chroem-

They're trade unionists. Not exactly the type of people I would put at the top of my suspected "nazi fuckwits" list.

It looks like you are correct that the surveillance app is limited to anyone who has crossed state or national borders in the last two weeks. That being said, the Australian government has not relinquished its emergency powers, and is instead pushing for additional powers such as mandatory internet ID.

An overview: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/pandemic-a...

Allowing people to leave their house for up to an hour of exercise: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-58277503

Firing on protesters: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/21/victo...

I'm not clear on what GP's connection to vaccinations is, but for what it's worth, Australia has recently implemented some very authoritarian covid policies despite it being sparsely populated. People are only allowed to leave their homes for two hours a day and everyone is required to take pictures of themselves inside their homes at regular intervals to prove their location to the police. Violators are being shot with rubber bullets, and yet despite the severity of these measures, the total number of deaths in each state can be counted on your fingers.

The amount of frothing vitriol in this thread makes it clear that Armstrong made the correct choice. Public discourse in the Bay Area has become completely toxic.

Elon has been a fairly outspoken critic of California's covid measures, as well as the state's cultural stance on free speech issues. He had previously threatened to move all of his business operations out of California because of covid restrictions, and now it looks like he is making good on those earlier comments.

> 2. Politics are highly conservative and frequently invasive.

Given Elon's previous commentary, I think he might disagree with this evaluation.

Where are the checks and balances to prevent that from happening? The public discourse is the system of checks and balances in a democracy that prevents that kind of authoritarian subversion. If you prevent people from speaking out and shape their opinions, who is able to say something when it goes too far? This is not an effort to aid democracy, it's a direct attack against it.

If democracy is a system where the average citizen controls the government through voting, how will we "protect democracy" by intentionally trying to control the opinions and actions of voters, with the implication that their current opinions are wrong? That kind of electorate shaping seems akin to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, where everyone still votes, but it's always influenced to be in favor of the Kim regime.

> In a democracy, we get to vote on how economic activity is regulated. Crypto is a tool to avoid democracy.

Do you consider the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to be a democracy? The people in that country vote overwhelmingly in favor of authoritarian policies there. I believe it's reasonable to argue that true democracy is incompatible with authoritarianism.

Places like the DPRK, Cuba, and Venezuela are especially relevant when discussing cryptocurrency because it's a technology that allows people in those locations to escape economic totalitarianism. What confuses me is that people in democratic countries are calling a tool of democracy "anti-democratic". It's completely illogical.

> You may view state control on economic activity as authoritarian, but that's a pretty extreme view.

Is it really? Throughout history it seems to go hand-in-hand with massive human rights abuses. Case studies include the USSR, DPRK, China, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.

Democracy is primarily about representation and individual freedom. "Rule of law" is one of the main selling points of authoritarian ideologies. Are you sure you didn't drop a minus sign somewhere?

> Fundamentally it's the antithesis to democracy.

What is this even supposed to mean? Strict state controls on economic activity are more within the realm of authoritarian regimes, rather than democracies.

I can refer you to your own past discussions on this topic. After all, you frequently post these same three links whenever freedom of speech comes up on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28695826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28698642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28702976

Generally speaking, you typically post some variation of "free speech is oppression"/"outlaw harmful speech", to which other posters generally reply with sources debunking the core premise of your argument, ultimately followed by you either ignoring them and doubling down and/or breaking site guidelines by throwing ad hominems. This is a very low quality of discourse for HN.

> “Freedom Is Slavery” because, according to the Party, the man who is independent is doomed to fail. By the same token, “Slavery Is Freedom,” because the man subjected to the collective will is free from danger and want.

You are attempting to frame state controls on speech as some form of "liberation". This is quite literally 1984 "Freedom is Slavery" kind of thinking.

Stop projecting yourself onto other people.

If debate is always a diversionary tactic and we should prioritize action by picking a side, why should we necessarily side with you? Are you always right?

Your position is based on a provably fallacious argument. The posters in this thread have provided you with references, but instead you're doubling down and ignoring them.

Stop peddling conspiracy theories and bad faith arguments.

Your "misinformation" is the notion that masks work, vaccines are not "100% effective" as originally claimed, and that the coronavirus strain causing covid-19 is man-made. You want to stifle political opinions that threaten your narrative, and you have twisted your words in such a way that you are framing state censorship as a form of liberation. Your advocacy for state controls on speech would be far more at home in a totalitarian regime such as the DPRK, and I suggest you pursue your ideals there.

That is a gross mischaracterization, although one that I would expect given the track record of this conversation. Your comments are filled with an unhealthy level of vitriol, and I think it would be a good idea to cool down for a while.

I think you should review the HN guidelines, as it appears your comment is breaking several of them. If you want to make posts like this you should build your own HN.

The speech in your post is oppressing me right now. Cease and desist your verbal oppression or else I will use state-sponsored violence to end your oppressively free speech.

It's all fun and games until the Ministry of Truth refers your case to the Ministry of Love.

> In reality though, laws have been limiting speech for hundreds of years, and those laws and judgements are enforced by the government. The idea that it is sacrosanct and is (and should "continue" to be) unabated is already not what happens. The usual example is about shouting bomb in an airport or fire in a crowded movie theatre but those are more about mischief than any freedom to say a thing (you aren't punished for the words alone). However, Libel and Slander laws exist and have for a long long time and are limits on free speech.

Why is it that I have never heard these laws cited outside the context of justifying additional restrictions on freedom of speech, and especially restrictions on political speech? Without digging for an example, when is the last time you personally encountered someone who was prosecuted for saying a naughty word in a movie theater or saying mean things about someone online?

And there will certainly be a great influx of illegal guns once you provide thieves with a state-compiled shopping list of where to find them.

Voting history is explicitly not public record because it would lead to voter intimidation. This is the same reason why people are concerned about this legislation.

The vast majority of firearms that are used in crimes are obtained illegally, and thus will not be subject to these lists. The data on this is widely available. This legislation is purely a punitive political measure.

We are witnessing the circulation of mass shame lists designed to deprive people of their livelihood. Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. This legislation will have a similar effect.