An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

This bill seems like something out of 1984... I kinda wonder if any big tech companies will fight back like Apple since they push backed on issues before... Other tech companies maybe too, but I think some tech companies are fine with this stuff even if it creates extra burdens because its for example easier for some of these huge companies on the stock market to go over everything than some smaller tech startups.

Also really makes me less of a fan of the two party system... but then again some people don't want to due to busy or just boring to look over every candidates... Like maybe you are a Republican in Tennessee and then for all the other candidates you check Blackburn since she's part of your party... Seems like the actual president actions get more attention, more people have opinions on Obama or Trump than their own representatives or governor.

I think it'd be interesting if people could vote on issues more directly, but wonder if that'd be open up to fraud... Like how some candidates are against mail-in votes... I'd think crypto and some other things might be stronger than a signature. Speaking of signatures, I voted in one of the state elections mail-in and the local county election commission rejected my ballot because of my signature and got a letter back after it's too late to go to the polls... I have really bad hand writings and I hate signing for things. It's annoying lol... Like I used the mobile app for Subway once since they had a deal and you have to sign the little paper receipt print out, kinda like scribble and be done with it since not as important as other signatures though. While other mobile apps, nothing to sign. Plus They don't even teach cursive writing in schools anymore. So I think crypto and maybe some proof of being a live person using tech might actually help. Kinda one of my own concerns about some areas doing mail-in only for COVID... I wonder if you lived in maybe an area that's mostly democrat and voted republican or vise verses if your signature is more likely to be rejected. I wonder what the process for that is, do they keep copies of people signatures when they registered to vote (DMV will register you too, so maybe from state ID or License) or from their last ballot or when they requested an absentee ballot maybe more likely?

Then I also feel like some of these candidates and other elected officials live in their own little bubble, rich, overpaid and out of touch with society.

Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#%22Fascist%22_as_a_pej...

> it's explicitly totalitarian and doesn't tolerate dissent or different opinions; everybody needs to be loyal to the leader, or is considered an enemy of the people.

Right, which is most echo-chambres. Under a psychological definition, we're all fascists. An echo-chambre is totalizing (ie., everything is subsumed under the ideology), it has unimpeachable leadership, and no dissent is considered. Try r/feminism or r/conservatism.

Fascism isn't an ideology in the modern "world view" or psychological sense... that's the impact of psychoanalysts being, somehow, the main people humanities students turned towards for explanations of the 20th C.

The right people to turn to are political scientists, wherein fascism is an ideology in the sense of "state apparatuses, doctrines, institutions, practices, economic conditions", etc.

In which case Stalinism wasn't fascism, nor was Nazism. Nor were many things. Fascism quickly became a term of abuse in tabloids of the 40s, esp. in america. And here we are today with everybody being fascists.

There is no deep connection between the "psychological fascism" that is of rhetorical interest to the left, and the state apparatuses of fascist italy. This connection is a pseudo-scientific one from the psychoanalysis of the 50s and 60s; and it is a duplicitous and alarmist one from the left today.

But take it easy, in Switzerland we want to trow 12 y/o into prisons for being (potentially) a dangerous person (terrorism), not for being a criminal but being potentially one in the future (not far away from a KGB mindset if you ask me)

Most people aren't going around calling people who disagree with them an "enemy of the people". Nor do they insist on loyalty to a great leader. Many Americans, for example, prefer loyalty to the Constitution or a set of principles over loyalty to the president himself.

Echo-chambers might have the feature that they don't like dissent, but that doesn't mean everybody prefers echo chambers over open discourse, nor does it mean people in an echo chamber want to apply their echo chamber to the entire country, with a great leader in charge that everybody needs to be loyal too.

So no, you're wrong about that. Not everybody is automatically a fascist, and the word does have meaning. There's a very clear difference between fascist leaders + followers, and the people who disagree with them.

And yes, there are differences between Nazism Stalinism and Italian Fascism, but they have a lot more in common with each other than with liberal ideologies. Not every liberal is liberal in the same way, not every environmentalist has exactly the same priorities, not every conservative is conservative about the same things. Similarly, it's not so strange for there to be multiple interpretations/implementations of fascism. They may differ in details, but they're clearly related.