> 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.
Absurd and not at all surprising today. And large sections of many populations do not care because their ideology aligns with whoever is doing the abuse of basic freedoms.
Exactly. In New Zealand I got a visit from the police because of something I said on social media. It wasn't an offence, it just made them suspicious so they questioned me then went away. But some western countries are even worse and do imprison people for quite long sentences (sometime years) for saying politically wrong ideas on social media - UK is most notorious for this but it's well supported by the population who mostly just wants to punish anyone who disagrees with their politics.
Can you provide an example of a single case where the UK has imprisoned people for political expression on social media?
As far as I can tell this is just far-right propaganda to disguise what actually happened -- which is the UK imprisoning people for conspiracies to burn down hotels with immigrants in them; or participating in on-going violent riots by calling for various buildings to be attacked or people to be murdered.
This speech isnt covered by free expression, and is a crime in all countries, including the US.
There are a couple of cases like this, including one about some racist remarks in liverpool -- both were overturned on appeal.
> Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which would ultimately quash the conviction.
These are absolutely trivial cases to assume that somehow the UK has suspended the free expression rights of its citizens. These amount to over-reach by the lowest courts (staffed by volunteer judges, fyi) which were corrected. That's about as good as justice is in practice.
(It's also an unaddressed issue on exactly what social media is -- people tend to assume its some private conversation, but its at least as plausible to treat it as a acts of publishing to a public environment. When those actions constitue attacks on people, the UK/Europe have typically regarded public attacks as having fewer free expression protections).
Neverthless, these cases are used by the far right online to disguise what has been action taken by the UK gov against far right quasi-terrorist groups engaged in mass violence. The UK gov is not persecuting people for free expression, they have taken action against people using social media to organise murder.
One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.
There have always been limits to free speech. Free speech has never meant you can incite violence, for example. You cannot order your goons to kill someone and then defend yourself on the basis of free speech.
This is so fucked up. Can't wait for them to knock because of some misunderstood inside joke. If anyone reads my private messages, straight to jail for profanity.
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.
TFA mentions 4 recommendations that social media platforms can implement to prevent the abuse of their users. These aren't even political, but pertain to the practice of doxxing in general.
And like a sibling comment mentioned, companies should operate separately from governments. When that separation is blurred the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place in order to keep companies from abusing people, and from being an extension for governments to do the same, are just gone. At that point the country becomes a corporatocracy, serving the interests of companies rather than citizens.
The US has arguably functioned like this for decades, but when there are literal businessmen in power this is more evident than ever before. It's how you get scenarios of presidents manipulating the economy for their and their cronies' benefit. The next step is complete authoritarianism where companies are government puppets, where the spread of and access to information is tightly controlled and sprinkled with their own propaganda in order to keep megalomaniacs in power, and where any dissidence is squashed before it has the chance to spread. This is how you get China, Russia, and any government that aspires to that formula.
It's crazy that this needs explanation, or that it's a controversial line of thought.
It’s not practical to think that companies can operate separately from governments and indeed I think they should not. We want companies to be subject to the law. That means if governments bring something like a subpoena or other court order to the company, the company should comply.
Well for jurisdictions where the government weaponizes the justice system that means the company either has to choose not to do business there or to bend the knee..
> And like a sibling comment mentioned, companies should operate separately from governments.
Unless you are making the claim that the Thai government is giving special privilege to Meta/X or vice versa, then it already is this way. Since the doxxing/bullying happened anyways, this is irrelevant.
I think we both agree that what is happening in this article is bad. You made some assertion that “lack of oversight…is incompetence at best, and complicity at worst“, so who is supposed to provide this oversight? You are clearly saying “not a government”, but I think that social networks doing this “oversight” of what governments are doing is equally dangerous.
Your "be independent" is what I was hinting at with my "replace". The GP suggests that social networks either need to have oversight or be the oversight. You assert that they should be the oversight, but how is that not the same totalitarianism?
To keep this on topic: the GP is suggesting that Meta/X put checks on what the Thai government is able to do on their platforms. This feels like a thin appeal to some higher authority that hopefully GP agrees with more, and definitely doesn't feel like a less totalitarian approach.
Those of us who want democracy want governments to regulate companies since a government at least has the potential of becoming democratic (companies don’t).
There are many others who want them to just “enable” society—perhaps because of their own financial incentives.
