| ▲ | slg 2 days ago |
| It's weird how many people's perception of this type of behavior is shaped by the person sitting in the White House. EDIT: It's also weird how my comment is being perceived exclusively as criticizing the critics of this administration rather than criticizing the supporters of this overreach. My comment was intentional phrased very generally, if you think it is specifically about you, that reveals something about you. |
|
| ▲ | harimau777 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Wouldn't it be weird if that didn't shape their perception? It's not surprising that people are less trusting when an authoritarian is in power. |
| |
| ▲ | postingawayonhn 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But the assumptions should always be that one day someone like that could take power and gain access to that data. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The way to prevent authoritarians from abusing power is to not elect them, and to throw them in jail when they violate the law. They're not hard to spot; people warned about the current guy for a decade before he took over. What's happening right now is not because the government had a database lying around and an unspecified authoritarian picked it up. What's happening is that after a specific authoritarian staged a coup against the government, he was nevertheless allowed to continue his anti-democratic efforts. Trump should have a 27 year sentence like his Brazilian compatriot Bolsonaro, who in monkey-see-monkey-do fashion, similarly affected a coup against his government. Had we actually prosecuted those crimes the way Brazil did, we could still be talking about how to prevent theoretical authoritarian governments from abusing their power. But now we have a specific instance, and in this case, all the anti-authoritarian measures in the world mean jack if the government just allows actual insurrectionists to run for president, which is barred by the Constitution for a good reason. In that case they're just asking for it. | | |
| ▲ | slg a day ago | parent | next [-] | | >The way to prevent authoritarians from abusing power is to not elect them, and to throw them in jail when they violate the law. This was the true motivation for my comment. It's futile trying to design your laws to withstand the dangers of a future authoritarian regime taking power when that authoritarian regime can just as easily change or ignore those laws once they take control. Our government is experiencing a rubber hose attack, the strength of our encryption doesn't matter. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech a day ago | parent [-] | | Yup, the fight against American authoritarianism happened between 2015 and 2025. It's now over, authoritarianism won. All that's left now is for it to burn itself out as people bear the consequences they refused for a decade to entertain were possible. We spent 10 years warning about him, pointing out his specific authoritarian tendencies, January 6 was predicted years before it happened, but when people said "he's not going to leave" they were met with mockery. Who tf cares about databases when their plan was to just use their power to throw out entire states worth of votes? The entire J6 plot was that Pence was to reject the certification of the vote so that states could send "alternative electors" who voted for Trump, which would have disenfranchised millions of people at once. What is the law supposed to do against such anti-democratic "might makes right" depravity? At that point, the players have abandoned the game entirely, they're playing by different rules, your laws are meaningless. Edit: to the dead comment below me: > If you actually believed you were living under a dangerous, authoritarian government you wouldn't be posting about it on the internet. You'd be scared shitless trying to delete any trace of this connected to yourself. Bro, I'm already labelled part of a terrorist organization by this government for my political beliefs. There's nothing I can say here or elsewhere that would change that, so at this point my fate is locked in because I'm not going to change what I believe. There's not point in hiding anything, now is not a time for hiding, it's a time for speaking your mind. These people are authoritarians, but they are not all powerful. Yet. They have no consolidated power. Yet. They 100% want to, but that's not going to be possible as long as people continue to speak out. Read Timothy Snyder's, On Authoritarianism. He describes what you suggest is the rational response as "obeying in advance", which is the primary way in which the authoritarians seize power -- it's freely given by people who are too afraid to push back. | | |
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem is that people really want authoritarianism, to use against their enemies. | | |
| ▲ | potato3732842 a day ago | parent [-] | | >The problem is that people really want authoritarianism, to use against their enemies. Look no further than a typical HN comment thread on a niche public policy issue. They are rife with people scheming up all sorts of ways to thread the needle of public policy so that government enforcement action far in excess of what the public would support can be brought to bear on whoever is on the wrong side of whatever the issue being discussed is. | | |
| ▲ | ModernMech a day ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, if you go into my comment history from just this week there's a guy who told me "We won the last election. We can and will, with sadness but determination power, turn the power of the state against you and make you leave us the hell alone." That's the mindset of an authoritarian. No needle threading here though, just use "the power of the state to" get our way (no sadness detected). |
|
