Hacker News

points by V__ 2 days ago | 0 comments

I will always be baffled by the dichotomy of "the US has the most freedom" and "no democratic country spies more on its citizens".

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

The US doesn't have the most freedom. There's precisely zero evidence that people in the US are the most free, except for the fact that its government tells them they are. But North Korea tells its people that even harder.

[–] billfor 2 days ago

They don’t know that they’re not free. The good thing about a real dictatorship is that you know exactly what the rules are.

[–] jgilias 2 days ago

You don’t know what the rules are in a dictatorship either. Laws and regulations exist but they get selectively enforced based on a lot of factors. Take repressions in the early Soviet Union. There’s just a bureaucratic top down edict that this many “enemies of the people” must be found, so they are found.

[–] ted_bunny 1 day ago

> North Korea tells its people that even harder.

Do they, though? Americans are more constantly propagandized than anyone else.

[–] dbvn 1 day ago

Than North Koreans? Show your bias more

[–] ted_bunny 1 day ago

They know that Kim doesn't shit ice cream like they're told, it's a loyalty test. Americans tend to never even consider that they are being lied to because their idea of propaganda is about as nuanced as a cartoon. You should do some reading on the topic.

[–] dennis_jeeves2 1 day ago

Genuine question: So anecdotally which country is the most free? Hard evidence can be difficult to obtain, but often speaking to locals and/or living in different countries does give a comparative sense of freedoms.

[–] balderdash 1 day ago

Search for freedom indexes there are a bunch with different criteria.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freedom-i...

[–] andriy_koval 1 day ago

US still in top N with not significant diff in index value from leader.

[–] chaostheory 2 days ago

The evidence is our humor. We can make fun of our leaders without being thrown into prison or worse unlike say China or North Korea. Try posting a Winnie the Pooh meme in China and see how fast it gets censored.

[–] yanhangyhy 2 days ago

well i am chinese, we do cannot post Winnie the Pooh meme(with ugly xi image), the origin carton figure is fine.(we also have a show about it in shanghai disney i think)

what troubles me is why 'humor' is the most important thing? shouldn't be the action/output of the gov? i mean, you vote someone, he promise something, he cannot do it, he breaks the law, then nothing happens, you make fun of him. then after 4 yeras, you select another person. and go on. Biden didn't get punised for what he has not achieved. So will Trump.

how does that improve your life? how can people live like this? how is that 'democray'? its very hard for our people to understand.

our neighbor counties like Mongoel and Philippines, they have a system like USA, and the popeople can make fun of their leaders all the time, i can see that from reddit. but they basiclly live in a shit hole, with a small populartion and vast resources, and they are poor than average chinese. i never understand the deulusion of them.

[–] jgilias 2 days ago

Suppression of humour is a canary in the coal mine. If you can’t make fun of the politicians, it implies multiple things:

1. There’s no freedom of speech;

2. Which implies there’s no freedom of thought;

3. There’s no separation of powers. Meaning, there’s really no “politicians”, just the ruling “nomenklatura”;

Which is fine-ish as long as the nomenklatura is benign and competent enough. It becomes problematic when (not if) the nomenklatura stops being competent. This can happen naturally because people age, still cling to power, and/or they care about their children, so they try to push them into plush nomenklatura jobs regardless of how dense their offspring might be. This is btw happening in China right now as far as I know.

When that happens, because of 1. and 2., as well as the “repression muscle” that the government has, change becomes near impossible, as you have no leverage for change outside the nomenklatura, but the nomenklatura resists it because it’s suicidal for them. Then you start stagnating and/or getting pulled into pointless wars that the nomenklatura starts to “rally the flag”.

[–] yanhangyhy 2 days ago

Everything you said is quite right. However, it is an overly generalized description that overlooks all kinds of details. I prefer details, because they reveal much more.

To take a simple example: China is currently carrying out its most severe anti-corruption campaign in decades. Five-Year Plans are still being executed, support for low-income groups is being passionately discussed across social media, and according to various reports, the government has already begun addressing disparities in the pension system.

