Hacker News
points by cowlevel 2 days ago | 0 comments
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
[–] 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 1 day 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.)
[–] _heimdall 1 day ago
The line must be drawn somewhere, we don't hold everyone responsible for every action they take.

I'd compare "inciting violence" to a woman dressing in provocative clothing in a bad area of town late at night. Very few people would blame the woman and say she's legally responsible if she's attacked, I hold the same line on speech.

Say what you want, dress how you want, it doesn't matter. If another person actually causes harm they can't shirk the blame off on you, they made the choice to commit violence.

[–] ChrisRR 1 day ago
The laws are the constitution
[–] _heimdall 1 day ago
Laws and the constitution are very different.

Procedurally they require different actions to create or change. More fundamentally though, the constitution protects rights while laws limit them.

[–] 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 1 day 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 1 day 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 1 day 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?

[–] majorchord 1 day ago
> In the United States, the right to petition is enumerated in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

I think the key point is that it allows this "petitioning" of the government in the first place, that's what it's good for. But you still have to go through the court system to right any wrongs, which includes misbehaving police who may be breaking the law themselves.

The Constitution is not a judge, jury or executioner, so in a way it was always "limited" in what it can do if it's not actually respected.

[–] 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 1 day 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.