I agree, although I was referring to asterisks like de*d and k*ll (or censoring with black bars, or using emojis) - euphemisms of course have always been part of language evolution.
I chose unalive because i didn't know google trends allowed searching for asterisks. Appears it does. k*ll was apparently used even before tiktok but usage increased markedly around the same time as unalive appeared. Interestingly d*ad and r*pe don't follow this pattern. I am not sure it treats asterisks correctly, nor that google trends is the right tool to research this, given people searching for the word is only a poor indicator of its usage.
Sidenote, I wish all websites supported markdown properly and not a custom weird subset they found convenient.
Word filters are only the beginning. LLMs are being phased in to flag and filter content based on more sophisticated criteria.
I read somewhere that chinese people used the ability of their language to form new meanings by concatenating multiple symbols in many different ways to get around censorship and that each time the new combination was banned, they came up with a new one. I wonder how long that'll be possible.
> Our license plates started with “Gan-A,” the same as the provincial capital. We laughed at people from other cities like Jiayuguan (“Gan-B”) or Jiuquan (“Gan-F”). Even as kids, we joked, “We’re still number one.” Because our grandparents were the country’s elite and we lived in the “Nuclear City,” I always felt like I was living at the center of the world.
Am I reading too much into this or does China have a culture of competition which involves mocking those you deem below you even for the most shallow reasons?
That’s a very observant question. I wouldn’t say it’s a universal Chinese culture of competition, but rather a reflection of the naive, bubble-like pride we had as children in that specific environment.
We genuinely believed we were special because of the city's status, even if that pride was based on something as shallow as a license plate. It was our way of making sense of our 'elite' isolation. The irony is that this unrealistic sense of superiority made the eventual loss of our home even more disorienting. When the world you thought was the 'center' disappears, you're left feeling completely lost.
Mocking those below you is almost a global phenomena that humans seems to have been doing almost forever, and still do, almost everywhere on the planet. Doesn't really strike me as something uniquely Chinese by any margins.
It would be like someone writing an article about growing up in a town with a winning sports team, joking with others about those living in towns with losing sports teams.
Imagine someone reading that and commenting, “…am I reading too much into this or does America have a culture of competition which involves mocking those you deem below you even for the most shallow reasons?”
mine too, but none was such a dick. also, anything related to school (particularly at a young age), is not viewed as something to boast of (at least in my experience in italy, serbia and portugal).
While I absolutely agree that in the current state of things most western people are so well off they can't even imagine what it means to actually be oppressed and suffer, I can't help but notice that the current state of things can quickly change and that we're in a constant yet barely visible struggle with forces that want to bring about just that kind of oppression here and that we're slowly losing it.
You might think this is about the rise of fascism[0] in the US, Chat Control in the EU, the failure of revolution in Belarus and Turkey, censorship in the UK, martial law in South Korea, etc. But it's about all of those.
I am reminded that the only real power comes from violence (performed or threatened) and that we keep building cool stuff because we get paid a lot, yet we don't own the product of our work and it is increasingly being used against us. We don't have guns to our heads yet but the goal of AI is to remove what little bargaining power we have by making us economically redundant.
At every point in history, oppressing a group of people required controlling another (smaller but better armed) group of people willing to perform the oppression. And for the first time in history, "thanks" to AI and robotics, this requirement will be lifted.
The Netherlands in 2025 is a decadent country were everyone can do whatever the hell they want.
But a gay man growing up in the 1950s in a rural village was plenty oppressed.
It's actually quite fascinating how in the 1960s/70s we had a Cultural Revolution of our own that ended a thousand years of religious oppression! And we didn't even have a Mao.
But never forget we are always one bad week away from sliding backwards.
> I am reminded that the only real power comes from violence
Rather from numbers in my opinion. "Divide and conquer", or its modern equivalent "confuse and manipulate", is what makes violence effective. It is always striking to compare how much people are similar, even in our divided society, versus how much dissimilar they think they are. I'm used to help organize long boat trips with all kind of people from various backgrounds, and it's funny to watch.
In the past it was easy to convince people that "the other" was strange and dangerous, due to physical distance. Today we achieve the same with social media.
Because for now more people means more violence. If you control more people, you control more potential violence. So if your enemy controls more people, you need to either amass more people in your cause or divide the enemy's cause.
And there are limits to how many people you can control. Even in the past, they were surprisingly large to my liking. Helot slaves to their Spartan owners were 7:1 at some point apparently. Soldiers in WW1 had riles and bayonets, yet one guy with a revolver could send dozens of them to their deaths. But still, it was impossible to censor communication among ordinary people and prominent enemies of the regime required constant supervision by another person. Digging up dirt or evidence could take months of work. Now so much communication is online, detecting dissent can be automated to a large extent. There's a limit to how many people can be in prison without starving and without the state collapsing by how many people need to perform useful work and how many people you need to guard them.