I’m not denying anything you said. But you seem to overlook the fact that we live in a world where we are merely comparing degrees of dysfunction. The Chinese government is deeply flawed, and the US government is deeply flawed as well. So much so that those of us who use VPNs to scale the firewall are honestly tired of watching people on the outside indulge in the illusion of freedom without any desire for real change. People often fail to see that, fundamentally, both are societies controlled by privileged classes—the distinction between autocracy and democracy is far less meaningful than it appears. At least in China, most people aren't suffocated by rent, don't have to worry about mobs rioting, looting, or committing arson(ok i am talking what happening in France, i dont know whats wrong with these stupid people), and don't have to fear the ravages of drugs, walk safely in the night, enjoy comforatable public transport(the point is , if a country dont have this but have the freedom to make jokes of their leaders, i dont think most of us will move there). As for those dissatisfied with society, they can emigrate(i guess the number is clear, most people travel aboard and see the world will still lives in china), or they can use a VPN to explore the outside world and discover the truth for themselves. Likewise, outsiders can visit to see the real China.

As part of a generation raised to believe that America was a beacon of civilization—which is how the media educated us, even if the government didn't say so directly—watching the outside world turn into what it is today brings us just as much pain as it brings you. The Prism scandal happened, and yet no one learned a thing. ( i have to use gemini to translate as my writen english is not so good)

[–] jgilias 1 day ago

Yes, to quote myself:

> It’s fine-ish as long as the nomenklatura is benign and competent enough.

[–] yanhangyhy 1 day ago

i would say CCP is not the worst of them. but i do hope something better. and it would never be the shit thing like in USA or EU.

[–] chaostheory 1 day ago

> what troubles me is why 'humor' is the most important thing?

Being able to criticize your government is a fundamental freedom that can help curb things like corruption or change policy direction. Humor is a very direct and blunt form or criticism

As for your examples of democratic countries that are still not so great places, I’m pretty sure they would be even worse without their democratic freedom to criticize their respective governments

[–] yanhangyhy 1 day ago

> I’m pretty sure they would be even worse without their democratic freedom to criticize their respective governments

in an ideal world, yes. but with geopolicts, no. Like i see tons of USA news claims china is interven USA election. or Russia. I would say the truth for these contries are much horriable than it looks.

[–] nozzlegear 1 day ago

> you select another person. and go on. Biden didn't get punised for what he has not achieved. So will Trump.

Democracy (in the US) is the whole system, not just the president. Biden didn't achieve everything he promised because he was in contention with the senators and representatives that were also elected by the people; same for Trump. It's checks and balances, the president can't do everything he wants because he gets checked by Congress and the courts; Congress can't do everything they want because they get checked by the president and the courts. Trump is straining that right now but that's the soul of American democracy – one guy doesn't decide it all, they must cooperate with Congress.

We'll see the system turn against Trump after the November election, when democrats are expected to take the house and probably the senate back from Trump's party. That's democracy in action: people are extremely unhappy with how Trump is handling things, so they're punishing him by voting in representatives who promise to rein him in.

[–] yanhangyhy 1 day ago

Does that means the us gov, not only the president,but also thr congress, speak for the people in USA, supoorts go with war with Iran, supoort the genocide in GAZA, support tariff on every country ,threatens Canada, Greenland... and ICE shooting people in the street?

Then i have no respect for the people in USA

[–] nozzlegear 1 day ago

Like I said, he's straining the system. But if the people punish Trump in November by removing the senators and representatives who've supported him, then I think it means the people explicitly don't support what he's done.

[–] yanhangyhy 1 day ago

can the people undone the bad things he did?

[–] guelo 2 days ago

It's mostly corporations that are the most free to do as they please here.

[–] MaxHoppersGhost 2 days ago

Make a joke about immigrants on twitter in the UK and you get arrested. Meanwhile there are more heat deaths in Europe than gun deaths in America. Most of Europe can't be called a free country anymore.

