There should be both. There should be wild free parts for grownups who can't easily be traumatized, manipulated or tricked and also fenced gardens for those vulnerable (kids, grannies, religious etc whoever is easily trollable). Places where every non-techie goes nowadays (i.e. Facebook) should be censored and guarded strictly, the rest should be free and wild.
I think about this approach every two weeks, when I hear that somewhere in the world there's a new initiative to treat the internet like a kindergarten. Sure why not, but I would like to sign up for the wild west, the easily offended and gullible can live happily on the safe side, thanks.
Exactly. I used yo be a total Internet freedom proponent and that's what I want for myself but now as everybody (of whom the majority is mentally unprepared) is on Facebook I admit it makes no sense - Internet kindergartens have to be there for the people who need them (and most of these people just naturally go to places like Facebook and Instagram).
Yes, people tend to naturally self select into the parts of the internet that suit them.
There are many wild wests on the internet in the clearnet, yet most of the people I know that would want to be treated like children already exclusively are via fb, insta, etc.
Be that as it is, I see no reason for further controls. Heck, I doubt I would have had any real interest in learning about computers if my only options for internet fun were boring sites like the top socials. From experience, I would imagine most of the appeal of the net for people if it were to become some locked down nanny land would be in breaking out of it or in "misusing" the services. Or, more likely, people would just make new sites that would serve as the wild west. The infinite of the undeveloped is not containable.
The problem with this is that the mass of clueless kindergarten attendants are fed a steady diet of complete nonsense by curated and cultivated media outlets pushing very specific self serving narratives, which these obedient clueless drones in massive hordes then go out into the world and behave politically and economically exactly as those who treated them like the wind-up toy soldiers they actually are intended.
And the more defeaning the silence is when the idiotic ideas these people float about as plausible and desirable things, the more confident and less cautious that they are in support and pursuit of those things.
As somebody who spent the last week reading Facebook post after post from these people specifically in Australia not just defending but promoting concentration camps, military round ups and forced medication, I cannot emphasise enough caution in the idea that they should just be left alone in their harmless walled gardens with their amusing but inconsequential fantasies, not subject to the trauma of critical inquiry by third parties.
A while ago I would say you are tainted, but I've watched as my group of friends increasingly parroted every corporate media talking point, even when they flip-flopped constantly about a subject. They wouldn't see a conflict there and would deflect if I tried to point that out.
Now I keep to myself and watch the patterns, and I'am ok with that it is what it is, I love my friends and I don't think less of them because of that.
Your first two paragraphs are spot on, your last one demonstrates clearly that Facebook posts are not a reliable source of information.
There are no concentration camps, no military round ups, and no forced medication* in Australia.
* There is no vaccine mandate per se, but some types of businesses face fines for admitting non-vaccinated people onto the premises. You might call this a de facto mandate, others have certainly made that point.
That part is true but I never said there were yet. I said clueless information walled gardens were constantly advocating for them with very little push back exactly because they're in walled gardens where that is the narrative they want pushed.
> There is no vaccine mandate per se, but some types of businesses face fines for admitting non-vaccinated people onto the premises. You might call this a de facto mandate, others have certainly made that point.
I do think it is to an extent. But there's definitely a gap between that and forcibly injecting people against their will, and that is what I was seeing many posts advocating for along with those military round ups and concentration camps that are already facts on the ground and are only being varnished with more PR friendly labels just like they were in every single deployment in history.
Well I'm an Australian citizen, so I am "the horse" as well, so let me share some first-hand information. The military was engaged on a short term support basis to assist with logistics, contract tracing, swabbing for tests, etc [0]. The oft-repeated claim that the military was deployed to forcibly contain people in quarantine is false. Australia often deploys its military internally to help mitigate natural disasters.
> forcibly injecting people against their will, and that is what I was seeing many posts advocating for
I believe you. Seeing the viciousness, tribalism, and callousness that other Australians have treated each other with during covid has been nothing short of disgusting.
One part of the Australian psyche that is not often discussed, is that in times of disaster, we are expected to engage in collectivism. Australia is besieged by more than its fair share of natural disasters (bushfires, floods, cyclones and droughts are all commonplace) and in those times, the community pulls together and supports one another. Covid was largely viewed through the same lens, where those who don't pull their weight are shunned. Given the amplification of toxicity that the internet can provide, you get posts like the ones you've seen. Not excusing it, just explaining it.
I am also an Australian citizen although I have not lived there for many years now and after seeing what became of it during covid I intend to renounce it as soon as it is practical and I certainly never intend to return.
With regards to the cover story, you do understand that in many previous deployments of military roundups and concentration camps, they were not accompanied by announcements of "we are the evil empire now and are deploying our military against our own citizens to round them up and place them in concentration camps?". Because this is the exact defense I am hearing from aforementioned Facebook drones and I don't see how it's not predicated on the assumption that they're not military roundups and concentration camps until the government proudly and loudly announces them as such.
I could believe the Facebook drones in question are just not very bright, but I don't assume that at all for this particular forum and you seem a lot less naive than that.
Would the exact same protests from any of the other previous or extant regimes who have offered the same explanations for their actions have held water for you? And if not, why do they in this instance?
