be placed by anyone, where people can stand on the sidewalk and give out their fliers to people who aren't looking for them, they can get permits from the city and do a march on a public street, etc. The surrounding people can't just make these things go away by pressing "Hide". That's the point I'm making.
While these things are still possible, our reliance on the internet for socialization, shopping, work, and a lot of things that we used to have to go out into public space to do has limited the applicability and, I believe, has seriously contributed to a decline in civility/understanding. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that because I don't see you providing any actual points to discuss.
>You're saying technology is holding us back, I'm arguing it's not.
You're not talking about technology at all. You're saying that more people have civil rights today, ergo everyone is more open and enlightened. I don't think this necessarily follows. You haven't discussed how technology actually impacts our dialogue at all, as far as I recall.
>But it's nice that you bemoan the lack of communication, then try this dismissal. So much for 'open dialogue'...
It's not a dismissal, first. It's my opinion. I think that you're reading it from a narrow perspective that's not really relevant, which I've discussed in more detail here. How is that invalid commentary?
And yes, "open dialogue" includes people saying they don't think your argument is working or that your perspective is narrow. That's a very important part of it, in fact, and that's the point I'm making here. People today are used to dismissing those they don't agree with and moving on because the internet makes it really easy, and then it makes it easy to go find more people who will just keep feeding you whatever you want to hear, validating your opinions.
So, to be perfectly clear, this dialogue is still open, and nothing about this betrays any values related to free speech or open dialogue. I'm not trying to get HN to block your comments because I disagree with them. I'm not trying to get you ostracized or punished for disagreeing. I wouldn't be supportive if your comments were blocked. I'm not sure what else to say about the topic at hand, but if I can think of something worthwhile I'd be happy to offer it.
All of this sounds like an open dialogue to me. Open dialogue doesn't mean that people will agree or that you will be in an echo chamber. It just recognizes the importance of real, substantive political discussion, which includes allowing people to blatantly say they think we're wrong, and that people shouldn't be punished for their good faith efforts to pursue a dialogue, no matter how seriously we disagree.
I think the fact that I need to explain this means that technology is keeping us too isolated. We don't have enough experience having discussions with people we don't agree with, and learning to work and sympathize with them. I do posit that pre-internet, this isolation was less severe. I know you keep mentioning class and racial divides, which are totally legitimate issues, but they're not directly related to the problem of political hegemony; people in the same classes and races can and do disagree.
The problem is that the your entire argument rest on the assumption that every individual have equal power, which is objectively not true if you allow for property to accumulate in the hands of a small elite.
The central flaw of libertarianism is that it depend on property rights to essentially be worthless to work in the real world, as any scarcity allows for a libertarian dictatorship based solely on the idea that property rights are sacred, and need to be protected by the state.
The central flaw of libertarianism is that it depend on property rights to essentially be worthless to work in the real world, as any scarcity allows for a libertarian dictatorship based solely on the idea that property rights are sacred, and need to be protected by the state.
> The central flaw of libertarianism is that it depend on property rights to essentially be worthless to work in the real world, as any scarcity allows for a libertarian dictatorship based solely on the idea that property rights are sacred, and need to be protected by the state.
Could you reiterate this statement for me? I wasn't able to fully grok the meaning.
Edit: Spelling.
Could you reiterate this statement for me? I wasn't able to fully grok the meaning.
Edit: Spelling.
The problem is that rights don't have meaning if they don't have real world effects and in the real world you need resources to exercise any freedom making freedom a limited good dependent on "goods that can be property".
i.e. you end up with a clash between the right to own/control property and any other right unless you have a post scarcity society with limitless resources.
I am not arguing that we should all go communist im arguing that Marx have point when he claimed that capitalism will devolve back into something similar to mercantilism* if property is allowed to accumulate in the hands of a few clans/corporations[1].
I know im being a heretic but someone have to as the current naive idea that freedom is not linked with real world resources can only lead to the erosion of any real meaning of the word freedom.
[1]in Smiths day corporations looked a lot like AT&T or Google today and Smith was a critic of the power concentrated within corporations like the British East-india Company(the target of the Boston tea part btw.)
i.e. you end up with a clash between the right to own/control property and any other right unless you have a post scarcity society with limitless resources.
I am not arguing that we should all go communist im arguing that Marx have point when he claimed that capitalism will devolve back into something similar to mercantilism* if property is allowed to accumulate in the hands of a few clans/corporations[1].
I know im being a heretic but someone have to as the current naive idea that freedom is not linked with real world resources can only lead to the erosion of any real meaning of the word freedom.
[1]in Smiths day corporations looked a lot like AT&T or Google today and Smith was a critic of the power concentrated within corporations like the British East-india Company(the target of the Boston tea part btw.)
Yup, censorship is now a global trend. We shouldn't forget that it also happens in many Western countries such as Denmark, Finland, France, ... https://explorer.ooni.torproject.org/world/
And if we look in particular at government censorship of Wikipedia or some articles in it we find quiet a few Western countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_censorship_of_Wikip...
And if we look in particular at government censorship of Wikipedia or some articles in it we find quiet a few Western countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_censorship_of_Wikip...
I don't understand what the "anomalies" this site detects in Denmark, Finland, and France represent, but the site itself says that they don't necessarily represent censorship and that it has only confirmed censorship in the following 12 countries: Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, India, Indonesia, Greece, Sudan, Belgium, Cyprus and Korea.
Just FYI, Youtube is heavilly sensored in the Czech Republic (we have very strong laws against political extremism, like jail time for extreme right wing speech..). But I don't know of any actual domains that are blocked. The government doesn't need a great firewall to censor. They can simply slap a 2 year jail sentence on anyone who shares a right wing video and that's enough to get youtube to censor itself.
Edit: I mean extreme right wing, like KKK, nazi stuf ect.
Edit: I mean extreme right wing, like KKK, nazi stuf ect.
The UK, France, Spain and possibly others have laws against "glorifying terrorism". In Germany, Nazi symbols and propaganda are banned. I don't necessarily agree with these laws, but this is quite different from blocking the entire Wikipedia.
Is there jail time for extreme left wing speech? Like Che Guevara, Mao, Hugo Chavez? Not arguing -- just genuinely curious how extremism is defined there.
You are very unlikely to go to jail for left wing speech. This isn't a matter of placement on a political spectrum though.
The law is as follow:
1) No Nazi symbolism outside of a historic context. 2) No inciting racial hatred. 3) No expression of hatred against a protected minority (the wealthy are not a protected minority).
These are very easy to prove, but none of them apply to normal left wingers. There are Islamist left wingers that fall into these categories because of their anti-semeticism or anti Christian sentiments.
4) No denying crimes against humanity.
This DOES apply to left wingers. If you deny Stalin's genocide against the Ukrainians that would be illegal. It also equally applies to holocaust deniers. I don't know how often it comes up though.
5) No speach which undermines democratic values and seeks to opress others.
I don't think that this is ever actually used. Though it might apply against left wingers.
The law is as follow:
1) No Nazi symbolism outside of a historic context. 2) No inciting racial hatred. 3) No expression of hatred against a protected minority (the wealthy are not a protected minority).
These are very easy to prove, but none of them apply to normal left wingers. There are Islamist left wingers that fall into these categories because of their anti-semeticism or anti Christian sentiments.
4) No denying crimes against humanity.
This DOES apply to left wingers. If you deny Stalin's genocide against the Ukrainians that would be illegal. It also equally applies to holocaust deniers. I don't know how often it comes up though.
5) No speach which undermines democratic values and seeks to opress others.
I don't think that this is ever actually used. Though it might apply against left wingers.
One note on this: some elements of the extreme left-wing have in the past had tendencies toward antisemitism, which obviously fits into 2) and potentially 1). So that's one issue.
Yeah, but I don't think that anything of value is said by people who incite racial hatred or use Nazi symbols...
Denial of crimes against humanity, though, I see as a big mistake. I know, I know, we've all beaten the Holocaust to death... But when it comes to anti-capitalist and anti-comunist thinkers there is a great deal to talk about.
For example, anti-communists will tell you that Mao commit genocide during the great leap forward. Reasonable people disagree.
I, as an anti-capitalist, will tell you, that the quality of food sold in primarily black neighborhoods in the US is much lower than elsewhere in the country, that millions of blacks die as a result, and that this is an act of genocide against blacks. Obviously, a lot of white Americans would disagrees with me, and I think it would not be a good thing if they all went to jail for doing so...
Denial of crimes against humanity, though, I see as a big mistake. I know, I know, we've all beaten the Holocaust to death... But when it comes to anti-capitalist and anti-comunist thinkers there is a great deal to talk about.
For example, anti-communists will tell you that Mao commit genocide during the great leap forward. Reasonable people disagree.
I, as an anti-capitalist, will tell you, that the quality of food sold in primarily black neighborhoods in the US is much lower than elsewhere in the country, that millions of blacks die as a result, and that this is an act of genocide against blacks. Obviously, a lot of white Americans would disagrees with me, and I think it would not be a good thing if they all went to jail for doing so...
I don't think that fits the legal definition of crimes against humanity, although there's admittedly a fine line between that and e.g. some of the famines in the USSR.
5) was used to disband the DS? Although I guess you could say that was 2) and 3) too.
Ds is still going strong isn't it? http://www.dsss.cz/
Wait, you're right https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%9Blnick%C3%A1_strana it was banned as a threat to democracy. That lasted long...
Wait, you're right https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C4%9Blnick%C3%A1_strana it was banned as a threat to democracy. That lasted long...
In Poland, the same laws prohibit (meaning - jail time) spreading fascist and communist ideas.
So the videos are still accessible and can simply be shared offline?
Just use a URL shortener and print up links to pass around. Sneakernet still can't be tracked
Just use a URL shortener and print up links to pass around. Sneakernet still can't be tracked
It says "this video is not available in your country."
I don't really need to spend my time and energy spreading holocaust denial and ISIS beheading videos ;)
I don't really need to spend my time and energy spreading holocaust denial and ISIS beheading videos ;)
I just checked, and there is no apparent censorship of youtube going on (e.g. you can find Czech neo-nazi music without any issues).
You are right that it the censorship is incomplete to the point of sillyness. It is TRIVIAL to find extremist content that isn't blocked. That doesn't mean that some videos are not blocked though.
The map has "Confirmed censorship cases" and Denmark, Finland and France, ... all fit there. For Denmark for example:
https://explorer.ooni.torproject.org/country/DK
They're blocking http://thepiratebay.org, that's straight up censorship.
https://explorer.ooni.torproject.org/country/DK
They're blocking http://thepiratebay.org, that's straight up censorship.
> They're blocking http://thepiratebay.org, that's straight up censorship.
No, that's anti-piracy judgements.
No, that's anti-piracy judgements.
> No, that's anti-piracy judgements.
How does that change the fact that Denmark censors http://thepiratebay.org?
How does that change the fact that Denmark censors http://thepiratebay.org?
Read what was just explained to you:
> that's anti-piracy judgements
Not the same as censorship.
> that's anti-piracy judgements
Not the same as censorship.
Linking is not a crime (or is it in Denmark?).
The latter being censorship is really an opinion rather than undisputed, fact, or a guaranteed majority opinion.
> The latter being censorship is really an opinion rather than undisputed, fact, or a guaranteed majority opinion.
So you're saying that "Denmark censors http://thepiratebay.org" is not a fact that can be measured?
So you're saying that "Denmark censors http://thepiratebay.org" is not a fact that can be measured?
The censorship is a fact, only its justification is in dispute.
I'm Greek and I have no idea of wikipedia (or other) kind of censorship by the Greek state. I know that the Greek mass media is tightly controlled by the Greek oligarchy and Greece is 88th in Freedom of Speech Index and falling - but their grip over the populace has been severely weakened the last 5 years.
I have no idea of internet state-level censorship though, are there any specific
I have no idea of internet state-level censorship though, are there any specific
All the sites I see blocked in Greece in those stats are for foreign online gambling.
Denmark, Finland, France and many other countries censor The Pirate Bay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_blocking_access_to_T...
That link says: blocking access due to copyright issues. Respectfully, I don't think you're doing justice to the Turkish freedom of speech issue of Wikipedia being blocked by bringing up The Pirate Bay.
> That link says: blocking access due to copyright issues. Respectfully, I don't think you're doing justice to the Turkish freedom of speech issue of Wikipedia being blocked by bringing up The Pirate Bay.
Can we both agree that both of these things shouldn't happen and ThePirateBay and Wikipedia shouldn't be censored by any country?
Can we both agree that both of these things shouldn't happen and ThePirateBay and Wikipedia shouldn't be censored by any country?
Sure, but there's a time and a place, if you know what I mean. One directly undermines access to information, whereas another has to do with copyright law.
Torrents contain information. Blocking torrent aggregators directly undermines access to information.
I did not mean to compare the two cases at all and am sorry if it came out that way. I just wanted to answer the parent post on 'what the "anomalies" this site detects in Denmark, Finland, and France represent' by pointing out that TPB is blocked/censored in these countries. I only meant to point out one possible reason why the above site listed these countries.
So… that's a case of dishonestly conflating shutting down a locally illegal operations and speech/political censorship. Hardly helping the case.
Sorry, but I did not intend to compare or conflate the two cases. I wanted to give an answer to the parent poster why those countries might be listed on the above site.
The French definitely censor more than just pirate sites.
Denmark censors a lot more than just TPB, though it is probably the one website that causes most people to circumvent the censorship.
In Denmark it all started out with blocking child porn sites, then it was expanded to copyright infringement, then it was expanded to companies operating illegally (counterfeit goods stores, illegal gambling, alternative medicine stores) and most recently the government started blocking "terror propaganda" [1] - which means they have begun censoring political speech.
This is in spite of a constitution forbidding censorship, with the counterpoint being that since it's technically private companies doing the censorship, it doesn't violate the constitution. Even though ISPs will be taken to court if they don't censor sites [2]
[1] https://www.information.dk/indland/2016/10/statsligt-debatto...
[2] https://www.version2.dk/artikel/dansk-internetudbyder-traekk...
In Denmark it all started out with blocking child porn sites, then it was expanded to copyright infringement, then it was expanded to companies operating illegally (counterfeit goods stores, illegal gambling, alternative medicine stores) and most recently the government started blocking "terror propaganda" [1] - which means they have begun censoring political speech.
This is in spite of a constitution forbidding censorship, with the counterpoint being that since it's technically private companies doing the censorship, it doesn't violate the constitution. Even though ISPs will be taken to court if they don't censor sites [2]
[1] https://www.information.dk/indland/2016/10/statsligt-debatto...
[2] https://www.version2.dk/artikel/dansk-internetudbyder-traekk...
As far as I can tell from the linked site, it is only thepiratebay.org that is censored in Denmark, and I can confirm that this censorship is dependant on your internet provider.
My landline provider gives me access, but my mobile provider (TDC, same provider as the one tested on the linked site) does not give me access, saying that a court has banned access to the site, but not quoting any specific case.
My landline provider gives me access, but my mobile provider (TDC, same provider as the one tested on the linked site) does not give me access, saying that a court has banned access to the site, but not quoting any specific case.
I don't think this list is complete. Qatar comes to my mind, where while being there recently, I've had multiple instances where given sites were blocked - i.e. redirect to censor.qa and passing unique query parameters along w/ your IP address.
They're basing their results on measurements that anyone can make, if there are very few people who do these measurements in a certain country then most probably no censorship case may come.
You talk about Belgium, but the wikipedia doesn't (I read it from Belgium right now). Could you elaborate on this Belgium censorship information ? Thanks!
IDK about censorship, but France had strict laws when it comes to Nazi support or Holocaust denial.
Click on a country, then click on "Blocked Sites".
Great summary. One missing thing is that goverments are getting better at using free Internet for propaganda. In Poland we have open Internet so far, but we are increasingly exposed to Russian goverment news/comments that are factually wrong but repeated consistently.
Basically - we see the same thing we already saw with free market. It is not free by itself. Countries and companies can use it to establish monopolies.
Freedom is not for free. It is something we need to define, establish and then continuously fight for it.
Basically - we see the same thing we already saw with free market. It is not free by itself. Countries and companies can use it to establish monopolies.
Freedom is not for free. It is something we need to define, establish and then continuously fight for it.
Being a Russian, I am naturally very curious about this idea of the Russian propaganda getting a stronger and stronger influence over the minds of people in other countries. Could you kindly elaborate on the following issues that mystify me:
- Where do people get the Russian news and why do they care about what Russia has to say? I mean, I don't follow Polish news (or French news, or German news, etc.); so why would people get their information from the Russian outlets?
- You said that the Russian news/comments are factually wrong. What do you use as a reference (which sources would give you factually correct information and how do you verify that it is factually correct)?
Those are honest questions; I am not defending the Russian outlets in any way - I am just curious about how people perceive different news media
- Where do people get the Russian news and why do they care about what Russia has to say? I mean, I don't follow Polish news (or French news, or German news, etc.); so why would people get their information from the Russian outlets?
- You said that the Russian news/comments are factually wrong. What do you use as a reference (which sources would give you factually correct information and how do you verify that it is factually correct)?
Those are honest questions; I am not defending the Russian outlets in any way - I am just curious about how people perceive different news media
Yes, I can understand your wondering (I'm a Russian too). When I hear about the waves of Russian propaganda all around the globe I can't stop to ask myself a question: "how we become so powerful?". I'm afraid that nowadays some people tend to call any opposite opinion in their countries as a Russian propaganda. And I can understand that with a lack of good opposition/alternative media people start to read Russia Today, just like we here in Russia read BBC and other Western media, especially when we think that our state media tries to hide something from us.
By the way, do you know what a main evil scheme Kremlin uses to brainwash the citizens, to set them against the West? It's not some made-up, fake news. They made a few websites instead, where anyone can read translated articles about Russia, published in Western media. And that's it. As you understand, it's much harder to find something pro-Russian there to translate, than vice versa.
On a serious note, I think that the only way to fight with the streams of fakes (regardless the country) is a restriction of anonymity on the Internet.
By the way, do you know what a main evil scheme Kremlin uses to brainwash the citizens, to set them against the West? It's not some made-up, fake news. They made a few websites instead, where anyone can read translated articles about Russia, published in Western media. And that's it. As you understand, it's much harder to find something pro-Russian there to translate, than vice versa.
On a serious note, I think that the only way to fight with the streams of fakes (regardless the country) is a restriction of anonymity on the Internet.
> On a serious note, I think that the only way to fight with the streams of fakes (regardless the country) is a restriction of anonymity on the Internet.
Please stop suggesting that.
There's zero evidence that removing anonymity works and in that process we lose our online privacy. And I think anonymity is precisely what we need to preserve freedom.
Also people are simply jackasses, real names or not. If you don't believe me, engage in conversations on Facebook about politics sometimes. There's nothing that shakes my faith in humanity faster.
Please stop suggesting that.
There's zero evidence that removing anonymity works and in that process we lose our online privacy. And I think anonymity is precisely what we need to preserve freedom.
Also people are simply jackasses, real names or not. If you don't believe me, engage in conversations on Facebook about politics sometimes. There's nothing that shakes my faith in humanity faster.
Don't give me wrong, I'm not protecting this idea. But I don't like some alternatives either, like banning the access to "enemy media". And it's more shameful when some democratic country doing it.
I think, the main problem is that Internet was not designed for the masses originally. In 90s you could find there mostly scientists, programmers, hackers, writers etc. Here, in Russia, everything was concenrated in Fidonet and we had our own Eternal September [1] (2000-...) when dial-up access become cheaper. So, what to do now? To be honest, I don't know. I'm not promoting segregation either. I think it's pointless to make a modern version of Usenet/Fidonet/... for closed groups of like-minded people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
I think, the main problem is that Internet was not designed for the masses originally. In 90s you could find there mostly scientists, programmers, hackers, writers etc. Here, in Russia, everything was concenrated in Fidonet and we had our own Eternal September [1] (2000-...) when dial-up access become cheaper. So, what to do now? To be honest, I don't know. I'm not promoting segregation either. I think it's pointless to make a modern version of Usenet/Fidonet/... for closed groups of like-minded people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
> When I hear about the waves of Russian propaganda all around the globe I can't stop to ask myself a question: "how we become so powerful?"
Thank you! These are my thoughts exactly. I mean, I remember the Soviet times, when the Russian intellectuals, having zero confidence in the official news, used to listen to foreign radio stations over AM radio – Voice of America and BBC World Service (and perhaps Deutsche Welle too) being the most prominent among them. What happened that now the Western media loudly complains about RT? One might even think that the situation has now been reversed, and that the Western world somehow trusts RT more than they trust their mainstream media. But this does not make any sense!
Thank you! These are my thoughts exactly. I mean, I remember the Soviet times, when the Russian intellectuals, having zero confidence in the official news, used to listen to foreign radio stations over AM radio – Voice of America and BBC World Service (and perhaps Deutsche Welle too) being the most prominent among them. What happened that now the Western media loudly complains about RT? One might even think that the situation has now been reversed, and that the Western world somehow trusts RT more than they trust their mainstream media. But this does not make any sense!
RT played the long game, and has done a surprisingly good job of gaining a following in fringe viewers throughout the US. Anecdotally, I participated pretty heavily in the first couple weeks of the Occupy Wall Street protests in Manhattan. For the first week or so, we got very little news coverage, and a lot of the established media was downplaying the movement, waiting for it to blow over, or picking the craziest people they could find out of the crowd to discredit us. Russia Today was one of the few news organizations who came out early, giving us positive coverage, and reflecting the views of the protesters more or less accurately. A lot of my friends became RT viewers because RT legitimately succeeded where the domestic media failed.
RT has played the strategy of going in and eating the domestic media's lunch when they hesitate to cover legitimate stories, and that has given them a dedicated following. Unfortunately, as time has passed, it has grown more clear (at least to me) that this bona-fide coverage is the bait they pull people in with, and that their coverage in general is of the journalistic quality of Fox News. They use the same tactics of lying through omission, stoking panic, appealing to emotion, and selecting stories to promote an agenda.
As for the social media shilling, the situation is extremely nuanced. At this point there are probably tens of thousands of organizations astroturfing social media to promote their interests. Russia gets a lot of attention, because they seem to be doing it on the largest scale in terms of influencing geopolitics, but I agree that they aren't the only ones doing it, and that if we make them stop, the problem won't go away. The media has spoken up a lot about Russia's twitter/facebook botting and shilling, but if we were to take a much closer look at the data, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see some shady domestic political think tanks and action committees doing it to the same extent. In fact, the shadowy domestic PACs engaging in astroturfing are probably ecstatic that Russia has taken the focus (and blame) off of them! The Internet has become a ideological battleground, and at this point, anybody who has any power to gain/lose has rolled up their sleeves and entered into the fray. I'm not quite sure what to do about it.
RT has played the strategy of going in and eating the domestic media's lunch when they hesitate to cover legitimate stories, and that has given them a dedicated following. Unfortunately, as time has passed, it has grown more clear (at least to me) that this bona-fide coverage is the bait they pull people in with, and that their coverage in general is of the journalistic quality of Fox News. They use the same tactics of lying through omission, stoking panic, appealing to emotion, and selecting stories to promote an agenda.
As for the social media shilling, the situation is extremely nuanced. At this point there are probably tens of thousands of organizations astroturfing social media to promote their interests. Russia gets a lot of attention, because they seem to be doing it on the largest scale in terms of influencing geopolitics, but I agree that they aren't the only ones doing it, and that if we make them stop, the problem won't go away. The media has spoken up a lot about Russia's twitter/facebook botting and shilling, but if we were to take a much closer look at the data, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see some shady domestic political think tanks and action committees doing it to the same extent. In fact, the shadowy domestic PACs engaging in astroturfing are probably ecstatic that Russia has taken the focus (and blame) off of them! The Internet has become a ideological battleground, and at this point, anybody who has any power to gain/lose has rolled up their sleeves and entered into the fray. I'm not quite sure what to do about it.
