> More abstractly I think that a multi-cultural or multi-ethnic society at scale is not able to handle anonymous and private communication without collapsing. If we dont go in the direction of benevolent censorship like China and Singapore I think the west is going to see some dark times.

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither and will lose both.

▲

sumeruchat 2 days ago | parent [-]

yeah this is what they say but I think this argument doesnt work at scale. Singapore and China are both safer and relatively free-er than many places

	▲	atmosx 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It works remarkably well at scale. In fact, this is the defining trait of all cities, states, and nations that became historical points of reference like Troy, Athens, Rome, Constantinople, Venice, London the US and possibly China in the future. Each of them thrived because they embraced diversity and freedom, etc. giving themselves access to a much larger pool of skilled talent. Venice offers the clearest example. At its height, they could appoint someone as unconventional as a sub-Saharan Muslim to command their fleet (think of Othello). But the moment they shifted to a locals-only approach for key positions, their dominance began to crumble. The problem is that usually locals feel cast aside. And while they too get the benefits, they rarely see them as such… They feel entitled and screwed. Don’t care about the big picture. Ps. Of course this is very high level as each of these cities / states / etc collapsed under slightly different circumstances.