| ▲ | IAmGraydon 15 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
It's getting downvoted because (1) this person is suggesting the answer to governments taking away our ability to freely communicate is to stop freely communicating (2) he's giving life advice from a terrorist mass murderer. Yes, you're not at risk from being cut off from the world if you're not connected to it in the first place. That's not a state most of us want to exist in. Ted Kaczynski lived in a small cabin in the woods away from humanity. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ffuxlpff 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
The solutions requiring constant internet connection are pushed by states and companies because they help cutting costs and gathering information. However, the users are often more vulnerable to the risks if the technology fails but have relatively little say. The solutions that do much the same but require internet connection only once a day or even once an hour would be much more resilient and safe but currently there are few incentives for providers to develop and offer them. The extreme situations like war or dictatorship are good awakening calls but it is easy to see there are lots of risks involved even if things would go rather smoothly otherwise. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | blueflow 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> this person is suggesting the answer to governments taking away our ability to freely communicate is to stop freely communicating You equate comms with internet. Maybe you should talk to people IRL more often. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||