About half the people who completely demonize this will still call for some form of it in America. “We won’t abuse it unlike them.” “We need to stomp out hate speech” “Think of the children”.
This is disgusting no matter what, and even if you somehow think a current government won’t abuse this, what happens when someone else runs the government?
Couldn’t agree more! This is why the internet needs to stay as it is: anonymous, uncensored and open to all. At this point a free and open internet is an essential part of liberty.
I agree, however what are the alternatives for those that do not have a computer degree. Other than lodging a complaint with local government, how is one supposed to navigate the crap we have in today’s technological world?
Education of others, voicing dissent, explaining valid cases why people legally want these devices, and also reminding people just because something CAN be used for wrong, doesn’t mean we should ban it. Equating freedom of speech with it too is important.
In general though my opinion is governments shouldn’t try to legislate technology because technology is faster moving than it, and overall the understanding of the technology is foolish. It’s why SOPA was such a trainwreck because it wasn’t written by an unbiased party, but it also was written as a way to grab power, but wouldn’t actually be able to stop Piracy.
Also donating to good charities is a good thing, groups like EFF do well in trying to fight against these bills (And I’m sure there’s jobs you can do with out a computer degree if you’re willing to volunteer time as well.
Also learn programming if you’re interesting… It’s fun… Where fun is defined as soul breaking half the time but orgasmic the rest :) … Orgasmic not guarenteed.
Let’s hear the defense, Tankies. Tell us why this is a good thing.
No tankie worth their salt would say it’s a good thing, lol. Being anti-NATO doesn’t immediately mean someone is pro-Putin.
Funnily enough that’s what the right-wing nuts and left-wing nuts in Germany have in common. We’re living in the strangest timeline.
(I’m implying that you, as many others, equate “tankies” with “communists”)
That’s why I restricted to only those worth their salt. Russian-right-wing larpers aren’t welcome in any communist group.
I’m not a tankie, but I don’t think that the idea of justifying political repression in Russia is likely to be much of a challenge. The Bolsheviks justified single-party rule and their own political repressions for a long time. If you’re a tankie, you’re presumably already willing to accept that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism
Vanguardism in the context of Leninist revolutionary struggle, relates to a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically “advanced” sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations to advance the objectives of communism.
The notion of a ‘vanguard’, as used by Lenin before 1917, did not necessarily imply single-party rule. Lenin considered the Social-Democrats (Bolsheviks) the leading elements of a multi-class (and multi-party) democratic struggle against Tsarism.[7] For a period after the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks (now renamed the Communist Party) operated in the soviets, trade unions, and other working-class mass organisations with other revolutionary parties, such as Mensheviks, Social-Revolutionaries and anarcho-communists, and local soviets often elected non-Bolshevik majorities.[8] Lenin did consider the Bolsheviks the vanguard insofar as they were the most consistent defenders of Soviet power (which he considered the dictatorship of the proletariat or ‘Commune-state’).[9] However, the situation changed drastically during the Russian Civil War and economic collapse, which decimated the working class and its independent institutions, and saw the development of irreconcilable conflicts between the Bolsheviks and their rivals. At the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1921, the Party made the de facto reality de jure by outlawing opposition parties and formalising single-Party rule.[10]
The impetus for having a vanguard party was used by the Bolsheviks to justify their suppression of other parties. Their rationale was that since they were the vanguard of the proletariat, their right to rule could not be legitimately questioned.
Seems like Putin is trying to recreate the CCP’s great firewall to hide the scope of his failure in invading Ukraine. It kind of reminds me of the last days of the USSR when they tried desperately to hide how bad the situation was. I’m curious how he technically plans to prevent foreign VPN use, he could create lists of known servers but my understanding is that VPN traffic is encrypted and not able to be identified as such, and of course he’s incapable of stopping starlink or similar satellite internet access.
It is possible to detect if traffic is being tunneled through a VPN with deep packet inspection. The great firewall actually does this and blocks popular VPN protocols like wireguard. However its possible to bypass the firewall by hiding/masking the traffic as being HTTPS data (like visiting a website) with software like shadowsocks.
What about those Russian trolls, then?
Putin has signed new laws that will decimate online anonymity
So Putin is going to remove 10% of online anonymity?