For me, the real value that RT has to offer (and that goes surprisingly unappreciated) is that it acts as a system of checks and balances against more mainstream networks. Whenever those networks make outrageously weak (or simply wrong) claims, RT is quick to point that out. Whenever mainstream media ignore some potentially damaging topics, RT is quick to pick them up. Whenever mainstream media act as vehicles of outright propaganda, RT makes fun of them.
RT's journalist Gayane Chichakyan, for example, has become a kind of a legend among some American podcasters for asking straight and inconvenient, but certainly valid questions at State Department’s press conferences.
And while comedy shows such as The Daily Show or The Late Show with Stephen Colbert are almost indistinguishable from each other in their messages, RT's Redacted Tonight (https://www.rt.com/shows/redacted-tonight-summary/) is radically different and gives the voice to the comedy of the very far left.
I think I understand the concept of lies by omission. Perhaps RT does that. And yet, I am not sure that giving a one-sided account of events is worse than not bringing them up at all. Like that accusation of Wikileaks’ selectively targeting the democrats and being silent about the republicans — I am not convinced that this one-sidedness in any way invalidates what Wikileaks had to say about the democrats. Likewise, if RT does not report on the stories that can be damaging to the Russian side, this should not make their other stories, potentially damaging to the other sides, somehow invalid.
RT's journalist Gayane Chichakyan, for example, has become a kind of a legend among some American podcasters for asking straight and inconvenient, but certainly valid questions at State Department’s press conferences.
And while comedy shows such as The Daily Show or The Late Show with Stephen Colbert are almost indistinguishable from each other in their messages, RT's Redacted Tonight (https://www.rt.com/shows/redacted-tonight-summary/) is radically different and gives the voice to the comedy of the very far left.
I think I understand the concept of lies by omission. Perhaps RT does that. And yet, I am not sure that giving a one-sided account of events is worse than not bringing them up at all. Like that accusation of Wikileaks’ selectively targeting the democrats and being silent about the republicans — I am not convinced that this one-sidedness in any way invalidates what Wikileaks had to say about the democrats. Likewise, if RT does not report on the stories that can be damaging to the Russian side, this should not make their other stories, potentially damaging to the other sides, somehow invalid.
Hi. Sorry to single out your country in particular, but its hard to talk in general :)
We get a lot of comments in main Internet portals which present Russians as victims of NATO aggression in case of Ukrainian conflict. It always misses the point of who invaded who.
There is a lot of comments threatening Poland with nuclear conflict, in particular after US Army established its presence here.
These are examples. But it looks like a lot of comments have particular key and great consistency.
We get a lot of comments in main Internet portals which present Russians as victims of NATO aggression in case of Ukrainian conflict. It always misses the point of who invaded who.
There is a lot of comments threatening Poland with nuclear conflict, in particular after US Army established its presence here.
These are examples. But it looks like a lot of comments have particular key and great consistency.
Are those comments that you are talking about online publications of some established Russian media outlets, or are they just comments of some random visitors to the sites?
As for invasion and NATO aggression, I think it’s worth reminding oneself that there are several opposite narratives battling each other and pushing different agendas — God knows whose. Russia is certainly meddling in Ukranian affairs (and it’s revolting) — but invasion? Isn’t it an act of war? Aren’t countries at war with each other if one country invades another? As for NATO, both NATO and Russia seem to be saber-rattling, each side responding to the demonstrations of the other by further threats. This is plain madness!
As for invasion and NATO aggression, I think it’s worth reminding oneself that there are several opposite narratives battling each other and pushing different agendas — God knows whose. Russia is certainly meddling in Ukranian affairs (and it’s revolting) — but invasion? Isn’t it an act of war? Aren’t countries at war with each other if one country invades another? As for NATO, both NATO and Russia seem to be saber-rattling, each side responding to the demonstrations of the other by further threats. This is plain madness!
Sorry, I didn't mean to start this discussion.
I just wanted to point out that Internet due to its global nature is vulnerable to attack on truth by actors with enough money and defined agenda. This kind of attack can be similar to spam/ddos attack in its nature. So basically exploiting Internet freedom.
If we don't build in mechanisms to prevent this, we will loose anyway. Even if it was possible to keep Internet free.
I see that the only positive result of my comment is that it motivated you and several Russian readers to create accounts here and take part in discussion. I hope we will have much more opportunity to participate in IT related topics. You guys are some of the best people in the field and we will all benefit from your expertise.
I just wanted to point out that Internet due to its global nature is vulnerable to attack on truth by actors with enough money and defined agenda. This kind of attack can be similar to spam/ddos attack in its nature. So basically exploiting Internet freedom.
If we don't build in mechanisms to prevent this, we will loose anyway. Even if it was possible to keep Internet free.
I see that the only positive result of my comment is that it motivated you and several Russian readers to create accounts here and take part in discussion. I hope we will have much more opportunity to participate in IT related topics. You guys are some of the best people in the field and we will all benefit from your expertise.
Thank you for your kind words. There is just one small correction I wanted to make. I created an account here a couple of weeks before this topic, to express my incredulity at an unwarranted (in my opinion) criticism of an example of JavaScript code written in functional style. But it is true that this is my longest discussion on Hacker News. Thank you for that, and please forgive me for steering the thread this way. I hope I was not being too uncivil.
Ukraine and Russia ar at what exhausts the definition of a war - both Russian and Ukrainian military are fighting over a piece of land.
Not from Poland and not in an any way affected country, but I believe I can answer your first question, and it comes down to basically Rossiya Segodnya.
Here's an investigation that discovered them operating in the Baltics: https://en.rebaltica.lv/2017/04/sputniks-unknown-brother/
Long story short, they open a news portal where tracking the ownership is almost impossible and where there is absolutely no hindsight on how do they monetize what they do, they attract readers by appealing to the Russian minorities, trying to create some sort of panic between them and hoping to create a chain reaction.
Here's an investigation that discovered them operating in the Baltics: https://en.rebaltica.lv/2017/04/sputniks-unknown-brother/
Long story short, they open a news portal where tracking the ownership is almost impossible and where there is absolutely no hindsight on how do they monetize what they do, they attract readers by appealing to the Russian minorities, trying to create some sort of panic between them and hoping to create a chain reaction.
I am from Germany so I don't know about your first question.
For your second question: I myself don't know too much about this in regards to the internet, but I have read in a couple of white papers that
1: a large majority of Russians (esp. those in rural areas) have TV as their main source of news. Print is only a minority (has small relevance).
2: Most TV is controlled by the government and if they are not they don't criticize the government as there is a fear of being shut down.
3: The Russian media is said to state false Fact as well as to distort Facts/Events. I don't have the time to link specific sources but you can find what I said if you research freedom of press on google and google scholar. There are also renown sites with lists such as a freedom of speech index. Russia ranks 148.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&q=russia+freedom+of+...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616690320001763... http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1081180011291722...
For your second question: I myself don't know too much about this in regards to the internet, but I have read in a couple of white papers that
1: a large majority of Russians (esp. those in rural areas) have TV as their main source of news. Print is only a minority (has small relevance).
2: Most TV is controlled by the government and if they are not they don't criticize the government as there is a fear of being shut down.
3: The Russian media is said to state false Fact as well as to distort Facts/Events. I don't have the time to link specific sources but you can find what I said if you research freedom of press on google and google scholar. There are also renown sites with lists such as a freedom of speech index. Russia ranks 148.
https://rsf.org/en/ranking
https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=en&q=russia+freedom+of+...
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14616690320001763... http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1081180011291722...
In the case of the Baltics, it's not so much the natives that are under the increasing propaganda. [1] It's the Russians who were transported here during the various occupations by the empire & soviets. These people weren't kicked out after the collapse of the union, but most of them have never been interested in the local culture. They haven't learned the language [2], aren't interested in going back to Russia even if paid for, and often don't hold local citizenship. They view Putin as their leader, they celebrate Russian holdiays, shoot new year's fireworks according to Moscow time, and cry about the fall of the union. Basically these are people who are waiting for the reunification of the motherland and it doesn't take much for them to eat up any propaganda that aligns with that view.
Digitally they live as Russians, they don't use facebook but use VK etc. Because they don't understand the language the only local TV/newspapers/media they consume is Russian. The local Russian media is mostly funded by the Kremlin and has their agenda aligned accordingly.
In total, it's hard not to see this as preparation work for Putin to come save all these Russians by occupying us once again.
--
[1] Certainly there is the Russian troll army unit who roams the local news comment sections. However they aren't that clever. They are mostly easy to spot, have been spreading the same crap for 15 years, and are often called out.
[2] It's not just that old people don't learn the local languages. A huge number of Russians flat out refuse to teach their newborn children the local languages, insisting on Russian. The continued existance of Russian kindergartens/schools is ensuring that the division among the local populace won't go away.
Digitally they live as Russians, they don't use facebook but use VK etc. Because they don't understand the language the only local TV/newspapers/media they consume is Russian. The local Russian media is mostly funded by the Kremlin and has their agenda aligned accordingly.
In total, it's hard not to see this as preparation work for Putin to come save all these Russians by occupying us once again.
--
[1] Certainly there is the Russian troll army unit who roams the local news comment sections. However they aren't that clever. They are mostly easy to spot, have been spreading the same crap for 15 years, and are often called out.
[2] It's not just that old people don't learn the local languages. A huge number of Russians flat out refuse to teach their newborn children the local languages, insisting on Russian. The continued existance of Russian kindergartens/schools is ensuring that the division among the local populace won't go away.
Well, thank you very much for not kicking them out! Especially those, who were "transported" during Russian Empire times. So very kind of you :)
Not to start a debate, but why would they want to integrate into a culture that quite explicitly hates them?
Not to start a debate, but why would they want to integrate into a culture that quite explicitly hates them?
In my experience the common reason among Russian parents who send their children into local language schools and want their children integrated cite "a better future" and economic opportunities.
Also, you make a sarcastic remark regarding not kicking people out as if that is what everyone does and doesn't require special mention. It just so happens that moving people forcibly around has been the modus operandi of various Russian regimes. [1] They come invade us, and then gather up the intellects and other elite members of the community and ship them off to Siberia in cargo trains. Not only that, but wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, families split apart and sent to different parts of the Siberian woods to make sure they won't find anyone to speak their native language with. Then people who already speak Russian are massively transported into the country to help with the Russianification efforts. [2]
To make matters worse, it's not like all of this is only some historic event that is looked at in shame like Germany and the nazis. Putin and his regime, and the local non-integrating Russians think that Soviet Union was the best thing ever and that its fall was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.
There have been monstrous attempts by Russia at obliterating the Baltic cultures. The remaining non-integrating Russians are pawns in this culture war. I do think that we have been more than fair in offering them an opportunity to integrate into the community and to leave the atrocities of the past behind us. When they refuse, but also don't go back to Russia and keep praising the historic invading Russians as heroes. Well it's dissapointing, insulting, and frankly for our little nations it's also a case of fighting for the survival of our cultures.
--
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deportations_from_Eston... ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Sov...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification
Also, you make a sarcastic remark regarding not kicking people out as if that is what everyone does and doesn't require special mention. It just so happens that moving people forcibly around has been the modus operandi of various Russian regimes. [1] They come invade us, and then gather up the intellects and other elite members of the community and ship them off to Siberia in cargo trains. Not only that, but wives are separated from their husbands, children from their parents, families split apart and sent to different parts of the Siberian woods to make sure they won't find anyone to speak their native language with. Then people who already speak Russian are massively transported into the country to help with the Russianification efforts. [2]
To make matters worse, it's not like all of this is only some historic event that is looked at in shame like Germany and the nazis. Putin and his regime, and the local non-integrating Russians think that Soviet Union was the best thing ever and that its fall was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century.
There have been monstrous attempts by Russia at obliterating the Baltic cultures. The remaining non-integrating Russians are pawns in this culture war. I do think that we have been more than fair in offering them an opportunity to integrate into the community and to leave the atrocities of the past behind us. When they refuse, but also don't go back to Russia and keep praising the historic invading Russians as heroes. Well it's dissapointing, insulting, and frankly for our little nations it's also a case of fighting for the survival of our cultures.
--
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deportations_from_Eston... ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Sov...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification
> and frankly for our little nations it's also a case of fighting for the survival of our cultures.
Please forgive my insolence in asking this, but why do you feel that survival of a culture is important? I have heard these sentiments frequently from people from various former Soviet republics (the Baltic states and Ukraine being the prime example), and they have always puzzled me, because I, though Russian, can not imagine myself fighting for the Russian culture. I am quite content with the global cultural heritage of the Western civilization that I have accumulated over my life to be specifically protective of the "Russian culture". I fully appreciate that mine is not a popular position here, but I prefer not to be engulfed in whatever nationalist tendencies our country manifests, and am curious to learn why would anyone give in to the nationalist tendencies in other countries.
NOTE: I am not using the word "nationalist" in the perjorative sense that it frequently has, but in a purely descriptive sense. The notion of struggling for survival of a culture rather than simply letting it evolve into whatever it evolves seems nationalist to me.
Please forgive my insolence in asking this, but why do you feel that survival of a culture is important? I have heard these sentiments frequently from people from various former Soviet republics (the Baltic states and Ukraine being the prime example), and they have always puzzled me, because I, though Russian, can not imagine myself fighting for the Russian culture. I am quite content with the global cultural heritage of the Western civilization that I have accumulated over my life to be specifically protective of the "Russian culture". I fully appreciate that mine is not a popular position here, but I prefer not to be engulfed in whatever nationalist tendencies our country manifests, and am curious to learn why would anyone give in to the nationalist tendencies in other countries.
NOTE: I am not using the word "nationalist" in the perjorative sense that it frequently has, but in a purely descriptive sense. The notion of struggling for survival of a culture rather than simply letting it evolve into whatever it evolves seems nationalist to me.
This is definitely an interesting question which I've pondered myself before. The best answer I have is choice. In the Russian <-> Baltics case existing habits were prohibited and new ones indoctrinated forcefully. People killed & shuffled around. In the Western case new habits are acquired willfully [1] and old ones die naturally.
In practice, I would say that USA has achieved more cultural assimilation with the last 25 years than Russia could in the ~250 years of occupation. In essence Hollywood has won the hearts of the people in ways that force never could.
There are those who don't like the USA influence either, because it does reduce our own identity. For me, it's not as big of a problem as long as we have control over the changes made.
To sum it up, it's about free will & independent thought.
--
[1] A cynic might say that the USA influence isn't by choice and that it's merely an illusion of choice. That while the Western cultural assimilation doesn't share methods with other attempts, it's hard to resist due to the volume & production quality of the Western media.
In practice, I would say that USA has achieved more cultural assimilation with the last 25 years than Russia could in the ~250 years of occupation. In essence Hollywood has won the hearts of the people in ways that force never could.
There are those who don't like the USA influence either, because it does reduce our own identity. For me, it's not as big of a problem as long as we have control over the changes made.
To sum it up, it's about free will & independent thought.
--
[1] A cynic might say that the USA influence isn't by choice and that it's merely an illusion of choice. That while the Western cultural assimilation doesn't share methods with other attempts, it's hard to resist due to the volume & production quality of the Western media.
>Where do people get the Russian news and why do they care about what Russia has to say? I mean, I don't follow Polish news (or French news, or German news, etc.); so why would people get their information from the Russian outlets?
Russia will provide funding to various conspiracy nuts, contrarians and such, who then write and/or translate shitty "news" articles that are then consumed by people that want someone to confirm their bias.
They also pay people (located in Russia, mostly) to post pro-Kremlin opinions on the internet, and if you are not aware of that, it may seem like there's a lot of people that disagree with the "mainstream media" that are "lying to us".
Another thing they do is try and control the expat organizations of Russian speaking minorities in the West (and Central Europe too). These people are often relying on Russian language news so they are easier to influence.
They also like to finance eurosceptic political parties (e.g. National Front[1]), to try and break-up the EU.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(France)#Russia...
Russia will provide funding to various conspiracy nuts, contrarians and such, who then write and/or translate shitty "news" articles that are then consumed by people that want someone to confirm their bias.
They also pay people (located in Russia, mostly) to post pro-Kremlin opinions on the internet, and if you are not aware of that, it may seem like there's a lot of people that disagree with the "mainstream media" that are "lying to us".
Another thing they do is try and control the expat organizations of Russian speaking minorities in the West (and Central Europe too). These people are often relying on Russian language news so they are easier to influence.
They also like to finance eurosceptic political parties (e.g. National Front[1]), to try and break-up the EU.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(France)#Russia...
Just to give you one answer, at least in the United States, a not insignificant number of people read or watch RT.com, and -- this is really terrible, but it's true -- they aren't aware that "RT" stands for "Russia Today" and is basically a pro-Russian news outlet. I'm not sure how you folks view Russia Today, but at least in the United States, people that know that "RT" == "Russia Today" consider it very pro-Russian, almost propaganda. People that don't know that it's a Russian news source generally just consider RT like most other news sources in the United States. I've got friends on Facebook that post RT links like they post CNN links or something and they're completely unaware of its origin.
I must confess that I too watch RT sometimes. I was initially drawn to them by the total openness of their broadcasting — I could go to their website and either watch RT America live or watch recordings of any of their major programs. I have never seen other networks do so (perhaps with the exception of Bloomberg) — and I looked at CNN, Fox, and BBC at least. So at least for this RT deserves some credit.
Now, having watched RT from time to time over a certain period, I learned to distinguish between the shows that blatantly push the Kremlin agenda, and others that do not necessarily do so and are more interested in being a non-mainstream platform of inquiry into the world affairs, and of criticism of the world policies rather than being a carrier of the Russian point of view.
Also, I couldn't help wondering about what it is that ostensibly makes RT so different from other media networks. It seems to me that if RT is propaganda (which it very well may be) then so is CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox, or even BBC. I don’t know. Perhaps, despite all my attempts to resist, I am infected by the Russian propaganda beyond cure.
Now, having watched RT from time to time over a certain period, I learned to distinguish between the shows that blatantly push the Kremlin agenda, and others that do not necessarily do so and are more interested in being a non-mainstream platform of inquiry into the world affairs, and of criticism of the world policies rather than being a carrier of the Russian point of view.
Also, I couldn't help wondering about what it is that ostensibly makes RT so different from other media networks. It seems to me that if RT is propaganda (which it very well may be) then so is CNN, or MSNBC, or Fox, or even BBC. I don’t know. Perhaps, despite all my attempts to resist, I am infected by the Russian propaganda beyond cure.
> even BBC
Two recent examples of BBC 'impartiality'
https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/854308223838371840
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/85500451929767936...
With an election in just a few weeks time, two major BBC 'journalists' who support the right-wing, pro-Establishment British Conservative Party, brazenly attacking the left-wing (anti-Establishment) Labour Party candidate.
The BBC is a state broadcaster that has always been pro (British/Western) Establishment, but always in the past with a veneer of impartiality (more delusional right-wingers even absurdly accuse it of being left-wing).
Now, with the possibility of the first moderately left-wing British Prime Minister in decades, and public faith in established media at an all time low anyway, top BBC staff aren't even trying to hide their right-wing political bias any more.
Two recent examples of BBC 'impartiality'
https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/854308223838371840
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/85500451929767936...
With an election in just a few weeks time, two major BBC 'journalists' who support the right-wing, pro-Establishment British Conservative Party, brazenly attacking the left-wing (anti-Establishment) Labour Party candidate.
The BBC is a state broadcaster that has always been pro (British/Western) Establishment, but always in the past with a veneer of impartiality (more delusional right-wingers even absurdly accuse it of being left-wing).
Now, with the possibility of the first moderately left-wing British Prime Minister in decades, and public faith in established media at an all time low anyway, top BBC staff aren't even trying to hide their right-wing political bias any more.
Watching competing sources of propaganda is extremely interesting and entertaining, for sure.
> what it is that ostensibly makes RT so different from other media networks
1) Different kinds of propaganda. Fox, CNN, MSNBC are businesses that reflect the biases of audience, owners, employees, etc. RT bias is support of the Kremlin.
2) Different levels of commitment. Fox, MSNBC, CNN are businesses pursuing their own interest. Their purpose is making money. RT was set up purely for propaganda. It's purpose is spreading propaganda. The "alternative news" is merely a method to deliver the propaganda.
Fox opposed Trump but then flipped to suit their interest. RT will never oppose Putin.
If Putin decided he wanted to genocide Jews (a totally unrealistic example just to illustrate the point), RT would come up with a reason why it's unavoidable, justified, and the US's fault anyway. If Trump came up with the same idea, even Fox news would probably oppose it.
1) Different kinds of propaganda. Fox, CNN, MSNBC are businesses that reflect the biases of audience, owners, employees, etc. RT bias is support of the Kremlin.
2) Different levels of commitment. Fox, MSNBC, CNN are businesses pursuing their own interest. Their purpose is making money. RT was set up purely for propaganda. It's purpose is spreading propaganda. The "alternative news" is merely a method to deliver the propaganda.
Fox opposed Trump but then flipped to suit their interest. RT will never oppose Putin.
If Putin decided he wanted to genocide Jews (a totally unrealistic example just to illustrate the point), RT would come up with a reason why it's unavoidable, justified, and the US's fault anyway. If Trump came up with the same idea, even Fox news would probably oppose it.
Look up Murdoch and Trump's dynamic over the past few years and you'll understand why that happened. Wrt BBC, they are both biased and incredibly inconsistent - I lost any trace of respect for them a long time ago.
I read Russian, French, and English language news from as many sources as I can find to try and get a relatively good idea of what actually happens in the world, and if you want to call out bias, try nbc before you talk about rt. Rt's reporting is closer to the reality almost every time and they much less commonly bury stories unfavourable to a certain united States party specifically.
So, I'm just talking about RT here. Obviously, it's not the only place in the world with bias. I didn't include my own RT consumption habits in the paragraph above because it's not about me, it's about RT, and how a pretty large group of Americans view it.
[deleted]
That's hilarious. I suppose the lack of .ru trips them up
[deleted]
[deleted]
Weird, Bulgaria is also seemingly being targeted by systematic Russian propaganda and fake news via news sites with anonymous authors and no citations, and via fake profiles on social media sites that like, share and comment on said sites.
> and via fake profiles on social media sites that like, share and comment on said sites.
The same happens in Romania. In fact, I've called out a couple of such profiles on FB already, during the recent anti-Government demonstrations. If you're careful enough it's easy to spot them, one of them for example had shared pro-Assad news (which us Romanians don't care that much about), some traditional music that now only appeals to those 60+ and some nationalistic-sounding articles about Romania.
The same happens in Romania. In fact, I've called out a couple of such profiles on FB already, during the recent anti-Government demonstrations. If you're careful enough it's easy to spot them, one of them for example had shared pro-Assad news (which us Romanians don't care that much about), some traditional music that now only appeals to those 60+ and some nationalistic-sounding articles about Romania.
"I think 2016 will go down as the high water mark for a global Internet. I see a lot of countries looking at the success of China in keeping political control, and the failure of Egypt, Tunisia, etc where the open Internet was used to overthrow the regime and deciding that allowing an open, free internet is not in their best interests."
Peak Internet:
http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/12/peak-internet.h...
Peak Internet:
http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2010/12/peak-internet.h...
I think it's cyclical-- remember the original consumer internet was based on portals such as MiniTel, CompuServe, AOL, Prodigy, then the portal concept shifted to a search/Google based "portal" as people wanted content access outside of the curated portal content.