Lmao. That ship sailed decades ago, my guy. Elon Musk is probably the best thing to happen for free speech on social media (except the X rebrand, which is cringe). Think back to 2020 when just saying you have any misgivings about taking part in Pfizer's impromptu global human trials would get you shadowbanned. Or in some cases, fully debanked and without a job. All the while people just like you who would later demonize Trump and Musk were cheering on censorship in the name of "fighting misinformation and fake news".
Do you think from the Thais' perspective they're doing anything different? They're just upholding social order and morals!
There is an entire generation that grew up so monitored and censored they don't even notice it. To Gen Alpha, censorship is a fact of life, needed, good, and carried out in the name of bettering society. The totalitarian state is here and now, not in some nebulous future. Because people just like you supported censorship in the name of social good.
As long as people can be made to support government control of speech in the name of some real or imagined social good, totalitarianism is sure to follow. There is no such thing as using censorship for good.
> Elon Musk is probably the best thing to happen for free speech on social media
Ha. Please tell me more about this fantasy world you live in. The only thing Musk has done is tilt the needle towards his own biases[1]. Disinformation on X is still rampant[2], and Musk himself is one of the top spreaders of it. Those who benefit from spreading disinformation love to spout the idea that they're victims of censorship, and appeal to free speech absolutism. Yet when placed in positions of power, they're the same ones who censor opposing views for whatever reason they find convenient, while allowing the nonsense they believe in to spread.
There was a time when journalism followed a code of ethics. Its mission was to inform the public of world events, without putting a spin on facts. Once media companies became profit-driven corporations, and particularly once social media platforms took over and everyone was given a megaphone to spout their opinion as fact, ethics went out the window, disinformation was cheap to spread, and people were no longer in a position to distinguish fact from fiction.
So this is not about censorship. It's about promoting factual information about the world we live in, while demoting whatever someone thinks reality is, and especially when someone could benefit from that line of thinking. This is not a particularly hard problem to solve, but it won't happen on platforms that are driven by profits from engagement. Companies have no incentive to promote truth. Their only incentive is accumulating wealth, and they'll do that by any means necessary. Thinking that free speech will prosper and disinformation will wane on these platforms is delusional, especially now that we have autocrat sympathizers running them, and both companies and the government benefit from the status quo. If you think these people will give up power willingly, think again.
I find it quite eye-rolling that people still talk like (1) Pfizer's is the only vaccine in the world, (2) that the various vaccines' rollout was itself the trial.
Not heard of anyone getting debanked for it — "u", sure, but not "a".
with all due respect, is it possible that because you havent heard about it, that is has happened? and PROVIDED it has happened, would you agree that this is atrocious to the level where anyone involved in ANY kind of government capacity would deserve to be thrown in jail forever for that crime?
> 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?
It was not that long ago that even I remember you had to be vaccinated even here in Eastern Europe to be able to keep your job, have doctor's visit, and basic functioning in general. Thankfully I escaped it, as I always have been a reclusive. What I did not escape is an autoimmune disease, unfortunately, but not caused by the vaccines.
Thai authorities can also arrest and jail you if you leave bad reviews on Google maps. If you visit Thailand it's best not to say anything but positive things about the country on social media.
Probably not a bad strategy. The people who go by Google reviews probably only visit once in a lifetime whether they like Thailand or not, so it pays to wow them with fraudulent reviews and then gouge them as much as possible while they’re in the country.
It’s not as if they’re going to leave early in the stay and go back to Europe or North America, because of the sunk cost fallacy.
I love Thailand as a country but they should relax the defamation thing. A while ago I wanted to criticize the human zoo they setup in the North but I was advised by some Thai friends to not say anything unless I want to get banned from the country.
It is interesting to examine the case of Brokedown Palace, which was set in Thailand, but filmed in the Philippines, because it was “critical of the Thai legal system”
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.
The fact that your knee jerk response was to put words in his mouth, specifically the ones you chose, and then claim you stand for liberty really casts a lot of doubt on that second part.
Nowhere did he say corporations would be doing everything. There were a whole plethora of organizations and institutions (social clubs, religious adjacent institutions, etc) that used do do a lot of the public good type stuff and have fallen by the wayside or become indistinguishable from government contractors over the past 100yr as high touch western governments have usurped and stuck their noses in their functions.
when it fears what I and my neighbors will do to it. When it personally thinks about its accountability to the people around it, on firstname basis, any time it even considers spending money.