[–] protocolture 2 days ago

>Meanwhile there are more heat deaths in Europe than gun deaths in America.

This is a weird metric of freedom. It seems more like a reflexive, zeitgeist based response than any actual freedom metric.

In my experience the country with the most freedom is Canada. I have never seen anything like it. It's just so easy to do business there. Even if it wasn't that the laws enable it (they do) but even the way people operate. Being able to have a discussion with a customer without 12 rounds of a solicitor trying to insert dumb loopholes into a contract, costing the potential customer more in billable hours to their solicitor than the cost of the contract.

The USA is just junk. States that want to be Feds, Feds that want to be States, and when you cut through all the red tape you still have to deal with Litigious, ignorant Americans. Oh and if you want to import or export something just forget it.

"Oh but we have guns" is basically the exception that proves the rule, in a country where people get detained for such crimes as "Being beloved childrens author Mem Fox" or "Said naughty things on reddit" or "Working while waiting for Immigration to sort their status out".

But guns right. Guns. Woohoo freedom yeehaw guns.

[–] blitzar 2 days ago

> Meanwhile there are more heat deaths in Europe than gun deaths in America.

You suggesting that in the name of freedom - everyone must have air conditioning and cool their homes to 60F?

[–] nozzlegear 1 day ago

72f is more reasonable, I don't think anyone does 60f.

[–] blitzar 1 day ago

all those people doing 72f should be in prison for violating the terms of their freedom

[–] krior 2 days ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

[–] skinfaxi 2 days ago

Wow, checkmate.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

What did they tweet, exactly?

[–] itake 2 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1iim9je/list...

I’m on my phone, so it’s a little bit difficult for me to find clear examples, but I think this post talks about some of those freedom of speech violations.

I might be completely wrong, but it seems like news articles are not repeating the messages that caused the arrest. They just seem to be reporting that the arrest happened and high-level description of the content.

[–] howunfortunate 2 days ago

Are there theoretical tweets for which you believe arrests are warranted?

[–] ChrisRR 2 days ago

Inciting violence

[–] _heimdall 2 days ago

I get that we have laws on the books making this illegal, but I still 100% disagree that the laws are constitutional.

People can say whatever they want without hurting anyone. In the case of incitement of violence, the issue is the person(s) who actually committed the violence, not a tweet online.

[–] Timwi 1 day ago

That is a very American perspective, which I like to think many people in the civilized world find irresponsible. (In the literal sense. You don't want to take responsibility for the consequences of your actions.)

[–] ChrisRR 1 day ago

The laws are the constitution

[–] sdoering 2 days ago

Yes.

[–] Timwi 1 day ago

It is a common misconception, partly intentionally perpetuated by the UK right-wing press, that people are arrested and jailed for making jokes or otherwise casually chatting on social media. If you dig deeper you'll generally find that people jailed for Twitter or Facebook posts went vastly beyond “telling a joke” or “saying something inappropriate”. The UK quite meaningfully prosecutes hate speech, death threats and similar felonies, and I for one don't want to live in a place that condones or even actively protects it. Downplaying it as “a joke about immigrants” plays right into the hands of the xenophobic right.

[–] braincat31415 1 day ago

Who defines what a "hate speech" is?

Here is one of the latest cases, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz1qy30v5o Here is another one: "West Midlands Police arrested a 15-year-old boy named Fraser on August 3, 2026, after he published Facebook posts mocking Conservative Wolverhampton City Council member Simon Bennett." ...after posting an image of a politician with the bunny ears.

[–] Timwi 1 day ago

> Who defines what a "hate speech" is?

Who defines what is murder and what is self-defence? You already know the answer to this. The legislature.

Your first link is about police misconduct, not what the laws are or should be. Your second quote does not contain any of the relevant posts and just spews random unverifiable claims.

[–] braincat31415 1 day ago

"The legislature"

In other words, whoever is at power at the moment. There is no constitutional protection.

