[RD] Could our posts here endanger us in the far future?

[yung.carl.jung]

No, because of large numbers. As a percentage of the computer-owning population, how many have posted something stupid political online?

100%.

How is that even an argument? I'm not even agreeing with MW, but if there was an authoritarian government, and they wanted to punish someone out of line, they could 100% (your own statistic) find dirt on them. It doesn't matter at all that everyone at some point said something stupid, because not everyone is targeted. The point is that no one is hypothetically safe from this, not that everyone will be punished for whatever dumb stuff they said online.

I assume that if my postings have already drawn the attention of the authorities they've already pegged me accurately as someone who talks big but doesn't actually do anything in real life, so I'm not too worried.

by offering your opinion you are already "doing something". it's much more likely that the govt of the future will car far more about what you're saying online than about any strike or demonstration, or even something violent. most authoritarian governments have managed to profit off of counterviolence politically via propaganda, the only one suffering is the general population. I'm not saying "9/11 was an inside job steel beans etc", but the fact that the internet is the major force in forming peoples opinions will make it incredibly relevant to a government, authoritarian or not. I think it's kind of short-sighted to think like that, it's the same sort of reaction that people always have in terms of privacy: "I don't have anything to hide". What should or shouldn't be hidden, or be said, as impressively shown by twitter, changes daily.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How is that even an argument? I'm not even agreeing with MW, but if there was an authoritarian government, and they wanted to punish someone out of line, they could 100% (your own statistic) find dirt on them. It doesn't matter at all that everyone at some point said something stupid, because not everyone is targeted. The point is that no one is hypothetically safe from this, not that everyone will be punished for whatever dumb stuff they said online.

The way it is an argument is that if the authoritarian government has already chosen you then they can indeed find your incriminating posts...but it doesn't matter because they already targeted you anyway. If they aren't targeting you already then they won't target you because of your posts, because a "use posts to find who to target" scheme returns "target everyone" as a result.

 

[r16]

achso , so this is what happens if ı log when it's nighttime for us , like a full page of discussions , in some slightly long blink of an eye . Only to say the time capsule sentiment of r16 posts has been like unfortunately dented a bit . Once again we have the justification that America did this or that , over any brilliance the New might shown here . So , ı don't know , what's the assurance it will be all plain sailing , you know , when the orange person can not handle a simple pandemic ? When you have Fondor , Bilbringi and Kuat , it tends to be pointless of talking about Tatooine , Achto and Hoth .

 

[Ajidica]

Honestly, the fact we are posting rather than protesting would make our Benevolent Overlords realize we aren't a threat and can be safely ignored.

 

[Mouthwash]

Lmao this is much better than the reply I was going to make. Mouthwash has made that commitment/promise at least twice in recent years.

No, I've never actually tried it and I'm not going to until I have a plan set up for myself. Right now I'm developing the skills to live off-the-grid.

Fundamentally right in a way that is meaningless. It's nihilistic fatalism to shake one's fist at the advancement of technology and simply assume it will herald in a world of evil. The primary issue I take with it is that it's unhelpful. Making this observation serves no purpose.

I disagree. There is a lot to be done. For one thing, giving children access to screens should be considered child abuse.

The proposed solution isn't a solution, it's just regression to a different kind of suffering and authoritarianism.

No, I just want computer use to become as taboo as publicly smoking crack cocaine. I doubt we can ever purge it totally from the Earth, but I'm not going to assume that the consoomer is all-powerful and what he currently wants can never be stopped or even slowed.

Doesn't feel like I'm the nihilistic fatalistic, btw.

Shifting boundaries and technologies around doesn't change the underlying issue being put forth. Humans being garbage will be a fact whether they are armed with information or not. We have a wide variety of history books that make written record of this. Change the configuration as much as you like, the problem being pointed out remains.

But humans have always had fundamental constraints on their bad behavior, constraints that are being removed for the first time ever.

'How society could be fixed".
You referring to your Pol Pot by way of Thomas the Tank Engine plan to make us all live in new-built Dubrovnik's and drive golf carts in winter, or your plan to turn urban areas into racially-divided Bantustans?
Or is it just referring to your ideas to ban gay people in public?

No mention of my sexism and antisemitism? I'm hurt.

