Russian-born French-Emirati entrepreneur Pavel Durov was arrested by French authorities on 24 August 2024. The reason for his arrest was complicity regarding the rampant unregulated use of the messenger app he founded, Telegram, for scamming, trafficking, and extremist and other criminal activity. The messenger's end-to-end encryption for bilateral communications is a method of his, being a libertarian, to uphold confidentiality.
Some officials of the Russian Federation under Vladimir Putin protested against his detention, even if the regime once threatened to block the social media platform as it was unwilling to upgrade its regulation mechanisms in favour of the government. When Putin invaded Ukraine, major platforms Facebook and Twitter (Durov's fellow libertarian entrepreneur Elon Musk renamed this to X) were blocked in the country, whilst regime officials continued to utilise Telegram in their correspondence. So in a superficial and foolish perspective, since Durov is Russian and he allowed Telegram to be used by pro-war personalities and for pro-Putin propagandistic purposes, his arrest would be welcomed.
But that's not my reason for doing so. In every service I subscribe to or avail (in every platform, every app, every game), once the service' end-user licence agreement (EULA) or terms of use (ToU) or service (ToS) appears, I thoroughly read it and only agree once finished. I never availed Telegram, but having heard of security issues involving the platform before, I checked its terms of service that was hellishly short (I rechecked it recently and it now included privacy safety and subscription terms aside from now-more-wordy-but-still-so-not-lengthy general terms). I wondered how I would be safe there, or I might become able to do the worst things and still not get caught. Complicity is the correct charge against Durov, and he should face his charges.
These accusations do not come without opposition aside from Russians; primarily this is most pronounced in conservative and libertarian circles, the likes of Robert Kennedy, Jr., Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson, plus Edward Snowden who from hero is now zero after complicity in Putin's invasion; basically people I am disagreeing with. The confidentiality Durov promoted is their cause; they argue that the West wants control over social media and over the narrative given to the global public, after numerous controversies on narratives, propaganda and privacy (in the United States from FBI monitoring, the Red Scare and the harassment against the Civil Rights Movement, to WikiLeaks and the invasion of privacy by National Security Agency (NSA) personnel, which Snowden exposed). Their advocacy is freedom.
. . . . .
If we are using the perspective of the United States, "the Land of the Free", all political parties have their understandings of the concept of freedom. I will be using two focuses that are most pronounced and which I can compare with each other: of the social liberal, and of the conservative libertarian.
The "freedom" on one side is rooted on civil rights and has an approach close to the Civil Rights Movement period. Considering ethnicity, gender and the dark history of the American society, these freedoms include "freedom from gun violence", "freedom from inequality" and "freedom to express one's identity". On the other side, "freedom" is focused on the individual ability to do different actions and tasks, like "freedom to own", "freedom in management of businesses and markets" and "freedom to express one's thought".
The issue of gun violence divided the American society into two freedoms: from gun violence, and to bear arms. For the "gun rights" activist, this is to defend themselves from potential harm from wrongdoers; lack of discipline already exists, and adherents address how to live in a world lacking discipline. For the gun control advocate, this same lack of discipline makes guns more susceptible to abuse, which can infringe the right to life.
The economy is another polemic issue, with two freedoms again. To reduce inequalities, certain services have to be socialised, like in healthcare and education; those below the poverty line should receive aid; and affirmative action is practised, due to historic unequal treatment towards marginalised groups. These measures require budget, and it means taxes, and libertarians want lesser government control, thus lower taxes or no taxation; in terms of businesses this would mean lower expenses and thus lower cost of goods and services.
A common thing between these two interpretations of freedom is the practice of individualism, but from this the two interpretations diverge. For the social liberal, the norm before was of family values, of gender roles, of prejudices on races, thus the resistance to conform to these norms and the resultant freedom to express their identities. With the continuation of the "old" norms, new groups formed are prone to discrimination, and combining the expression and equality freedoms come diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). This is where conservatism enters: for the conservative libertarian, this is the new norm they are facing, and whereas tradition is dictatorship to the former group, DEI and liberalism are dictatorship to the latter, because the new expressions go against values that have been established. Having been aware of the darkness of American history-- Europeans arriving in the New World, displacing its inhabitants, bringing another displaced group from another continent into, and maltreating both over time in the name of supremacy-- they reject their actions being discriminatory, although others flaunt so by spamming slurs and other vile epithets and intending to do so. Both demand respect, but for a conservative man, "Why don't you leave me live like a man who I am?"-- basically mind your own business.
