It’s been a while since I’ve read it but Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare was an eye-opening read (it can be a bit dry but has great information)

Nah, other users won’t know who you are.

Well, at least until the database inevitably leaks

https://www.pcmag.com/news/reddit-could-soon-require-face-id-to-prove-youre-not-a-bot

Huffman indicated the platform may use decentralized third-party information providers to verify users’ personal details.

“Part of the promise to users is we don’t want to know your name," he told the hosts. "But we want to know that you’re a person.”

Sure, “we don’t want to know your name, we just have to know it or have to have another party that we have access to/a deal with know it”

I have some quotes to share, though about the government side of things

“The digital age has created the semblance of social connection, while empowering autocrats to better surveil, control, and disrupt perceived political opponents. China, Iran, Russia, and Saudi Arabia have used digital tools to silence opponents, spread propaganda and disinformation, and sow polarization and division among their rivals. So, too, have regimes in smaller countries, like Togo and Bahrain, relied on digital surveillance to curtail civil society. Recent trends among mass movements also show some cause for concern.” (Erica Chenoweth - Civil Resistance: What Everyone Needs to Know)

And 3 from “No Place To Hide”:

“Initially, it is always the country’s dissidents and marginalized who bear the brunt of the surveillance, leading those who support the government or are merely apathetic to mistakenly believe they are immune. And history shows that the mere existence of a mass surveillance apparatus, regardless of how it is used, is in itself sufficient to stifle dissent. A citizenry that is aware of always being watched quickly becomes a compliant and fearful one.”

“All of the evidence highlights the implicit bargain that is offered to citizens: pose no challenge and you have nothing to worry about. Mind your own business, and support or at least tolerate what we do, and you’ll be fine. Put differently, you must refrain from provoking the authority that wields surveillance powers if you wish to be deemed free of wrongdoing. This is a deal that invites passivity, obedience, and conformity. The safest course, the way to ensure being “left alone,” is to remain quiet, unthreatening, and compliant.”

“Mass surveillance is a universal temptation for any unscrupulous power. And in every instance, the motive is the same: suppressing dissent and mandating compliance. Surveillance thus unites governments of otherwise remarkably divergent political creeds. At the turn of the twentieth century, the British and French empires both created specialized monitoring departments to deal with the threat of anticolonialist movements. After World War II, the East German Ministry of State Security, popularly known as the Stasi, became synonymous with government intrusion into personal lives. And more recently, as popular protests during the Arab Spring challenged dictators’ grasp on power, the regimes in Syria, Egypt, and Libya all sought to spy on the Internet use of domestic dissenters. Investigations by Bloomberg News and the Wall Street Journal have shown that as these dictatorships were overwhelmed by protestors, they literally went shopping for surveillance tools from Western technology companies. Syria’s Assad regime flew in employees from the Italian surveillance company Area SpA, who were told that the Syrians “urgently needed to track people.” In Egypt, Mubarak’s secret police bought tools to penetrate Skype encryption and eavesdrop on activists’ calls. And in Libya, the Journal reported, journalists and rebels who entered a government monitoring center in 2011 found “a wall of black refrigerator-size devices” from the French surveillance company Amesys. The equipment “inspected the Internet traffic” of Libya’s main Internet service provider, “opening emails, divining passwords, snooping on online chats and mapping connections among various suspects.” The ability to eavesdrop on people’s communications vests immense power in those who do it. And unless such power is held in check by rigorous oversight and accountability, it is almost certain to be abused.” (Glenn Greenwald, “No Place To Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State”)

Oh that’s awesome I didn’t realize cameras are able to create a system where the basic necessities of life aren’t locked down by money, where people aren’t being disenfranchised/marginalized/exploited and not having to fend out for themselves figuring out any way to survive but instead working together to answer everybody’s needs

The crux of the issue is that it’s not the citizens that determine what is hide-worthy.

Are you vocally unhappy with how corporations wreck the Earth and our future for monetary profit? Well then you might have something to hide. Are you not heterosexual and cisgendered? Well then you might have something to hide. Do you complain about taxes being too high while not seeing too many benefits and you’d prefer if they didn’t go to finance wars/invasions and subsidize harmful industries? Well then you might have something to hide.

The ruling class wants citizens with nothing to hide. Those don’t pose any risk to their power and privilege.

And adding a quote I have saved up:

“Whenever the subject of surveillance by police and government agencies is discussed online, invariably some John Doe will come along and declare that they are quite happy to give up some or all of their privacy in exchange for improved security, on the grounds that they have nothing to hide, and “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” from the authorities, or from whomever else might gain access to your “private” data (this can include private security companies, private investigators, banks, insurance companies, lawyers, employers, computer hackers, and any individual or company willing to pay for the information. And that’s in addition to the thousands of agents working at GCHQ, NSA etc.). Dissidents languishing in Chinese prisons and Russian gulags - not to mention millions of Jews and dissidents rounded up by the Nazis in the 1930s - might take a slightly different view”

Thank you for explaining, and I agree.

For general reference, here are some books I’ve enjoyed that touch upon improving democracy:

• Getting Free: Creating An Association Of Democratic Autonomous Neighborhoods (James Herod)
• Turning To One Another: Simple Conversations To Restore Hope To The Future (Margaret J. Wheatley)
• The Great Turning: From Empire To Earth Community (David C. Korten)
• Beyond Outrage: What Has Gone Wrong With Our Economy And Our Democracy, And How To Fix It (Robert B. Reich)

Do you mean representative democracies? Or all democracies? If all then why, and what do you believe would be better?

Would he even arrive in hell? To my knowledge, God (at least of the old testament) never really condemned sexual assault/rape or hurting children (the latter is even encouraged - “spare the rod, spoil the child”, the binding of Isaac, etc.). A rapist could marry his victim as a “punishment” (as long as she’s single, otherwise if she was another man’s property, both her and the rapist should die)