It's not just possible, it's already happening. what is advertising if not the attempt to actively establishing control over our desires and our thoughts? its goal is to create desires which will eventually lead to action, most of the time that is buying a product. how is this process of advertising not already majorly influenced by big data? adding on top of that, everyones world view is also definitely influenced by these same mechanisms: since we get almost all of our information from media sources, the capitalist and AI-driven nature of those sources is already influencing how we perceive the world. things that sell, that have mass appeal, will always drown out other voices, because they're naturally preferred by capitalist logic and the memetic cluster**** that is the internet. everything: traditional media, the internet, fashion, language, is to some or lesser degree subject to the logic of "what sells and spreads". hence, everything we're confronted with in our daily lives is to a severe degree based on that logic. we're not merely talking about people in echochambers here, but literally everyone is subject to that. we're subject to the same self-enforcing mechanism that any crackpot conspiracy theorist is. what you take in sets the scope of what you think about to a significant degree. all the categories of human mind are largely influenced by what we're confronted with daily. and what we see on the web, in movies, even on the streets, is largely influenced by both capitalist logic and big data.

Eh, advertising through mass media has been around for a hundred years. I don't think it's the technology that's gotten better so much as our attitude becoming more decadent (I recall one of the first telemarketers provoked outrage by calling people he didn't know). Also, I really don't buy the nonsense about 'mind-reading' computers that will scan your face and somehow know exactly what to say.

That's not to say this isn't a big concern, but it doesn't seem irreversible at all.

How is that even an argument? I'm not even agreeing with MW, but if there was an authoritarian government, and they wanted to punish someone out of line, they could 100% (your own statistic) find dirt on them. It doesn't matter at all that everyone at some point said something stupid, because not everyone is targeted. The point is that no one is hypothetically safe from this, not that everyone will be punished for whatever dumb stuff they said online.

That's true, but you're neglecting that the regime will probably have a specific agenda. Their ability to do wide trawling of this sort will let them know very quickly which citizens are likely to have a problem with the agenda, even if you keep your head down or pretend to support it as hard as you can.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The way it is an argument is that if the authoritarian government has already chosen you then they can indeed find your incriminating posts...but it doesn't matter because they already targeted you anyway. If they aren't targeting you already then they won't target you because of your posts, because a "use posts to find who to target" scheme returns "target everyone" as a result.

what if the target is political unrest or civil disobedience or anything of that sort? what if the target is a specific minority? or simply the opposition political group? then suddenly you're only targetting a very, very minor part of the population instead of everyone. I really don't see where you're coming from with this. yes, surveillance and making people disappear has always been a thing. that doesn't change anything stated itt, the new tools that we've produced are simply multiple magnitudes more effective and potentially lethal than they ever were.

Fundamentally right in a way that is meaningless. It's nihilistic fatalism to shake one's fist at the advancement of technology and simply assume it will herald in a world of evil. The primary issue I take with it is that it's unhelpful. Making this observation serves no purpose. The proposed solution isn't a solution, it's just regression to a different kind of suffering and authoritarianism. Shifting boundaries and technologies around doesn't change the underlying issue being put forth. Humans being garbage will be a fact whether they are armed with information or not. We have a wide variety of history books that make written record of this. Change the configuration as much as you like, the problem being pointed out remains.

"We can prevent this world of evil by going back in time." is appropriate for a Back to the Future sequel. Not so much for real life.

I don't share MWs solution to this whole issue, so this point is kind of hollow. I don't advocate to scratch computers (they're fantastic), nor to reverse technology, nor to resort to more primitive modes of life. I wouldn't say it's either nihilism or fatalism, it's simply an observation. only a response to that observation (for example, MW) could be nihilistic, fatalistic etc. Determinism and free will are both neither fatalistic nor nihilistic, but what we draw from it: Believing in fate, that is fatalistic. I hope I am expressing myself understandably

Honestly, the fact we are posting rather than protesting would make our Benevolent Overlords realize we aren't a threat and can be safely ignored.

again, this is the same argument that lex is making, which I think simply won't apply. governments are already failing to stop incels from organizing their mass shootings, or gamers from harrassing women for existing, while excelling at punishing people for stupid **** they say on social media (which I'm not against, though I'm doubtful if it helps at all). what you're saying and spreading online is far more interesting to any government than your protest. especially in the western hemisphere, where protests have become kind of a moot circlejerk anyway.

this is just an excuse we tell ourselves in order to reassure. "they'll probably realize I'm not a real threat", it's just wishful, comfortable thinking to the maximum. which is why this mantra is so dangerously appealing.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

what if the target is political unrest or civil disobedience or anything of that sort? what if the target is a specific minority? or simply the opposition political group? then suddenly you're only targetting a very, very minor part of the population instead of everyone. I really don't see where you're coming from with this. yes, surveillance and making people disappear has always been a thing. that doesn't change anything stated itt, the new tools that we've produced are simply multiple magnitudes more effective and potentially lethal than they ever were.