This "mind your own business" is also the basis for the defence against intrusion by "three-letter agencies" (although their opposition is totally valid because of violations like the CIA assisting right-wing regimes during the Cold War (more), the FBI persecuting civil rights activists, and Snowden's revelations against the NSA; the hysteria is the fault of the intelligence agencies), but it denigrated into conspiracy theories like the American deep state and the political elites attempting to establish a Satanic and totalitarian New World Order (NWO). Globalism and multiculturalism as well as the United Nations and the World Economic Forum (I disgust the WEF for promoting elitist interests only) are attacked (I wrote a piece about the European Identitarian perspective). Climate change and vaccines are two perfect issues where you can insert libertarian counterarguments: "the Earth's climate changes, either by natural causes which fearmongers amplify or by globalists' manipulation, so the latter can implement carbon taxes and charge you more (more here)"; "vaccines are for you to pay more to Big Pharma, so we advise you to not take these because they're poison".
The authorities found these old issues, they call for the public to participate in addressing these, but conspiracy theories compel the public to do otherwise because of the baseless notion that the authorities are controlling the issues and the public. "Why don't you leave me fracking and drilling?"; "why don't you leave me unvaccinated?"; little do they know that they become the ones infringing others' rights, like more global warming-promoting activity can displace peoples in small island developing states (SIDS) and less immunity makes herd immunity less possible.
Returning to Durov, his supporters find a haven in the so-not-regulated Telegram, so do criminals and extremists. The former perceive their privacy is not invaded, but tell me if the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), two of the world's most comprehensive data privacy laws which all online services need to observe to penetrate the respective regions, are farcical.
The "freedom" also "championed" in Durov's platform infringed the freedom from crime, abuse and terrorism. They argue for safety as well, thus their defence of capital punishment, corporal punishment, gun rights and migration restrictions. They seem to misunderstand "rights", "freedom" and "safety"; they also want us to mind our own business, but their actions affect us.
. . . . .
I have been calling politicians to consider character development in their campaigns (more), and to uphold it during their tenure (more). Issues like crime, corruption, conflict, terrorism and rights abuses all involve behaviour, attitude, character and discipline, so if we will not address the flaws in individuals' character and hence the character of societies and the ethics and moral values, we will continue being in the vicious cycle. Democracy had prevailed, and we're falling back for this reason.
But I am sensing opposition thereto from libertarians: governments control prices, want to charge us much, control the narrative and now want to control how we behave; totalitarianism at its most extreme. So, if you want to be evil, be evil? All discipline shall be up to you? Let the actual ramifications of your misdeeds pester you? Shall we leave others die due to your actions?
True discipline and character development cannot occur without freedom. You need to be aware of the truth-- what the effects of all actions are, and how it can affect others-- and uphold it so you will be disciplined and grow. You don't copy your seatmate's answers not simply because it's against the rules but because you need to learn the course's lesson. You don't cheat not because it's against the rules but because you want equity for all participating. You don't break vases not because you are afraid of being spanked but because you understand the hard work of potters and of your parents to buy the vase. Freedom from disproportionate punishment and freedom to learn work hand-in-hand.
And the same applies to the response to opposition to character politics: we let them speak up and express their skepticism, and that should be countered by an argument and not by censorship, lest it be not character politics and the folly of Libertarianism be correct.
The reason we have government is for societies to be in order, so everyone can enjoy their God-given rights and be away from harm as new discoveries and innovations appear. This is part of our knowledge and instinct to not just survive but thrive as one. As humankind expands, we need more complex systems to hold it on a proper place.
"No man is an island" supplants "mind your own business"; as one song I heard said, "all of us are responsible towards one another". Mind your own, but you're not living alone, and expect an effect to others. Be apathetic and you will dislike the reaction.
Article published on 26 August 2024, 14:59 (UTC +08:00).
No comments:
Post a Comment