> The (pro democracy) protesters were met with severe repression, and in November 2020, Prime Minister Prayuth ordered authorities to bring back the enforcement of lèse-majesté, or Section 112 of the Criminal Code, which criminalizes “insulting the monarchy”. Thailand’s use of lèse-majesté has been both arbitrary and prolific; protesters can be arrested for as little as sharing social media posts that are ‘insulting to the monarchy’. Furthermore, the weaponization of lèse-majesté has devastating consequences: those convicted under Section 112 face three to 15 years in prison per count.
Chilling. Governments weaponizing information they have on citizens is textbook dystopian. The lack of oversight on social media platforms that allows this to happen is incompetence at best, and complicity at worst.
As more governments slip into autocracies, similar scenarios are likely happening in other countries as well, and we just don't know about it. The fact that US social media platforms are operated by people supportive of an aspiring autocrat should be a red flag for anyone still using them. Especially for citizens of the US, where the line between the government and corporations gets thinner by the day.
These are truly bizarre and frightening times for anyone outside of this system.
> The lack of oversight on social media platforms that allows this to happen is incompetence at best, and complicity at worst.
The social media platforms are supposed to what? Be a foil to the governments? Replace the government? Be a foil to the governments you don't like? It's unclear what you think the ideal here is.
> Think back to 2020 when just saying you have any misgivings about taking part in Pfizer's impromptu global human trials would get you … fully debanked and without a job
I don’t think I heard about this: is there a reliable place I can read more about it?
In my country platforms that do not force users to self dox are suppressed. Much cleaner for the authorities so they don't have to tip their hand and be seen doxxing.
The bigger government gets, the less freedoms the people have. It is critically important not to ask government to solve problems (government is bad at solving most problems), and to seek ways to shrink government.
I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems.
> and to seek ways to shrink government.
Id rather seek ways to maximize liberty, and while they frequently can mean limiting the government, the act of shrinking the government is not _necessary_, and even works against my goals if the government is the one keeping my liberty maximized
> I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems.
If anything, businesses just turn into entities indistinguishable from governments as they grow. It would be weird if anything different happened. They're long living entities with massive populations. Should be unsurprising that they converge to similar solutions. But I think the key difference is corporations have fewer incentives to care about the general public (take what you will about government incentives to care about the public but certainly corporations have less incentives. It's much rarer for public to storm into a corporate headquarters with the intent to take it over)
Yeah, aren't most businesses kind of like dictatorships, perhaps oligarchies but employees don't have a vote anyway. It's no surprise that if Trump and Musk want to run the USA as a business it kind of looks like that.
I'd prefer a government that is as big as humanly possible. Nationalize everything. Centralize everything. When everyone is in the government, nobody is in the government. Mission accomplished!
I agree and disagree. Some things make sense to centralize. Some things maybe less.
I’m glad Canada is talking about centralizing how trade is managed, for example. I think it’ll be good for us in the long run. Yet I don’t think food security is best accomplished through centralized farming practices. Distribution of these systems may be slightly less efficient, but I think that’s a price worth paying in the longer term. Especially as we need to worry more about climate change which can have localized impacts.
It’s a complex matter. We shouldn’t hesitate to centralize when it makes sense. But we should be careful, too. Centralization comes with drawbacks, no matter what. They won’t always be easy to anticipate.
It is an incredibly easy matter. Most people I know don't care for grinding because it doesn't earn more happiness. The few that do, are privileged software engineers making 300k+ so it makes sense for them to grind it out and be set for life and even they can quickly acknowledge that again, it doesn't bring more happiness. Most people I know are far more motivated to do things for common good, whether its limited to their friends circle or community and have no incentive to grind for a boss.
There is no logical or humane reason to keep working as much as we do. You want to be competitive join a sports league or something. If you want to question why would anyone do what I suggested you can just go to github.com and see millions of altruists doing it for free. A clear example of humanity trying to break free held down by a vast swathe of wretches of would-be millionaires and current billionaires.