Walled garden devices are pretty irrelevant though because unless that wall blocks the internet, there is little effect. Current walled gardens are about application security and not about actual content-- the most locked down iPhone can still access the open internet -- so device walled gardening has nothing to do with information access generally.
Also the obsession with "stopping fake news" coming from the American left is what's causing Google and Facebook to respond -- they couldn't care less about fake news -- they are responding to market pressures. Google and Facebook aren't leading the charge against fake news in the US -- leftist activists are the ones screaming the loudest because they are still fuming about Trump.
In Europe, its governments that are pressuring companies to censor things -- for example the so-called right to be forgotten. Governments are the problem not the companies -- at least in Europe.
Why would Facebook or Google care about fake news? They don't -- until a major portion of their constituencies start howling about it. Fakebook and Google weren't unilaterally concerned about content veracity -- until a large segment of people started complaining about it.
Walled garden devices are pretty irrelevant though because unless that wall blocks the internet, there is little effect. Current walled gardens are about application security and not about actual content-- the most locked down iPhone can still access the open internet -- so device walled gardening has nothing to do with information access generally.
Also the obsession with "stopping fake news" coming from the American left is what's causing Google and Facebook to respond -- they couldn't care less about fake news -- they are responding to market pressures. Google and Facebook aren't leading the charge against fake news in the US -- leftist activists are the ones screaming the loudest because they are still fuming about Trump.
In Europe, its governments that are pressuring companies to censor things -- for example the so-called right to be forgotten. Governments are the problem not the companies -- at least in Europe.
Why would Facebook or Google care about fake news? They don't -- until a major portion of their constituencies start howling about it. Fakebook and Google weren't unilaterally concerned about content veracity -- until a large segment of people started complaining about it.
>> so device walled gardening has nothing to do with information access generally.
I disagree, on iOS specifically you have no practical way to install/sideload your own applications and thus what you can and can not do is wholly controlled by Apple. Applications determine what parts of the Internet you can actually use.
My impression of "Fake News" is that it is a new push for political correctness and censorship in news publications, while it does not improve things like the quality, transparancy and trustworthiness of sources and references of news.
It could also be interpreted as a push for platform control; if you want to influence people using our platform, fucking pay for it!
I disagree, on iOS specifically you have no practical way to install/sideload your own applications and thus what you can and can not do is wholly controlled by Apple. Applications determine what parts of the Internet you can actually use.
My impression of "Fake News" is that it is a new push for political correctness and censorship in news publications, while it does not improve things like the quality, transparancy and trustworthiness of sources and references of news.
It could also be interpreted as a push for platform control; if you want to influence people using our platform, fucking pay for it!
Google and Facebook might care about "Fake News" (i.e. non vanilla left or mainstream media type slant which is what the term often means although certainly real "fake news" exists) for reasons of self interest.
The policies of nationalists aren't all friendly in principal to the global agendas of these outfits. On imported labor for instance.
The policies of nationalists aren't all friendly in principal to the global agendas of these outfits. On imported labor for instance.
The moral principle that prefers letting people have their say to shutting them up applies to us all.
But things like the US 1st Amendment is an actual laws that can be enforced by courts, and American courts have mostly developed good jurisprudence about it. That includes applying it mostly to governments -- for reasons that sanerj goes into in detail.
The "mostly" is interesting here. There was a case of a woman handing out leaflets in a town where all the land was owned by one company. The US courts ruled (rightly, I think) that the company was not allowed to stop her.
Today, private enterprises like YouTube and Facebook are being used as if they were public services and are in a position to censor. So I don't rule out something like the company-town rule forcing internet giants respect free speech.
But realistically, I don't see todays political culture doing that even-handedly. In fact I see it being far more likely to force these companies to censor.
But things like the US 1st Amendment is an actual laws that can be enforced by courts, and American courts have mostly developed good jurisprudence about it. That includes applying it mostly to governments -- for reasons that sanerj goes into in detail.
The "mostly" is interesting here. There was a case of a woman handing out leaflets in a town where all the land was owned by one company. The US courts ruled (rightly, I think) that the company was not allowed to stop her.
Today, private enterprises like YouTube and Facebook are being used as if they were public services and are in a position to censor. So I don't rule out something like the company-town rule forcing internet giants respect free speech.
But realistically, I don't see todays political culture doing that even-handedly. In fact I see it being far more likely to force these companies to censor.
This problem is every bit as much a political and cultural problem as it is a technological one. So I largely agree.
But from a technological perspective, even if 2016 is the high water mark of the "centralized" internet, a new internet is forming. That which you lament is the natural result of a centralized system. It's something that the early creators of the internet have warned about since its inception. But now as the incumbents centralize control, a new generation of technologists (helped by many of those early creators) are constructing the underpinnings of "Web 3.0", a decentralized internet built on Ethereum, IPFS, WebTorrent, BigchainDB, SOLID et al.
There is plenty left to do, it is still a newborn child... nobody knows where this goes. But come 2030, I agree we'll look back on 2016 as the high water mark of the centralized internet. But instead of longing for how things were in the 1990s and 2000s, we'll say "good riddance".
All that said, the battle needs to happen on the political front at the same time, which makes EFF, FFTF, and ACLU so important.
But from a technological perspective, even if 2016 is the high water mark of the "centralized" internet, a new internet is forming. That which you lament is the natural result of a centralized system. It's something that the early creators of the internet have warned about since its inception. But now as the incumbents centralize control, a new generation of technologists (helped by many of those early creators) are constructing the underpinnings of "Web 3.0", a decentralized internet built on Ethereum, IPFS, WebTorrent, BigchainDB, SOLID et al.
There is plenty left to do, it is still a newborn child... nobody knows where this goes. But come 2030, I agree we'll look back on 2016 as the high water mark of the centralized internet. But instead of longing for how things were in the 1990s and 2000s, we'll say "good riddance".
All that said, the battle needs to happen on the political front at the same time, which makes EFF, FFTF, and ACLU so important.
i don't know what else we could have expected. the internet that people have access to is no longer decentralized. we need more of this. more systems that cannot be controlled or censored by any one party. applications, devices, and services that obey the users, rather than the developers, vendors, or service providers. not only do we need these things, we need to find effective, decentralized ways of pushing their adoption.
i've done some work in this space, but it is a hard path. we need more people working and innovating in creating viral alternatives to the present system. not only in technology, but in business. we don't need an economic landscape composed of kingdoms and fiefs, we need economic democracies: cooperatives and other worker-focused businesses. we need stronger communities. more strong connections to each other.
i've done some work in this space, but it is a hard path. we need more people working and innovating in creating viral alternatives to the present system. not only in technology, but in business. we don't need an economic landscape composed of kingdoms and fiefs, we need economic democracies: cooperatives and other worker-focused businesses. we need stronger communities. more strong connections to each other.
Not trying to throw salt in the argument for democracy, but isn't your argument the digital equivalent of "Why doesn't everyone do everything for themselves to overthrow the dependency on unstable corporations"?
It'd be great if everything was decentralized, everyone encrypted all their messages, used tor to mask their activities. At some point though, these would require the average person to learn a lot about the network and systems they use, otherwise they risk not using it correctly and invalidating the point. If these services are provided to them, they don't have to think about all these factors when using the network, they can specialize, allowing it to be more accessible. It seems that the people vote has been on more accessible, but it is starting to look like the foxes are running the hen house for the internet these days.
That being said, what Turkey is doing is scary.
> The government has not officially commented on the outage. But the Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications Ministry told the state-run agency, "Instead of coordinating against terrorism, (Wikipedia) has become part of an information source which is running a smear campaign against Turkey in the international arena."
This shows a profound lack of understanding of how a basic site like Wikipedia works, which is either ignorant or malicious, and the latter sounds likely in this day and age.
It'd be great if everything was decentralized, everyone encrypted all their messages, used tor to mask their activities. At some point though, these would require the average person to learn a lot about the network and systems they use, otherwise they risk not using it correctly and invalidating the point. If these services are provided to them, they don't have to think about all these factors when using the network, they can specialize, allowing it to be more accessible. It seems that the people vote has been on more accessible, but it is starting to look like the foxes are running the hen house for the internet these days.
That being said, what Turkey is doing is scary.
> The government has not officially commented on the outage. But the Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications Ministry told the state-run agency, "Instead of coordinating against terrorism, (Wikipedia) has become part of an information source which is running a smear campaign against Turkey in the international arena."
This shows a profound lack of understanding of how a basic site like Wikipedia works, which is either ignorant or malicious, and the latter sounds likely in this day and age.
i said decentralized, not distributed. decentralization has plenty of room for centers, the point is not to have just one. having specialized service providers is fine, the problems start to crop up when we don't have real choices. for natural monopolies, i'd argue that a cooperative model would work well.
Yes, this is the reality we now face. A generation of Internet idealists is still quite slow to realize what is happening, though.
You are too dismissive of the very real problem of fake news. It is another form of censorship. When millions of people are led to believe incorrect information it is just as effective as banning the correct information.
I'm a canuck who has worked with Turks and has visited Turkey. They're a wonderful people from a beautiful country with a real problem of a person in power. Turkey is almost entirely Muslim, yet they produce alcohol and tolerate its consumption within their borders, even by their own people. Let that fact sink in for a moment. Erdogan is subverting the premier secular democracy of the Islamic world, but nobody seems to care.
Turkey is nothing like the common stereotypes we have of it in the West, but Erdogan is a guy who, I think, wants to change that. A wonderful human being who I've had the privilege of knowing is currently in prison in Turkey on absolutely baseless accusations[1]. Nobody in Canada gives a damn because he was an "Imam", and that's a scary word apparently.
People in the West need to wake up and do their due diligence on Erdogan's regime. There's some seriously scary stuff happening because of this guy.
[1]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/davud-hanci-turkey-cou...
Turkey is nothing like the common stereotypes we have of it in the West, but Erdogan is a guy who, I think, wants to change that. A wonderful human being who I've had the privilege of knowing is currently in prison in Turkey on absolutely baseless accusations[1]. Nobody in Canada gives a damn because he was an "Imam", and that's a scary word apparently.
People in the West need to wake up and do their due diligence on Erdogan's regime. There's some seriously scary stuff happening because of this guy.
[1]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/davud-hanci-turkey-cou...
Plenty of people care, but what are we supposed to do about it? Here in Europe Erdogan makes the headlines from time to time, right before the referendum he made several speeches where he called the politicians of multiple countries "descendants of nazis" and similar. Everybody knows that he cares more about suppressing the Kurds than ISIS. He holds Europe hostage by threatening to release large amounts of refugees into Europe, not dissimilar to what Qaddafi did. We've been hearing about the increasing religiosity pretty much since he took office.
It's one more example of a common pattern where the rural and the urban population disagrees, due to globalization, increased liberal ideas in cities, and a switch from manufacturing to service jobs. It seems to be universal that the rural population is more religious, less prepared for a global economy, and in general more backwards, yearning for times that aren't here anymore.
It's one more example of a common pattern where the rural and the urban population disagrees, due to globalization, increased liberal ideas in cities, and a switch from manufacturing to service jobs. It seems to be universal that the rural population is more religious, less prepared for a global economy, and in general more backwards, yearning for times that aren't here anymore.
I think we should stop communicating from the top. Many problems right now are because heads of state, not necessarily people. Erdogan, Putin ...
We should try to get real people to talk, about who they are, what they want (peace ? surely .. war ? not so sure). So peoples in every nation start to avoid the national/patriot filter when thinking and voting.
We should try to get real people to talk, about who they are, what they want (peace ? surely .. war ? not so sure). So peoples in every nation start to avoid the national/patriot filter when thinking and voting.
Real people rarely want war, they all want the same basic things: food and shelter, a good future for their kids, and to live in peace. This is universal over the whole world, unless they've had their minds poisoned by leaders with their own agendas, be it political or religious.
However, most people also don't really care that much about other people, especially in other countries. So they elect people to handle that for them, and then believe what they're told. Mark Twain's quote "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness" seems fitting. With modern tech you can communicate with people all over the world without traveling (I'm in my underwear in Sweden right now for instance), which helps widening the gap between the "liberal elite" and the rest who feel left behind or that their country is taken away from them.
One thing that contradicts that in a way is the fact that a majority of the expat Turks living in Europe voted for the new referendum giving Erdogan much more power. More than 63% voted yes in Germany for instance.
However, most people also don't really care that much about other people, especially in other countries. So they elect people to handle that for them, and then believe what they're told. Mark Twain's quote "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness" seems fitting. With modern tech you can communicate with people all over the world without traveling (I'm in my underwear in Sweden right now for instance), which helps widening the gap between the "liberal elite" and the rest who feel left behind or that their country is taken away from them.
One thing that contradicts that in a way is the fact that a majority of the expat Turks living in Europe voted for the new referendum giving Erdogan much more power. More than 63% voted yes in Germany for instance.
I have a lot to say to and ask you, but right now I'll say you're right.
Nobody wants war, but in most context people don't feel the need to handle their lives either. Democracy re-emerges after wars because the people felt hard and had to suffer and wake up, so now it's obvious and easier to act for peace and democracy.
Seems like societies just have a MTBF of 50 years and after that war acts as a reset button.
ps: travel quote is neat
Nobody wants war, but in most context people don't feel the need to handle their lives either. Democracy re-emerges after wars because the people felt hard and had to suffer and wake up, so now it's obvious and easier to act for peace and democracy.
Seems like societies just have a MTBF of 50 years and after that war acts as a reset button.
ps: travel quote is neat
> Nobody wants war
Unfortunately that's not quite true. It is true that very few people want war as an end in itself (though even then there are exceptions) but some people want something else (land, power, eliminating the infidels) for which they are willing to pay the price of war -- especially if they can coerce someone else to do the fighting on their behalf.
Unfortunately that's not quite true. It is true that very few people want war as an end in itself (though even then there are exceptions) but some people want something else (land, power, eliminating the infidels) for which they are willing to pay the price of war -- especially if they can coerce someone else to do the fighting on their behalf.
> Seems like societies just have a MTBF of 50 years and after that war acts as a reset button.
Exactly my thoughts. Now how could we replace overreliance on unrealistic uptime goals with scheduled maintenance?
Exactly my thoughts. Now how could we replace overreliance on unrealistic uptime goals with scheduled maintenance?
> More than 63% voted yes in Germany for instance.
I also was baffled about the results of the Turkish vote abroad. How is it possible that, in many EU states, they won which such a majority? I would have expected expats to be generally more liberal/globalist/progressive.
I also was baffled about the results of the Turkish vote abroad. How is it possible that, in many EU states, they won which such a majority? I would have expected expats to be generally more liberal/globalist/progressive.
> I would have expected expats to be generally more liberal/globalist/progressive.
I'm not sure "expat" is the right term to designate the masses who responded to West Europe's call for more labor in the 70s. In the sense that they live outside of their native land, yes, they are expatriates. But, today, the term almost designates a wealthier group who are sent by their companies to work abroad now.
In any case, there's a big difference between the Turks in Europe (more than 60% of them voted for Erdogan) or, say, Turks who live in the US (only 15% of them voted for Erdogan). Their backgrounds are completely different. Most of the people who immigrated to Europe to satisfy the new labor needs came from rural areas, mostly from the central and eastern part of Turkey without even living in a sizable city in Turkey. That created a complete culture shock and great integration problems.
Turks in the US, on the other hand, came here mostly for college/university. They are highly educated and they've fully embraced the values of the nation because they had those values at heart even before they decided to live or study abroad.
I'm not sure "expat" is the right term to designate the masses who responded to West Europe's call for more labor in the 70s. In the sense that they live outside of their native land, yes, they are expatriates. But, today, the term almost designates a wealthier group who are sent by their companies to work abroad now.
In any case, there's a big difference between the Turks in Europe (more than 60% of them voted for Erdogan) or, say, Turks who live in the US (only 15% of them voted for Erdogan). Their backgrounds are completely different. Most of the people who immigrated to Europe to satisfy the new labor needs came from rural areas, mostly from the central and eastern part of Turkey without even living in a sizable city in Turkey. That created a complete culture shock and great integration problems.
Turks in the US, on the other hand, came here mostly for college/university. They are highly educated and they've fully embraced the values of the nation because they had those values at heart even before they decided to live or study abroad.
When I lived in Germany a lot of the Turks I knew were very right wing. They were against asylum seekers and would have kicked out foreigners if they could have. The people in the US who are against big government while receiving government pensions remind me a little of that mindset.
This is a common phenomenon that's not very well known outside of immigrant communities. My family emigrated to the US from Russia in the mid 80s and quickly went hard-right, as did most of their cohort. Same for many Chinese immigrants to the US, Cubans, and I'm sure the list goes on.
I never completely understood this. I guess it's partly a kneejerk reaction to the nominally left-wing repressive regimes they left behind. Another component is probably a sudden immersion into a truly pluralistic society when coming from an intolerant and homogenous one. But still, I can't say I truly understand it.
I'm in my 30s and this is still a source of conflict between my family and me. They're lower-class "real people" who have a soft spot for despots on the Putin spectrum. Because while they're pro-democracy, they also think you need a "firm hand" to keep all "those people" in line, and by "those people" they mean people they can't or won't empathise with: poor black people, the stew of "educated degenerates" who refuse to have normal sexualities or lifestyles, muslims, and so on.
I never completely understood this. I guess it's partly a kneejerk reaction to the nominally left-wing repressive regimes they left behind. Another component is probably a sudden immersion into a truly pluralistic society when coming from an intolerant and homogenous one. But still, I can't say I truly understand it.
I'm in my 30s and this is still a source of conflict between my family and me. They're lower-class "real people" who have a soft spot for despots on the Putin spectrum. Because while they're pro-democracy, they also think you need a "firm hand" to keep all "those people" in line, and by "those people" they mean people they can't or won't empathise with: poor black people, the stew of "educated degenerates" who refuse to have normal sexualities or lifestyles, muslims, and so on.
How did your family change, exactly?
Most of the Turks I have had contact with in Germany are racist against Germans (they are jealous of the lifestyle, or for whatever other reason).
The reason they are against asylum seekers may be simpler as it seems: they know that the situation was going to create troubles and escalate, and therefore it will be blamed on the dark ones (the focus is on them). Can you distinguish a Turkish from a Syrian, for example? Furthermore, with this huge expenses for refugees, the social money is likely to be reduced, and I don't have the numbers, but many of them live off of the social security provided by the state. (without even considering the money they get for the kids)
The reason they are against asylum seekers may be simpler as it seems: they know that the situation was going to create troubles and escalate, and therefore it will be blamed on the dark ones (the focus is on them). Can you distinguish a Turkish from a Syrian, for example? Furthermore, with this huge expenses for refugees, the social money is likely to be reduced, and I don't have the numbers, but many of them live off of the social security provided by the state. (without even considering the money they get for the kids)
My experience is from the time before the refugee crisis. At that time asylum seekers were mainly from Africa.
Yeah, which kind of fits the description.
I mean, I do understand their concerns, which is really sad...
Many dark foreigners have the same point of view. In such white countries, more dark foreigners mean more chance of troubles for them. Dark, slightly dark, black, etc, they all belong in one category: dark foreigners. Even Indians, who do not have absolutely anything in common with Africans, for example, still belong to the same category.
If an Indian does something bad, dark people will suffer from it.
Same for social security: they'll have less, considering that many (poor) foreigners will come, and they may have to share the resources.
It's all about survival...
I mean, I do understand their concerns, which is really sad...
Many dark foreigners have the same point of view. In such white countries, more dark foreigners mean more chance of troubles for them. Dark, slightly dark, black, etc, they all belong in one category: dark foreigners. Even Indians, who do not have absolutely anything in common with Africans, for example, still belong to the same category.
If an Indian does something bad, dark people will suffer from it.
Same for social security: they'll have less, considering that many (poor) foreigners will come, and they may have to share the resources.
It's all about survival...
>How is it possible that, in many EU states, they won which such a majority?
Of course one explanation is:
"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
Of course one explanation is:
"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
Just want to point out that majority of Turks in Germany(and some other EU states) are labourer immigrants that went there during 1960-1980. If you take United States instead where the Turks living there belong to a more elite class, you will see significantly more no vote. It seems expats are divided in terms of world view according to where they live.
+1
Average Turk from Istanbul is way more western than the average labor migrant from 60ies-70ies. Mainly they came from rural areas and without much education to do manual labor (which was great IMO).
So "same" people that are now voting for Erdogan in said rural areas today.
2nd-3rd generation who grew up in Europe (local education etc.) don't even necessarily have right to vote in Turkish election.
Average Turk from Istanbul is way more western than the average labor migrant from 60ies-70ies. Mainly they came from rural areas and without much education to do manual labor (which was great IMO).
So "same" people that are now voting for Erdogan in said rural areas today.
2nd-3rd generation who grew up in Europe (local education etc.) don't even necessarily have right to vote in Turkish election.
When you don't feel the effects of your vote, you don't care about what you vote. I feel like this was the case of the referendum.
It also has to do with culture freeze. When people leave their country of origin, they try and retain the culture they left with, and fail to change with the country over decades. It's a type of coping mechanism for when they enter an unfamiliar place.
It's easy to blame it on "ignorance" as "I am not there, so I don't know". In that country they also voted for it.
Why don't we simply face the ugly truth that most people who voted for YES are the alpha-males, unable to speak the country language, living in parallel societies, who want submissive women?
That's the kind of stereotype that Erdogan wants. I mean, Kurds are nice people, but for some reason they need to be wiped out. Boh!?
Why don't we simply face the ugly truth that most people who voted for YES are the alpha-males, unable to speak the country language, living in parallel societies, who want submissive women?
That's the kind of stereotype that Erdogan wants. I mean, Kurds are nice people, but for some reason they need to be wiped out. Boh!?
Haha, doubly amazing comment. That's indeed a very very possible reason. Same thing happened in France, people not impacted by a new airport all voted for it, people near the landing lanes voted against.
Also, there was an article about learned helplessness, how to craft depression into animals by confusing their brain when searching for way to stop suffering. Very similar root cause.
Also, there was an article about learned helplessness, how to craft depression into animals by confusing their brain when searching for way to stop suffering. Very similar root cause.
That's why the Swiss system is better. Only locals get to vote on local issues (building an airport, as opposed to giving Erdogan superpowers which affects the whole country and maybe even those around it).
If "you don't care about what you vote" you don't vote.
others already replied about the rural/urban distribution in expats, but there was another factor. in NL, speaking out against Erdogan got them ostracised from the Turkish community. only very few Dutch-Turkish political / tv personalities dared to speak out, even if you knew for sure they are against Erdogan, they would avoid the subject or twist words around it. very weird and quite scary to see such influence reach that far.
>With modern tech you can communicate with people all over the world without traveling
Internet used to be a tool that enabled people all over the world to communicate. I wouldn't have spoken a word in English if it wasn't for internet.
Commercialization of the Web killed the globalization spirit of the internet.
There's no commercial value in connecting people who are in different markets.
A Web enterprise does not benefit by showing its customers that they might be holding the wrong opinion.
Echo chambers bring loyal customers.
Globalization dies a little bit every time a curious teenager sees an error saying: "this content is not available in your country".
You are not an average internet user if you talk to the people on a different cohort, you are an elite and elites have always been communicating with the elites.
Internet used to be a tool that enabled people all over the world to communicate. I wouldn't have spoken a word in English if it wasn't for internet.
Commercialization of the Web killed the globalization spirit of the internet.
There's no commercial value in connecting people who are in different markets.
A Web enterprise does not benefit by showing its customers that they might be holding the wrong opinion.
Echo chambers bring loyal customers.
Globalization dies a little bit every time a curious teenager sees an error saying: "this content is not available in your country".