| |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It still amazes me that there was no penalty for storing classified paperwork in his bathroom. I always thought that governments treated security very seriously, but apparently not. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | He got lucky that the sitting attorney general was loathe to appear that he was politically motivated, so was very slow to appoint a special prosecutor. He then got extremely lucky that his hand picked judge was assigned to the case, and slow walked it until he got reelected and took control of the very department that was investigating him. This on top of the fact that the "law and order" party apparently is only for law and order if it's being used against people they don't like. Evidently most people aren't self aware enough to question their own beliefs, who knew? |
|
| |
| ▲ | rsynnott a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I mean I think, while that possibly always _should_ have been the assumption, 20 years ago the assumption would have been very much that someone like that could _not_ take power, and that the worst the US had to fear was the likes of Dick Cheney (admittedly still pretty bad). The idea that the US might just transform into a weird batshit autocracy is really _pretty new_; it wasn't taken all _that_ seriously even in Trump's first term, because, well, the courts will just slap him down, right? | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think most people realize just how slow the court system is. It's horribly underfunded. They generally come to good decisions, but it takes a really long time, and a lot of damage can happen in the mean time. |
|
| |
| ▲ | rootusrootus a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | At this point, at least a third of the country always thinks an authoritarian is in power. | | |
| ▲ | whoooboyy a day ago | parent [-] | | FWIW, I've believed we've had an authoritarian in power for quite a while now. Obama, Trump, Biden, and Bush have all tried and succeeded in expanding executive power. They've all engaged in extrajudicial killings overseas. Nothing sets me off like seeing people think this behavior from Trump doesn't have shared roots across both parties. Biden kept kids in cages. Obama bombed weddings. Yes, the current admin is accelerating hard but like, prior admins were accelerating. People should really try to stop thinking about politics like it's a two party game where you have to pick a side. Figure out your principles, and start finding candidates who match those principles. | | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, it has been accelerating a long time. But I worry a bit about toning it down too much by both-sides-ing it. The Dems were no angels, but they most assuredly did not ever try to overturn the counting of the vote for president. They did not relentlessly claim the whole game was rigged. They never openly mocked the citizens who did not vote for them, made policy specifically to spite red states, etc. Or created government web sites like https://www.whitehouse.gov/mysafespace By both-sides-ing this, it plays into hands of the people who support the current abhorrent behavior by claiming they're not doing anything different than their opponents have done. That is patently false, and we should not accept it. | | |
| ▲ | whoooboyy a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm sorry, I refuse to just simply not acknowledge the role liberalism has in the rise of fascism. Whether it's in the past or today, fascism don't just materialize because one guy talks good. It's neither incorrect nor inappropriate to say (neo)liberalism and austerity are direct antecedents to fascist rhetoric. It's not both sidesing to identify and critique the role democrats had to play here, especially when I say the gop is clearly worse. A critical assessment of how the Dems failed to protect us is not only not helping the GOP, it's exactly the sort of root cause analysis that helps ensure the mid terms go OK. Saying now's not the time to criticize Dems is the same sentiment that gets us "vote blue no matter who" when Biden runs but "I think we have to consider our options" when Mamdani runs. It's sticking your head in the sand rather than having to face the fact that the party has a losing platform. | | |
| ▲ | amrocha a day ago | parent [-] | | I didn’t agree with your first comment, but reading this one I think we actually have very similar opinions. I think your first comment sounded a bit too much like the libertarian nut jobs that comment on here all the time claiming drivers licenses are fascism. There’s this quote I read recently: “When a political system collapses, the replacement is chosen from the choices available at the time ”. I think it’s pretty clear to anyone with a brain that neoliberalism has failed the majority of people. Trump provided an alternative, and democrats ran on “nothing will fundamentally change”. The results are what we see today. |
|
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >FWIW, I've believed we've had an authoritarian in power for quite a while now. Relevant: https://img.ifunny.co/images/d85bf67967cdc2fd0616343ed6c1004... | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | thrance a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | whoooboyy a day ago | parent [-] | | Did you read my post, where I clearly said the GOP is worse? Better is not the same as good. The Dems are better. They are still bad. Stop pretending "not the worst" is an acceptable bar. | | |
| ▲ | LadyCailin a day ago | parent [-] | | Step 1 is to get people to stop readily voting for the worst option. Step 2 is to get people to vote for the right option. When you confuse the order of these two steps, you short yourself and others in the foot. |
|
| |