It is impossible for me to entertain anything related to conserving any part of the status quo while I still have to work 40+ hours a week. It is a complete shit show and we've made no progress in the past 250 years except a couple apps and other bullshit "technology" with meaningful tech being an absolute drop in an infinite ocean of shit. How embarrassing for all of us.
How does centralizing and nationalizing innately lead to less of a grind? I wasn’t thinking about that aspect when I wrote my comment.
Life seems like work to me. I think I live in a country that’s fortunate enough to get to believe otherwise, but when we factor in all of the externalities of our goods and services, there’s a tremendous amount of work and environmental debt (future labour) occurring. If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually.
If this system subsumes successful iterations it becomes more efficient. I would prefer a system that spreads out and flattens the profit curve. If you want to be a big genius and have a house 5x bigger than any in your community then you should actually work for it. Join the toilet paper co-op or whatever the fuck and iterate. I would like to see "risk" entirely eliminated. You either work your job, or you apply for a grant.
Risk is a stupid thing. There are plenty of insanely smart people who will not rock the boat because they do not want to undertake risk and so we lose out on their productivity. We've created a thunderdome where only the most callous and pathological survive and win, anyone else gets crushed.
>If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually.
We are living inside of the externality of a small group of peoples pathologies.
I was half joking and making a reference to his silly small government comment but I do absolutely believe in nationalizing the tits out of everything. My dream is to walk into a grocery store and everything is the best it can be, with identical labelling, no marketing, and all the information I want about it. "SALT". "WATER". Any positive iteration should lead to reward and absorption by my fictional state. I've probably read too much sci fi.
As more governments slip into autocracies, similar scenarios are likely happening in other countries as well, and we just don't know about it. The fact that US social media platforms are operated by people supportive of an aspiring autocrat should be a red flag for anyone still using them. Especially for citizens of the US, where the line between the government and corporations gets thinner by the day.
These are truly bizarre and frightening times for anyone outside of this system.
The social media platforms are supposed to what? Be a foil to the governments? Replace the government? Be a foil to the governments you don't like? It's unclear what you think the ideal here is.
I don’t think I heard about this: is there a reliable place I can read more about it?
I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems.
> and to seek ways to shrink government.
Id rather seek ways to maximize liberty, and while they frequently can mean limiting the government, the act of shrinking the government is not _necessary_, and even works against my goals if the government is the one keeping my liberty maximized
I’m glad Canada is talking about centralizing how trade is managed, for example. I think it’ll be good for us in the long run. Yet I don’t think food security is best accomplished through centralized farming practices. Distribution of these systems may be slightly less efficient, but I think that’s a price worth paying in the longer term. Especially as we need to worry more about climate change which can have localized impacts.
It’s a complex matter. We shouldn’t hesitate to centralize when it makes sense. But we should be careful, too. Centralization comes with drawbacks, no matter what. They won’t always be easy to anticipate.
There is no logical or humane reason to keep working as much as we do. You want to be competitive join a sports league or something. If you want to question why would anyone do what I suggested you can just go to github.com and see millions of altruists doing it for free. A clear example of humanity trying to break free held down by a vast swathe of wretches of would-be millionaires and current billionaires.
It is impossible for me to entertain anything related to conserving any part of the status quo while I still have to work 40+ hours a week. It is a complete shit show and we've made no progress in the past 250 years except a couple apps and other bullshit "technology" with meaningful tech being an absolute drop in an infinite ocean of shit. How embarrassing for all of us.
Life seems like work to me. I think I live in a country that’s fortunate enough to get to believe otherwise, but when we factor in all of the externalities of our goods and services, there’s a tremendous amount of work and environmental debt (future labour) occurring. If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually.
Risk is a stupid thing. There are plenty of insanely smart people who will not rock the boat because they do not want to undertake risk and so we lose out on their productivity. We've created a thunderdome where only the most callous and pathological survive and win, anyone else gets crushed.
>If I’m not working 40+ hours per week for the insane quality of life I have, someone is now or eventually.
We are living inside of the externality of a small group of peoples pathologies.