You are not an average internet user if you talk to the people on a different cohort, you are an elite and elites have always been communicating with the elites.
Uhh, I'm not so sure. Look at all the people on here essentially clamoring for war with Russia over.. uhm, Russia supposedly releasing authentic emails showing their favorite party (TM) to be corrupt? I might have missed some details in all the cold war fervor.
This is putting your head in the sand. The problem is the people, the voters, who put Putin and Erdogan in office and kept voting for more autocracy instead of democracy. Those presidents are just manifestations, symptoms.
There's always going to be a candidate like that to vote for, and democracy can only survive as long as voters prefer candidates who uphold democracy.
There's always going to be a candidate like that to vote for, and democracy can only survive as long as voters prefer candidates who uphold democracy.
Not necessarily.
Both Putin and Erdogan (many others as well, Orban, Gruevski, to name a few), were elected under promises to bring prosperity through democracy.
Carefully targeting vulnerable groups with PR and economic engineering has proven itself a great tactic for achieving their autocratic vision.
edit: spelling.
Both Putin and Erdogan (many others as well, Orban, Gruevski, to name a few), were elected under promises to bring prosperity through democracy.
Carefully targeting vulnerable groups with PR and economic engineering has proven itself a great tactic for achieving their autocratic vision.
edit: spelling.
Erdogan was democratically elected. He's not a dictator (even if he does act as one at this point) and judging from the referendum results, at least half of Turks seem to like his direction. It's easy to say those voters are uneducated or misguided but the fact is that this is how democracy works. Where I am going with this is that we should not blame just the leader but also the people who put him there.
Blaming misguided voters only has merit when freedom of the press is available and people have access to news that does not have significant pro-government bias. Turkey was ranked #155 out of #180 evaluated countries on this year's RSF list [1]. If the government controls the information that the people have access to, it is a little difficult to expect a legitimate democracy, which requires more than simply valid elections.
[1]: https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table
[1]: https://rsf.org/en/ranking_table
Do the Turks in Germany also enjoy no freedoms? Because they actually support Erdogan more than Turks in Turkey.
* Many of them identify with their (parents' or grandparents') conservative countryside roots.
* A community so much oriented towards Turkey consumes a lot of Turkish (the country) and Turkish (the language) media.
* Turkish country media are in Erdogan's pocket. There is not even a semblance of free press anymore in Turkey.
* Turkish language media in the EU with an editorial line not pro-Erdogan have been threatened in every possible way, either directly from Turkey or indirectly. Many have ceased to exist. The best example: Zaman in .be and .nl.
* Kurdish language media have always been under threat from the Turkish authorities.
* The Turkish government has directly ordered the network of Turkish mosques ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Religious_Affair... ) abroad to create lists of Gülen supporters. Evidence of these practices has led to a diplomatic incident with at least Belgium.
* You may also want to read about media repression inside Turkey like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Today's_Zaman . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement#2013_corru... .
Democracy, just like any tool, can be manipulated and corrupted to serve one's own ends. This is how tyrants come to power: they use populism and nationalism to get elected, then slowly dismantle the very institutions that make up democracy until they are the only one in charge.
> this is how democracy works
No, that's a common misconception.
Democracy isn't characterised only by the vote, but also by liberal values. We call it liberal democracy.
I'm from Romania btw and until 1989 we've had communism / stalinism. Guess what - we had votes then too. It was all arranged of course, party members didn't dare going against the dictators, everybody was dancing on the same music, etc.
In other words, everything is up for vote except for the liberal values that make democracy work. Without those liberal values, you don't have a democracy.
And to put this in perspective: you cannot claim that a popular vote is legit without freedom of speech, because in that case people can be coerced or manipulated by those in power, without the opposition being able to fight back at all. How many people has Erdogan imprisoned? You also cannot attest the legitimacy of the vote when you don't have separation of power in the state, because you no longer have a functioning judicial branch.
All famous autocrats in history achieved power through popular support.
But here's where it actually hurts: it's easy to vote an autocrat into power, it's hard to vote him out.
Turkey's economy will suffer, tourism is already going down the drain, other countries will slow down trade with Turkey due to political instability. Erdogan, like all populists before him, will end up pushing more and more nationalistic messages, blaming the Occident for his own fuckups, threatening with conflict because that's what populists do when they lose support.
Either way, I'm fairly confident at this point to say that Turkey is no longer a democracy.
No, that's a common misconception.
Democracy isn't characterised only by the vote, but also by liberal values. We call it liberal democracy.
I'm from Romania btw and until 1989 we've had communism / stalinism. Guess what - we had votes then too. It was all arranged of course, party members didn't dare going against the dictators, everybody was dancing on the same music, etc.
In other words, everything is up for vote except for the liberal values that make democracy work. Without those liberal values, you don't have a democracy.
And to put this in perspective: you cannot claim that a popular vote is legit without freedom of speech, because in that case people can be coerced or manipulated by those in power, without the opposition being able to fight back at all. How many people has Erdogan imprisoned? You also cannot attest the legitimacy of the vote when you don't have separation of power in the state, because you no longer have a functioning judicial branch.
All famous autocrats in history achieved power through popular support.
But here's where it actually hurts: it's easy to vote an autocrat into power, it's hard to vote him out.
Turkey's economy will suffer, tourism is already going down the drain, other countries will slow down trade with Turkey due to political instability. Erdogan, like all populists before him, will end up pushing more and more nationalistic messages, blaming the Occident for his own fuckups, threatening with conflict because that's what populists do when they lose support.
Either way, I'm fairly confident at this point to say that Turkey is no longer a democracy.
You can be democratically elected and later become a dictator. That's been the path of many dictators.
It's not uncommon for dictators to be elected. That's how the transition from democracy to dictatorship works. But I agree with your assessment of the problem: there isn't really anything outsiders can do when an electorate tries to hurt itself. Any appeals to reason will just be catalyzed into even more votes by "them against us" rhetorics.
Neither is Putin, yet he controls all the press. He's just an elected gang leader. Have something against the gang in power? You might just get shot on a bridge while going to work, imprisoned on account of fiscal fraud, poisoned with Polonium in your tea etc. That is how the Russian mafia works.
Imagine the Turkish coup was organized and executed properly and they succeeded.
Who takes power? Does it create a vacuum? A civil war? I often ponder these "alternate history timelines" and try to imagine what the world might be like.
Who takes power? Does it create a vacuum? A civil war? I often ponder these "alternate history timelines" and try to imagine what the world might be like.
Turkey has had several coups. So I'd look at what happened after the previous ones.
None of them bore any resemblance to Erdogan. All the previous ones were the army emerging from its barracks, deposing democratically elected and popular governments they thought too Islamic/not secular enough and returning to their barracks. The current political situation is a result of the increasing democratisation that the EU encouraged. Erdogan would never have been tolerated before.
In this case it's especially ironic. The Army regarded themselves as the guardians of Turkey's secular democracy - even if that meant acting anti-democratically. This is of course a problematic position.
Now Erdogan - as a result of genuine democratic support- has gained enough power to make his move and has resolved to dismantle democracy and weaken certain factions in the Army to protect himself against any similar future coups.
Now Erdogan - as a result of genuine democratic support- has gained enough power to make his move and has resolved to dismantle democracy and weaken certain factions in the Army to protect himself against any similar future coups.
Actually the kemalist factions in the army and police were the guardians of secularism (not quite a secular democracy but close) until Erdogan took care of them.
Well... It was properly executed and it has succeeded in giving Erdogan more power.
I asked a Turkish friend if she thought the coup being a false flag operation was an outlandish conspiracy theory and she strongly disagreed.
Of course that means nothing other than "one specific liberal ex-pat Turk believe X was plausible" but it's one more data point.
Of course that means nothing other than "one specific liberal ex-pat Turk believe X was plausible" but it's one more data point.
Coup was probably real but failed and Erdogan exploited it for his own ends. He's a very able and dangerous politician.
I agree with you that we should stop communicating from the top - and this is what some politicians tried to do (at least what some European politicians did, like the Dutch ones before the elections, when things escalated).
However, for business interests, you simply can't ditch a country like Turkey[1]. Let's not forget that Bush's grandfather was also funding Nazi [2] (I would like to focus primarily on the years before Americans joined WW2, basically, before they "knew" that Nazis were not yet official enemies) and he earned a lot of money out of it.
Nowadays, a lot of companies do the same. And it will always be like this, unless such a country is recognized as an official "enemy" of the state, and you can't do business there.
So, we have already 1 reason that you simply can't stop communicating from the top.
Then, you have one more reason: immigrants.
Europe has a bunch of Turkish people which, it seems, helped a lot during the elections - in some cases (Holland, Austria, and Germany) the "YES" to the referendum got more than 60% (in some cases 68%). This opens up a whole new bunch of questions we should ask ourselves (and people actually do, at least in Europe):
- Why?
- Why did these people vote for YES?
- Don't these people value the freedom they have here (which they do have, unlike in the US - sorry guys, that's how we perceive it in Europe - where racism is much more common)?
Questions which raise another question:
- What did we as Europe (or West?) do wrong?
This is somehow connected to your sentence:
> We should try to get real people to talk, about who they are, what they want (peace ? surely .. war ? not so sure). So peoples in every nation start to avoid the national/patriot filter when thinking and voting.
In my opinion there are too many things we did wrong and failed to do.
One thing is to have expectations. In Europe, I can tell you that before the Turkish referendum there were a lot of people, mostly reporters and journalists, going out asking such "pro-YES" voters (they were grouping together for propaganda or for any other reason) whether they actually were aware of what Erdogan wanted to achieve with this referendum. Obviously, nobody actually knew all the points in it. The journalist was mentioning each point, and their faces were like "uh?", while, of course, some of them were bitten by the strong cognitive dissonance: "no, but this is what media here say...", or "no, but it's not as bad as it seems".
This issue dates back to the beginning of immigration. People with low education came, and many of them simply didn't get further - meaning, 2nd, 3rd generations still striving to make it, or criminals, or simply living off of social money. Where can this lead to? Entire neighborhoods not accessible to the police, criminality rate super high, etc. People who cannot even talk the national language - forced, therefore, to watch their own news.
Another issue: double citizenship. What is that? You live here, but you still have a voice in your country. Sorry, but no. After X years, as an immigrant you get citizenship from the country you live/pay taxes in. Further, you are born in this country, eventually (in some countries when you are 18) you get this country's citizenship. That's it. Either that, or the old one. Both? No.
There is a sentence from a German author, Max Frisch, "We wanted a labour force, but human beings came" [3], which kind of explains what had really happened. And now? That's what we have. A huge mess, people creating parallel societies, and Erdogan that comes to Europe as a good politician to the majority of his people.
Why good politician? Well, want it or not, it seems that during Erdogan's administration, Turkey's economy got better. [4]
Does this justify the fact that this politician needs a crown and absolute power?
[1]: http://aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-companies-investing-in-tur... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworl... [3]: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/735/3/the-end-of-mu... [4]: https://www.quora.com/Turkey-country-What-is-the-story-behin...
However, for business interests, you simply can't ditch a country like Turkey[1]. Let's not forget that Bush's grandfather was also funding Nazi [2] (I would like to focus primarily on the years before Americans joined WW2, basically, before they "knew" that Nazis were not yet official enemies) and he earned a lot of money out of it.
Nowadays, a lot of companies do the same. And it will always be like this, unless such a country is recognized as an official "enemy" of the state, and you can't do business there.
So, we have already 1 reason that you simply can't stop communicating from the top.
Then, you have one more reason: immigrants.
Europe has a bunch of Turkish people which, it seems, helped a lot during the elections - in some cases (Holland, Austria, and Germany) the "YES" to the referendum got more than 60% (in some cases 68%). This opens up a whole new bunch of questions we should ask ourselves (and people actually do, at least in Europe):
- Why?
- Why did these people vote for YES?
- Don't these people value the freedom they have here (which they do have, unlike in the US - sorry guys, that's how we perceive it in Europe - where racism is much more common)?
Questions which raise another question:
- What did we as Europe (or West?) do wrong?
This is somehow connected to your sentence:
> We should try to get real people to talk, about who they are, what they want (peace ? surely .. war ? not so sure). So peoples in every nation start to avoid the national/patriot filter when thinking and voting.
In my opinion there are too many things we did wrong and failed to do.
One thing is to have expectations. In Europe, I can tell you that before the Turkish referendum there were a lot of people, mostly reporters and journalists, going out asking such "pro-YES" voters (they were grouping together for propaganda or for any other reason) whether they actually were aware of what Erdogan wanted to achieve with this referendum. Obviously, nobody actually knew all the points in it. The journalist was mentioning each point, and their faces were like "uh?", while, of course, some of them were bitten by the strong cognitive dissonance: "no, but this is what media here say...", or "no, but it's not as bad as it seems".
This issue dates back to the beginning of immigration. People with low education came, and many of them simply didn't get further - meaning, 2nd, 3rd generations still striving to make it, or criminals, or simply living off of social money. Where can this lead to? Entire neighborhoods not accessible to the police, criminality rate super high, etc. People who cannot even talk the national language - forced, therefore, to watch their own news.
Another issue: double citizenship. What is that? You live here, but you still have a voice in your country. Sorry, but no. After X years, as an immigrant you get citizenship from the country you live/pay taxes in. Further, you are born in this country, eventually (in some countries when you are 18) you get this country's citizenship. That's it. Either that, or the old one. Both? No.
There is a sentence from a German author, Max Frisch, "We wanted a labour force, but human beings came" [3], which kind of explains what had really happened. And now? That's what we have. A huge mess, people creating parallel societies, and Erdogan that comes to Europe as a good politician to the majority of his people.
Why good politician? Well, want it or not, it seems that during Erdogan's administration, Turkey's economy got better. [4]
Does this justify the fact that this politician needs a crown and absolute power?
[1]: http://aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-companies-investing-in-tur... [2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworl... [3]: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/735/3/the-end-of-mu... [4]: https://www.quora.com/Turkey-country-What-is-the-story-behin...
It seems you are talking about Germany. Please name one neighbourhood in Germany "not accessible to the police".
I can name a few. For example Neukölln in Berlin, or some areas in Köln (like Kalk, Ossendorf, Chorweiler, Porz), or the north of Duisburg. You can find lots of references online - search for "no-go zone germany", or simply befriend a German policeman.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/nordrhein-westfalen-po...
https://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchte...
All these are areas where policemen are afraid to work because they may get suddenly surrounded by 40-50 people. It's true, you can still access them, but then it doesn't mean you get out easily, hence they are not accessible.
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/nordrhein-westfalen-po...
https://www.derwesten.de/politik/in-problemvierteln-fuerchte...
All these are areas where policemen are afraid to work because they may get suddenly surrounded by 40-50 people. It's true, you can still access them, but then it doesn't mean you get out easily, hence they are not accessible.
Also, I live near one of the most damaged suburb in France, one that would earn a "no police zone" easily 10 years ago; it's now liveable, so much that I look at the sky when I drive in it now.
People react in fear and absolutes, but things are fixable.
People react in fear and absolutes, but things are fixable.
thats what the un is partly about.
> I think we should stop communicating from the top. Many problems right now are because heads of state, not necessarily people.
Damn right. If the people in charge could stop trying to exercise power and just leave everybody alone, we'd all be much better off.
Damn right. If the people in charge could stop trying to exercise power and just leave everybody alone, we'd all be much better off.
I think its easy to make the mistake that replacing the guy at the top solves the problem. Isn't there enough history to suggest that is not how things work?
Trump could have a heart attack tomorrow but his fan club is still going to be around. They will just prop someone else up. Same goes for Ergodan.
This is not a problem that gets solved by dropping a bomb or making a kill list or a wikileak or a tahrir square or a Jon Oliver skit. Unfortunately the current instant gratification generation produced and conditioned by silicon valley is in total delusion when it comes to this fact.
This is a multi generational problem and we could be working towards a solution if we weren't wasting our time with all the above "well intentioned", "quick fix" distractions.
Yes and no. There were wannabe dictators in turkey before erdogan, but the army had removed them, which is why erdogan essentially neutered the army (in multiple ways and through quite a few years) to allow him his current level of control.
Turkey didn't change as much as they guy in charge was persistent, smart and popular enough to do things his predecessors didn't.
It is possible a different ruler would have done the same, but it is also possible that without Erdogan, turkey would still be democratic.
Turkey didn't change as much as they guy in charge was persistent, smart and popular enough to do things his predecessors didn't.
It is possible a different ruler would have done the same, but it is also possible that without Erdogan, turkey would still be democratic.
> He holds Europe hostage by threatening to release large amounts of refugees into Europe
This is one of the key facts of the situation.
Logically then, if the Syria disaster is solved, Erdogan loses a lot of his power. Or in other words, the crackdown of Turkey is part of the Syria conflict.
This is one of the key facts of the situation.
Logically then, if the Syria disaster is solved, Erdogan loses a lot of his power. Or in other words, the crackdown of Turkey is part of the Syria conflict.
> what are we supposed to do about it?
Kick Turkey out of NATO first. If things get worse, impose sanctions.
Kick Turkey out of NATO first. If things get worse, impose sanctions.
He's holding millions of Syrian refugees and has threatened to send them to Europe if things don't go his way. Think European nationalism is bad now? You might not have a NATO after that.
We should refuse to be blackmailed by him. If he is that bad, those refugees are in danger in his hands. Europe has several rich countries that can easily handle the amount of refugees held hostage in Turkey.
Which rich countries do you propose 'easily' settle 2.7 million Syrian migrants? I'd like to tell you about their nationalist/neo-fascist candidates and their vision. Marine Le Pen, Victor Orban, Geert Wilders, Frauke Petry, Matteo Salvini, Norbert Hofer, etc. They're already building walls in Europe - in Norway, Greece, in the Western Balkans, Hungary. Border controls inside the Schengen area (I saw this first hand in Sweden a couple of weeks ago). We've already had Brexit. We could have Nexit, Frexit, Italexit, Grexit, and on. You might see a significant strain on the common currency, especially with some of the capital flight already going on. If anything close to 2.7 million refugees come to Europe at once, it's going to get _very_ ugly.
Europe does not want those refugees even if Merkel told you otherwise and undemocratically imposed refugee quotas on other EU states, which now threatens the EU's very existence. Then they're only Syrian in part.
But yes, I agree we should refuse to be blackmailed by Erdogan, although I'd not go as far as to kick him out of Nato.
But yes, I agree we should refuse to be blackmailed by Erdogan, although I'd not go as far as to kick him out of Nato.
Nope, US needs more Turkey, not less. Erdogan is democratically elected leader, and yes, he is changing and breaking things, but he is still ELECTED.
Turkey is going through transformation, and it will come out of it stronger and mostly becoming pillar of Middle East. In an already chaotic part of the world, pushing Turkey to brink to satiate your "bleeding heart" will cause more death and destruction not less.
Turkey is going through transformation, and it will come out of it stronger and mostly becoming pillar of Middle East. In an already chaotic part of the world, pushing Turkey to brink to satiate your "bleeding heart" will cause more death and destruction not less.
What is strong about that massive paranoia this guy and his corrupt gang is displaying for months now? And how the hell do you get the idea that this behavior is something that would be accepted anywhere in the 21st century?
FYI: in democratic elections, you don't put the opposition in jail first and control the media in a way that the ones you've left don't even get a chance to reach the population or tell them in a honest way what is currently happening. I'm sure all those vote manipulations are also part of democratic elections in your eyes eh?
FYI: in democratic elections, you don't put the opposition in jail first and control the media in a way that the ones you've left don't even get a chance to reach the population or tell them in a honest way what is currently happening. I'm sure all those vote manipulations are also part of democratic elections in your eyes eh?
>Turkey is going through transformation, and it will come out of it stronger and mostly becoming pillar of Middle East.
Like Nazi Germany grew stronger and stronger and grew to be the leader of Europe (+)?
((+) until it was vanquished of course by democratic countries -- but where do you find democratic countries, when you need one?)
Like Nazi Germany grew stronger and stronger and grew to be the leader of Europe (+)?
((+) until it was vanquished of course by democratic countries -- but where do you find democratic countries, when you need one?)
Every strongman is not a hitler, mao or stalin. Especially, when they come through with largely "free" elections.
Abuse of power as President is different from putting 6 million people in gas chambers and marching around and being responsible for deaths to 10s of millions of people.
Lets have some perspective here, Please!
Abuse of power as President is different from putting 6 million people in gas chambers and marching around and being responsible for deaths to 10s of millions of people.
Lets have some perspective here, Please!
Hitler came out of largely "free" elections.
I don't think, that every despot is similar to Hitler, but still it is a despot.
BTW: How do you recognize a despot: He behaves like one. Just open your eyes!
I don't think, that every despot is similar to Hitler, but still it is a despot.
BTW: How do you recognize a despot: He behaves like one. Just open your eyes!
To be fair, the issue here is that he seemed to be an undesirable despot. A good despot is actually better than a democracy, but they are just terribly risky every regime change. And a bad despot is.. well, terrible.
Isn't this the same argument for leaving Assad alone in Syria?
Of course, it is. If Assad loses Chrisitians and Alawites will be massacred in Syria.
A more honest assessment is, Gaddaffi, thanks to regime change, you have slave trade live and well in Libya. Pick your poison.
Its always easy to say, replace this.. but it much harder to replace it with what?
Middle East is not a choice about good and evil, it always present two bad choices, I choose the ones in which fewer people die.
A more honest assessment is, Gaddaffi, thanks to regime change, you have slave trade live and well in Libya. Pick your poison.
Its always easy to say, replace this.. but it much harder to replace it with what?
Middle East is not a choice about good and evil, it always present two bad choices, I choose the ones in which fewer people die.
> he made several speeches where he called the politicians of multiple countries "descendants of nazis"
Whoever cries wolf is a wolf himself.
Whoever cries wolf is a wolf himself.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think a major issue with Turkey is that there is a large non-secular voting bloc. Historically, that has been kept in check by periodic coupes by the Kemalist military. However, Erdogan has succeeded in taming the military (as demonstrated vividly by the failed coupe). Thus, the non-secular voting bloc has escaped the historic check. I am afraid, Turkey will become less secular in the next few years. In addition, there is not much we can do externally, as evidenced by the latest referendum, Erdogan has the support of a majority of voters.
Well it seems the majority is not that big. He won by a small margin, while controlling all the media. If it had been a true free election, I bet he would have lost this referendum. And if you look at the demographics, people in cities voted against, countryside pro. Turkish people living abroad voted pro Erdogan. I bet most of those people came from the countryside in Turkey.
> while controlling all the media
It's much, much more than that. Every single billboard and half the TV ads before referendum were ads telling people to vote "yes".
People didn't even know what they were voting for.
It's much, much more than that. Every single billboard and half the TV ads before referendum were ads telling people to vote "yes".
People didn't even know what they were voting for.
People trust him. He provides "Stong and Stable Leadership", he's built roads and delivered on his promises.
He then says "I need you to vote for this to give me extraordinary powers", and people trust him - especially as the opposition is in disarray
Hopefully people will see this for what it is and not vote Tory on June 8th.
He then says "I need you to vote for this to give me extraordinary powers", and people trust him - especially as the opposition is in disarray
Hopefully people will see this for what it is and not vote Tory on June 8th.
Whenever I see a politician calling for strong and stable leadership (happens in Spain, too), I know that's a politician I'm not going to vote.
Win with 75% and everyone knows you cheated.
With 51%, you leave just enough doubt for it but to be obvious.
Bingo! It also seems that the quantity of secular bloc is lesser than that of the non-secular bloc. Apart from the military, Erdogan has also tamed the judicial system.