To get to the truth of the matter, we will need to agree on what's actually happening. The phrase "concentration camp" provokes imagery of Nazi Germany, with overtones of the most egregious human rights violations.
What happened, in actuality, is that the Howard Springs mining camp was repurposed for quarantine. People have opted to go there instead of hotel quarantine. They are there for a total of 14 days, at which point they enter society at large. The army was providing transport to the location. People could have opted to stay at a hotel instead.
That's it.
At my core, I'm a civil libertarian. I am skeptical of government, and an anti-authoritarian. I am very, very much not a government apologist. But I am a strong believer in the importance of using facts as the basis of an honest, good faith discussion. My comments might just be a futile attempt to reduce the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect of this particular story.
> To get to the truth of the matter, we will need to agree on what's actually happening. The phrase "concentration camp" provokes imagery of Nazi Germany, with overtones of the most egregious human rights violations.
Using the term "concentration camp" used to refer to nazi death camps is euphemistic. It really misses the core horror of the holocaust by drawing attention away from the death/extermination aspect of the camps and instead naming the camps for concentration (e.g. internment.)
The camps for Japanese-Americans during WW2 could be appropriately called concentration camps. Wikipedia redirects "concentration camp" to their page on internment, with this note: "Not to be confused with [...] extermination camp."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration_camp
I understand the imagery is extremely disturbing, and the worst nightmares of the idea of a concentration camp, which are actually extermination camps, is not what is being executed at the moment by the Australian government, but the fact is, it's a concentration camp all the same. The idea existed long before Nazi Germany and has been executed many places outside it since. Even if it were absolutely true that every mitigating factor was at play here, the fact would still be that a precedent has now been set that the military can be used to round people up and put them in concentration camps.
As a civil libertarian myself, I think given the nature of governments, and in particular the Australian government, that precedent is something that should be horrifying enough to all observers, without extending it to the hyperbolic gesticulation of direct comparisons with the historical Nazi extermination camps, Soviet Gulags, Khmer Rouge killing fields, etc. And I believe that strongly enough that I'm planning to renounce my citizenship over it ASAP and would rather die than return. I cannot emphasize enough how disgusted I am by these events.
Further, the cover stories and reasons given just don't matter. Look at the reasons the Nazis gave for their concentration camps, it's not a long bow to draw; chief amongst them was disease control. Really think about the idiocy of offering alternative of even more expensive hotels to some of the poorest people in Australia as alternatives to said concentration camps, and then the cherry on top with the unique AU execution of the idea is that they actually have the nerve to bill the interns of said concentration camps anyway! 2.5k AUD per week for singles or 5k AUD for families.
I just can't believe this has actually happened, but when this entire covid event started, and the initial lockdowns dragged on and the AU government in general seemed intent on escalating degrees of authoritarianism, I drew a mental line in the sand and that line was military roundups and concentration camps, and no matter which way you slice it, the facts on the ground are that that's exactly where we are now. Even worse is that people I've known and respected my entire life, intelligent people in forums like this one, people like you in fact, and I do not intend at all to denigrate you by putting you in this group, but to draw attention to just how corrosive this kind of thing actually is to any kind of trust in a civil society, are defending, and even calling for the escalation of these tactics.
Meanwhile, no other country on the entire planet is doing this. Even the most egregious examples of Austria aren't going to these lengths. I really can't understand why anybody is trying to defend it, and even less so why they're calling for it to be escalated. I feel like I've stepped through the looking glass into crazy world.
> Even worse is that people I've known and respected my entire life, intelligent people … are defending, and even calling for the escalation of these tactics.
It's a spectrum. More a question of temperament than intelligence:
Some people desperately wish to told there's someone out there, looking out for them. A wise enlightened leader, preferably in a tie or a white lab coat.
"Just follow orders and everything will be alright."
Others prefer to assume responsibility and evaluate risk on a case-by-case basis. This end of the spectrum is more sparsely populated, because it requires personal struggle and sacrifice. So such people are always a minority, with obvious implications for democracy (AKA the rule of the majority).
Most people oscillate somewhere in between, swayed by pragmatic incentives and currents of social zeitgeist.
Facebook is where people were defending the behaviour, not where I heard about it. That was circling in more obscure smaller libertarian circles as an example of the escalating insanity of Australia.
The defense of the behaviour has indeed also caused me to stay off facebook, though.
Isn't Facebook already censored and guarded strictly? And you won't have wild free parts for grownups if you let the government legislate against "trolls" and "bigots" on the internet. Today they'll just force Facebook into removing "harmful" content but you are incredibly naive if you think they'll stop there.
They won't stop themselves. We have to invite them to police specific parts and stop them when they want to expand their control further. We generally like police to patrol the city and guard kindergartens etc but don't invite them to station in our bedrooms.
Isn't Facebook already censored and guarded strictly? Not sufficiently apparently. There still are a lot of weirdos, bullshitters and political trolls there AFAIK (but I admit I didn't really check - I just read about that a lot, incl. here on HN). I.e. fact-checking should be enforced, whoever is caught on repeated intentional lying with purpose to manipulate audience should be banned.
