| |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | People don’t disagree with your moral position. The problem is you’re bringing a butter knife to a drone fight. There are more effective ways protest this law than posting punk-rhetoric on a nerd forum for a project that will likely fly under the governments radar anyway. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Public expressions of defiance are motivating to people who don’t yet recognize that they have allies. | | |
| ▲ | lrvick 2 days ago | parent [-] | | At least one person understands my intentions. You made my day. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere a day ago | parent [-] | | There are more of us than it appears, but we usually don’t speak out. Thanks for making a stand. | | |
| ▲ | hnlmorg a day ago | parent [-] | | We get their intentions. We just disagree with the effectiveness of it. Posting rhetoric on an anonymous message board is not making a stand. If and when they’re doxxed by US media outlets, and slapped with life-changing court orders, with their work and families directly affected by their decisions; then they’re making a stand. But until that point, their words are as meaningless as their view of this law. Eg I can confidently say I’m not going to comply with this law either. But you have no reason to assume that will make any difference nor that I wouldn’t fold the moment I’m put under the slightest amount of pressure. If people really wanted to make a stand then they’d be drumming up support in real life, not anonymously. They’d be speaking to government representatives. They’d be raising financial support for lobbying change. I’m old enough to have lived through multiple iterations of unpleasant laws being passed and each time a movement against it has been online-only, that protest has achieved nothing. So I know the real reason this maintainer is speaking as boldly as they are is because they know the government hasn’t heard of them nor their distro. Ie it’s a “making a stand” by doing exactly nothing. But it will also achieve exactly nothing too. | | |
| ▲ | lrvick a day ago | parent [-] | | Who needs to dox me? I am a using my legal name on here and am super easy to look up. This law is stupid and I gleefully and openly mock it and those that think it is enforceable under my well known public identity. No one should take these unenforceable overreaches seriously. People will be jailed for not putting age verification code in software as soon as they will for piracy, or owning a 3D printer without gun-detecting spyware. It is a fear tactic with no ability to enforce. My message here should be pretty clear: Open source international community owned operating systems can just completely refuse to comply and nothing will happen to them. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere a day ago | parent [-] | | Historically, mockery is also the best weapon against authoritarianism. It demonstrates that the state can’t control every aspect of citizens’ lives, especially their beliefs and attitudes. And if the state attempts to exert control, the mockery can be moved towards the subtle, forcing ever-more ridiculous actions like banning people from holding blank sheets of paper (China, UK). This demonstrates weakness, which encourages others to join. In China at least, the blank paper protests were successful in making the government loosen up its extreme “zero-COVID” policies (welding shut the gates of apartment buildings, sealing off cities, etc). | | |
| ▲ | otterley a day ago | parent [-] | | Historically, armed conflict has proved to be the best weapon against authoritarianism, not mere mockery. The American Colonies had to fight a war to gain independence from Britain. The Third Reich was defeated by Allied soldiers. The Japanese emperor was defeated by nuclear bombs. Dictators in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, Angola and Mozambique, and Libya were all toppled by armed uprisings--the list goes on. The "blank paper protests" might have been effective at persuading the Chinese government to undo some measures, but that government is no less authoritarian and repressive than it ever was. | | |
| ▲ | iamnothere a day ago | parent [-] | | Are you really suggesting that armed conflict would be a better option here? Armed conflict is a last resort. It often leads to mass death and destruction, and just as often leads to worse authoritarianism, as in the French, Russian, and Chinese revolutions. Mockery was very successful in maintaining morale among oppressed groups in both Nazi and Soviet Europe, as well as in many Latin American dictatorships, in times when armed rebellion wasn’t a realistic option. It was also effective during the Yugoslav Wars (Otpor) and the Vietnam War (inside the US). If mockery weren’t an effective weapon, political cartoons and political satire (and establishment attacks on them) wouldn’t exist. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Are you really suggesting that armed conflict would be a better option here? Of course not. I'm simply refuting your assertion that "mockery is...the best weapon against authoritarianism." > If mockery weren’t an effective weapon, political cartoons and political satire (and establishment attacks on them) wouldn’t exist. Mockery can be effective in inspiring others to topple authoritarian regimes or amass public support for doing so. But it is rarely, in and of itself, the weapon that does it. It's better thought of as a catalyst. I'll also remind you that we still live in a democracy, not an authoritarian regime, despite whatever characterizations people make about our leaders (and some certainly might lean toward authoritarian if the Constitution allowed them to). The most effective means of change in a democracy are persuading voters and politicians. Mockery can help here, to the extent it engenders the sympathies of the larger population. That doesn't seem likely, though, given the content I've seen in this thread. | | |