The majority of rural voters anyway. In the latest voting he had low support in major centres. His control of the media is key to controlling the public vote, especially in rural areas. So supporting the free press, and anti-censorship technology, is a great way to support democracy in Turkey.
He does not. He falsified votes.
>People in the West need to wake up and do their due diligence on Erdogan's regime
I think people in the West who follow these things pretty much uniformly dislike Erdogan and his throwing the journalists in jail type activities but the Turks vote for him. I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about it.
I think people in the West who follow these things pretty much uniformly dislike Erdogan and his throwing the journalists in jail type activities but the Turks vote for him. I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about it.
> but the Turks vote for him.
"Vote". I'm not quite sure about Turks, but in Russia "vote" is a fake. As Stalin once said "It's not about who votes, it's all about who counts the votes".
There were always way too many violations in the vote process. e.g. people who voted multiple times, militaries who were forced to vote in the right way. God damn it, even 146% of a votes sum translated on federal TV channels [1]. Nobody even tries to hide violations anymore.
A lot of people simply don't believe there is anything they can do about it. They just wait the people in charge will be gone.
Plus add massive brainwashing, threatenings like "without <put the name> the country will fall into chaos", active opposition mortification by government.
And here we are.
[1]: http://netbespredelu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/656886.jp...
There were always way too many violations in the vote process. e.g. people who voted multiple times, militaries who were forced to vote in the right way. God damn it, even 146% of a votes sum translated on federal TV channels [1]. Nobody even tries to hide violations anymore.
A lot of people simply don't believe there is anything they can do about it. They just wait the people in charge will be gone.
Plus add massive brainwashing, threatenings like "without <put the name> the country will fall into chaos", active opposition mortification by government.
And here we are.
[1]: http://netbespredelu.ru/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/656886.jp...
> Turkey is nothing like the common stereotypes we have of it in the West
From what I see, there are two Turkeys - the liberal Turkey which resides in cities like Izmir and the conservative ones which come from places like Bursa or Gaziantep. Currently, there are fewer liberal Turks than the conservative ones.
> People in the West need to wake up and do their due diligence on Erdogan's regime
On this point, I've always found it amazing how most of my American friends/colleagues have little idea about what's happening outside the USA. I get that most news is local and all that but sometimes there are impactful events around the world which would be difficult to miss. Most times, they haven't even heard about the event let alone know about it.
From what I see, there are two Turkeys - the liberal Turkey which resides in cities like Izmir and the conservative ones which come from places like Bursa or Gaziantep. Currently, there are fewer liberal Turks than the conservative ones.
> People in the West need to wake up and do their due diligence on Erdogan's regime
On this point, I've always found it amazing how most of my American friends/colleagues have little idea about what's happening outside the USA. I get that most news is local and all that but sometimes there are impactful events around the world which would be difficult to miss. Most times, they haven't even heard about the event let alone know about it.
I don't understand why Altay's comment is dead. I found it interestingly and informative. Unpopular opinions reasonably expressed should not be killed.
Check the user's comment history. It's not that comment in particular. The whole account is blocked for wishing people dead, calling people scum, insulting other users and expressing sadness that a genocide program ended to early. There's unpopular opinions and there's crossing the line.
Fair enough!
It's not that we don't care, it's just we have our own problems, have you been following what's going on here?
Seriously, stop trying to spread that notion that EU has to take care of everyone's problems. It doesn't!
If the majority of Turks are brainwashed enough to support a dictator, mass incarceration and ties of their government to terrorist organisations in order to appease their xenophoby towards the Kurdish minority, then make sure it's their problem and not the EU.
The only thing EU must do is make sure it doesn't blow up their way. When (not if) Turkey starts their civil war, just make sure you don't allow them in the EU after they willingly destroyed their own country after decades of EU trying to help them solve their internal problems by increasing democratic institutions there (and pouring a lot of money), but they very stubbornly resisting it and actually going the opposite way.
The world must stop looking at EU like they are the fireman of the world and at fault for all the arsonists the population keeps electing in Africa, the Middle East and even some parts of Eastern Europe.
If the majority of Turks are brainwashed enough to support a dictator, mass incarceration and ties of their government to terrorist organisations in order to appease their xenophoby towards the Kurdish minority, then make sure it's their problem and not the EU.
The only thing EU must do is make sure it doesn't blow up their way. When (not if) Turkey starts their civil war, just make sure you don't allow them in the EU after they willingly destroyed their own country after decades of EU trying to help them solve their internal problems by increasing democratic institutions there (and pouring a lot of money), but they very stubbornly resisting it and actually going the opposite way.
The world must stop looking at EU like they are the fireman of the world and at fault for all the arsonists the population keeps electing in Africa, the Middle East and even some parts of Eastern Europe.
You are describing the more modern half of Turkey aka the vacation belt.
The other half is much worse than what most western people who are familiar with the Turkish resorts imagine.
It's like looking at SF or SV and extrapolating from it the mindset of the Bible Belt.
Erdogan has support of at least half of the Turkish population and in many ways when compared to the more extreme mindset of it he's a moderate.
The other half is much worse than what most western people who are familiar with the Turkish resorts imagine.
It's like looking at SF or SV and extrapolating from it the mindset of the Bible Belt.
Erdogan has support of at least half of the Turkish population and in many ways when compared to the more extreme mindset of it he's a moderate.
The voters elected and support an autocratic leader, however wonderful people they may be. It's not just about Erdogan.
Turkey has a very harsh rural/cosmopolitan split, just like the US has.
On top of that, the last election (the turn the President into Sultan) had massive fraud and any critical media has been jailed.
On top of that, the last election (the turn the President into Sultan) had massive fraud and any critical media has been jailed.
Reposting my comment from another place here, as it kinda applies to this too, especially the second sentence:
> Every single billboard and half the TV ads before referendum were ads telling people to vote "yes".
> People didn't even know what they were voting for.
> Every single billboard and half the TV ads before referendum were ads telling people to vote "yes".
> People didn't even know what they were voting for.
I'm a greek who's grandmother has a view of Turkey within their back yard.
I'd say the majority of your view is true, but in my guess-timation, about half of them are fundamentalists, who still treat Kurds like third-class citizens, who want to turn Hagia Sophia, a cultural epicenter and museum back into a Mosque, who helped vote Ergodan in in the first place. The people you are talking about never wanted him.
A funny parallel, if you read HN, you could draw the same conclusion about America -- it sounds like most everyone is against Trump and are reasonable people, but 48.5% of the country still voted him in, and of that 48.5% half think he's doing a 'wonderful job'
These people don't stay in power by chance. America -- take note.
I'd say the majority of your view is true, but in my guess-timation, about half of them are fundamentalists, who still treat Kurds like third-class citizens, who want to turn Hagia Sophia, a cultural epicenter and museum back into a Mosque, who helped vote Ergodan in in the first place. The people you are talking about never wanted him.
A funny parallel, if you read HN, you could draw the same conclusion about America -- it sounds like most everyone is against Trump and are reasonable people, but 48.5% of the country still voted him in, and of that 48.5% half think he's doing a 'wonderful job'
These people don't stay in power by chance. America -- take note.
Isn't it kinda undemocratic for "the West" to go in and overthrow an, ironically enough, democratically elected dictator?
As someone living in Cyprus an island who has serious issues with Turkey, overthrowing Erdogan scares me more than Erdogan being a dictator.
At this point at least we know Erdogan's issues stay inside Turkey. If someone unsuccessfully tries to overthrow him no one can predict what his reaction will be. From invading Greece to a civil war that will end with hundreds of thousands dead.
If he is successfully overthrown, we'll have a new Iraq for a decade before the area stabilizes. Either way there's no clean solution.
At this point at least we know Erdogan's issues stay inside Turkey. If someone unsuccessfully tries to overthrow him no one can predict what his reaction will be. From invading Greece to a civil war that will end with hundreds of thousands dead.
If he is successfully overthrown, we'll have a new Iraq for a decade before the area stabilizes. Either way there's no clean solution.
It's also destabilizing. Look at Libya, Iraq, 1970s Iran, etc.
Ukraine is the only example where an autocrat was removed from power without the entire country falling into chaos. They were fortunate to lose control over just Crimea and the eastern zone.
Ukraine is the only example where an autocrat was removed from power without the entire country falling into chaos. They were fortunate to lose control over just Crimea and the eastern zone.
Germany, 1945
It required killing 7 million Germans, 10% of the population. I guess if you kill enough people, that does reduce certain types of chaos... but a world war is basically peak chaos.
Did these Germans die because Hitler was in power, or because he was removed from power?
I am not sure about truly democratically elected part, but if its truly democratically elected it should be fine with the rest of the world.
You do realize they voted him in? They specifically chose him to be his leader and continue to do so. Why should the West "wake up"? What do you propose the west does? Should we send the militaty and overthrow him?
In a referendum with tons of irregularities and many reports of government thugs intimidating voters.
Please give me a break, the great majority of the Turks living in Germany (just as an example) not only voted yes in the referendum but after it won there were major celebrations on the streets of a lot of big German cities by Turks living there.
Please stop this nonsense of trying to pretend it's always somebody else's fault other than the majority of the Turks. They choose to transform their country in the mess it became.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/referendum-in-tu...
Please stop this nonsense of trying to pretend it's always somebody else's fault other than the majority of the Turks. They choose to transform their country in the mess it became.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/referendum-in-tu...
In Germany sure, but not in most countries. http://www.unzcloud.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/map-turke...
Did you reply to the wrong post or something?
I play video games from a young Turkish woman. She goes to gigs, nightclubs, drinks and socialises. She hits on guys and they hit on her. She is indistinguishable from any western 20something. I was on a voice call with her the night of the supposed coup, and listened to her and her family angrily lemmenting the administration. It seemed even on the night of they knew something was fishy. She lives in Istanbul, and is educated, so maybe I don't get a full picture of the Turkish opinion. Maybe others elsewhere support the government and its actions, blindly. She'd love to move to the UK, and would fit in well with our culture. Yet a part of the Leave campaigns was about how Turkey would one day join the EU, and then we'd have Turkish people flooding here too!!! Shock horror. It's becoming a self fulfilling prophecy by the west at this point, to turn Turkey from what it is, to what they think it is.
As a Turk, I'm actually happy that we were told that we can't join at all due to the referendum results. Not for me, I see myself similar to the friend you talked about, with a western culture, wanting to get off but failing, but for Europe. Allowing the 51% to roam around Europe would seriously damage the level of culture and freedom you have reached.
Let me see if I can follow the logic.
There are people in turkey that are more western.
These people would leave turkey if possible, but they can't.
This is making turkey less western?
Wouldn't that have the opposite effect? The west is generally responsible for the brain drain in less successful countries. Throwing borders up will keep those people who share our views in those countries. It's a fair bet that those people will be the force for good change in their governments more likely within their country than outside it.
There are people in turkey that are more western.
These people would leave turkey if possible, but they can't.
This is making turkey less western?
Wouldn't that have the opposite effect? The west is generally responsible for the brain drain in less successful countries. Throwing borders up will keep those people who share our views in those countries. It's a fair bet that those people will be the force for good change in their governments more likely within their country than outside it.
There is a 49% in Turkey, and then there is 51%.
51 won and this happened.
51 won and this happened.
We need to introduce some sort of minority action in democracy. The smaller pluralities should not be powerless against the majority...
The problem there I suppose would be neutral arbitration. sigh
The problem there I suppose would be neutral arbitration. sigh
Most countries tend to have or quickly get rules to make constitutional changes hard to pass. E.g. requiring 2/3 majority or even multiple votes across multiple parliaments, or the like. Couple that with constitutions that limit the governments power, and you get some reasonable degree of protection of minorities.
The ability to enact drastic change with a minimal majority like in Turkey (or the UK...) is terribly dangerous.
The ability to enact drastic change with a minimal majority like in Turkey (or the UK...) is terribly dangerous.
That's a great thought - I believe this is how democracy in the US used to work with more magnanimity and cooperation. Maybe I'm romanticizing, but I will think on how I can do my part to bring it to fruition.
51% won, but the vote rigging is staggering.
I'm Turk and living in Turkey and I can't name single positive thing about "that guy" or political islam in general.
> Turkey is almost entirely Muslim, yet they produce alcohol and tolerate its consumption within their borders, even by their own people. Let that fact sink in for a moment.
Call me naive, but is this actually a problem? I'm fairly secular and don't know much about how 'Muslim states' operate, but if they're producing alcohol, for it's population who drinks and and doesn't care, what is the actual problem here? Shouldn't the government reflect the values of the people (which has seemingly fine with alcohol consumption)?
Call me naive, but is this actually a problem? I'm fairly secular and don't know much about how 'Muslim states' operate, but if they're producing alcohol, for it's population who drinks and and doesn't care, what is the actual problem here? Shouldn't the government reflect the values of the people (which has seemingly fine with alcohol consumption)?
The point is that there's no problem at all. The standard for many Islamic countries to introduce parts of Islamic law as state law, such as the forbidding of alcohol or the veiling of women. By contrast, Turkey is much more secular in its government.
Unfortunately, this secular government is precisely what Erdogan is eroding.
People who haven't travelled read Islamic and think Saudi Arabia. Go to Indonesia and you'll find cheap beer and the only reason women wouldn't drive is the traffic is really bad.
What is the legal punishment for leaving or insulting islam in Indonesia?
People can sue you for insulting religion, there is a law for it (not specific to Islam, but religion in general). 99% of the times, this is a non-issue. People just don't care enough to bring the issue to court. However, if politic is involved, this can be used as a ground to discredit a politician. It is a hot topic this year before our capital's election, where one of the frontrunners was sued for allegedly insulting al-qur'an[1]
One other exception is if you live in Aceh. It is a special region in Indonesia which implements Islamic law to the tee.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2016_Jakarta_protests
One other exception is if you live in Aceh. It is a special region in Indonesia which implements Islamic law to the tee.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2016_Jakarta_protests
Was. There's been a steady trend towards theism and religiousity promoted by Erdogan.
I don't think it's that no one cares, it's that he is very difficult to stand up to. The EU needs him because Turkey is the only thing holding back a flood of 2 million refugees. They can't threaten sanctions without risking the floodgates being opened. The US has had a long relationship with Turkey and doesn't want to terminate it unless it has to. Turkey also has the second largest standing army in NATO and is a regional rival of Russia, which is convenient for us.
Yet so many people are rooting for Erdogan... to the point of fighting tanks bare hands. People say erdogan managed to improve some things and now people are all praising him madly...
1) There is a conservative majority in Turkey, which has flourished under Erdogan, both economically and societally. They have no reason to stop supporting them.
2) Not wanting a military coup does not make one a supporter of Erdogan.
But yeah, the secularist block seems to be powerless to do anything (and not even talking about the Kurds).
2) Not wanting a military coup does not make one a supporter of Erdogan.
But yeah, the secularist block seems to be powerless to do anything (and not even talking about the Kurds).
>People in the West need to wake up and do their due diligence on Erdogan's regime. There's some seriously scary stuff happening because of this guy.
I am wide awake but I am not one of the idiot Turks who voted for this guy. What am I supposed to do if a foreign nation turns itself into an islamofascist dictatorship?
I am wide awake but I am not one of the idiot Turks who voted for this guy. What am I supposed to do if a foreign nation turns itself into an islamofascist dictatorship?
FWIW, here is a map of US military bases in the region https://www.antiwar.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1.-u...
This is a great map. However it doesn't include "minor" bases and classified installations, FWIW. It appears to be a map of unclassified bases with air operations capabilities, e.g. an unclassified base you could fly into and out of.
>> People in the West need to wake up and do their due diligence on [whatever] regime.
Yep, because that is what happened with the Eastern-Europian regimes in 1956 and 1969. History repeats itself.
Yep, because that is what happened with the Eastern-Europian regimes in 1956 and 1969. History repeats itself.
It's this mode of thinking that tbh kills democracies, both internally and externally. The idea that just because you're struggling, your problems are someone else's problems.
We see it here (and elsewhere) with people continually calling for and hoping for politicians to "do the right thing" rather than organize themselves (unless it's to do something easy like stand around holding signs) and think through new reforms to then push for (we even have the article 5 mechanism designed explicitly for that); we see it elsewhere with "Where is the West, why isn't anyone helping" as they forget we have literally neither mandate nor motive to solve their problem for them, and problems of our own besides.
Yes, we will likely intervene on certain actions anyways to preclude all-out wars if they loom. But if it gets to that point it will only be insofar as it protects us or defuses that war; liberation and organization is still ultimately a people's own problem we literally have no business butting into.
We see it here (and elsewhere) with people continually calling for and hoping for politicians to "do the right thing" rather than organize themselves (unless it's to do something easy like stand around holding signs) and think through new reforms to then push for (we even have the article 5 mechanism designed explicitly for that); we see it elsewhere with "Where is the West, why isn't anyone helping" as they forget we have literally neither mandate nor motive to solve their problem for them, and problems of our own besides.
Yes, we will likely intervene on certain actions anyways to preclude all-out wars if they loom. But if it gets to that point it will only be insofar as it protects us or defuses that war; liberation and organization is still ultimately a people's own problem we literally have no business butting into.
In germany, we Germans know.
But as Merkel put it : erdogan is a democrat in a democracy.
Nothing we can do here.
But as Merkel put it : erdogan is a democrat in a democracy.
Nothing we can do here.
I guess that's the thing: from what I can tell, Turkey ceased being a democracy with Erdogan. I do not believe anything pertaining to votes in Turkey for some time, since the time Erdogan was first elected. That vote was suspect, and so has everything that's happened since then.
In certain ways, what I find so disturbing about what's been happening in Turkey is how readily everyone seems to accept the official account of major events. The vote that initially established him, the "coup," the most recent vote... Things seem to be accepted at face value by the west without questioning it, even when major red flags are everywhere.
Erdogan isn't just a despot, he's a liar. And the West, especially Western journalism, seems to turn a blind eye.
Even if a large proportion of Turkey supports Erdogan, it doesn't mean a majority do. Even if Erdogan's government says a majority does, doesn't mean it actually does. And when a government establishes itself by subverting democratic or constitutional processes, it's not a democratic government anymore.
In certain ways, what I find so disturbing about what's been happening in Turkey is how readily everyone seems to accept the official account of major events. The vote that initially established him, the "coup," the most recent vote... Things seem to be accepted at face value by the west without questioning it, even when major red flags are everywhere.
Erdogan isn't just a despot, he's a liar. And the West, especially Western journalism, seems to turn a blind eye.
Even if a large proportion of Turkey supports Erdogan, it doesn't mean a majority do. Even if Erdogan's government says a majority does, doesn't mean it actually does. And when a government establishes itself by subverting democratic or constitutional processes, it's not a democratic government anymore.
Well, he or the situation is often compared to Hitler.
I think for good reason...
I think for good reason...
[deleted]
People care, like watching a child throw a tempter tantrum in a restaurant kind of care. Us in the core west know we can shut it down if it ever becomes convenient to, so its just amusing to watch.
> Turkey is almost entirely Muslim, yet they produce alcohol and tolerate its consumption within their borders, even by their own people. Let that fact sink in for a moment
I don't think this is something to be proud of. The US is majority Christian and they tolerate satanism
I don't think this is something to be proud of. The US is majority Christian and they tolerate satanism
You seem to be implying that because they're Muslim but not really Islamic and very western that it's somehow not desirable for them to become more Islamic. How about you let them decide what's good for themselves? Why is it scary just because it's Islamic? I detect racist undertones in your post. And I don't think much of Erdogan at all, and how he thinks censorship is cool. But you don't get to start deciding what's good for a nation unless you're happy for others to decide what's good for Canada too.
As an atheist is it 'racist' for me to want a country to be "less Islamic". I certainly want countries to become "less Christian" - and generally less ideological, less superstitious, more rational and less socially conservative.
If that bundles up as "more Western" then so be it. These are the values I hold dear. I want more of the world to be liberal democracies and I an unhappy when a nation retreats from that.
If that bundles up as "more Western" then so be it. These are the values I hold dear. I want more of the world to be liberal democracies and I an unhappy when a nation retreats from that.
Well, for starters they didn't decide for themselves. It was decided for them:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/europe/turkey-refer...
The greater issue though, is that it seems the "majority" is now imposing their religious ideals on a "minority". That is an unacceptable violation of the basic right to religious freedom.
Sadly Turkey is far from the first country in the Middle East to do this. There's a guy in Saudi Arabia on death row because he admitted to being atheist on his blog / social media.
The greater issue though, is that it seems the "majority" is now imposing their religious ideals on a "minority". That is an unacceptable violation of the basic right to religious freedom.
Sadly Turkey is far from the first country in the Middle East to do this. There's a guy in Saudi Arabia on death row because he admitted to being atheist on his blog / social media.
>The greater issue though, is that it seems the "majority" is now imposing their religious ideals on a "minority". That is an unacceptable violation of the basic right to religious freedom. //
But that violent subjugation of non-Muslims is a central part of Islam (as practiced and preached by Mohammed). Become a Muslim, if you're "people of the book" pay jizra, or die. That's the only way for an Islamic majority to stay true to Mohammed's injunctions.
Unless Islam turns is back on Mohammed and the Koran it can't become accepting of our Western concept of human rights in this way.
Muslims whom I know are thankfully just not practicing this party of their religion and not emulating Mohammed in this way; but suggestion they are not being true to Mohammed and his ideals would nonetheless be a massive affront to them. I see no way to fit Mohammedism in to a peaceful world.
But that violent subjugation of non-Muslims is a central part of Islam (as practiced and preached by Mohammed). Become a Muslim, if you're "people of the book" pay jizra, or die. That's the only way for an Islamic majority to stay true to Mohammed's injunctions.
Unless Islam turns is back on Mohammed and the Koran it can't become accepting of our Western concept of human rights in this way.
Muslims whom I know are thankfully just not practicing this party of their religion and not emulating Mohammed in this way; but suggestion they are not being true to Mohammed and his ideals would nonetheless be a massive affront to them. I see no way to fit Mohammedism in to a peaceful world.
[deleted]
Race != religion, and it is in no way unreasonable to judge people for following backwards religious doctrines that are a danger to the people themselves and their surroundings.
"I'm sorry, but we've decided you're not a cultural fit" is a reasonable response to Turkey wanting to join the EU in its current state IMO.
"I'm sorry, but we've decided you're not a cultural fit" is a reasonable response to Turkey wanting to join the EU in its current state IMO.
Islam is not a race, it's a religion, so he is not racist at all in his comment. You don't choose the color of your skin, but you have a choice which religion to follow, or not follow any.
It's less about Islam being a race and more about how Manifest Destiny is showing its ugly face once more.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I like that you think people living under dictators "decide for themselves".
They can. Revolution is an option too. "Decisions" do not begin and end with a paper ballot; ultimately, everyone is human and can be ousted from power or killed by an angry mob.
"The army" that would defend him are countrymen; the wealthy who help maintain the status quo are a much wider group of individuals whose interests can be led to differ from his own.
That said, I do not think it should have to come to violence. If "the 49%" are steadfast and "the 51%" are beginning to doubt, calls could be organized for another referendum or neutral third party arbitration or such. The EU or UN would at minimum have something to justify a closer look. Though I haven't been following this too closely, so maybe it's too late idk.
"The army" that would defend him are countrymen; the wealthy who help maintain the status quo are a much wider group of individuals whose interests can be led to differ from his own.
That said, I do not think it should have to come to violence. If "the 49%" are steadfast and "the 51%" are beginning to doubt, calls could be organized for another referendum or neutral third party arbitration or such. The EU or UN would at minimum have something to justify a closer look. Though I haven't been following this too closely, so maybe it's too late idk.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., the administration is taking down government websites in an effort to bury climate data and scientific information. Useful to remember it's not just countries like China and Turkey that try to limit citizens' access to information.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/20...