| ▲ | epolanski a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Authoritarianism by definition is about controlling all the forms of power, not about expanding one. Nor it has anything to do with what countries do around the world. You can be democratically elected, law abiding, not overreach and bomb weddings abroad, those are not related. US has the same constitutional weakness of the countries that went authoritarian in the last decades: a presidential republic. There's one thing that Russia, Belarus, Philippines, Tunisia, Turkey, Nicaragua made constitutionally simpler to allow authoritarianism to happen, they gave the country a president elected by the government. Thus enabling:
- personality cult
- hard to remove individuals
- claiming popular mandate despite anything
- deadlocks All those situations are breeding grounds for chaos. Say what you want about slow Europe, but it's hard, very hard to pull this stuff here where most countries don't have popular elections for presidents. In parliamentary republics those shifts are very difficult and are generally centred on party-ism, so identification between state and party. This is the Indian and Hungarian playbook, as the constitutions don't allow individuals to power grab with ease, it's a very tougher game to succeed. You don't win an election and start firing executive orders and stretching their limits while courts get to decide what the limits are. | | |
| ▲ | ta20240528 a day ago | parent [-] | | "You can be … law abiding … and bomb weddings abroad" No you can't. International law (e.g. UN charters, Geneva conventions, etc.) once ratified become actual US domestic law. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Wouldn't it be weird if that didn't shape their perception? No. I flat out reject the excuse you make on their behalf and consider you lesser than you would be had you not made it. We're presumably discussing adults, not ten year olds or monkeys. They ought to f-ing act like it. These people are almost all likely capable of the emotional restraint and logical thinking and sufficient abstract thought to think these things through and decide whether policy or action is good or bad regardless of if it's their guy doing it or their interest being served by it. The fact that they decline to do so is a failing of them. To excuse it only serves to reinforce or validate it and should be ridiculed. | |
| ▲ | parineum a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What makes this objectionable is that it's an authoritarian thing to do. | |
| ▲ | dabbledash 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They should bear in mind that someone they consider an authoritarian will inevitably be elected. | |
| ▲ | stronglikedan a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's not surprising that people are less trusting when an authoritarian is in power. The majority of Americans don't feel that way, but did about the last administration, and enough to do something about it. What's surprising is, given that revelation, a few people still actually think that. |
|
|
| ▲ | doctoboggan 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I see it as a blessing: privacy advocates have previously argued that yes these invasive tools might currently help an honest government do its job to stop bad guys, but the tools could eventually fall into the hands of a not so honest government. Now, you don't really need much of an imagination to see what happens when the tools fall into the wrong hands, and hopefully more of the citizenry can get behind the idea of privacy as a fundamental right, and not just something for those who have something to hide. |
|
| ▲ | hedora a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Do you have any evidence that public concern over privacy changes depending on who is in the white house? A quick search suggests a solid majority has been consistently upset about this issue for decades. The phrasing of the question seems to have more impact than the year, but I cannot find any hard data on consumer privacy concern trends over years. Such trend data would be useful. |
|
| ▲ | epolanski a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I don't think it is. I think it's selective attention plus recency bias. This drift has started 24 years ago with 9/11 and no president has stopped or slowed it. People who dislike who's in charge say the same things as always, people who dislike such measures same the same things as always regardless of who's in the white house, etc. |
|
| ▲ | nozzlegear 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Fwiw, I would be unhappy with the Biden and Obama administrations trying to do this as well. For me this has nothing to do with who's in the White House, it's an overreach plain and simple. |
| |
| ▲ | pixelready 2 days ago | parent [-] | | 100%. Let’s not let partisanship distract us from the omni-presence of the military industrial complex and the authoritarian bent of everyone who’s been in power in the US over the last several decades. Dems will tinker around the edges to make it more palatable, but there’s still: black sites, torture, drone strikes, unjustified wars, installing of puppet governments in sovereign nations, abuse of the commons for private profit and an absolute hunger for every scrape of your data to monitor and manipulate you no matter who is in the White House. If I have to choose between voting for pro-corporate neoliberalism or fascism 2.0, I’ll vote the former, but that’s basically just asking which speed you’d like quality of life to erode for the average person. I’d really like a couple more options on the ballot please. | | |
| ▲ | noduerme a day ago | parent [-] | | Nit: Quality of life for average Germans went up, not down, once they brought back slavery and started pillaging other countries. If that's the metric we're using to decide what form of government we want, then all bets are off; ethics and morality play no part. | | |
| ▲ | ksaun a day ago | parent | next [-] | | To be fair, pixelready said "average person," not "average American." | | |