But I bet soon we'll see a new dystopian nightmare where prisoners are watched by automated systems 24/7, increasing the prisoner to guard ratio. And finally, look at Ukraine. Artillery was the primary cause of casualties in the past century of wars and you needed people to transport heavy shells, load and fire them. Apparently 1 ton of explosives per death. Now it's drones, which can be mass produced largely automatically and controlled automatically. And they are so precise you could use them to target individuals in crowds.
I follow lesswrong from a distance and they are all about AI takeover but I have seen almost nothing about humans using AI to enslave other humans. And I mean literally almost nothing, I only use "almost" because I remember maybe one post by a person other than me here on HN and that's it.
As for the general trend towards authoritarianism, I see some mentions here and there but I don't think the general population is aware or cares. Usually, most people only start caring when something materially affects them so the typical strategy of divide and conquer ("target minorities first") works quite well.
The saddest thing is we (the people) should be learning from countries like nazi Germany or current China and Russia about what not to do, or specifically what not to allow other people to do. But really, general education is shit and history is taught by memorizing names and dates. Plus children don't have enough real world experience to truly understand most of the processes driving historical events and I think most people in general never reach the combination of intelligence and systems thinking to apply any knowledge they might have gained. By all metrics, I am well above average intelligence and even I needed to have a fresh look at history once I started realizing basic principles like "incentives drive behavior".
It's the opposite - they (the rich and connected) are learning from history - what didn't work last time and what to do differently.
Whenever people start talking about things called "the rise of fascism in the US" as if its a foregone fact rather than a highly fringe opinion, it's unfortunately rather easy to assume that the person doesn't have a good ability to tell fact from "story they heard online from a web post".
It's fine if you want to argue that there is a rise in fascism in the US, but you need to actually pose that argument, not just talk about it as if its true and that everyone agrees with you.
Also, there is not currently any martial law in South Korea. That was a brief event that lasted a matter of hours from when it was announced and when it was repealed. It's an open question if any actions were actually performed under the guises of it.
The POTUS is calling for his political enemies to be executed. He has sent soldiers - illegally - into “Democrat cities”. He is using what is left of the DOJ to prosecute political enemies. The dismissal rate in the DC circuit is at 20% due to all the baseless vindictive prosecutions. The FCC is cancelling shows critical of the POTUS. SCOTUS is allowing racial profiling. ICE has committed a half dozen high profile cases of political violence against protestors - several in direct violation of a federal judges orders.
But yes, you are its hysterical fringe voices calling this the “rise of fascism in the US”.
The source I linked is written by a historian[0] - a guy who actually studied how this kind of stuff happens. You'll also notice that his post uses a fairly high standard of proof - using 2 different definitions of fascism and using only the wannabe-dictator's own statements to show he satisfies all points.
There's also a YouTube video and a YouTube video. Here's an actual lawyer talking about the legality of the proto-dictator's actions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hybL-GJov7M
I think it should be perfectly OK to make value judgements of other people, and if they are backed by evidence, make them publicly and make them have consequences for that person's position.
A recent review of one of Canada's Federal Institutions showed the correct advice was given 17% of the time[0]. 83% failure rate. Not a soul has been fired unless something changed recently.
I do agree however with your assessment because any (additional) accountability would improve matters.
So progress is always good, no matter how many people's work you exploit without their consent? You have a nice car, can I just take it and use it myself? Why is code any different? Is slavery OK too?
A much more interesting problem is how to create prosperity without throwing people under the bus - with everybody who contributed profiting proportionally to their contribution.
> I don’t understand why any company would want the liability of holding on to any personal data if it wasn’t vital to the operations of the business, considering all the data breaches we’ve seen over the past decade or so.
They're OK with the liability exactly because of this very sentence. As you said, there's so many data breaches... so where are the company-ending fines and managers/execs going to prison?
Here in Japan the government cracks down on it hard. There are fines for every n users exposed and in extreme cases a company can be forced to stop trading for a period of days or weeks. Companies are so scared of this happening to them that a significant portion of orientation for new employees is spent on it. I don't have stats on how effective it is, but I do know that the public is less willing to accept it as they tend to elsewhere.
Is this true? KADOKAWA had a massive hack last year that leaked a large amount of sensitive user data and as far as I know has faced no legal repercussions. Obviously they took a decent financial and reputational hit, but that was just an effect of the hack itself, not any government intervention.
Up to EUR 10,000,000 or up to 2% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher; applies to infringements such as controller and processor obligations, security of processing, record-keeping, and breach notification duties.
Up to EUR 20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher; applies to infringements of basic principles for processing, data subjects’ rights, and unlawful transfers of personal data to third countries or international organisations.
Sure, in principle. Have you heard of any company that suffered any significant hardship (say, stock price plummeting, personnel reductions, bankruptcy) because of one of these fines?
Big companies arent suffering any of those. But small businesses and individuals are. Just see the enforcement lists. They are fining small flower shops that sent emails to 20-30 people, some of whom subscribed to it decades ago, then forgot. Or small internet startups for missing one subscription record and whatnot. Like all other corporate moat-building efforts, GDPR has been successful in destroying small businesses in favor of big ones.
I find it stupid, it is what it is, just say it. This double speak serves no purpose.
reply