"police misconduct"... The OP said "It is a common misconception... that people are arrested and jailed for making jokes or otherwise casually chatting on social media". I gave you an example to the contrary. I do follow the UK news, and it's not hard to come up with multiple similar examples, there is no need to gaslight me. UK democracy has been somewhat waning lately.

As for the bunny ears story, not spews but says -- and type the headline into google, you'll get multiple sources. It is verifiable, you are just afraid to check lest it is actually true. Try harder.

  (\_/)
  ( •.• )
  c(")_(")

[–] kakacik 1 day ago

Maga logic, as typical as it can get right.

One suggestion - don't travel much around the world and certainly avoid backpacking and interacting with locals and understanding things like history or culture, you may eventually lose those... beautiful opinions of yours

[–] MaxHoppersGhost 2 days ago

So free in Europe you guys don't even have a legitimate tech industry. Anyone who wants to build comes to the US.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

freedom is when tech industry, I guess. I didn't know that until bus. I looked up freedom in the dictionary and it said tech industry.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

until now*

stupid swipe typing

[–] grafmax 2 days ago

So, free if you're a VC?

Funny how China leads in most tech areas now.

Turns out letting monopoly capital control your government policy leads to short term gains at the expense of long term viability. Maybe the VCs can make some money off government surveillance and defense contracts before being completely eclipsed?

https://www.aspi.org.au/news/aspis-critical-technology-track...

[–] chaostheory 2 days ago

That’s supposed to be worse than the government controlling everything like in China?

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

it gets fun when you raise "government" is a variable that can be substituted with values that are not necessarily "Congress" or "the president"

China calls its government a State Council, Russia calls theirs a Duma, and the USA calls its one Microsoft. (Or Oracle, or Disney, or S&P 500...)

[–] mbs159 1 day ago

That's a bold claim. Do you really think that the Chinese government has such capacity?

[–] ChrisRR 2 days ago

Ignoring your weird correlation between freedom and tech. Not gonna google European tech before you comment?

[–] Freedom2 2 days ago

I disagree. The US has the 1st and 2nd amendments, which gives us protection from tyranny in the government, and which lets us criticize the government without repercussion. No other country grants its citizens those rights, and you can see the effects of that worldwide, where despite it all, we still have our free speech!

[–] BeetleB 2 days ago

Whatever one may think of gun control, it's clear the 2nd Amendment is on a much poorer footing.

In a number of states, you need to take a safety course before you're allowed to purchase a gun.

Compare that with the 1st amendment. If they passed laws saying "You can say whatever you want in public, but only after you've taken this course that informs you on what is acceptable and unacceptable to say in public", would you say there is free speech?

Or "You are free to practice any religion, but only after you've taken a course that ..."?

[–] lelandfe 2 days ago

United States v. Cruikshank, 1875

> The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone.

Before the 14th Amendment, your hypothetical was quite possible at a state level.

[–] tenuousemphasis 2 days ago

It's almost like you can easily kill a vast number of people with guns but not words. Curious...

[–] BeetleB 2 days ago

There are plenty of good reasons to ban guns altogether.

But let's not say the 1st and 2nd amendments in the same breath. One is real, and the other is much less so.

[–] V__ 2 days ago

"A well regulated Militia"

[–] tastyfreeze 2 days ago

The colonies were expected to defend themselves. In reality that meant every man possessed and drilled with arms whether the were part of a formal militia or not. If there was an attack people would be "called up" to the militia. There is no requirement of belonging to a formal militia in the 2nd amendment. While times have changed, it was expectated that you were proficient with arms in the case that a formal militia was required to be formed.

[–] quantified 2 days ago

How does the 2nd amendment protect you? Are you allowed automatic weapons, grenades? You're not even allowed swords. And if you call for violence, which is what the 2nd amendment might enable, you won't find protection via the 1st amendment.

See citizens and ICE.

[–] MaxHoppersGhost 2 days ago

Where did you get your info from? Sword ownership is legal everywhere as far as I know and you can own automatic weapons and even grenades.