Important caveat: the US government is reducing it's own efforts to combat climate change. That's not censorship.
Censorship is the suppression of undesirable information. Data on climate change is now being suppressed because it is undesirable to the POTUS.
The US Gov. has many branches and is not one consistent entity. The administration choosing the censor other branches is censorship.
A = A
The US Gov. has many branches and is not one consistent entity. The administration choosing the censor other branches is censorship.
A = A
I've read through a few definitions of the word "censorship", just now, and I don't think any of them make this particular distinction.
First Amendment law makes this distinction.
https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/25/quick-cheat-sheet-on-firs...
https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/25/quick-cheat-sheet-on-firs...
There is a distinction between open government and censorship. Not releasing information is different than banning people from sharing information. It's related, but definitely not the same as censorship.
>>Not releasing information is different than banning people from sharing information.
Lying by omission is still lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission
Lying by omission is still lying.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Lying_by_omission
The problem is this treats the government as a single entity with a uniform will: yes, if you do that, then the government is merely failing to act rather than deliberately censoring anything.
However the government isnt a single entity, it is many smaller kingdoms. And The King is censoring one of his princes internally: preventing the EPA from releasing data it would like to.
However the government isnt a single entity, it is many smaller kingdoms. And The King is censoring one of his princes internally: preventing the EPA from releasing data it would like to.
We're not a fucking monarchy. The entirety of the executive branch serves at the pleasure of the president.
And he's entirely within his rights to shut programs down; that isn't censorship. Learn your definitions lest you serve as a strawman for the other side of the argument.
And he's entirely within his rights to shut programs down; that isn't censorship. Learn your definitions lest you serve as a strawman for the other side of the argument.
Erdogan is within his right to censor.
Does that mean he does not censor?
Does that mean he does not censor?
Erdogan is preventing journalists and private individuals from publishing (or even talking about in some cases) their opinions. He does it to hide his own crimes.
This is obviously very different from shutting down a government program. Trump is the employer of those people. He can tell them what to do. They are free to go home and say whatever they want, even about these decisions (and they are, in fact doing that).
Censorship would be Trump arresting the journalists that reported this.
This is obviously very different from shutting down a government program. Trump is the employer of those people. He can tell them what to do. They are free to go home and say whatever they want, even about these decisions (and they are, in fact doing that).
Censorship would be Trump arresting the journalists that reported this.
I consider dismantling environmental agencies criminal in the ethical sense, but US law obviously does not consider it criminal.
Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law? You call what Erdogan does criminal, but I'm under the impression you're using "the letter of the law" as a measure for Trump, and "what's ethical" for Erdogan.
As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.
Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law? You call what Erdogan does criminal, but I'm under the impression you're using "the letter of the law" as a measure for Trump, and "what's ethical" for Erdogan.
As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.
> I consider dismantling environmental agencies criminal in the ethical sense, but US law obviously does not consider it criminal.
I don't understand that. Surely this was plainly clear during the election ... and the electorate made it's viewpoint clear. Therefore in my opinion it is not just morally right, but an actual moral duty for the US government to at least tone down the climate research.
We live in a government for the people, by the people. It is NOT a government for the climate. US government climate actions are predicated upon a majority of the US population not just agreeing in principle, but willing to pay (a lot I might add) to make it happen.
> Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law?
Yes.
> As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.
I fail to see how this is even a little strange. Did you know Obama did the same ? And so did Bush and Clinton. All have removed reporters and refused questions.
And frankly, in most cases, for pretty good reasons. At least in the Trump and Obama cases I've seen the videos, and ... I mean sorry. I may not agree with Trump, but I agree that those reporters went too far, were warned a few times, and when they insisted, the president walked away. That, to me, doesn't seem controversial at all. I don't think I'd have similar patience, I especially would not have the patience Obama had with reporters (remember ? The birth certificate. Perhaps (being flexible with perhaps) it was a newsworthy question for a week or two, but 2 years later they were still pestering him)
I don't understand that. Surely this was plainly clear during the election ... and the electorate made it's viewpoint clear. Therefore in my opinion it is not just morally right, but an actual moral duty for the US government to at least tone down the climate research.
We live in a government for the people, by the people. It is NOT a government for the climate. US government climate actions are predicated upon a majority of the US population not just agreeing in principle, but willing to pay (a lot I might add) to make it happen.
> Does Erdogan ever actually violate Turkish law?
Yes.
> As an aside, Trump and his staff have removed press from press meetings and refused to let certain question be asked. Those actions aren't arrests but they don't particularly cultivate a climate of open debate either.
I fail to see how this is even a little strange. Did you know Obama did the same ? And so did Bush and Clinton. All have removed reporters and refused questions.
And frankly, in most cases, for pretty good reasons. At least in the Trump and Obama cases I've seen the videos, and ... I mean sorry. I may not agree with Trump, but I agree that those reporters went too far, were warned a few times, and when they insisted, the president walked away. That, to me, doesn't seem controversial at all. I don't think I'd have similar patience, I especially would not have the patience Obama had with reporters (remember ? The birth certificate. Perhaps (being flexible with perhaps) it was a newsworthy question for a week or two, but 2 years later they were still pestering him)
The president censored the staff of the EPA, that's true whichever picture you take.
Incorrect, if you define of 'censorship' as the illegal suppression of information, as I and others do.
Any structural changes (including withholding information - or will you no longer complacently consent to living under a system wherein secret classifications exist?) are entirely legal, and so not 'censorship'.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea, but the system you're in does not magically adapt to suit your ideals in any given system. If you're not going to understand it well enough to understand where it needs to change, you're just going to be a waste of time for anyone wishing to discuss means to do so, and so not worth engaging for those people.
Any structural changes (including withholding information - or will you no longer complacently consent to living under a system wherein secret classifications exist?) are entirely legal, and so not 'censorship'.
I'm not saying I agree with the idea, but the system you're in does not magically adapt to suit your ideals in any given system. If you're not going to understand it well enough to understand where it needs to change, you're just going to be a waste of time for anyone wishing to discuss means to do so, and so not worth engaging for those people.
Yes, if you define it to suit your point. But that's not the meaning of the term.
Censorship is illegal suppression of information. You can tell your kids to shut up, that isn't censoring them.
You try and choose a meaning to support your argument just as much as anyone else does. Welcome to terminology.
You try and choose a meaning to support your argument just as much as anyone else does. Welcome to terminology.
No, it isn't. I have looked at several definitions now and none match yours, indeed explicitly the reverse.
I don't know why you keep prattling on when its clear everywhere you look for this defintion it is the reverse. It has nothing to do with an act of government. Government may censor, but so may a private individual: a publisher can censor an author, etc.
It is merely the withholding of information on political or moral grounds.
"to "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable. Censorship is the name for the process or idea of keeping things like obscene word or graphic images from an audience. There is also such a thing as self-censorship, which is when you refrain from saying certain things — or possibly re-wording them — depending on who is listening."
"to remove anything offensive from books, films, etc., or to remove parts considered unsuitable from private letters, especially ones sent during war or from a prison:"
etc.
On and on and on in every defintion.
I don't know why you keep prattling on when its clear everywhere you look for this defintion it is the reverse. It has nothing to do with an act of government. Government may censor, but so may a private individual: a publisher can censor an author, etc.
It is merely the withholding of information on political or moral grounds.
"to "censor" is to review something and to choose to remove or hide parts of it that are considered unacceptable. Censorship is the name for the process or idea of keeping things like obscene word or graphic images from an audience. There is also such a thing as self-censorship, which is when you refrain from saying certain things — or possibly re-wording them — depending on who is listening."
"to remove anything offensive from books, films, etc., or to remove parts considered unsuitable from private letters, especially ones sent during war or from a prison:"
etc.
On and on and on in every defintion.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_dump_torrents#English_W...
A data dump of all English Wikipedia articles as a torrent. In case you are not able to access that, here's the direct link: https://itorrents.org/torrent/6434C646E33D02F3CDCB9C15F9DF11...
On a side note, I think it's fantastic that we have the entire Wikipedia, possibly the greatest effort towards organizing the world's information, at our fingertips.
A data dump of all English Wikipedia articles as a torrent. In case you are not able to access that, here's the direct link: https://itorrents.org/torrent/6434C646E33D02F3CDCB9C15F9DF11...
On a side note, I think it's fantastic that we have the entire Wikipedia, possibly the greatest effort towards organizing the world's information, at our fingertips.
Further, there are good open-source solutions to read these dumps offline. For instance Kiwix http://www.kiwix.org/ which has a dedicated reader application but also an HTTP server (very useful if you want to run a local mirror), and Aard Dict on Android http://aarddict.org/
Thanks for those suggestions. I wasn't aware of Kiwix. It sounds similar to XOWA, which has worked well for me: http://xowa.org/
> On a side note, I think it's fantastic that we have the entire Wikipedia, possibly the greatest effort towards organizing the world's information, at our fingertips.
While I totally agree with this, on another side note, I think it's terrible that we have web censorship at our fingertips.
While I totally agree with this, on another side note, I think it's terrible that we have web censorship at our fingertips.
I might argue that Wikipedia is rather dangerous when viewed as objective. Wikipedia editors and the associated political infighting results in defacto censorship if your interpretation of facts doesn't follow the crowd.
I am not saying Wikipedia is bad -- but it is definitely not an unbiased source.
I am not saying Wikipedia is bad -- but it is definitely not an unbiased source.
As suggested by others, it's a court order. Turkish officials demanded a few things from wikipedia. The main item was to remove all content where Turkey is shown supporting ISIS, but they didn't receive a response, and the repercussion was blocking access nationwide.
In case anyone doesn't know, Erdogan is enriching himself and his family by having Daesh/ISIS/Islamic state deliver oil to him at bargain prices and selling it, mostly within Turkey:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/wikileak...
(and Google for it, there is a lot of proof of this)
So let's stop pretending that this is done due to justice or even legal "right". This is being done to hide the crimes of the people in power. In this case, yes, crimes, specifically the government selectively applying the laws, corruption, and the like.
It is not being done for justice, to protect anyone's reputation from falsehoods, or ... it's just being done to hide crimes by the government.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/wikileak...
(and Google for it, there is a lot of proof of this)
So let's stop pretending that this is done due to justice or even legal "right". This is being done to hide the crimes of the people in power. In this case, yes, crimes, specifically the government selectively applying the laws, corruption, and the like.
It is not being done for justice, to protect anyone's reputation from falsehoods, or ... it's just being done to hide crimes by the government.
I wasn't defending what happened, was rather reporting their reasoning for the curious. In Turkey justice has become synonymous with Erdogan's and his party's interests unfortunately.
They prey on the less educated, and banning a major source of knowledge seems like a very smart move by them.
They prey on the less educated, and banning a major source of knowledge seems like a very smart move by them.
Turkey isn't the only implicit supporter of ISIS though. ISIS exists at the pleasure and to serve the aims of a whole host of "Western friendly" nation states.
As a bonus, their terrible doings remind Americans of the need to stay engaged in a region that by some strange coincidence produces a lot of the worlds gas and oil.
As a bonus, their terrible doings remind Americans of the need to stay engaged in a region that by some strange coincidence produces a lot of the worlds gas and oil.
To what degree is Erdogan's regime a problem of not enough democracy, as opposed to a fundamental problem with democracy itself? (Where democracy = 51% wins)
That definition of democracy, where the winner takes all, is from what I've heard a big problem in Turkey. I think a strong opposition and having several political parties in the parliament is the best way to avoid the tyranny of the masses, but the recent referendum in Turkey takes them in the exact opposite direction.
Democracy is not a method of protection for individual rights, on the contrary. Limited government is.
Madison discusses the issue in The Federalist Papers No. 10 [1].
[1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
Madison discusses the issue in The Federalist Papers No. 10 [1].
[1] http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
I'm assuming Tor circumvents the ban, correct? I'm going to tell all my Turkish friends to install Tor and signal, and be sad that Turkey has reached this point.
AFAIK, Tor is blockable because the list of relays is public, and accesses may invite scrutiny from the authorities. This is a dictator who's reportedly already imprisoned thousands of common people.
What I do is buy inexpensive server time from common providers in US or Europe, run a SOCKS tunnel over ssh to that server, and bypass blocks. It'll appear to be like any other SSH access.
If I need to post something to a website that should not be tracked back to my own address or my server address, I run tor daemon on the server and use it as a second SOCKS proxy to proxy the requests the server is forwarding.
I'm not in Turkey but I'm in a country that's taking an authoritarian turn and may become like Turkey in 5 to 10 years. Good idea to keep all the tools and know-how ready now, and start covering tracks early.
What I do is buy inexpensive server time from common providers in US or Europe, run a SOCKS tunnel over ssh to that server, and bypass blocks. It'll appear to be like any other SSH access.
If I need to post something to a website that should not be tracked back to my own address or my server address, I run tor daemon on the server and use it as a second SOCKS proxy to proxy the requests the server is forwarding.
I'm not in Turkey but I'm in a country that's taking an authoritarian turn and may become like Turkey in 5 to 10 years. Good idea to keep all the tools and know-how ready now, and start covering tracks early.
Reportedly ? Turkey has published exactly how many they arrested. The counter currently stands on over 100000 people that have at least been fired. At least 30000 have been arrested and imprisoned.
And Diyanet is back. If you don't know. The Ottoman empire, Turkey's predecessor, felt the need for iron control over mosques. So anyone who attempted to have mosque without "official curriculum", even a tiny personal one, in Ottoman territory would quickly find themselves arrested. And to drive home how serious they were: it is said that nobody got arrested twice for this. Nobody.
Now Erdogan is famous for directly threatening European leaders for not doing the same. Essentially, he demands to see European non-Diyanet mosques attacked if any Turk goes to them, and there are reports of kidnappings and disappearances (NOT in Turkey, in Europe).
Additionally a whole bunch of Islamic schools (Gulen-movement schools) have been closed and again there are threats against foreign governments not doing the same.
Censorship is the least part of this. Sad part is, much of Turkey appears to agree with these actions.
And Diyanet is back. If you don't know. The Ottoman empire, Turkey's predecessor, felt the need for iron control over mosques. So anyone who attempted to have mosque without "official curriculum", even a tiny personal one, in Ottoman territory would quickly find themselves arrested. And to drive home how serious they were: it is said that nobody got arrested twice for this. Nobody.
Now Erdogan is famous for directly threatening European leaders for not doing the same. Essentially, he demands to see European non-Diyanet mosques attacked if any Turk goes to them, and there are reports of kidnappings and disappearances (NOT in Turkey, in Europe).
Additionally a whole bunch of Islamic schools (Gulen-movement schools) have been closed and again there are threats against foreign governments not doing the same.
Censorship is the least part of this. Sad part is, much of Turkey appears to agree with these actions.
> Sad part is, much of Turkey appears to agree with these actions.
What? jeez, why? That's gotta be a pushback/countermovement to something.
What is that majority concerned with/about, immigrant issues or something? (bad world citizen here, I haven't been keeping up)
What? jeez, why? That's gotta be a pushback/countermovement to something.
What is that majority concerned with/about, immigrant issues or something? (bad world citizen here, I haven't been keeping up)
That's good, but it's way beyond the reach of the average user :/ It's terrible that the world is moving to that direction of complete censorship, but it doesn't look like there's much technologists can do. Politicians only do what people tolerate, and it looks like people will tolerate a lot of censorship for even the illusion of security...
Bad idea. Using Tor is probably the best way to attract extra scrutiny.
Not if one uses bridges with pluggable transports which helps making the Tor traffic look less like it's Tor (for example meek-amazon uses domain fronting https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/doc/meek )
Not if a significant proportion of the population uses it.
The regime (which is what they are now) have shown that they are not deterred by having to persecute people in bulk.
But that's not the case and it's going to happen. In the real world, I think it very reckless to tell your friends to use Tor in Turkey.
Tor is blocked in Turkey, as well as some VPNs.
https://turkeyblocks.org/2016/12/18/tor-blocked-in-turkey-vp...
There are some ways to circumvent the ban, for now.
https://tor.stackexchange.com/a/13432
https://turkeyblocks.org/2016/12/18/tor-blocked-in-turkey-vp...
There are some ways to circumvent the ban, for now.
https://tor.stackexchange.com/a/13432
Much of this problem comes not from the top, but from the bottom. It's a terrible idea that people can actually suck, and suck en masse, but it truly is the case. The bad leader is an emergent consequent of the bad people crying for him. Shitty leaders aren't the sole purview of Islamic states, but they seem to be better at generating them than anyone else in recent history.
How do you fix millions of people, so they stop desiring terrible things? Well, by having a culture that pays better, and marketing it well. And it's delicate, because their "better" detector isn't working properly already.
How do you fix millions of people, so they stop desiring terrible things? Well, by having a culture that pays better, and marketing it well. And it's delicate, because their "better" detector isn't working properly already.
What triggered this?
Usually Turkish government blocks sites right after a terrorist attack or in the case of the coup attempt. Is something about to happen?
Usually Turkish government blocks sites right after a terrorist attack or in the case of the coup attempt. Is something about to happen?
Maybe someone visited a page on him/her self, did not like it, and decided to to something about it.
Good thing: many people use this service so they now know even better what kind of govt they live under.
Good thing: many people use this service so they now know even better what kind of govt they live under.
I'd say it is just some random court order, maybe somebody edited page of Erdoğan to add some insults, which gave ideas to some judge to get government reputation.
probably, but if that's the case their reaction is a bit late..
Are torrents being blocked? What about Kwix and a torrent of Wikipedia?
http://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Main_Page http://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Content_in_all_languages
http://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Main_Page http://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Content_in_all_languages
Isn't one of the requirements of being in NATO a democracy?
With moves like this from Turkey, what will happen to the NATO membership?
With moves like this from Turkey, what will happen to the NATO membership?
There is some irony in Erdogan's desire for EU membership, last decade, creating such a primacy of elected leaders (at the EU's behest and guidance) that the previous guardians of Turkey's secular heritage, the military, is no longer able to stage a coup against the emerging despot.
I'm seeing a lot of comments about this structure vs. that structure, but to paraphrase an old Sufi proverb someone told me, it doesn't matter what the cup is made of (gold? wood?), it matters what's in the cup (good water?). It doesn't matter what your government or family structures look like if they aren't able to facilitate healthy individuals and groups. If they are facilitating the health of some and the detriment of others, well then they are wittingly or unwittingly engaging in selection. It doesn't matter if she's your wife or your girlfriend. Is it toxic or growing?
Before Erdogan, Turkey had no middle class. You either lived in remote villages and lacked education OR you were "rich" thanks to high level of nepotism. Well, Erdogan changed all this, he moved people to into cities and these people didn't forget and started to vote for him.
Before then, the Kemalist or secular people were very relaxed, they knew from history if some how they lost the government, military coup will restore power. Again, Erdogan changed this.
Even by anti-erdogan majority, Erdogan is seen as the only true politician in Turkey, he knows how to convince or play people/groups. Just ask Gulen Movement!
Before then, the Kemalist or secular people were very relaxed, they knew from history if some how they lost the government, military coup will restore power. Again, Erdogan changed this.
Even by anti-erdogan majority, Erdogan is seen as the only true politician in Turkey, he knows how to convince or play people/groups. Just ask Gulen Movement!
How come that all dictators have one thing in common?
They don't understand that the more you forbid certain things, the more people are willing to fight for it.
They should do exactly like in the West: give us the feeling we are free, while a few companies decide what we have to do, what we have to wear, what we have to eat :)
This way, your economy flourishes, you are not perceived as a dictator, and neighbor countries don't want to invade you because of human rights :D
They don't understand that the more you forbid certain things, the more people are willing to fight for it.
They should do exactly like in the West: give us the feeling we are free, while a few companies decide what we have to do, what we have to wear, what we have to eat :)
This way, your economy flourishes, you are not perceived as a dictator, and neighbor countries don't want to invade you because of human rights :D
[deleted]
I would understand blocking WikiLeaks but blocking Wikipedia is a whole level of cenorship. Turkish people should reconsider their freedom. I don't live there and I am not Turk so I can't make more comments not knowing what's really going on there. God bless.
I love the Turkish people and the rich cultural heritage of the country, but everything I hear about Erdogan is pretty scary. My only beef with the people of Turkey is I wish they'd take a leadership role into making peace with the Kurds.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
So, the question is: What can we do as a community? Come on guys. We have probably many of the smartest people on this planet reading this shit here right now.
What can we do? What could be a cool tool, solution, initiative? Ideas anybody?!
What can we do? What could be a cool tool, solution, initiative? Ideas anybody?!
It seems it is forbidden for the Turks to get cultivated like other people in the world... We live in an era of lack of information (which is probably like all other eras)
Does anyone know which article in particular triggered this?
This person seems to have more information: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14225719
not quite sure about world politics, but it seems Turkey is backpedaling fast these days? Maybe one day they can license China's greatwall-firewall IP?
Any alternative ? mirrors ? slimmed torrent distribution ?
http://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Content/tr
Kiwix is one. I'm currently torrenting Turkish and English wikis (https://s.ave.zone/d5a.png) and will be seeding for as much as I can.
I kindly as any person who currently resides in Turkey to do the same.
Kiwix is one. I'm currently torrenting Turkish and English wikis (https://s.ave.zone/d5a.png) and will be seeding for as much as I can.
I kindly as any person who currently resides in Turkey to do the same.
hn gets useless in threads like this. we badly need a collapse comment tree feature.
so much off topic flame wars when everyone should be setting up tor nodes.
so much off topic flame wars when everyone should be setting up tor nodes.
>we badly need a collapse comment tree feature
It's been implemented for a while now. Do you have js disabled?
It's been implemented for a while now. Do you have js disabled?
or maybe s/he just didn't notice the [-]
lol. changed my noscript addon and forgot to whitelist HN. thanks for reminding me
it's true though, the self-absorbed Americans dominating the top thread with an argument about (the USA legal definition of) free speech and how it relates to US specific racial tensions... because they'd rather loudly proclaim their position in a known argument they've had before than sit back, shut up and maybe learn something new about a country they don't know about, with a big problem that can't be explained as "just like in US except for XYZ so they should just PQR" (if only, in reality three comments down in the top thread everyone's forgotten Turkey as the main topic of discussion)
Oh, poor the students there.
This is idiocracy!
I'm pretty disappointed by some of the comments here. Because Turks voted him in that makes Erdogan's autocratic rule OK? There is no free press, hundreds of thousands that have had any association with opposition groups have been jailed, the referendum vote has been widely discredited as fraudulent. Hitler was voted into office too, I guess that just ended up being the German's problem? Democracy doesn't die without a majority of the population allowing it to, that doesn't make it right and that doesn't excuse some of the blase attitude I see here. You know you can care about something without wanting to go to war over it.
On a side note, Hitler was not elected into office but came in second in the election for "Reichskanzler". The NSDAP came out strongest party with 33,1%. Politicians at that time thought they could tame him if he becomes part of a coalition. They guessed wrong and he assumed full power.
If you play the Hitler card at least get it right.
If you play the Hitler card at least get it right.
Some further explanation:
In the Weimar Republic (the German state between the two worlds wars) the Reichskanzler (head of government) was not elected directly by the people. Instead, people voted for parties. The head of state was the President, and it was him who appointed the Reichskanzler.
In January 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Reichskanzler of Germany.
In the Weimar Republic (the German state between the two worlds wars) the Reichskanzler (head of government) was not elected directly by the people. Instead, people voted for parties. The head of state was the President, and it was him who appointed the Reichskanzler.
In January 1933, President Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Reichskanzler of Germany.