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.
Maximally efficient food production and distribution is definitely not what anybody should want. Redundancy and stockpiles aren't efficient but are good for food security. Efficiency comes with fragility, which risks famine should anything ever go wrong.
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.
> 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.
Enforcement of lèse-majesté never went away but now it’s been weaponised to include criticism of the military.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/american-academic-arrested-thaila...
Absurd and not at all surprising today. And large sections of many populations do not care because their ideology aligns with whoever is doing the abuse of basic freedoms.
Exactly. In New Zealand I got a visit from the police because of something I said on social media. It wasn't an offence, it just made them suspicious so they questioned me then went away. But some western countries are even worse and do imprison people for quite long sentences (sometime years) for saying politically wrong ideas on social media - UK is most notorious for this but it's well supported by the population who mostly just wants to punish anyone who disagrees with their politics.
Can you provide an example of a single case where the UK has imprisoned people for political expression on social media?
As far as I can tell this is just far-right propaganda to disguise what actually happened -- which is the UK imprisoning people for conspiracies to burn down hotels with immigrants in them; or participating in on-going violent riots by calling for various buildings to be attacked or people to be murdered.
This speech isnt covered by free expression, and is a crime in all countries, including the US.
I’m guessing this[0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_joke_trial
There are a couple of cases like this, including one about some racist remarks in liverpool -- both were overturned on appeal.
> Chambers appealed against the Crown Court decision to the High Court, which would ultimately quash the conviction.
These are absolutely trivial cases to assume that somehow the UK has suspended the free expression rights of its citizens. These amount to over-reach by the lowest courts (staffed by volunteer judges, fyi) which were corrected. That's about as good as justice is in practice.
(It's also an unaddressed issue on exactly what social media is -- people tend to assume its some private conversation, but its at least as plausible to treat it as a acts of publishing to a public environment. When those actions constitue attacks on people, the UK/Europe have typically regarded public attacks as having fewer free expression protections).
Neverthless, these cases are used by the far right online to disguise what has been action taken by the UK gov against far right quasi-terrorist groups engaged in mass violence. The UK gov is not persecuting people for free expression, they have taken action against people using social media to organise murder.
One should be careful to note where this perception of UK speech laws is coming from. It's not free speech classical liberals.
Well - what it was, that you have said? You fully know it changes things.
Good job confirming his point.
There have always been limits to free speech. Free speech has never meant you can incite violence, for example. You cannot order your goons to kill someone and then defend yourself on the basis of free speech.
This is so fucked up. Can't wait for them to knock because of some misunderstood inside joke. If anyone reads my private messages, straight to jail for profanity.
The cops visited me in Minecraft last month.
They said to be careful, because if I die in Minecraft, I die in REAL LIFE!
https://m.xkcd.com/180/
[flagged]
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.
TFA mentions 4 recommendations that social media platforms can implement to prevent the abuse of their users. These aren't even political, but pertain to the practice of doxxing in general.
And like a sibling comment mentioned, companies should operate separately from governments. When that separation is blurred the checks and balances that are supposed to be in place in order to keep companies from abusing people, and from being an extension for governments to do the same, are just gone. At that point the country becomes a corporatocracy, serving the interests of companies rather than citizens.
The US has arguably functioned like this for decades, but when there are literal businessmen in power this is more evident than ever before. It's how you get scenarios of presidents manipulating the economy for their and their cronies' benefit. The next step is complete authoritarianism where companies are government puppets, where the spread of and access to information is tightly controlled and sprinkled with their own propaganda in order to keep megalomaniacs in power, and where any dissidence is squashed before it has the chance to spread. This is how you get China, Russia, and any government that aspires to that formula.
It's crazy that this needs explanation, or that it's a controversial line of thought.
It’s not practical to think that companies can operate separately from governments and indeed I think they should not. We want companies to be subject to the law. That means if governments bring something like a subpoena or other court order to the company, the company should comply.
Well for jurisdictions where the government weaponizes the justice system that means the company either has to choose not to do business there or to bend the knee..
> And like a sibling comment mentioned, companies should operate separately from governments.
Unless you are making the claim that the Thai government is giving special privilege to Meta/X or vice versa, then it already is this way. Since the doxxing/bullying happened anyways, this is irrelevant.
