As a result, authoritative governments cared less on what is being said within the country. It gave the chinese more freedom online as the government would be less concerned about how they communicated with each other. Even though the majority of Russia was supposedly apathetic towards counter revolutionary ideas, the government still monitored its citizens to maintain the systemic feelings of apathy. For example, Navalny, the primary counterrevolutionary of the Russian section, was apart of a liberal party in 1999 that was backed by overseas groups and went against the communist party (201). This group wanted to bring people together, so they could have in person debates on political issues, but Navalny revealed that a group of thugs, supposedly
…show more content…
This is highlighted in Russia as after a law was passed that requires Russian officials post all their expenditures, it was found that they were spending unnecessary amounts on lavish furniture (204- 205). Any citizen would be upset if they found out their government is spending money on unnecessary things, but the people of Russia do not feel like they can change anything. If they do want to speak up against the government, there is always a fear that the government will discover them. The citizens fear the government’s surveillance because something similar to what happened with Navalny in 1999 may happen to them. As a result, the citizens of Russia had to fear the government’s surveillance. Since they were in fear of their government for such a long time, it eventually caused the apathy where citizens no longer cared for social change. The regime did not have to worry about their citizens uprising, but the surveillance made the government prepared just in …show more content…
In the case of citizens fighting authoritative regimes, surveillance gives the regime a huge advantage over their citizens. As seen in China, surveillance played several key roles in the oppression of its citizens. Initially, it discouraged Anti from being anti regime as the government had manipulated many people, including his parents, into being loyal supporters. On a larger scale, the chinese government uses surveillance to cover up scandals like the massacre of Tiananmen Square in order to keep their citizens misinformed. As a result, the government was able to maintain the loyalty of their citizens and represent the protesters however they wanted. Eventually, when the internet became more accessible in China, surveillance continued to work against the netizens. The government remained oppressive towards citizens using surveillance by constantly shutting down any material they would post online that opposed the regime. It seems like now, better online social media like Twitter has given the chinese a way around the surveillance of their government, but they need a restructured government before they can worrying about the surveillance. In Russia, surveillance has kept their citizens oppressed by similar means. Their government used surveillance to produce fear early on, which resulted in apathy towards social change for a long time. It produced a similar response as the chinese in the massacre of Tiananmen Square when the Russian did not care that
This is highlighted in Russia as after a law was passed that requires Russian officials post all their expenditures, it was found that they were spending unnecessary amounts on lavish furniture (204- 205). Any citizen would be upset if they found out their government is spending money on unnecessary things, but the people of Russia do not feel like they can change anything. If they do want to speak up against the government, there is always a fear that the government will discover them. The citizens fear the government’s surveillance because something similar to what happened with Navalny in 1999 may happen to them. As a result, the citizens of Russia had to fear the government’s surveillance. Since they were in fear of their government for such a long time, it eventually caused the apathy where citizens no longer cared for social change. The regime did not have to worry about their citizens uprising, but the surveillance made the government prepared just in …show more content…
In the case of citizens fighting authoritative regimes, surveillance gives the regime a huge advantage over their citizens. As seen in China, surveillance played several key roles in the oppression of its citizens. Initially, it discouraged Anti from being anti regime as the government had manipulated many people, including his parents, into being loyal supporters. On a larger scale, the chinese government uses surveillance to cover up scandals like the massacre of Tiananmen Square in order to keep their citizens misinformed. As a result, the government was able to maintain the loyalty of their citizens and represent the protesters however they wanted. Eventually, when the internet became more accessible in China, surveillance continued to work against the netizens. The government remained oppressive towards citizens using surveillance by constantly shutting down any material they would post online that opposed the regime. It seems like now, better online social media like Twitter has given the chinese a way around the surveillance of their government, but they need a restructured government before they can worrying about the surveillance. In Russia, surveillance has kept their citizens oppressed by similar means. Their government used surveillance to produce fear early on, which resulted in apathy towards social change for a long time. It produced a similar response as the chinese in the massacre of Tiananmen Square when the Russian did not care that