And that post had very little power. Hitler more or less became an absolute dictator with the passage of the Enabling Act a few months later. Getting that act through parliament involved arresting a bunch of opposition members and intimidating the rest using armed men, so it really wasn't a democratic process.
...which, as one could argue, brings use nicely back to the original topic of Turkey.
- https://news.vice.com/story/erdogan-is-still-arresting-his-o...
- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-refere...
- https://news.vice.com/story/erdogan-is-still-arresting-his-o...
- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/turkey-refere...
[deleted]
> If you play the Hitler card at least get it right.
NPD is a German right wing party that was founded 1964 and is nothing like the NSDAP that you meant.
Fun fact: NPD was not forbidden in Germany due to too much involvement of the Verfassungsschutz (German secret service for everything inside Germany) - they paid so much money to informants on the extreme right that they managed to build solid structures in large parts of the country.
NPD is a German right wing party that was founded 1964 and is nothing like the NSDAP that you meant.
Fun fact: NPD was not forbidden in Germany due to too much involvement of the Verfassungsschutz (German secret service for everything inside Germany) - they paid so much money to informants on the extreme right that they managed to build solid structures in large parts of the country.
Oh, sorry, mixed that up. Same breed :D Almost typed AfD
Consider if you will - a diffrent approach to infrastructure altogether. There are no cables, no centralized Servers - just wifi capable devices.
How does it route, i hear you asking? It routes by likelihood of connection to social plankton. Social plankton is every group your device ever connects to- and is constituted by those members of the group, which who can gather the most "Yes"-votes about theire prediction, of the behaviour of the group. Take a bus filled with people driving to work. They always constitute from slightly diffrent devices, but the time is always the same, the amount of devices is always the same- and there is always that one deciding device - belonging to the social plankton "transportation-company" without the plankton would never come together.
Now lets take the greatest possible counter example: A convention of bus drivers, riding on a bus to the first convention of its kind. They would debate alot, and agree upon it beeing a bus- but neither could secure a majority - which bus it is. None of the driving by social plankton - called houses and cars, is able to identify the bus of busses, thus a new social plankton class is created.
How does a adress in this add-hoc net look like? It consists of a Unique identifier, wrapped into layers of social plankton, sorted by likelihood. The social organism city is likely to know the social organism university within. The key ingredient is, that inner-plankton, can be encrypted and decrypted only after arrival at the outter plankton.
So this allows for -extremely slow, in extremely big burst- communication to happen. Without any IP-Provider or Infrastructure Controll authority having a hand on it.
Even better, it allows for Meta-Organisms to host services. Lets say, i have a shard of Wikipedia on my cellphone, and im part of the opt-in plankton "FreeSociety", any request to a wikipedia server, that bounces with no return off the web, could bounce back through the social organisms internal, until it reaches me, gets a package returned, and the web is down but the gate is up.
How does it route, i hear you asking? It routes by likelihood of connection to social plankton. Social plankton is every group your device ever connects to- and is constituted by those members of the group, which who can gather the most "Yes"-votes about theire prediction, of the behaviour of the group. Take a bus filled with people driving to work. They always constitute from slightly diffrent devices, but the time is always the same, the amount of devices is always the same- and there is always that one deciding device - belonging to the social plankton "transportation-company" without the plankton would never come together.
Now lets take the greatest possible counter example: A convention of bus drivers, riding on a bus to the first convention of its kind. They would debate alot, and agree upon it beeing a bus- but neither could secure a majority - which bus it is. None of the driving by social plankton - called houses and cars, is able to identify the bus of busses, thus a new social plankton class is created.
How does a adress in this add-hoc net look like? It consists of a Unique identifier, wrapped into layers of social plankton, sorted by likelihood. The social organism city is likely to know the social organism university within. The key ingredient is, that inner-plankton, can be encrypted and decrypted only after arrival at the outter plankton.
So this allows for -extremely slow, in extremely big burst- communication to happen. Without any IP-Provider or Infrastructure Controll authority having a hand on it.
Even better, it allows for Meta-Organisms to host services. Lets say, i have a shard of Wikipedia on my cellphone, and im part of the opt-in plankton "FreeSociety", any request to a wikipedia server, that bounces with no return off the web, could bounce back through the social organisms internal, until it reaches me, gets a package returned, and the web is down but the gate is up.
We've actually planned and developed some pieces of software to allow this, however the main issue is that unless a very big amount of people use it, it's not going to work. Even if I and my friend 1km away uses it, unless there are enough users between us that can relay our messages, it's not going to work.
So we gave up, knowing that 51% would see it as an act of terror or smth, and even if they didn't, they wouldn't use such software or hardware.
So we gave up, knowing that 51% would see it as an act of terror or smth, and even if they didn't, they wouldn't use such software or hardware.
I believe you're on to something, and there is a technical solution here. (Mainly I believe that because it's something I've been saying for years <g>)
Here in the states, the NSA was allowed to view data on telephone calls 3 or 4 levels out from a terrorist. So, for instance, if a terrorist called A, and A called B, and B called C, and so on? The NSA could track C or D.
The argument against that is that it would cover something like 80 or 90% of the population.
Well, there you go. Assume one trillion connected devices and each device is accessible through a "path" of connected devices over 4 or 5 hops, with a percentage_success and average_network_lag time tracked for each path.
Add in a few GB of buffering and the requirement that every connected device use up 10-20% of its bandwidth on public, anonymous access, and you've got a mesh system that's decentralized.
The only other limit I'd add is probably some kind of rules to prevent DDOSing, say a 64Kb message size and a few other things like that.
It's just a math problem.
Here in the states, the NSA was allowed to view data on telephone calls 3 or 4 levels out from a terrorist. So, for instance, if a terrorist called A, and A called B, and B called C, and so on? The NSA could track C or D.
The argument against that is that it would cover something like 80 or 90% of the population.
Well, there you go. Assume one trillion connected devices and each device is accessible through a "path" of connected devices over 4 or 5 hops, with a percentage_success and average_network_lag time tracked for each path.
Add in a few GB of buffering and the requirement that every connected device use up 10-20% of its bandwidth on public, anonymous access, and you've got a mesh system that's decentralized.
The only other limit I'd add is probably some kind of rules to prevent DDOSing, say a 64Kb message size and a few other things like that.
It's just a math problem.
You are right there- but its not just a math problem. Once people would use it, the usual suspects would show up and start to warp this distributed web.
Despots would add sinks that suck in all messages, by pretending to be a known plankton/connection.
Also assume that traditional isps would first try to subvert it and then try to replace it by providing a similar walled in service - warning from the dangerous open source network.
The whole thing would have to be constructed in away like the TOR-Network, preventing the identification of sender and reciver before Arrival.
Finally i think the problem remains, that any sufficiently enough supressing regime, would force its citizens to uninstall such software.
Despots would add sinks that suck in all messages, by pretending to be a known plankton/connection.
Also assume that traditional isps would first try to subvert it and then try to replace it by providing a similar walled in service - warning from the dangerous open source network.
The whole thing would have to be constructed in away like the TOR-Network, preventing the identification of sender and reciver before Arrival.
Finally i think the problem remains, that any sufficiently enough supressing regime, would force its citizens to uninstall such software.
> Finally i think the problem remains, that any sufficiently enough supressing regime, would force its citizens to uninstall such software.
Not force to uninstall - rather regulate, requiring licensure for operation; giving people a reason to be complacent. (Likely in the name of counterterrorism/child safety/etc)
Still, you have a decent grasp of the situation, which is much appreciated. Anyone who still thinks interpolitical issues can be swept away by some "just invent X" has either not lived long enough to know better or are doomed to the delusion that "it's the next one" until they die.
Not force to uninstall - rather regulate, requiring licensure for operation; giving people a reason to be complacent. (Likely in the name of counterterrorism/child safety/etc)
Still, you have a decent grasp of the situation, which is much appreciated. Anyone who still thinks interpolitical issues can be swept away by some "just invent X" has either not lived long enough to know better or are doomed to the delusion that "it's the next one" until they die.
There is never a technical solution, because technical solutions can be regulated, illegallized, require licensures, or so on.
People will not mind requiring a license for "thing X" (esp. when airwaves are involved), and will not run software that can get them thrown in jail.
Sociopolitical problems do not have a naiive tech solution. [0] People do not cease being people if you retreat further into technology.
[0] https://xkcd.com/793/
People will not mind requiring a license for "thing X" (esp. when airwaves are involved), and will not run software that can get them thrown in jail.
Sociopolitical problems do not have a naiive tech solution. [0] People do not cease being people if you retreat further into technology.
[0] https://xkcd.com/793/
I upvoted your opinion, because i think it discuss worthy.
You argue, that sociopolitical constructs can not be made that contain corrossive elements.
I think, some of the democratic institutions proof the opposit.
As in biology containment vessels can be constructed to withstand quite extraordinary corrossive circumstances. The strategys against the corrossion are constant renewel (disposing of counter-measures), counter agents to corrossion (keep the secret services busy with infinite clutter), rerouting of corossive elements (avoid giving them a attack surface- for example by distributing the hidden app via a virus/non visible release group). Finally, and thats the beauty of it- the Centralizers may be the undoing of there own system- after all its usually monocultured (very few os-systems), has a very centralized single point of failure- and the greed involved usually corrodes even there tools. Thus if a NSA backdoor guns down the internt, and this app would still be up, i think on that day, my suggestion could pick up the pieces.
let's, a lot, address, control*, and a meshnet does not solve your fundamental problem [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14220269
TL;DR people will not act to maintain an "illegally unregulated" system that has consequences as soon as you give them a licensure-regulated "safe" consequence-free alternative, see radio wave regulation
TLTLDR: the monkeys with sticks do not magically disappear if you build a new box
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14220269
TL;DR people will not act to maintain an "illegally unregulated" system that has consequences as soon as you give them a licensure-regulated "safe" consequence-free alternative, see radio wave regulation
TLTLDR: the monkeys with sticks do not magically disappear if you build a new box
Why can't there be some sort of peer-2-peer Wikipedia or in fact any database that keeps people from blocking it?
>People in the West need to wake up and do their due diligence on Erdogan's regime. There's some seriously scary stuff happening because of this guy.
Honest question, why should the west care about every single problem that happens anywhere in the world? Why should we spend billions in wars, shed lots of our own blood, etc? Haven't we had enough of that?
Honest question, why should the west care about every single problem that happens anywhere in the world? Why should we spend billions in wars, shed lots of our own blood, etc? Haven't we had enough of that?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14225760 and marked it off-topic.
We do not ask you to declare war, but politically censuring (not censoring) people who abuse their power would have a great effect.
Even if you don't do that, just don't support them: For example, it'd be great if trump didn't call erdogan after referendum to congratulate him.
Even if you don't do that, just don't support them: For example, it'd be great if trump didn't call erdogan after referendum to congratulate him.
I haven't seen a poll, but I suspect a large majority of folks here would say they think the congratulatory call was absurd, inappropriate, and worrisome. The entire rest of the national security establishment within the administration itself would agree. This is the kind of thing that even the President's supporters largely wish he wouldn't do. My point being, we (the people) don't support Erdogan, even if the person who is supposed to speak for us seems to.
Also, until very recently, strong censure of the Erdogan administration's creeping authoritarianism was our policy. It does not seem to have accomplished much.
Also, until very recently, strong censure of the Erdogan administration's creeping authoritarianism was our policy. It does not seem to have accomplished much.
"The West" is not exclusively the US. Plenty of countries pay attention to global politics without "spending billions of dollars fighting wars, shedding lots of their own blood", it's not fair to lump them in with us.
It is possible to care and act WITHOUT overcommitting. Or at least, it is for countries who do not have a schizophrenic model wherein both sides are pushing against each other as hard as they can and so overcommit to everything including an astronomical defense budget.
It is possible to care and act WITHOUT overcommitting. Or at least, it is for countries who do not have a schizophrenic model wherein both sides are pushing against each other as hard as they can and so overcommit to everything including an astronomical defense budget.
In the case of western Europe, we should care because we don't have internal OR external border controls, and Turkey is a neighboring country with a lot of refugees to dump on us.
I wish I understood why there isn't a move to reinstate border checks in the Schengen area.
It seems ludicrous to me to keep internal borders open when it is clear that the external borders have failed.
I wish I understood why there isn't a move to reinstate border checks in the Schengen area.
It seems ludicrous to me to keep internal borders open when it is clear that the external borders have failed.
I wish I understood why there isn't a move to reinstate border checks in the Schengen area.
But there is a move. In fact, multiple countries have done so, although temporarily: https://euobserver.com/migration/130260
Thing is, border control isn't free; it may not be visible for many of us, but there are a lot of people reliant on the openness of our borders for their daily lives. Imagine having to pass a border check on your way to work - that'd be the reality for many EU citizens nowadays if you were to reintroduce country borders.
And would it really solve the problem? What if those migrants just came by boat anyway? What are we going to do, let'em drown?
But there is a move. In fact, multiple countries have done so, although temporarily: https://euobserver.com/migration/130260
Thing is, border control isn't free; it may not be visible for many of us, but there are a lot of people reliant on the openness of our borders for their daily lives. Imagine having to pass a border check on your way to work - that'd be the reality for many EU citizens nowadays if you were to reintroduce country borders.
And would it really solve the problem? What if those migrants just came by boat anyway? What are we going to do, let'em drown?
I have nothing.
I sometimes miss having more black-and-white opinions. Real life is hard.
I sometimes miss having more black-and-white opinions. Real life is hard.
> What if those migrants just came by boat anyway? What are we going to do, let'em drown?
What's wrong with rescuing them and then shipping them back to the coast they sailed off from? If they're on international waters, there are no legal obligations to treat them as asylum seekers.
What's wrong with rescuing them and then shipping them back to the coast they sailed off from? If they're on international waters, there are no legal obligations to treat them as asylum seekers.
Is it practical? As far as I know, unless they're citizens, the countries of such coasts aren't obligated to accept them. And it's often not clear where they're actually from. Plus, what if they're from a war zone?
In the case I have in mind (people trying to get from Lybia to Italy), there's no country to speak of in Lybia currently. Even if there were and it wouldn't agree to the EU ship entering their waters, you can always get very near to the water border, inflate another raft for the people and board them on it. They'd have to sail to Lybia by themselves.
The bigger picture is that these situations would very quickly stop happening if the word spread that it's not longer viable as a way to get into the EU.
The bigger picture is that these situations would very quickly stop happening if the word spread that it's not longer viable as a way to get into the EU.
I wonder if returning them to Libya is actually better than letting them drown.
How will you tell where to ship them if they've discarded their passports?
Ship them to the shore they came from, not their home country. The whole operation could take a couple hours, not weeks/months/years of paper-pushing.
How do you find out where they came from? And is it at all plausible to survey enough of the sea to catch even half of refugees coming in by boat?
Letting them drown is exactly what my (Australian) government did, disgustingly...
All borders should be abolished. No human being has the right to tell any other human being where he can or can't go (with the exception of trespassing on private property, of course).
I don't agree at all, I think it's important to integrate immigrants in a country's culture as well as possible, because not doing so will result in damaging conflict between the existing population and the immigrants who bring conflicting value systems with them. I think the lack of an endless supply of resources for integrating immigrants is a good reason to limit immigration.
I think borders can be very valuable to separate groups with conflicting ideologies and worldviews, but I wish you the best luck in advocating that policy in your local political sphere.
I think borders can be very valuable to separate groups with conflicting ideologies and worldviews, but I wish you the best luck in advocating that policy in your local political sphere.
>(with the exception of trespassing on private property, of course).
This ought to be removed too, along with the whole concept of property.
This ought to be removed too, along with the whole concept of property.
Be the change you want to see!
Go ahead and abolish all your own property, you're free to do so.
Or was it more about you wanting to be entitled to product of your fellow man's labor?
Go ahead and abolish all your own property, you're free to do so.
Or was it more about you wanting to be entitled to product of your fellow man's labor?
>Go ahead and abolish all your own property, you're free to do so.
I do not own any private property.
>Or was it more about you wanting to be entitled to product of your fellow man's labor?
No; in fact, the exact opposite. It is about the worker owning the product of his own labour, rather than having it appropriated when production has finished. To each according to his labour.
I do not own any private property.
>Or was it more about you wanting to be entitled to product of your fellow man's labor?
No; in fact, the exact opposite. It is about the worker owning the product of his own labour, rather than having it appropriated when production has finished. To each according to his labour.
I guess we agree on more than I thought we did.
This is why I insist on working as a contractor and not as an employee: I want to own my intellectual property until I choose to sell it, and I want to create and sell a product that's useful, not be paid for my time.
This is why I insist on working as a contractor and not as an employee: I want to own my intellectual property until I choose to sell it, and I want to create and sell a product that's useful, not be paid for my time.
It's more like not wanting rent-seekers, whose property was given to them at birth, to be entitled to other people's labor. All property is theft, because in the grand scheme of things, we are all renters. We are here on borrowed time, why do we make a system in which some have more rights than others?
Do you have ideas on how to fix that?
I recently heard "land-ownership tax/renting land from the state instead of owning it" and "100% tax on death/abolish inheritance", I think they're interesting but not without problems.
I recently heard "land-ownership tax/renting land from the state instead of owning it" and "100% tax on death/abolish inheritance", I think they're interesting but not without problems.
One of the reasons I work hard is so that my children have a good future ahead of them. Why should my family give that all back to the state when I die? The state didn't earn that money... I did.
> One of the reasons I work hard is so that my children have a good future ahead of them. Why should my family give that all back to the state when I die? The state didn't earn that money... I did.
One could argue that your kids did not earn that money either. As a reasonable middle ground, I think that we there could be a "good future for the children" exemption (at say $20m per child), while the rest is taxed at 100%. This prevents the natural process of concentration of all wealth in the hands of the few.
One could argue that your kids did not earn that money either. As a reasonable middle ground, I think that we there could be a "good future for the children" exemption (at say $20m per child), while the rest is taxed at 100%. This prevents the natural process of concentration of all wealth in the hands of the few.
It's really easy to fix.
The process is called war. Properties are not valuable when tenants and landlords keep dying and the properties themselves might get destroyed.
The process is called war. Properties are not valuable when tenants and landlords keep dying and the properties themselves might get destroyed.
I regularly point people to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Especially in the Nordic countries. Having grown up in Norway, the idea of people e.g. fencing in fields or forests and keeping people off their land seems ludicrous and to an extent offensive. It's a massive restriction of liberty of the many for the benefit of the few.
(it's worth noting that the freedom to roam is generally restricted to non-urban areas, so e.g. not gardens in residential areas and the like)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Especially in the Nordic countries. Having grown up in Norway, the idea of people e.g. fencing in fields or forests and keeping people off their land seems ludicrous and to an extent offensive. It's a massive restriction of liberty of the many for the benefit of the few.
(it's worth noting that the freedom to roam is generally restricted to non-urban areas, so e.g. not gardens in residential areas and the like)
So you want to abolish the freedom for a group of people to decide how many and what kind of people should be able to take up permanent residence within their community? Good luck with that one. Is there a country anywhere that does that? I wonder that you stop at the family level! I suppose you do. If so, why?
[deleted]
I live in Bristol. The people of Manchester have no right to tell me I can't come and live in Manchester.
I live in England. Why can "the people" (although it is surely not the people: it is the government) of Australia decide that I can't come and live there?
I live in England. Why can "the people" (although it is surely not the people: it is the government) of Australia decide that I can't come and live there?
We can "care" yet not "shed lots of our own blood".
Military-intervention-yes-or-no is a completely inappropriate model for the relationship between any given western country and Turkey.
Military-intervention-yes-or-no is a completely inappropriate model for the relationship between any given western country and Turkey.
Human behavior isn't exclusive to one country or one point in time, so if you want to improve where we are going to be tomorrow, it helps to look at the past at one's own history, and all around, and to use this information to make better decisions.
You might see trends or evidence of causality, which may not necessarily happen, but might. Being aware of it can help you, and me, and all of us, to reason and to make the right choices.
For example, you may not believe that your president will become a dictator, but then you look at other countries, and realize that neither did their people, until they got a dictator. There's a lesson in there somewhere. It helps to be aware.
You might see trends or evidence of causality, which may not necessarily happen, but might. Being aware of it can help you, and me, and all of us, to reason and to make the right choices.
For example, you may not believe that your president will become a dictator, but then you look at other countries, and realize that neither did their people, until they got a dictator. There's a lesson in there somewhere. It helps to be aware.
> Honest question, why should the west care about every single problem that happens anywhere in the world?
In this case, West being West Europe:
Because European Union decided to build a federal union which has freedom of movement inside, and no border controls on the outside. What happens in Turkey is directly impacting the security, safety and economy of all Europeans (except the British, who were lectured on their selfishness for not joining the Schengen area).
EU's border control was outsourced to Turkey. So, thank Jean-Claude Juncker, Barroso, Prodi, Santer.
In this case, West being West Europe:
Because European Union decided to build a federal union which has freedom of movement inside, and no border controls on the outside. What happens in Turkey is directly impacting the security, safety and economy of all Europeans (except the British, who were lectured on their selfishness for not joining the Schengen area).
EU's border control was outsourced to Turkey. So, thank Jean-Claude Juncker, Barroso, Prodi, Santer.
> Because European Union decided to build a federal union which has freedom of movement inside, and no border controls on the outside
No border controls on the outside? Are you being hyperbolic or just misinformed? Of course there are border controls (their adequacy/efficiency is another matter).
No border controls on the outside? Are you being hyperbolic or just misinformed? Of course there are border controls (their adequacy/efficiency is another matter).
The adequacy and efficiency, yes.
There are good border controls towards regions where they are not that necessary. For flight passengers from the United States, for instance. Schengen borders towards Russia are fairly solid in Norway and Finland, slightly less so but improving in Estonia, etc.
There is no effective control of entry across the Mediterranean; in fact, there is an ongoing operation which effectively works as a free taxi service for human traffickers who collect the money from passengers who are treated like cargo. The traffickers tow a rubber boat a few miles off the shore of Libya or Turkey, and leave the cargo to wait for a rescue ship with instructions to puncture the raft and expect to be picked up and taken to Europe.
Sometimes the rescue ship is out of capacity, so the people cannot be picked up, the punctured raft will sink and people drown, but this is no loss for the traffickers. We are told that we must go on with this because anything else would be "unhuman".
Upon entry, everyone has mysteriously lost their papers and everyone is admitted without any idea who they are, as long as they utter some code words.
From Turkey, people used to come across using flotation toys. Because EU couldn't get together an act of controlling the maritime border towards Turkey, the union negotiated a deal with Erdogan where Turkey acts as Europe's border control. Now EU is a hostage of Turkey because of this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/turkey-recep...
There are good border controls towards regions where they are not that necessary. For flight passengers from the United States, for instance. Schengen borders towards Russia are fairly solid in Norway and Finland, slightly less so but improving in Estonia, etc.
There is no effective control of entry across the Mediterranean; in fact, there is an ongoing operation which effectively works as a free taxi service for human traffickers who collect the money from passengers who are treated like cargo. The traffickers tow a rubber boat a few miles off the shore of Libya or Turkey, and leave the cargo to wait for a rescue ship with instructions to puncture the raft and expect to be picked up and taken to Europe.
Sometimes the rescue ship is out of capacity, so the people cannot be picked up, the punctured raft will sink and people drown, but this is no loss for the traffickers. We are told that we must go on with this because anything else would be "unhuman".
Upon entry, everyone has mysteriously lost their papers and everyone is admitted without any idea who they are, as long as they utter some code words.
From Turkey, people used to come across using flotation toys. Because EU couldn't get together an act of controlling the maritime border towards Turkey, the union negotiated a deal with Erdogan where Turkey acts as Europe's border control. Now EU is a hostage of Turkey because of this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/turkey-recep...