I think we both agree that what is happening in this article is bad. You made some assertion that “lack of oversight…is incompetence at best, and complicity at worst“, so who is supposed to provide this oversight? You are clearly saying “not a government”, but I think that social networks doing this “oversight” of what governments are doing is equally dangerous.
Err.. be independent of governments.
The thinking of your post betrays an increasingly common totalitarian assumption behind the role of government -- perhaps covid has caused this.
In liberal democracies the government is always supposed to have only a minimal, enabling, role to civil society.
Your "be independent" is what I was hinting at with my "replace". The GP suggests that social networks either need to have oversight or be the oversight. You assert that they should be the oversight, but how is that not the same totalitarianism?
To keep this on topic: the GP is suggesting that Meta/X put checks on what the Thai government is able to do on their platforms. This feels like a thin appeal to some higher authority that hopefully GP agrees with more, and definitely doesn't feel like a less totalitarian approach.
> the GP is suggesting that Meta/X put checks on what the Thai government is able to do on their platforms
No, that's not at all what I'm suggesting.[1]
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43749941
Those of us who want democracy want governments to regulate companies since a government at least has the potential of becoming democratic (companies don’t).
There are many others who want them to just “enable” society—perhaps because of their own financial incentives.
> Chilling. Governments weaponizing information they have on citizens is textbook dystopian
Welcome to government.
Lmao. That ship sailed decades ago, my guy. Elon Musk is probably the best thing to happen for free speech on social media (except the X rebrand, which is cringe). Think back to 2020 when just saying you have any misgivings about taking part in Pfizer's impromptu global human trials would get you shadowbanned. Or in some cases, fully debanked and without a job. All the while people just like you who would later demonize Trump and Musk were cheering on censorship in the name of "fighting misinformation and fake news".
Do you think from the Thais' perspective they're doing anything different? They're just upholding social order and morals!
There is an entire generation that grew up so monitored and censored they don't even notice it. To Gen Alpha, censorship is a fact of life, needed, good, and carried out in the name of bettering society. The totalitarian state is here and now, not in some nebulous future. Because people just like you supported censorship in the name of social good.
As long as people can be made to support government control of speech in the name of some real or imagined social good, totalitarianism is sure to follow. There is no such thing as using censorship for good.
> Elon Musk is probably the best thing to happen for free speech on social media
Ha. Please tell me more about this fantasy world you live in. The only thing Musk has done is tilt the needle towards his own biases[1]. Disinformation on X is still rampant[2], and Musk himself is one of the top spreaders of it. Those who benefit from spreading disinformation love to spout the idea that they're victims of censorship, and appeal to free speech absolutism. Yet when placed in positions of power, they're the same ones who censor opposing views for whatever reason they find convenient, while allowing the nonsense they believe in to spread.
There was a time when journalism followed a code of ethics. Its mission was to inform the public of world events, without putting a spin on facts. Once media companies became profit-driven corporations, and particularly once social media platforms took over and everyone was given a megaphone to spout their opinion as fact, ethics went out the window, disinformation was cheap to spread, and people were no longer in a position to distinguish fact from fiction.
So this is not about censorship. It's about promoting factual information about the world we live in, while demoting whatever someone thinks reality is, and especially when someone could benefit from that line of thinking. This is not a particularly hard problem to solve, but it won't happen on platforms that are driven by profits from engagement. Companies have no incentive to promote truth. Their only incentive is accumulating wealth, and they'll do that by any means necessary. Thinking that free speech will prosper and disinformation will wane on these platforms is delusional, especially now that we have autocrat sympathizers running them, and both companies and the government benefit from the status quo. If you think these people will give up power willingly, think again.
[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2024/01/09/elon-mus...
[2]: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/wrong-claims-by-musk-us-ele...
I find it quite eye-rolling that people still talk like (1) Pfizer's is the only vaccine in the world, (2) that the various vaccines' rollout was itself the trial.
Not heard of anyone getting debanked for it — "u", sure, but not "a".
with all due respect, is it possible that because you havent heard about it, that is has happened? and PROVIDED it has happened, would you agree that this is atrocious to the level where anyone involved in ANY kind of government capacity would deserve to be thrown in jail forever for that crime?
Tell us please about the person who got de-banked for expressing skepticism about the Pfizer rollout online
> 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?