Again, if they are targeting these groups then they are. Posting history won't matter. The situation you are positing where posting history would matter is if someone were a "secret dissident" but could be connected to a "history of dissident posting" that would make them part of the target group. That won't work because a search for "history of dissident posting" will come up with "damn near everyone is a dissident, even you."

The way the flames of concern are fanned is actually "when the authoritarians are disappearing you they will be able to cite your posting history as evidence of you being a dissident." That falls flat on examination because the authoritarians won't actually be relying on evidence anyway. It is a disingenuous argument put forward by people who support the pretense that authoritarians are somehow being fair and can be expected to continue doing so. That's what makes it interesting that this topic was started by a supporter of an existing authoritarian regime.

 

[Mouthwash]

Again, if they are targeting these groups then they are. Posting history won't matter. The situation you are positing where posting history would matter is if someone were a "secret dissident" but could be connected to a "history of dissident posting" that would make them part of the target group. That won't work because a search for "history of dissident posting" will come up with "damn near everyone is a dissident, even you."

The way the flames of concern are fanned is actually "when the authoritarians are disappearing you they will be able to cite your posting history as evidence of you being a dissident." That falls flat on examination because the authoritarians won't actually be relying on evidence anyway. It is a disingenuous argument put forward by people who support the pretense that authoritarians are somehow being fair and can be expected to continue doing so.

My entire case rests on them being unfair. They don't need or want to prove that you oppose the regime, they'll just remove the sections of the population that are statistically likely to.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Again, if they are targeting these groups then they are. Posting history won't matter..

It will help them identify exactly what individuals belong to those groups, which was not easily possible in the past and needed incredibly surveillance and covert operation.

That won't work because a search for "history of dissident posting" will come up with "damn near everyone is a dissident, even you."

Why do you think that would be the case? I would wager that almost half of the current American population are the exact opposite of dissidents against the government, in fact they love Trump and the new Reps.

The way the flames of concern are fanned is actually "when the authoritarians are disappearing you they will be able to cite your posting history as evidence of you being a dissident." That falls flat on examination because the authoritarians won't actually be relying on evidence anyway.

You do realize that it takes time end effort to fabricate evidence, to commit defamation of character, to set up show trials, that historically this was a monumental effort that authoritarian parties devoted lots of personnel, specialists, funds to? None of this is difficult or time-intensive or expensive in our hypothetical.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It will help them identify exactly what individuals belong to those groups, which was not easily possible in the past and needed incredibly surveillance and covert operation.

Why do you think that would be the case? I would wager that almost half of the current American population are the exact opposite of dissidents against the government, in fact they love Trump and the new Reps.

You do realize that it takes time end effort to fabricate evidence, to commit defamation of character, to set up show trials, that historically this was a monumental effort that authoritarian parties devoted lots of personnel, specialists, funds to? None of this is difficult or time-intensive or expensive in our hypothetical.

It only takes effort to identify the "secret members," and secret members don't matter. As Lexicus demonstrates...IF the authoritarians opt to use the internet as their source and waste their resources rounding up Lexicus the real dissidents will appreciate the distraction since they will actually be doing, not talking about it on the internet.

As to the Trumpists...you're going to need a pretty good algorithm to filter their routine calls for civil war, violent action, and defiance of law out from whatever calls for civil war, violent action, a defiance of law might be identifying your chosen dissidents.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

It only takes effort to identify the "secret members," and secret members don't matter. As Lexicus demonstrates...IF the authoritarians opt to use the internet as their source and waste their resources rounding up Lexicus the real dissidents will appreciate the distraction since they will actually be doing, not talking about it on the internet.

who are these real dissidents in the western hemisphere? what do they DO? real dissidents are a strawman to divert from the fact that everybody collectively participating in dissidence is a problem to be dealt with.

what makes the real dissidents so different from people "just talking".. as if talking was innocent or unproblematic. head to /pol/ for about 30 seconds and tell me that again. what language and ideas you're surrounded with means.. everything. it can turn you from a well-adjusted person into a murderous monster incapable of emotion or rationality, as we experience more and more often nowadays.

there is no strict line separating the fake dissidents from real dissidents, that's just bs. some people eat up propaganda, they go down the rabbit hole and they snap. everyone who is part of that collective that spreads the propaganda, that endorses their language, that visits those websites, everyone contributes. they are actively doing something to worsen the issue. it's utterly impossible to know who is and who isn't going to act, people fluently turn from internet bigmouths to literal terrorists, and sometimes back again. your dichotomy is just wishful thinking.

talking on the internet is the #1 way to radicalize and has been for years. you can read as much in any natsoc strategy handbook. people that spread dissident opinions are just as vital targets for the government as terrorists are, in fact maybe moreso.

 

[H4run]

Actually now the video that you like, the pdf document that you own, the site that you visit and the comment that you posted becoming evidence or support evidence to classify or even arrested you. Spreading an issue via social-media and chain text is becoming more effective and agitating than physical protest in some context. I think it's not tomorrow, but I think it's start from today the things that you said online can throw you into certain population category and can be resulted in mass-arrest.

But in the other hand as @Timsup2nothin it is also true that if the government already got you as a target, they will find your fault no matter what and the online database that they have about you acts as a million collection of reasons to detain you, like @amadeus said, everyone got a political or ideological faulty opinion in the internet in some point of their life, no one will dare to throw the stone, hence the government can just bring it up to gives a reasoning to whatever control they wanna do with you, if they need you. You cannot push them away from finding your weakness if you are the target, it's like flies searching for your wound, it will land and find it in the end.

I agree with @yung.carl.jung resolution, it's not the tools at fault and should be avoid, but it should be govern with a fairest rule possible. But this online database are an insanely effective tools that the government and intelligence used and exploited.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Most employers probably don't have the resources to connect me to an anonymous forum account.

It depends on the employer. Some of them have employees whose job is to scour social media sites for exactly this reason.

I don't think that kind of mind control is really possible - if it were, it would have taken over the world long ago.

Mind control can happen in a variety of ways. You've heard how the 'new normal' is to stay 6-7 feet away from everyone else? I watch a soap opera every week day, and even though the episodes on now were shot a couple of months ago, yesterday I looked at the scenes of people gathering at a skating park, a bar, a hospital, and a kitchen (only one person lived in the house), and my immediate thought was, "Why are these people standing so close to each other? There are too many people in that place!" Social distancing is becoming normal. Little kids are going to be taught to not let people get close to them, and hopefully this situation doesn't last long enough for them to integrate this as the way things should always be.

I know there are sound reasons for this distancing, but I don't want it to change cultural norms permanently.

I mean we could vote for politicians who are more likely to push for better privacy rights. But that might not much good.

Privacy rights can be beneficial and they can completely mess you up. There are things I need to know about myself that the government refuses to tell me because of their "right to privacy".

On the other hand, the FOIP rules means that some people who want information that you don't want them to know (or at least not without permission) won't be able to get it. FOIP is why the chief medical officer refuses to say where, in the "central zone", the current cases of COVID-19 actually are (with the exception of where it's running through specific nursing homes). As a result, I hardly dare leave the apartment except to check mail (Canada Post is still operating).


Then there are times when I have to sign a stack of papers allowing one case worker to talk to another case worker without me being in the middle, relaying messages back and forth. I told them, I wish you two could talk to each other and leave me out of it, since this is taking too long and I don't have the vocabulary and jargon to explain things properly. So that's the reason for permission slips and such.

Honestly, the fact we are posting rather than protesting would make our Benevolent Overlords realize we aren't a threat and can be safely ignored.

In your country and mine and most others where CFC members live. There are countries where people don't have the freedoms we do.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

who are these real dissidents in the western hemisphere? what do they DO? real dissidents are a strawman to divert from the fact that everybody collectively participating in dissidence is a problem to be dealt with.

what makes the real dissidents so different from people "just talking".. as if talking was innocent or unproblematic. head to /pol/ for about 30 seconds and tell me that again. what language and ideas you're surrounded with means.. everything. it can turn you from a well-adjusted person into a murderous monster incapable of emotion or rationality, as we experience more and more often nowadays.

there is no strict line separating the fake dissidents from real dissidents, that's just bs. some people eat up propaganda, they go down the rabbit hole and they snap. everyone who is part of that collective that spreads the propaganda, that endorses their language, that visits those websites, everyone contributes. they are actively doing something to worsen the issue. it's utterly impossible to know who is and who isn't going to act, people fluently turn from internet bigmouths to literal terrorists, and sometimes back again. your dichotomy is just wishful thinking.

talking on the internet is the #1 way to radicalize and has been for years. you can read as much in any natsoc strategy handbook. people that spread dissident opinions are just as vital targets for the government as terrorists are, in fact maybe moreso.

The real dissidents are the ones who are "down the rabbit hole and snapped." I don't care that much that the Breitbarfers are "surrounding people with ideas," or that they all talk a good game of full on crazy. Sure, they contribute to the problem and it would be a lot better if they didn't, but I really care about the white nationalist that comes through the door of my church shooting, and he is who I am inclined to eliminate with extreme prejudice. My totalitarian regime would follow the same path, and it wouldn't be hard to do. We wouldn't be worried about the circle jerk of Breitbarfers, we'd be tracking the guns, and if the gun lead to a Breitbarfer that could be dealt with. When the concern is Breitbarfers with guns it's a lot shorter path to find them by checking the guns to see if they are going to a Breitbarfer than it is to wade through all the Breitbarfers looking for the ones that have guns.

 

[Mouthwash]

Have you ever been told how witty and clever you are, Tim? Especially with the nicknames; I can see you really want to distance yourself from that crowd.

It depends on the employer. Some of them have employees whose job is to scour social media sites for exactly this reason.

Without knowing the IP at least, how could someone figure out that 'lightningboi29' from Civfanatics forum is really the guy called Steve trying to get a job as a librarian?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Have you ever been told how witty and clever you are, Tim?

Yeah. Pretty frequently actually. It surprises me sometimes. Why do you ask?

 

[Birdjaguar]

The world is moving forward technologically in a way that cannot be stopped. But I am a pretty firm believer in the law of unintended consequences and the unexpected. Expected things happen at unexpected times and places. Like now. Climate change stuff is a huge trend going on in the background mostly, but it is not likely to stay that way. When and where we see its life changing effects is unknown. People are doing things and trying to invent things that we don't know about yet. AI is not the only trend. And on top of these, we have people. Leaders and non leaders respond differently depending upon who they are, where they are and what they want. The variables are many and mostly hidden.

We can easily see the trail we leave behind, but we are mostly blind to the trail ahead. Guessing is fun even if it is almost always wrong.

 

[IglooDame]

Honestly, the fact we are posting rather than protesting would make our Benevolent Overlords realize we aren't a threat and can be safely ignored.

"rather than"? Unproven assumption, I'm thinking.

But yeah, I'm relying on Thunderfall to delete source-IP logs before the hammer comes down.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

The real dissidents are the ones who are "down the rabbit hole and snapped." I don't care that much that the Breitbarfers are "surrounding people with ideas," or that they all talk a good game of full on crazy.

The specific type of mass shooter we encounter today simply wouldn't exist without right-wing internet culture. They are as inseperable as the muslim bomber is from his ideology, and the kamikaze pilot from his. It's not a chicken egg problem, it just is this way. Christchurch is the next step after Columbine, the surrounding culture has changed and so have the people. And as this kind of culture gains traction, which it definitely is, you can literally hear the most popular YouTuber spout far-right buzzwords "ironically", these incidents are going to increase.

 

[amadeus]

How is that even an argument? I'm not even agreeing with MW, but if there was an authoritarian government, and they wanted to punish someone out of line, they could 100% (your own statistic) find dirt on them. It doesn't matter at all that everyone at some point said something stupid, because not everyone is targeted. The point is that no one is hypothetically safe from this, not that everyone will be punished for whatever dumb stuff they said online.

I’ll shift gears and give you something else anecdotal you’ll hate: the people that design and operate these systems. They’re geeks. Who do they go to? Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, John McAfee, Edward Snowden. These people are already tenuously clinging onto the acceptable-to-hold-in-public political beliefs rail. A computer system designed by these people isn’t going to go after people hiding in tin-roof shacks in Montana.

A more serious answer you may hate less is: people who have strong beliefs about stuff? They had ways of getting it out before the internet and secret police had ways of getting dirt on those who did. Soviet cultural dissidents copied Western rock music onto discarded X-ray film and nobody in Ceausescu’s Romania had e-mail, but the Securitate could track you down.

Internet or no internet, people are going to be people and totalitarian regimes are going to work to be evil and totalitariany. The question is one of efficiency, and I doubt there’s really any threat of a government in the Western world capable of being both totalitarians and efficient at it.