I understand being mad but no, unfortunately, despite me knowing humans are human and they get angry at times, this response does still leave a bitter taste in the mouth and many people will perceive it that way. Changing the content of the archived pages is the worst thing they've done honestly. The "3 Hz DDoS" is funny perhaps but then if it's so harmless, then why even bother? But regardless, tampering with the archives, that is, tainting the content that people appreciate you for won't sit well with people.
Did you read the article? They dug deep, they didn't just do a google search and leave it at that. They drew links between deleted posts and defunct accounts, they compared profile pictures of anonymous profiles.
I'm not defending the archive.today webmaster but it's unfortunately understandable they are angry. Saying what the blogger did was merely point out public information is a gross oversimplification.
That is NOT the line for doxxing at all, I don't know why you hang your argument on that aspect. Even institutions that care about secrecy like governments state that documents that aggregate ostensibly public information can raise the classification level of a document above being non-classified. The reasons for this are obvious, essentially aggregated information can lead one to draw conclusions that otherwise are not obvious. That is akin to what the original article by Gyrovague does.
Again, did you read my comment? I know what it means now. My point is about highlighting the change in meaning, not about obstinately denying what the word means.
>Even institutions that care about secrecy like governments state [...]
A given organization can have whatever policy it wants with regards to which documents it wants to allow to be made public. It could make all documents printed on non-yellow paper classified. That has nothing to do with the ethics of doxing.
>The reasons for this are obvious, essentially aggregated information can lead one to draw conclusions that otherwise are not obvious.
A secret is not something that's not obvious, it's a datum that's strictly controlled by the people who know it. If I can find some information about your real identity just by searching for it online then it's not a secret; you don't control that piece of information. You've given up that control by divulging the information in a public space where information often remains indefinitely.
See my comment below. The Guardian piece states the images are flagged to the government, hopefully once to reduce the onerousness of it, by the victim.
I had to google a bit, but this Guardian article[1] goes into a lot more detail than the Register piece here. I was of the opinion that this sounds too onerous and ill-defined when I first read the Register piece especially with censorship on the rise in Europe recently, but the Guardian piece made me side more with this particular policy. It doesn't sound as broad as the Register piece puts it, it sounds like it's specifically for revenge porn and generating deep fake porn non-consensually, not any "intimate image" which I agree is far too broad. Albeit, of all governments, I'd suspect especially the current UK government is to be amongst the most likely to say expand these powers to speech they don't like or general pornography one day, etc, it doesn't sound like this specific policy is broad yet according to the Guardian article. The Register piece is using "intimate image" as a euphemism I think whereas the intent of the policy is a bit more defined and specific.
I think the only thing you're wrong about is modern China is a lot more about face which also is part of Singapore's psyche but nowhere near as much. While there might be some book-cooking, it's nowhere near as bad as the blatant kpi fudging that provincial governments do in China. The CCP also is far more authoritarian than (yes) even the PAP. You do not have random ministers getting disappeared after they fall out of political favour with Xi Jingping.
OP likely just pointing out Singapore used to train a lot of CCP officials something like 50k (I think slowed last 10 years). One of the SG uni governance program is colloquially called "mayor's class", joke is it's overseas branch of central party school. LKY met every PRC leader in some sort of mentor relationship. Obviously national scale between PRC/SG different, hence SG more of model of mayor/municipal level.
There are elections but a combination of gerrymandering and honestly just good governance by the ruling party has kept them in power. People genuinely like the PAP. To the extent people vote for opposition candidates, most people would readily admit they do so only to send a message to the PAP. Most Singaporeans do not sincerely want to be ruled by anyone else yet.
Unionisation in Singapore is very different than the rest of the world. There is one very large union (the National Trades Union Congress, NTUC) but it mostly works with the government and the PAP and has a bit of a revolving door with some PAP MPs serving as leadership in NTUC. Wildcat strikes are illegal, and striking is generally not allowed. I think the last sanctioned strike by NTUC was in the 80s. The union does still generally represent workers in disputes between employers and the government and does other work on behalf of workers (trainings, some welfare, it runs the largest grocery chain that at least theoretically is supposed to be a social enterprise and a cooperative), so most members I think accept the arrangement, for what it's worth.
Close to a true perspective, especially if you came as one of those suits. There is soul in singapore, it's just actively co-opted by the govment or actively suppressed. You have to actually live here to see it and have friends who are not expats or mainland chinese (which is hard I think for most foreigners who come), it definitely isn't the same as the soul that you see in america or europe, I guess. The work life (a bit more chill than Japan or Korea but still harsh like the asian norm) doesn't help.
In Russia I noticed that it took barely 10 minutes with stranger before getting into a discussion of philosophy, literature, meaning of life, etc. (or how their soul ached for something)
I never saw this Singaporean soul even in deepest darkest ang mo kio.
It was low key creepy how shallow the locals were. They'd chat about gaming, shopping, grinding and food, food, food but very rarely anything deeper. even after knowing them for years.
I went to some "artistic immersive theater" there one time (there was an event like this maybe once a year?) and even there the first third was a girl monologuing about her love of kpop.
Most countries fit in the middle of these two somewhere but these two countries really stood out to me in their extremes.
This article is so strange. It's interesting, but all he seems to care about is what right-wingers think. Who cares what they think? I guess that's all to whom Tyler Cowen wishes to appeal.
I used to be an occasional MR reader, but stopped visiting lately because of this.
When it became obvious how the US presidential race will end (basically after assassination attempt) Cowen's tone heavily shifted.
Even the facade of objectivity went through the window. Now most of his writing is spent on defending the indefensible. Shame, his early takes helped shape my world model.
reply