| ▲ | lrvick 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Given my comments were in the top ten highest voted of the day, it encourages me that a -lot- of people think this law is dumb and ideally some subset of them will fight it with me. Some of us with mockery, and hopefully some with legal and political talent behind the scenes. I am just a mascot pointing and laughing at a stupid unenforceable law with scary intentions. The real fight is likely to be fought by legal professionals, not me, and that is fine. My job will be to keep shipping changes that protect user privacy and security because that is what my skillset is for. | | |
| ▲ | otterley 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Given my comments were in the top ten highest voted of the day One comment was, and that was your most inflammatory. Those tend to attract the most attention. The trick now is to expand that brief popularity on HN (which is a very narrow audience) to the general populace. | |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Given my comments were in the top ten highest voted of the day, it encourages me that a -lot- of people think this law is dumb and ideally some subset of them will fight it with me. Everyone on HN agrees this law is stupid, myself included. What we are refuting is that big words on an anonymous forum count as any form of protest. Because they don’t. If it were that easy then I could cure cancer just be willing it via message boards. Or end the Iran war just by complaining about it online. Unfortunately actual change requires actual effort. You can’t even change our opinion on this very small point and you have our attention and we are likely otherwise likeminded. So to argue that your words will have any effect to laws passed by completely different personally types who don’t even frequent HN is beyond absurd. |
| |
| ▲ | iamnothere 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’re just being pedantic about the definition of “weapon”. Without a groundswell of public support, it’s not possible to enact change. The finishing blow is just one link in the causal chain. We actually live in an authoritarian or “managed” democracy, where technocratic leadership increasingly ignores or even openly mocks the demands and needs of the people. Insider trading and blatant market manipulation is rampant, technocrats are constantly devising new methods to surveill and suppress public dissent, and regime supporters (regardless of which “color” party is in power) dismiss legitimate concerns and gaslight the public. In some countries they’re even trying to ban political parties who promise to address popular issues. There’s a reason that dangerous ideologies and popular anger are rising, and it’s not the Internet—there are material realities underlying these complaints, and they aren’t being taken seriously. Our last line of “legitimate” defense is the courts. Thank God for the courts! But they are gradually being compromised as well, and even the Supreme Court is willing to sidestep important decisions if they would be too controversial. Besides, legislation cannot be written from the bench. And so the noose gradually tightens around our necks. Mockery seems very appropriate, as a way of undermining legitimacy and gathering support. Perhaps the regime can be coerced into serious reforms before it is too late. Or perhaps the old guard will be replaced with reformers as they finally shuffle off. Recent elections seem to indicate that the public won’t stand for the status quo. | | |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 17 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You point is easily debunked by the fact that all those late night talk shows (Stephen Colbert, Jon Oliver, Jon Stewart, Seth and so on) haven’t changed a thing in US politics. Mockery is a great medium for spreading a message. But words don’t make change by themselves. Ergo mockery is not an effective a weapon for change. What mockery does do, and online petitions too, is placate lazy but opinionated citizens into thinking they’re part of a movement while they can sit in their comfy chair and do a grant total of nothing to actually further their ideologies. | |
| ▲ | otterley 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Look, you own the things you say and are responsible for their accuracy. Attacking people who rightfully correct your misinformed assertions and who want to steer you in a direction that will actually be effective in achieving your aims as "pedantic" does nothing to help your case. Ultimately, though, it's your call--do what you want. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | otterley 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > hoping you are never forced to add code to a project you do not want to add You keep saying that, but that's not the realistic outcome. The realistic outcome isn't an injunction forcing you to add code. It'd be to force you to pull it out of circulation. | | |
| ▲ | lrvick 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They cannot force me to do either. But it would be a fascinating case study to watch them try. I feel it would only help prove the decentralized censorship-resistant tactics of the project work as intended. Government overreach should be in the threat model of every FOSS project. | | |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are already case studies that demonstrate governments can do exactly what the GP lawyer claimed could happen. You’re not treading any new and untested ground here. |
|
|
|