Stop making stuff up.

[–] lp0_on_fire 2 days ago

Many jurisdictions have laws against carrying blades longer than X (it varies) and any reasonable definition of a sword would fall under that category.

In the US at least automatic weapons are nominally legal at the federal level after hefty tax stamps and background checks but states / local jurisdictions can and do regulate more / outright ban them.

[–] Loughla 2 days ago

That's just moving the goalposts. Nothing in there says it's illegal to own any of those things. You just might not be able to carry a sword (there are carve outs for reenactments in most places btw) and you might have to move or pay more for automatic weapons.

They're still not illegal, as OP said.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

Carrying arms is another word for bearing then. According to the constitution, this right shall not be infringed. If it's illegal to carry an arm then the constitution is being infringed.

[–] chaostheory 2 days ago

The 2nd amendment was designed to protect the 1st amendment. As for how, it was supposed to give citizens teeth against their government if it ever turned tyrannical one day. Armed citizens were one of the factors that made the American Revolution successful, which probably why so many Americans hold onto the idea.

[–] mbs159 1 day ago

Good luck resisting a tyrannical government that has jets, tanks, bio weapons and nukes

[–] Timwi 1 day ago

In the choice between being allowed to carry a gun (and having people with guns all around me) versus being offered free healthcare (and having healthier people all around me) I know not just which one I'd choose, but also which one I'd call more free.

[–] platevoltage 2 days ago

You can't possibly be this naive.

[–] dennis_jeeves2 1 day ago

He's only 15.

[–] vrganj 2 days ago

That is a wonderfully naive understanding of the world.

You should ask Alex Pretti how he was able to criticize to criticize the government without repercussion.

[–] majorchord 2 days ago

IMO This is an even more naive (and dare I say intentionally malicious) bad-faith misinterpretation of the facts.

His death had nothing to do with the Constitution, it was because of a trigger-happy, confused cop who had his back to the guy, then noticed a gun next to him (that another officer previously put there). The US government had no part in that situation at all.

[–] vrganj 2 days ago

That's kind of the point.

The constitution is just some rules people wrote up generations ago. It's not a magic spell that has power by itself, it is only effective as a social contract as long as power structures agree to follow it.

If armed government enforcers break it with impunity, what good is it?

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

I think that's exactly the point. The constitution didn't prevent his death.

What are cops if they're not the government? Are they private corporations?

[–] majorchord 2 days ago

I don't understand the issue since no law can physically prevent people from breaking it.

Of course cops are the government, but they're also humans that make mistakes and commit crimes themselves. But this isn't actually related to some greater constitutional crisis or anything, unless you have some evidence that suggests they were instructed to act the way they did... but I've never seen anyone come forward with that yet.

[–] vrganj 2 days ago

The original argument was that the constitution protects you from government tyranny.

You have government officials tyranizing the population and now the argument is "of course it can't prevent that".

What good is it then?

[–] nullstyle 2 days ago

The US government is responsible for the training of its agents. It is culpable as well.

[–] platevoltage 2 days ago

If you can't exercise your rights without being murdered by a state sanctioned thug, then it's not really a right. Also, has he been indicted yet? charged?

[–] stldev 2 days ago

Can you name a single western democracy where the citizens are prohibited from criticizing their government?

[–] seanw444 2 days ago

France just banned protesting

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

Didn't the USA also? I seen to remember that in Florida they passed a law that says you can run over protestors with your car.

[–] lp0_on_fire 2 days ago

It’s more akin to “stand your ground” laws (whether you’re for or against them). In situations where you reasonably fear for your life, like surrounded by an angry mob of people in the street busting up your car.

It’s not a blank check to run over people holding signs you don’t like as you drive home from work.

[–] blitzar 2 days ago

France just banned rioting

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

synonym for protesting when the government doesn't like it

[–] blitzar 1 day ago

there is protesting and then there is rioting and looting - its petty criminality and nothing grand like beheading elites

[–] majorchord 2 days ago

No they didn't.

> Under French law and Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), authorities may prohibit particular demonstrations when serious public-order risks make restrictions necessary and proportionate. They cannot impose an indiscriminate prohibition on peaceful assemblies simply because previous demonstrations have descended into violence.

[–] seanw444 2 days ago

You just described the mechanism by which they did. Sure, they didn't make it illegal nationwide permanently, because what serious country would do that and hope to maintain control? The real threat is in the vague exceptions for specific cases, which they have now used.

[–] protocolture 2 days ago

>The US has the 1st and 2nd amendments, which gives us protection from tyranny in the government

Lmao. Jim Tyranny has had what? 3 cracks at him? Hardly protection.

[–] 2OEH8eoCRo0 2 days ago

FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Section 702

> Section 702 only permits the targeting of non-United States persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. United States persons and anyone in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702.

https://www.intel.gov/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/...

[–] eagleal 2 days ago

Under the Israel-US agreement for surveillance, that section was circumvented, as the NSA and other agencies are feeding raw unminimized tappings directly to the ELINT/SIGINT agencies and getting relayed back. [1]

This was also true for Five Eyes/EU sharing too, even though with this year's legislation some EU countries have offered Israel a direct access to INT feeds.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/sep/11/ns...

[–] ak39 2 days ago

Wow. Does the US have this type of agreement with any other country?

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

Yes, the "fourteen eyes" group. It used to be five (basically all the English speaking countries) but they coerced more European countries to join and now it's fourteen.

[–] eagleal 2 days ago

The US _shares_ intel with the other Eyes, and within these there's layers of cooperation, with the US<->UK on top.

But this agreement concerns raw, non minimized, SIGINT (eg. direct tapping into feeds/traffic) mainly from US -> Israel.

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

That's pretty much what "intel sharing" is. They get other countries to spy on Americans and receive that data. In return they give their spy data on citizens of that country to that country.

[–] eagleal 2 days ago

I meant while the original five eyes are sharing raw sigint (we can also disagree on the level of sharing proportions), Israel gets also access to raw sigint intended as 3rd-country -> US.

The integration in the cyber domain is a different tier compared to the default the US has with other eyes.

[–] john_strinlai 2 days ago

i would give the article a quick (re-?)skim for context of V__'s comment, as the article repeatedly talks about spying on american citizens

[–] stephbook 2 days ago

Already answered here:

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/43535/do-other-...

closing as duplicate. (/joke)

[–] miohtama 2 days ago

Not exactly a democratic country, but came across these instructions what to do in China when police has detected a VPN in your household, or you have posted something

https://x.com/hongguabg/status/2114213232454082869?s=20

We have some flexibility with freedom left, and let’s keep it that way.

[–] thaumasiotes 2 days ago

> 去了之后，态度好一点，姿态低一点，开口说：“领导，不好意思，给你添麻烦了。”

Is 领导 not an incredibly subservient way to address someone? How do people normally address police officers in China?

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

If the US state regime would benefit from blocking VPNs, they'd do it in a heartbeat. They just don't need to yet.

That link you just posted is blocked for me because I don't have an X account. Here's an unblocker redirector - suspiciously like a HTTP VPN: https://xxcancel.com/hongguabg/status/2114213232454082869?s=...

The process that's described (appear cooperative but deny everything) is the same thing you should do in the US if the police come to your door and accuse you of drug possession. Every country does this violation of freedom, they just use different excuses.

[–] thaumasiotes 2 days ago

> The process that's described (appear cooperative but deny everything)

...how did you come to this conclusion?

>> 但你确实做过的，而且白纸黑字的放在你面前，那就不要抵赖。

If it's something you did, and they put it in front of you in black and white, don't deny it.

[–] Tangurena2 2 days ago

> "the US has the most freedom"

This is an example of a thought-stopping cliche. It is a slogan to prevent the listener from thinking. Or at the least, to divert the listener's thoughts back to a more politically acceptable (to the speaker) rightthink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rightthink

[–] netbioserror 2 days ago

When you stop judging systems by their design intent and instead by their outcomes, it makes perfect sense. Democracies inexorably diffuse responsibility until its component entities are distant enough from punishment that hiding power levers becomes an easy advantage to grab for, whether the justification is internal or external conflict. All that's needed is for the necessary overseers to be rubber stamps.

[–] rubberstamp 2 days ago

Democracies that are real democracy also exists and they don't have systemic corruption such as hiding behind complexity or interpretations or misinterpretations, or repeatedly pushing to pass draconian laws. Number of real democratic sovereign countries can be easily counted in one hand and may be it can extend upto two hands. Countries with monarch who has any power are not exactly democratic, uk for example even though it has democracy like parliament. Transparency and real oversight by citizens is required in a democracy. What if representatives make draconian laws? People need to be able to veto it. What if representatives refuse to make a law people want? They need to be able to make it directly. Systems can be designed to make these happen regardless of the size of the country or its population count.

[–] netbioserror 2 days ago

Most of those countries have not been democracies for very long. The United States used to have many of those checks and balances, all of which were systematically ripped out by the relentless political machine. Give it another century, and even with proportional voting or citizen's veto's, things will still probably end up in a similar state.

[–] rubberstamp 2 days ago

There are also countries that are real democratic countries that are older than usa. They have not been corrupted like usa, because they have proper discourse and discussions by its citizens, which doesn't happen in usa. Even usa can be reformed to be a proper democratic country within 1 or 2 years or even as short as 6 months, if proper consensus can be formed by people. Institutions doesn't matter as much as people and real democracy isn't hard to implement if there is political will for it. Current usa is an anti-example of what a democracy should not be.

Democracy itself is young concept. So there is no point looking beyond a certain time period as they were all monarchies before that. However even during earlier times there are examples of democracy like monarchies where citizens were not ignored by monarch, and they ruled for the people.

[–] netbioserror 1 day ago

"Proper", "consensus", "discourse", "corrupted", "real democracy". You're an idealistic true-believer well beyond fault.

[–] rubberstamp 1 day ago

I will take that as a complement. I don't believe in building stale systems that can drift into corrupt forms of democracy. Where is the proper discourse and philosophy that is necessary in usa's democracy? Continuous feedback loop and active political discourse that are not controlled or hijacked via media narratives are some of the fundamental aspects of healthy democracy. When you analyse usa from first principles, its bad. At the same time I am extremely happy that some real democratic countries exist in the world even if I am not a direct beneficiary.

[–] quantified 2 days ago

"A" marketing for a "B" product usually wins over "B" marketing of an "A" product.

[–] gverrilla 2 days ago

Why are you baffled?

[–] whydoineedthis 2 days ago

passport wise, probably true or close to true.

[–] V__ 2 days ago

9th place

https://www.passportindex.org/de/byRank.php

[–] ChrisRR 2 days ago

"The US has the most freedom. Don't look into that fact. Just trust us"

[–] reader9274 2 days ago

I bet you that China, Russia and the UK rank higher

[–] john_strinlai 2 days ago

>China, Russia

both notorious for bragging about being the most free country on earth

[–] laylower 2 days ago

Are China and Russia democracies?

[–] 999900000999 2 days ago

In China the social contract is different.

You give up some rights for internal stability and in theory better social benefits.

In America, our social contract allows 10 guilty men to go free rather than imprisoning one innocent.

That's the myth anyway. Back in reality America is rapidly marching towards authoritarian capitalism.

Jump outs , black sites, indefinite detention.

>Naturally the common people don't want war . . . but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or parliament or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

-Hermann Goering

Thus we're always at War. War on Drugs. War on Illegal Immigration. War on Crime. War on you.

So what we've already deported multiple born in the US citizens. This is war!

[–] cucumber3732842 2 days ago

>In America, our social contract allows 10 guilty men to go free rather than imprisoning one innocent.