| ▲ | pixelready 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, I would not like my own prosperity to come at the cost of others’ suffering (where “others” here means all of humanity). I understand hard choices must sometimes be made but I think our technology has progressed to the point that we can honestly provide a good quality of life for the vast majority of human beings globally if we were able to overcome old modes of thinking and actually set ourselves to that problem. But it seems there are certain types of people or that under certain circumstances have grown to have this twisted need for “all”, instead of “just enough”. I don’t really understand that mindset as I haven’t experienced it myself. If my friends and family had UBI that allowed us all a good quality of life, I would split my time between spending time with them, reading and endlessly tinkering with new technology and adjacent creative fields, and be perfectly satisfied with that life. I crave the occasional toy, but simply don’t understand this constant ache for material accumulation that some people have. It seems to hurt them as much as it does everyone else around them. | | |
| ▲ | noduerme 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Just from reading your comment, I think I have a very similar view to yours about the meaning of life, what constitutes a life well lived, and what we should spend our time on. Like you, I'm ridiculously uninterested in toys, especially toys that are bought to show status (as opposed to ones you're just interested in). Like you, I'm very satisfied with a life of tinkering and exploring code / art / music / writing that makes me a full person with a sense of accomplishment. As someone who came from the extremely far left (with an anarchist bent), I just want to respond to this, though: >> it seems there are certain types of people or that under certain circumstances have grown to have this twisted need for “all”, instead of “just enough”. My observation has been that the desire for all, or at least more, is inherent to all people. You may be happy with a UBI, but the great complaint is wealth inequality. I look around and find myself pretty well-off, with easy access to goods and services my father struggled for, and which my grandfather could never have imagined. I look around and see people of my own well-off technical elite upper-middle-class touting stuff like Maoism, because America allegedly has worse wealth inequality than China did in the 1970s. And logically I have to ask: Are these people so obsessed with keeping up with the Joneses that they can't see what they have? Greed comes in different forms, right? There's this amazing line in Dostoevsky's "Devils": Why is it that all these desperate socialists and communists are so incredibly miserly, acquisitive, and proprietorial? In fact, the more socialist someone is, the further he's gone in that direction, the stronger his proprietorial instinct. Why is it?" Okay, so imagine you live a life with 100x the material wealth of your grandfather, like me, but you still are in the middle 40-60% of the country in terms of wealth. You'll never own a private jet, you'll never party on a private island. The question is: Are you happy with yourself and your life? Can you see how much prosperity you've achieved and be proud of it? Or do you spend your time worrying that someone else has more than you, that it's unfair, that the system is rigged against you, etc. Maybe this is because I come from an immigrant family mindset, but, prosperity and self-reliance are so much more important to me than trying to compare my life to what anyone else has. Personally, I'd be happy enough in a prison cell or on my death bed, if I had a pen and paper to write on. So I'm okay with other people having luxuries I don't have. I count each day as an amazing blessing if I can wake up, find work, get laid, eat a good meal, watch a good Netflix show, get stoned and go to bed with my lover. Every single one. I never for a moment thought that Elon or Bezos or any of them were happy. Their toys always seem to rot, their possessions don't intrigue me because they're clearly miserable. In large bore: Those "certain types of people" you mention exist on both the Left and the Right - they will find a way to blame anyone who has something they don't have. That's the genesis of all the nasty politics we see. I'm not advocating for having less or having nothing or anything like that. I'm just saying, a small amount of appreciation (historically) for what you have now goes a long way toward letting people be happy and chill instead of angry and aggrieved. And someone will always have more unless you're the King of AI or King of Logistics or King of Twitter. So, we lead more modest lives, but lives are all finite, and we have happiness that they can't possibly achieve. |
|
| |
| ▲ | aids_bomb a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | jMyles 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's also weird how people gatekeep resistance on the basis of their perception that it's motivated by the person sitting in the White House. If people are ready to resist now, let's welcome them, rather than questioning whether their motives are related to some tangentially related disagreement. |
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 a day ago | parent [-] | | >It's also weird how people gatekeep resistance on the basis of their perception that it's motivated by the person sitting in the White House. Because let's be real here, whether such discussion is allowed to stand or is shut down in a politically fairly homogenous community is typically a direct reflection of that fact. You see the same thing on the opposite side of the isle. >If people are ready to resist now, let's welcome them, rather than questioning whether their motives are related to some tangentially related disagreement. You have to draw a line somewhere. This sort of shortsighted expediency based politics is how we got the current political parties. |
|
|
| ▲ | comrh 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Biden cancelled this during his administration |
|
| ▲ | analog8374 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |