"Go back to bed, your government is in control.
Imagine coming home from work or school, turning on your laptop. A forum you visit on a regular basis can't load. Page is not responding. According to a friend on World Of Warcraft who live in a neighboring country, the site is working fine. The problem seems to be yours.
You can't let it go. After further investigation you finally realize that the government in your country has decided to censor that particular site due to the content being politically sensitive.
This is something that REALLY DOES piss off. Even if it (for now) doesn't concern me - because I know that it occurs, not only in "not-exactly-normal" countries like China or Korea, but also in "totally-normal-democratic" countries, like those mentioned by you.
What the hell is going on? Don't we live in a democracy?
That's how many reacted in Thailand in 2005. One year later tanks were rolling down the streets of the capitol; the puzzle suddenly started to make sense.
Few societies change entirely in a day. Change comes gradually and can therefor be hard to react to in time. But when should you react? If you were trapped in a airtight container that started to fill up with water, would you react at once or would you wait until the liquid enters your lungs?
The example is extreme, but to my mind it's not incorrect.
The question now is not only WHEN to react - but also HOW to react? How can we, little, ordinary people, react to something like this? Most people don't even see nor understand the problem. Others are aware - but the awareness alone won't do you any good. And even if those people who are aware of the problem gather up, even if there are many of them - what will it change? It's still close to nothing compared to the blind masses that do not care. Show them the truth? Make them aware? That would only make you a conspiracy theories supporter, which nowadays means you are nuts.
So, want to fight the government? Still... how? Right now, they are very close to the point at which they can do absolutely anything they like under the soft cover of "crime fighting" and "democracy". You won't make the mentioned masses take to the streets along with you as their reaction "treshold" will make them "aware" only once the line is crossed way too far. And yet, even with millions of people... can we still oppose the government? They will apologize and unblock some information to make everyone content, at best. At worst, we will be greeted with tanks.
So what can be done, except for raiding some sites together with 4chan and spreading the word? Usually I feel like there is not much we can do about how the discussed tendency is growing and therefore find myself aware, yet passive.
I think we collectively underestimate the seriousness in what happens when the barriers that protect the individuals freedom and integrity are deconstructed in the name of crime fighting. Most of the initiatives from governments around the world to catch terrorists during the last 10 years haven't caught a single one - and several of them have probably generated more than a few new ones. The reason being that those who have something to hide knows how to do that. The politicians who approve these countermeasures probably don't understand that, but those who suggest them most certainly do.
The only reason I can think of is that they have another purpose with them.
Most of us know it. What is more, most of the people I know, no matter who they are, see it. Still, no one ever does anything more than realizing the problem. It seems as though "being aware of being deceived" has become in vogue, but nothing more. After all, there is nothing dangerous about the ones in control plotting some long-term plans that would benefit them. Or at least that's how it would seem like. That's it - the second reason for passivity I can think of is a common belief that, no matter what happens "up there", it can't really seriously influence "my little individual life".
Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about. Is this true? Yes, it is. In the short run. Problems do not really start to form for real until the surveillance is in place and the definition of what's OK starts to change. Imagine this: We ban Nazis from meeting in a public place, because their political views often lead to hate crimes. I don't think many ordinary people would object to that law passing. But what's the next step? Ban communists? And why not the left wing party youth groups? I mean, they do call each other "comrades" in their meetings.
The difference between nazism and communism is that the former is based on racism and pretty hardcore hatred in general, making it much more brutal and inacceptable than the latter, which, in fact, looks like a pretty good system... IN THEORY, that is.
The point being: Where do we draw the line? And who gets to decide?
I think such question (which is a REALLY good question, no doubts) could even make a separate thread.
If our access to information is limited we should see this as a serious warning. Why? Because it means that someone is trying to control how we think by controlling what we know. People who lack choices will blindly follow the road presented to them. Why do you think that fundamentalist Christians in the US educate their children themselves in the sanctity of their own homes? They do not want them exposed to a world full of seductive ideas that chafe against their medieval view of the world.
PR is one thing. To try to influence media to your advantage is an eternal game for corporations and politicians alike, and you sort of understand why they have to do this. But when you start restricting physical access to information, you limit peoples ability to read up and make informed decisions. This cannot be seen as anything else than an attack against the democratic form of government.
The information nowadays is incredibly limited anyway, with mentioned media alone. Limiting other sources of information is another step that some time ago seemed absolutely impossible for me. But lookie here - they did it and made it look so justified, no one opposed.
It actually gives me creeps that someone is trying to limit information in order to control what we think. It gives me creeps that information alone is something that might prove dangerous for those in control when in possession of common people.
But it's always been like this - why is it that long ago even the Bible was on the List of Prohibited Books (many editions remained there till the end)? Was it too complicated for common people to understand or maybe someone was scared that too many people will see all the absurds?
If someone doesn't want us to think freely then there is DEFINITELY something very nasty about it.
On the other hand - consider the recent WikiLeaks incidents. They DID uncover some nasty things and incredible USA's lies (the Ballistic Missile Defense system in Poland case is outrageous -.- ) but on the other hand, those information alone were dangerous enough to tighten the current international situation even more. I DO think that publishing every possible information without any second thought may be dangerous - maybe even lead to war?
Staying on WikiLeaks topic... surprisingly, after all the documents had leaked out, it turned out Assange was sexually assaulting two women. Well, why haven't we heard about it earlier? Maybe leaking the recent info had turned him on so much he had to rape someone right away? And how comes that suddenly Postfinance suspends his bank account due to "false information regarding his place of residence during the account opening process"? Why didn't they discover it earlier?
This is the democracy we live in - the democracy in which you can freely destroy life of someone who uncovers inconvenient truth. "Enemy of the State"... now, live!
Getting back to "awareness and passivity" now... whole lot of people are protesting now and defending Assange. It shows a lot... but what does it change? Nothing. He will be found guilty and if he won't - he will probably have some "accident" soon :=]
And everyone who is shouting in his defence now... will soon forget.
(...)
And if we can't speak or think freely, we aren't living in a democracy - no matter if we can vote or not.
// Robert Stjärnström"
Actually... do you (everyone) really believe in the thing called "democracy"? Do you believe it to be a good, efficient system and most importantly - do you believe it to have ever existed and worked the way it was supposed to?