For criminal matters, sure.

In civil and administrative matters it's the opposite with the decimal moved to the left a couple times.

[–] qup 2 days ago

> So what we've already deported multiple born in the US citizens

What are their names?

[–] 999900000999 2 days ago

Full deportation

https://www.texastribune.org/2026/04/23/texas-united-states-...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/children-who-are-u-s-c...

Indefinite detention for being Hispanic despite being born in America.

https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/deportation-effort-ma...

[–] qup 2 days ago

https://www.reddit.com/r/immigration/comments/1w8vhot/born_h...

You guys are never able to manage one. That guy is a Mexican national, not an American

The children aren't deported, their parents are. They, of course, get the choice to take their children with them. You don't want to split apart families, right?

Of course #3 isn't a deportation so I didn't even look at it

[–] Rohansi 2 days ago

> That guy is a Mexican national, not an American

If they actually have a valid US birth certificate then how can you say that?

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago

Freedom isn't really about whether your country is a democracy or not. Dictatorships can be free (for a while) and democracies can be unfree (Hitler was elected).

[–] red-iron-pine 2 days ago

nah the UK spies pretty hard on its citizens.

CSIS and ASIS in Canada and Australia have far more powers than anything the CIA could ever do.

I owned more guns, got paid more, and had more vacation while working for a US company than I ever did in the Oz or Glorious Canukistan

[–] edot 2 days ago

The difference is willingness to act on said spying. Luckily, despite the massive surveillance capabilities the U.S. "Intelligence" Community has, they don't seem to really mess with regular citizens all that much. This gives some credence to the "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about" point of view, but only if you can guarantee you have nothing to hide (which can change drastically depending on who is in power, hence why I don't believe in this - the classic example being that hiding one's religion in and around Germany in the 1930s and early 40s was not seen as important until it was really important).

China and Russia (and to some extent, the UK now) will absolutely act on the spying they do. Or just act and say they had a good reason. China and Russia are dictatorships. One of them has a very competent and hard-working population which succeeds in spite of the dictator, the other is a gas station with nukes that survives solely because of said nukes.

[–] V__ 2 days ago

> they don't seem to really mess with regular citizens all that much.

Except they do. The NSA has been handing over intel over a decade ago:

> A former federal agent in the northeastern United States who received such tips from SOD described the process. “You’d be told only, ‘Be at a certain truck stop at a certain time and look for a certain vehicle.’ And so we’d alert the state police to find an excuse to stop that vehicle, and then have a drug dog search it,” the agent said. [1]

Sure these were criminals, but who knows how many “undesirables” were prosecuted or targeted for some crime anybody commits?

[1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/us-drug-agency-g...

[–] silverFork 2 days ago

Well your assumption is that they are not using it; they weren't able to use it all before.. Times are changing; Now they can use and use it a lot.. military Ai infrastructure that is to connected political arm will read and process everything and they can target their apposition... its just matter of time. Absolute power = absolute corruption.

[–] scarecrowbob 2 days ago

Your position only makes sense if you think that the groups the US gov operates against aren't "regular citizens".

The US gov is acting on intel against its citiczens all the time, regular or not.

Personally, I don't like the right wing groups it's infiltrated, but I still think that is a reasonable example.

For me, more pressingly, there are current investigations going on in Minnesota from the US gov's "Puppetmaster" operation that actively infiltrated and monitored a highly diverse set of anti-ICE groups.

Historically this is nothing new; the US has been infiltrating "anti-government" groups for decades. AIM, the panthers, ELF, ALF, labor unions, MOVE, etc are all easy examples of domestic groups that the US gov has broken at some point or other.

Your position only work if you classify folks such as the Minnesota 15 as "terrorists" or some such. Which, hey, folks like the US Gov try to do. But at that point the point is kind of tautological: if you have "something to hide" then you are a legit target of government sanctioning.

That's not very satisfying to me, but plenty of folks in the US find it to be a just-fine principle.