Slashdot Mirror
Vietnam's Internet is in Trouble (wapo.st)
The World Post: Vietnamese authorities have harped of late on the urgency of fighting cybersecurity threats and "bad and dangerous content." Yet the fight against either "fake news" or misinformation in Vietnam must not be used as a smoke screen for stifling dissenting opinions and curtailing freedom of speech [The link may be paywalled]. Doing so would only further stoke domestic cynicism in a country where the sudden expansion of space for free and open discussion has created a kind of high-pressure catharsis online. Other countries, including democratic states, are also scrambling to rein in toxic information online. But while Germany, for example, specifically targets hate speech and other extremist messaging that directly affects the masses, Vietnamese leaders are more fixated on content deemed detrimental to their own reputation and the survival of the regime.
The ruling Communist Party of Vietnam has repeatedly urged Facebook and Google to block "toxic" information that it said slandered and defamed Vietnamese leaders. Google sort of conformed by removing more than such 5,000 clips; Facebook also flagged about 160 anti-government accounts at the behest of the government.
The ruling Communist Party of Vietnam has repeatedly urged Facebook and Google to block "toxic" information that it said slandered and defamed Vietnamese leaders. Google sort of conformed by removing more than such 5,000 clips; Facebook also flagged about 160 anti-government accounts at the behest of the government.
You are mixing up communism with totaliarism.
China is communist/totaliarian with a capitalistic economy.
And I doubt their free speech laws are worth than other countries.
There are plenty of levels of democracy, actually China considers itself a democracy, go figure.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yea- it's not just online. They've utilized it to curtail the right of the people to free movement. The vast majority of the world can't be traveled without the use of a motor vehicle and governments all over have mandated operators get permission slips. Safety might be the excuse used today for drivers licenses- but it was fear and propaganda of new fangled technology that we have drivers licenses. Until the late 1960s there were states in the US that had no road nor written tests. Since at least the 1990s governments have been utilizing drivers licenses to inflict damage on disliked groups. From deadbeat dads to underage graffiti artists. They'll suspend your license if you don't pay child support. If you are under the driving age and commit a graffiti offense they'll prevent you from getting a drivers license for a number of years. The law is discriminatory in that it only applies to young persons and older persons committing these offenses need not worry.
Interesting points against driver licensing and why vehicle "safety" is a poor excuse. In New Hampshire motor vehicle insurance is not mandatory. One would think this would be important to ensure the well being of all drivers and passengers on the road- or so the argument goes. The way New Hampshire does things is different in that you are only liable for injury and how you make the injured party whole is entirely up to you. If you are in an accident your drivers license is suspend only if you can't demonstrate an ability to cover the injured party. Now you might argue- but what about people who can't pay and aren't insured? Well, these people do exist. The problem is they also exist in states with mandatory insurance and statistically New Hampshire leads the way in the number of insured drivers because insurance companies have to compete with $0. If insurance companies raise rates too much people with the least of means simply stop paying for motor vehicle insurance. Thus it turns out there is an incentive to keep your insurance rates low for the sake of maximizing the number of customers. This leads to more people being able to afford car insurance and actually getting it than in other states with mandatory car insurance.
Because of the Free State Project and the Shire Society (migration movements to gather principled libertarians in one region for the purpose of reforming or otherwise ending the system to whatever degree feasible) principled libertarians in New Hampshire have been working to end non-commercial driver licensing in the state. While we haven't exactly been successful as of yet- there are numerous other success stories. From police accountability to enacting laws which undo draconian legislation and/or bad US Supreme Court rulings. For instance we entirely eliminated the authority of the banking department to regulate crypto currencies.
I've lived there, it is real communism, it's just not nearly as bad as some other countries.
I certainly am not confusing them. It's one thing to talk about what somebody says communism is, versus what it actually is.
Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy. And as it turns out, that is what communist revolutions always do (besides depriving you of your life savings and turning your home over to the state to do whatever they want with.)
The problem is, they never actually bring back democracy. They all create a pretend democracy, and even put words like people's, republic, and democratic in the official name of their state. Pretend democracy isn't democracy, it's either an oligarchy or a dictatorship.
Disagree? Then prove it: How many communist revolutions were democratically elected? And how many communist revolutions ever allowed free speech? There have been many communist revolutions around the world, so if what you say is true, then at least one should meet both criteria.
Bonus points if you can name one communist revolution that hasn't either economically switched to capitalism, or closed their borders so nobody can leave.
Karl Marx himself stated that communism must begin with the violent overthrow of democracy
Citation is needed!
In fact, Marx has never discussed anything about how to archive communism.
One of the form of communism in idea of Marx is that the government must be exterminated, how does that mean "overthrow of democracy" when there would be not rulers at all?
Don't mixed the **interpretations** of Marx's ideas of Lenin, Mao, Stalin... in as Marx's ideas!
I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.
Henry Kissinger