I agree, EU dropped the ball on this in a major way. From what I've read, Italy (which has been flooded with illegal African immigrants for at least 10 years now) has been calling for addressing the problem, but the EU response was far from enough.
Any response will not help if the response is just working along with the human traffickers by providing the major part of the trip they sell. In fact the response is currently worsening the issue.
People absolutely would not be sent out to open sea in little rafts, if the traffickers and their cargo wouldn't know that if they just manage to float the cargo out of Libyan territorial waters, a large percentage will be picked up and therefore guaranteed entry to EU by bringing them to shore in Italy. This enables them to sell the trips. Those who drown are simply deadweight loss but as long as the proportion is not so large that it would diminish the sale of trips, it won't matter.
Whatever is the operation on sea, it won't help because the business is based on the EU asylum mechanism: once someone is picked up at sea, they cannot be returned to the nearby shore (Libya or whatever) from where they left. And once on EU ground, they'll be free to stay by applying for asylum. Italy is not hugely interested because the people know that there are no jobs in Italy, so they move on towards Germany, Sweden or trying to enter Britain through Calais or such.
It's a hard problem to solve. Most ideas seem to be about coming up with a new Gaddafi, to make a deal with him similarly to the Erdogan deal. This is not very nice either.
People absolutely would not be sent out to open sea in little rafts, if the traffickers and their cargo wouldn't know that if they just manage to float the cargo out of Libyan territorial waters, a large percentage will be picked up and therefore guaranteed entry to EU by bringing them to shore in Italy. This enables them to sell the trips. Those who drown are simply deadweight loss but as long as the proportion is not so large that it would diminish the sale of trips, it won't matter.
Whatever is the operation on sea, it won't help because the business is based on the EU asylum mechanism: once someone is picked up at sea, they cannot be returned to the nearby shore (Libya or whatever) from where they left. And once on EU ground, they'll be free to stay by applying for asylum. Italy is not hugely interested because the people know that there are no jobs in Italy, so they move on towards Germany, Sweden or trying to enter Britain through Calais or such.
It's a hard problem to solve. Most ideas seem to be about coming up with a new Gaddafi, to make a deal with him similarly to the Erdogan deal. This is not very nice either.
Because there's a country with 70 million people on the brink of a civil war right on our doorstep?
Because "The West" includes Europe, which is rather close to Turkey geographically.
Until last year Turkey was in slow but ongoing negotiations to be a member of the European Union.
Until last year Turkey was in slow but ongoing negotiations to be a member of the European Union.
> Honest question, why should the west care about every single problem that happens anywhere in the world? Why should we spend billions in wars, shed lots of our own blood, etc? Haven't we had enough of that?
Because that exactly same attitude, especially by the UK and US led to the rise of Hitler and eventually the Holocaust.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Because that exactly same attitude, especially by the UK and US led to the rise of Hitler and eventually the Holocaust.
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
"Because Hitler" can become the excuse for all kinds of nonsense though.
Witness the Iraq war.
Witness the Iraq war.
The Iraq war was not done "because Hitler". It was as clear as gold that it wasn't just about chemical weapons, but much rather about oil and funneling money into the US weapons industry.
What the Iraq war (just as the Afghanistan war) has lacked and still lacks, unfortunately, is a post-war strategy similar to the Marshall plan...
What the Iraq war (just as the Afghanistan war) has lacked and still lacks, unfortunately, is a post-war strategy similar to the Marshall plan...
While that's factually true I have to guess you may not be in the US or else possibly weren't listening to George Bush's speeches and reading the all the media hype leading up to the event.
There were no shortage of "Because Like Hitler" and "Neville Chamberlain" type arguments being bandied about and the situation was not even remotely similar.
Point being, this kind of rhetoric (in addition to not being a solid argument) is dangerous and easily slips into justification territory. (As we've seen). Cases should evaluated on an individual basis.
There were no shortage of "Because Like Hitler" and "Neville Chamberlain" type arguments being bandied about and the situation was not even remotely similar.
Point being, this kind of rhetoric (in addition to not being a solid argument) is dangerous and easily slips into justification territory. (As we've seen). Cases should evaluated on an individual basis.
cryptarch(4)
Governments yield too much power, meanwhile citizens keep funding said governments with ridiculously high taxes.
Trying to fix governments is counterproductive, just need to decentralize things imho.
Trying to fix governments is counterproductive, just need to decentralize things imho.
Decentralization just leads to non-agreed-upon authorities taking power.
There will always be a monkey or monkeys with bigger or more sticks than you, and you'll always have something they can use more of. Until such a time that you have nothing left and are just a blight on the land they could be using for something else.
There's a reason unorganized societies always collapse into trying to organize themselves.
There will always be a monkey or monkeys with bigger or more sticks than you, and you'll always have something they can use more of. Until such a time that you have nothing left and are just a blight on the land they could be using for something else.
There's a reason unorganized societies always collapse into trying to organize themselves.
You are conflating term "decentralized" with term "unorganized". Switzerland is both highly decentralized and highly organized.
> Governments yield too much power, meanwhile citizens keep funding said governments with ridiculously high taxes.
Good point. In my opinion, paying taxes is the most immoral thing a person can do.
Good point. In my opinion, paying taxes is the most immoral thing a person can do.
> just need to decentralize things imho.
Just -- you say this as if it was easy but no one knows how to do this and whether it is possible at all. Just see how long decentralization lasted in the case of Bitcoin.
Just -- you say this as if it was easy but no one knows how to do this and whether it is possible at all. Just see how long decentralization lasted in the case of Bitcoin.
It's not possible. There will always be organization and hierarchy, whether or not it's under an egalitarian effort (gov't) or a libertarian one ("my gang has more guns than yours, give us money/food/your land")
People who call for dissolution of power do so because they feel powerless against a unified whole. They forget that powerlessness exists in a much stronger form without organization.
I suppose they're welcome to not learn their lesson and try and become the next Jim Jones, but the rest of us will just shrug and say "sad for them" as we continue the pursuit of better democracies and representative governments.
People who call for dissolution of power do so because they feel powerless against a unified whole. They forget that powerlessness exists in a much stronger form without organization.
I suppose they're welcome to not learn their lesson and try and become the next Jim Jones, but the rest of us will just shrug and say "sad for them" as we continue the pursuit of better democracies and representative governments.
What do you mean by "decentralise"? Smaller-scope government at a local level? Anarcho-syndicalism?
I suspect many of the same issues would appear.
I suspect many of the same issues would appear.
> What do you mean by "decentralise"? Smaller-scope government at a local level? Anarcho-syndicalism?
Yes.
> I suspect many of the same issues would appear.
Nope. When democracy is small enough, the leaders are very close to their voters. This changes everything. See small democratic countries, they do much better at being democratic! I think we can make it smaller, and have the democratic process at neighbourhood/village level. Then go up from there with committees filled with delegates from the local-democracies that are for a specific topic (hospitals in the region, roads, schools -- anything local-democracies want to collaborate with others upon). All taxation and voting should happen on the lowest level.
Yes.
> I suspect many of the same issues would appear.
Nope. When democracy is small enough, the leaders are very close to their voters. This changes everything. See small democratic countries, they do much better at being democratic! I think we can make it smaller, and have the democratic process at neighbourhood/village level. Then go up from there with committees filled with delegates from the local-democracies that are for a specific topic (hospitals in the region, roads, schools -- anything local-democracies want to collaborate with others upon). All taxation and voting should happen on the lowest level.
> All taxation and voting should happen on the lowest level.
While I too am tinkering with these ideas, the trouble with this is that we need massive infrastucture work even outside the context of totalitarian self-promotion; and this is not achievable with small-scale local governments. Nowadays nobody is self-sufficient, as even the most simple things we use require material and labour from all over the world [1] that needs to be excavated, processed, produced, moved, bought and sold. I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time.
Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries, most of the theories become more and more irrelevant. If we want a better today, we need newer theories. That's exactly what the totalitarians are doing, they're using new methods and theories of marketing to succeed their way to domination of economical systems.
Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere. A country cannot isolate itself from the outer world in their excess of happines because that last one depends on global welfare today. It's not the ages that you could stay safe when there's conflict thousands of kilometres away anymore.
[1] a nice illustration of this is the famous I, pencil: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
While I too am tinkering with these ideas, the trouble with this is that we need massive infrastucture work even outside the context of totalitarian self-promotion; and this is not achievable with small-scale local governments. Nowadays nobody is self-sufficient, as even the most simple things we use require material and labour from all over the world [1] that needs to be excavated, processed, produced, moved, bought and sold. I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time.
Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries, most of the theories become more and more irrelevant. If we want a better today, we need newer theories. That's exactly what the totalitarians are doing, they're using new methods and theories of marketing to succeed their way to domination of economical systems.
Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere. A country cannot isolate itself from the outer world in their excess of happines because that last one depends on global welfare today. It's not the ages that you could stay safe when there's conflict thousands of kilometres away anymore.
[1] a nice illustration of this is the famous I, pencil: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html
> the trouble with this is that we need massive infrastucture work
Sure. :)
But there are two options. Small steps in the right direction (need a lot of work), or revolution (needs even more work).
> I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time.
Ok. In some cases these structures maybe beneficient, even started on behalf of the small-scale super autonomous self-governments. If not those small-scale govts can just ban (or not give them money anymore) them; they are autonomous.
> Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries
True in the west. Workers here are now "priviledged workers", our economies in the west in need of cheap labor in other places. There the "worker" still exists in its classical form. Here we have a new form, but if you look closely you still see many. To me it is simple, I see capitalists (defined as never "have to" work to survive a fancy life time), and non-capitalists (used to have been referred to as "workers").
> Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere.
That raises the bar very high. I look more at it as a one village/neighbourhood at the time kind of thing.
Do you know "I pencil" from Corbett? He's an agorist I believe, dunno. I'm more towards mutualism/anarchism/market-socialism; as I think private property should have limits (otherwise those ideologies are quite similar).
Sure. :)
But there are two options. Small steps in the right direction (need a lot of work), or revolution (needs even more work).
> I think that if we were to limit all governments to city-state like beings, economical macro-structures that will be more powerful than those states would form in no time.
Ok. In some cases these structures maybe beneficient, even started on behalf of the small-scale super autonomous self-governments. If not those small-scale govts can just ban (or not give them money anymore) them; they are autonomous.
> Also, as today the term worker has so less to do with the worker of the past two centuries
True in the west. Workers here are now "priviledged workers", our economies in the west in need of cheap labor in other places. There the "worker" still exists in its classical form. Here we have a new form, but if you look closely you still see many. To me it is simple, I see capitalists (defined as never "have to" work to survive a fancy life time), and non-capitalists (used to have been referred to as "workers").
> Many utopias are possible, but at the end of the day, if it's not utopia everywhere, it's utopia nowhere.
That raises the bar very high. I look more at it as a one village/neighbourhood at the time kind of thing.
Do you know "I pencil" from Corbett? He's an agorist I believe, dunno. I'm more towards mutualism/anarchism/market-socialism; as I think private property should have limits (otherwise those ideologies are quite similar).
Nothing stops city states from collaborating to build a highway between themselves, where the participants divest the costs amongt all participants (preferably in order of whom benefits the most).
It is a negotiation. It is how underseas fiber cables are laid, how canals are navigated, how the seas and skies are shared.
It is a negotiation. It is how underseas fiber cables are laid, how canals are navigated, how the seas and skies are shared.
That sounds susceptible to a lot of "tragedy of the commons" problems. It's hard enough to make the top-10 nations collaborate against climate change - good luck with hundreds or thousands of small communities.
Similarly, this looks like a world in which few rights or standards could be taken for granted, because everything is decided in local committees or "multilateral" deals between some groups of communities: Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in.
In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities.
Finally, who is going to run large-scale infrastructure like roads, water, the electric grid, the internet, etc? If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities. Other communities will have to negotiate with them to be allowed access to the infrastructure - which is great for the private actors because this means there is absolutely no one who has any leverage over them...
Similarly, this looks like a world in which few rights or standards could be taken for granted, because everything is decided in local committees or "multilateral" deals between some groups of communities: Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in.
In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities.
Finally, who is going to run large-scale infrastructure like roads, water, the electric grid, the internet, etc? If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities. Other communities will have to negotiate with them to be allowed access to the infrastructure - which is great for the private actors because this means there is absolutely no one who has any leverage over them...
(Warning: opinions without citation)
Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology.
Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in.
At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are.
In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities.
Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource.
If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities.
Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book. Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time.
Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology.
Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in.
At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are.
In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities.
Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource.
If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities.
Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book. Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time.
> Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology.
Technology is a tool. There are always humans behind it. (If nothing else, the people designing the algorithms for the AI overlords)
Technology may help us to reach our goals, but in my opinion, it's rather useless if we're not even clear what our goals are.
> At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are.
And then what? It's obvious today how important clean drinking water is. Still people use access to water as a bargaining power and you might not have access to it if you live in a shitty part of the world and have nothing to offer. I don't see why it would be different here.
> Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource.
Then I honestly don't understand the logic of anarcho-capitalists.
So our current system is broken because, even though it has some checks, it still leads to too much accumulation of power.
Therefore we should replace it with a completely unchecked system which will lead to even more accumulation of power - but that's ok because suddenly accumulation of power is actually fine and there is absolutely nothing we could do about it anyway.
How does that make any sense?
> Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book.
In mine, it isn't. But even if it were, who is keeping the communities from using force?
> Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time.
Yes, dominant powers change over time. For most of human history, that timespan was roughly "every few centuries". If you're talking about human life spans, it's absolutely possible that some groups are winning all the time and everyone else is losing all the time. (Oh, and those events where power actually shifted? They usually weren't very pleasant to live in either)
The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing restrictions on power.
Technology is a tool. There are always humans behind it. (If nothing else, the people designing the algorithms for the AI overlords)
Technology may help us to reach our goals, but in my opinion, it's rather useless if we're not even clear what our goals are.
> At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are.
And then what? It's obvious today how important clean drinking water is. Still people use access to water as a bargaining power and you might not have access to it if you live in a shitty part of the world and have nothing to offer. I don't see why it would be different here.
> Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource.
Then I honestly don't understand the logic of anarcho-capitalists.
So our current system is broken because, even though it has some checks, it still leads to too much accumulation of power.
Therefore we should replace it with a completely unchecked system which will lead to even more accumulation of power - but that's ok because suddenly accumulation of power is actually fine and there is absolutely nothing we could do about it anyway.
How does that make any sense?
> Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book.
In mine, it isn't. But even if it were, who is keeping the communities from using force?
> Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time.
Yes, dominant powers change over time. For most of human history, that timespan was roughly "every few centuries". If you're talking about human life spans, it's absolutely possible that some groups are winning all the time and everyone else is losing all the time. (Oh, and those events where power actually shifted? They usually weren't very pleasant to live in either)
The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing restrictions on power.
> I don't see why it would be different here.
It would not. But then the water-poor would realize its better to be practicial than idiological. I believe in real life noone is all-poor. One as an individual or group has always something to offer. The water-poor/everyone would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford.
> How does that make any sense?
Ancap are not happy with current state of inequality which is due to violence. Inequality due to trading-power is "ok". Though not bundled with ancapism, wars against current market leaders are heavely encouraged and just occur naturally.
> If you're talking about human life spans, ...
Though I concur this is not what I said. If you restrict the time period ofcourse you are going to find all sort of anomolies.
> The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing restrictions on power.
Current systems do not distinguish between powers who break NAP and who does not. If current systems just focus on the former and leave latter alone not only the unpleasent shifts of powers can be avoided but also libertarianism/ancapism need not exist.
It would not. But then the water-poor would realize its better to be practicial than idiological. I believe in real life noone is all-poor. One as an individual or group has always something to offer. The water-poor/everyone would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford.
> How does that make any sense?
Ancap are not happy with current state of inequality which is due to violence. Inequality due to trading-power is "ok". Though not bundled with ancapism, wars against current market leaders are heavely encouraged and just occur naturally.
> If you're talking about human life spans, ...
Though I concur this is not what I said. If you restrict the time period ofcourse you are going to find all sort of anomolies.
> The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing restrictions on power.
Current systems do not distinguish between powers who break NAP and who does not. If current systems just focus on the former and leave latter alone not only the unpleasent shifts of powers can be avoided but also libertarianism/ancapism need not exist.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that stuff, btw. I don't agree at all with the philosophy but I think it's good to understand the logic behind it.
>The water-poor/everyone would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford.
Except there are places today where there is a right to clean drinking water for everyone - presumably you and me are living in such places. (That's why I was saying "in shitty countries"). So the "not everyone can afford it" point is not an universal truth. Of course it's true if you build a system that wants to make it true.
>Ancap are not happy with current state of inequality which is due to violence. Inequality due to trading-power is "ok". Though not bundled with ancapism, wars against current market leaders are heavely encouraged and just occur naturally.
I suppose the underlying assumption is that such wars can be won relatively easily and painlessly - I find that assumption highly questionable.
>Though I concur this is not what I said.
Indeed you didn't. My point was that your assumption only holds in time spans that are not practically relevant.
>Current systems do not distinguish between powers who break NAP and who does not.
I don't see why violence is seen as such an important point here. There are lots of other ways I can abuse power that don't involve physical violence.
E.g., suppose I own some land that is crossed by a river that happens to be the major water source for some downstream communities. Now I can build a dam and make all kinds of outrageous demands to the communities and there is little they could do:
- they could try to find alternative water sources - which may be difficult or infeasible, depending on terrain. If I'm determined, I might also make it difficult by bringing as many relevant water sources under my control as possible.
- they could seize my dam or try to drive me away with force - which would violate property ownership and the NAP.
- they could give in to my demands, proving that my interests clearly outweigh the interests of the downstream citizens. Sucks to be them.
>The water-poor/everyone would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford.
Except there are places today where there is a right to clean drinking water for everyone - presumably you and me are living in such places. (That's why I was saying "in shitty countries"). So the "not everyone can afford it" point is not an universal truth. Of course it's true if you build a system that wants to make it true.
>Ancap are not happy with current state of inequality which is due to violence. Inequality due to trading-power is "ok". Though not bundled with ancapism, wars against current market leaders are heavely encouraged and just occur naturally.
I suppose the underlying assumption is that such wars can be won relatively easily and painlessly - I find that assumption highly questionable.
>Though I concur this is not what I said.
Indeed you didn't. My point was that your assumption only holds in time spans that are not practically relevant.
>Current systems do not distinguish between powers who break NAP and who does not.
I don't see why violence is seen as such an important point here. There are lots of other ways I can abuse power that don't involve physical violence.
E.g., suppose I own some land that is crossed by a river that happens to be the major water source for some downstream communities. Now I can build a dam and make all kinds of outrageous demands to the communities and there is little they could do:
- they could try to find alternative water sources - which may be difficult or infeasible, depending on terrain. If I'm determined, I might also make it difficult by bringing as many relevant water sources under my control as possible.
- they could seize my dam or try to drive me away with force - which would violate property ownership and the NAP.
- they could give in to my demands, proving that my interests clearly outweigh the interests of the downstream citizens. Sucks to be them.
> E.g. ...
Economic warfare is the non-violent weapon. Win is not guranteed but still its very effective. You as water-blocker will lose something if not due to downstream community then others.
I also would guess that its a rare scenario otherwise market would have a solution.
> I don't see why violence is seen as such an important point here.
Because a violent actor is much worse. Ancap is solution to one specific problem not a path to utopia.
Economic warfare is the non-violent weapon. Win is not guranteed but still its very effective. You as water-blocker will lose something if not due to downstream community then others.
I also would guess that its a rare scenario otherwise market would have a solution.
> I don't see why violence is seen as such an important point here.
Because a violent actor is much worse. Ancap is solution to one specific problem not a path to utopia.
But, eventually those "leaders" you seem to trust will find an enemy and unite to "fight" it.
I personally don't see why people even vote, I think the solution is to make sure the internet is protected from "leaders", not by voting and making temporary "rules" with the government, but by making sure it's global and decentralized.
Also, keep in mind that your idea of government won't protect the internet forever.
I personally don't see why people even vote, I think the solution is to make sure the internet is protected from "leaders", not by voting and making temporary "rules" with the government, but by making sure it's global and decentralized.
Also, keep in mind that your idea of government won't protect the internet forever.
> But, eventually those "leaders" you seem to trust will find an enemy and unite to "fight" it.
Hopefully the enemy within.
> Also, keep in mind that your idea of government won't protect the internet forever.
First, do most Turks want free or protected access? Lets assume they want free access. If they cannot have it it shows the system of gov't is not democratic enough (or they have "traded" their request in some way, but that's not the case now).
Hopefully the enemy within.
> Also, keep in mind that your idea of government won't protect the internet forever.
First, do most Turks want free or protected access? Lets assume they want free access. If they cannot have it it shows the system of gov't is not democratic enough (or they have "traded" their request in some way, but that's not the case now).
So what was that you were saying about "trying to fix governments being pointless"? Or is this proposal not "a government" in your eyes.
> Then go up from there with committees filled with delegates from the local-democracies
This is sounding pretty much like a parliamentary or congressional system. (yes, congresses do exist that differ from the US')
> Then go up from there with committees filled with delegates from the local-democracies
This is sounding pretty much like a parliamentary or congressional system. (yes, congresses do exist that differ from the US')
> So what was that you were saying about "trying to fix governments being pointless"?
We should not dress up authoritarianism as something good. But some form of governing needs (and will anyway) to take place. I believe the best place for the center of this to happen in "close by", local, or small-scope.
> Or is this proposal not "a government" in your eyes.
It proposes a collection of most authorative governments, with layers above that are less authoritative and on-topic.
This is the opposite of a nation state, that tends to cluster power/tax-revenue at the top.
We should not dress up authoritarianism as something good. But some form of governing needs (and will anyway) to take place. I believe the best place for the center of this to happen in "close by", local, or small-scope.
> Or is this proposal not "a government" in your eyes.
It proposes a collection of most authorative governments, with layers above that are less authoritative and on-topic.
This is the opposite of a nation state, that tends to cluster power/tax-revenue at the top.
Anybody reading this, I'd take any suggestion about such social organisation / (a)political structures.
Structures are political, politics rise naturally where human interactions (especially indirect interactions) exist. The question is how to make sure that politics are based upon and executed according to facts and principals like plurality, equal rights to human dignity and mutual respect. It's sort of obvious today that democracy as we have it is not workin like that, and that big structures like countries are hard to keep clean.
Exactly. On HN I expect people to guess that the current structures aren't "scalable" (sorry). So maybe a nice deep tweak to trim the fat, reduce height, simplify energy currents to avoid corruption, bureaucracy, endless bipolar swings ..
We have the technology we can rebuild it. (actually I think the solution is lo-tech.. basically prolonged discussions, hard, but not impossible)
We have the technology we can rebuild it. (actually I think the solution is lo-tech.. basically prolonged discussions, hard, but not impossible)
In such discussions, its usually forgotten that how smooth modern travel and migration is. Just make it more smooth/quick then concept of libertarianism/socialism/etc becomes increasengly moot.
If the architecture of society is distributed, then these issues won't appear.
[deleted]
Add to this that a large portion of the web content is controlled by fewer entities (if Facebook or Google bans your site, you are not going to get very much exposure). Also, we are moving from user controlled general purpose computers to secured, walked garden devices. The government by applying pressure on maybe a dozen companies, can control what type of information the average person is exposed to.
And the whole dodge that the first amendment only applies to the government is dangerous. Freedom of speech is as much a principle as a law. If we get used to large powerful non-government entities suppressing speech we do not like, it will be a brief step to accepting government doing the same or at least pressuring the non-government entities to so it.