It was not that long ago that even I remember you had to be vaccinated even here in Eastern Europe to be able to keep your job, have doctor's visit, and basic functioning in general. Thankfully I escaped it, as I always have been a reclusive. What I did not escape is an autoimmune disease, unfortunately, but not caused by the vaccines.
Thai authorities can also arrest and jail you if you leave bad reviews on Google maps. If you visit Thailand it's best not to say anything but positive things about the country on social media.
Probably not a bad strategy. The people who go by Google reviews probably only visit once in a lifetime whether they like Thailand or not, so it pays to wow them with fraudulent reviews and then gouge them as much as possible while they’re in the country.
It’s not as if they’re going to leave early in the stay and go back to Europe or North America, because of the sunk cost fallacy.
That’s more about Thailand’s ridiculously strict defamation laws than suppressing criticism of the country.
I love Thailand as a country but they should relax the defamation thing. A while ago I wanted to criticize the human zoo they setup in the North but I was advised by some Thai friends to not say anything unless I want to get banned from the country.
Free speech is important for progress.
... human zoo?
It is interesting to examine the case of Brokedown Palace, which was set in Thailand, but filmed in the Philippines, because it was “critical of the Thai legal system”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brokedown_Palace#Filming
Except it was Manila and the Philippines that banned actress Claire Danes, after she slagged off Manila by basically telling lies to media outlets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Danes#Personal_life
But we’ve all known since 1984 that one night in Bangkok makes a hard man humble. https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=rgc_LRjlbTU&si=aVIPqwJfNdf...
> Sanctuary Center for Psychotic Female Vagrants
Well, that certainly is a name. (For an actual filming location in Manila, that is.)
Ok that only happened once, and only because the guy created multiple blatantly false reviews. It's not as simple as "food was shite."
> Barnes later submitted negative reviews of the hotel online, including one that said the resort’s foreign management “treat the staff like slaves”.
> Barnes later submitted negative reviews of the hotel online, including one that said the resort’s foreign management “treat the staff like slaves”.
How do you know that's "blatantly false"?
Staff in Thai hotels are not generally held in chattel slavery.
I really doubt they would target tourists. Or are there examples?
It happened once. TripAdvisor still shows a banner on the hotel page regarding the event: https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Hotel_Review-g580110-d594766-R...
[dead]
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.
> (government is bad at solving most problems)
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
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.
The fact that your knee jerk response was to put words in his mouth, specifically the ones you chose, and then claim you stand for liberty really casts a lot of doubt on that second part.
Nowhere did he say corporations would be doing everything. There were a whole plethora of organizations and institutions (social clubs, religious adjacent institutions, etc) that used do do a lot of the public good type stuff and have fallen by the wayside or become indistinguishable from government contractors over the past 100yr as high touch western governments have usurped and stuck their noses in their functions.
>I reject the implication, that corporations are always better at solving most problems.
The only person mentioning corporations was you.
There is no alternative. Governement, or corporations. Choose one.
There in fact are many forms of community organization which are neither government nor corporation.
> if the government is the one keeping my liberty maximized
yeah.... but its not :)
[flagged]
How do you know when it's small enough?
when it fears what I and my neighbors will do to it. When it personally thinks about its accountability to the people around it, on firstname basis, any time it even considers spending money.
HN User Silexia will tell you of course.
What you’re saying is broadly true but my understanding is that the Thai government is dysfunctional in an Emperor Nero sort of way.
Are you referring to Air Marshal Fufu? The wiki article does not disappoint.
[flagged]
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.
Maximally efficient food production and distribution is definitely not what anybody should want. Redundancy and stockpiles aren't efficient but are good for food security. Efficiency comes with fragility, which risks famine should anything ever go wrong.
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'm giving you an upvote because I am 51% sure that was just good trolling.
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.
Why would anything there be ‘the best it can be’ in that scenario?
can linux kernel code be 'the best it can be'?
because people are allowed to fix their own issues, and also allowed to put their name on their work in the public eye.
neither, generally, would be possible in the scenario you describe.
please note that I am not OP.
How about 'generic' drugs? are they the best 'manufactured' they can be?
Generally?
No. But will meet regulatory minimums insofar as active ingredients, purity, etc.
They don’t have a monopoly like the OP described, however. If they did? Yikes…
Notably, that kind of economy is roughly how the USSR ran, and no one praised it when it died.