Less internet is only one answer.

In our age of digital connection and
constantly online life, you might say
that two political regimes are evolving
one Chinese and one
offer two kinds of relationships be-
tween the privacy of ordinary citizens
and the
authorities to track, to supervise, to
expose and to survell
r of central
The first regime is one in which your
every transaction can be fed into a
system of ratings and rankings, in
which what seem like merely personal
mistakes can cost you your livelihood
and reputation, even your ability to
hail a car or book a reservation. It’s
one in which notionally private compa-
rate with the government to
track dissidents and radicals and cen-
sor speech; one in which your fellow
citizens act as enforcers of the ideolog
ical consensus, making an example of
you far comments you intended only
for your friends; one in which even the
wealth and power of your overlords
can’t buy privacy
The second regime is the one they’re
building in the People’s Republic of
This is a dark joke; it isn’t meant to
minimize the horrors of China’s march
into information-age totalitarianism.
Beginning with its successful taming of
the internet, Beijing has treated the
darkest episodes of “Black Mirror” as
a how-to guide for social control and
subjugationwith “social credit”
scores and official public shamings for
people whose daily conduct disap-
points, official Communist Party apps
that you’d better use if you know
what’s good for you, surveillance tech
nologies and facial recognition solft
ware as boots on the back of nonap
proved religions, and compulsory
internet as part of the brutal, tech-
enabled replay of the Cultural Revolu-
tion imposed in China’s Muslim west.
What’s happening in the West with
privacy and authority is happily differ-
ent. Unlike China’s system, our emerg
ing post-privacy order is not (for now)
totalitarian; its impositions are more

decentralized and haphazard, more
circumscribed and civilized, less de-
igned and more evolved, more ran-
dom in the punishments inflicted and
the rules enforced.
This means that, for instance, there
is no central party apparatus
vidual “trust scores” for every con-
sumer (even if they’re still doing it), no
official commissars organizing digital
mobs (even if shaming for random
wrongthink is now a commonplace), no
political persecution involved in most
cases where public figures have thein
secrets and selfies exposed on the
internet. (Perhaps Jeff Bezos’s claims
of Saudi involvement will pan out, but
so far he mostly seems to have been
the victim of his own stupidity and his
mistress’s brother’s greed.) And it
means that the radicals surveilled by
corporate government cooperation are
mostly white nationalists and jihadists
not human rights advocates and Chris-
tian pastors, as in China.
But this list of real differences is still
also a list of partial similarities, of
ways in which the
architecture of our
certain features of
Our emerging
nese panopticon
even if the life lived
within our system
is still blessedly
freer than in theirs
getting there.
Indeed our sys
tem cannot help
recreating features of the Chinese
order, because the way that we live on
the internet leaves us naked before
power in a radical new way, In the
West that power is still decentralized
diffuse, divided and polarized, and
therefore likely to be limited and
checked. But to adapt Deng Xiaoping’s
famous call for “socialism with Chinese
characteristics,” the Western order in
the internet age might be usefully
described as a “liberalism with some
police-state characteristics.” Those
characteristics are shaped and limited
by our political heritage of rights and
individualism. But there is still plainly
an authoritarian edge, a gentle “pink
police state” aspect, to the new world
that online life creates.
And what’s striking is how easily we
have come to tolerate it. Yes, there are
moments when particular organs of
surveillance get pushback- the
N.S.A. during the brief “libertarian
moment” starring Rand Paul and

Edward Snowden, the social media
companies from liberals when it turned
out that the Trump digital team no less
than the Obama whiz kids could ex-
(As technology advances, will it
continue to blur the ines between pub-
lic and private? Sign up for Charlie
Warzel’s limited run newsletter to
explore what’s at stake and what you
But apart from the high-minded and
the paranoid, privacy per se is not a
major issue in our politics. Most people
want the convenience of the internet
far more than they want the private
spaces that older forms of communica-
tion protected. They shrug off the
stalker-ish’ways that corporations hurl
their ads at you throughout your day
They put surveillance devices in their
homes and pockets without a qualm.
They accept hackings and online
shamings the way a Californian shrugs
off earthquakes. They assume that the
extremists being surveilled and cen-
sored and sometimes arrested proba-
bly deserve it. And they welcome the
possible advantages of panoptical
living, hoping for less crime and less
police misconduct, better public health,
more exposure of corruption-plus, of
course, the chance to see their favorite
celebrities in the nude
So for those who object inherently to
our new nakedness, regard the earth
quakes as too high a price for Ama
zon’s low prices, or fear what an Au
gustus or a Robespierre might some-
day do with all this architecture, the
best hope for a partial restoration of
privacy has to involve more than just
requires a more general turn against
the virtual, in which fears of digital
nakedness are just one motivator 1
among many the political piece of a
cause that’s also psychological, intel
lectual, aesthetic and religious
This is the hard truth suggested by
our online experience so far: That a
movement to restore privacy must be
at some level, a movement against the
internet. Not a pure Luddism, but a
movement for limits, for internet-free
spaces, for zones of enforced pre-
virtual reality (childhood and educa-
tion above all), for social conventions
that discourage career-destroying
tweets and crotch shots by encourag
ing us to put away our iPhones.
Absent such a movement we may
not join China in dystopia. But the
dystopian elements in our own order will be here to stay.


From The New York Times

Date April 16 2019

From page 11 Opinion
Writer..by Ross Douthat

Great Achievement of Humanity On Black Hole.

On Wednesday scientist from all around the world jointly succussed to get first “Real image of Black hole” by combination of eight different big telescope from different parts of world, which is know as Horizon Telescope. Horizon event is that’s part of Black hole where you can go but you will not be able to return back, this point around the black hole if which picture only can be taken, in fact we can’t take pictures of Black hole because it’s mass is very high but very micro volume. The picture assembled from data gathered by eight radio 🔭 telescopes, which shows the hot, shadows lip if supermassive black hole, which is considered as monsters that, Even sucks light, nothing can be escape from it. After more than hundred years ago scientist gave proposal of Black hole, which came true. If, Einstein and Stephens Hacking were alive then it could be great gift for them and others scientist who are special. It’s image is like “Lord of fire ring”. One thing is that image which we have got is not today image but this is as old as distance between Earth and Black hole, that is Million years older, which just arrived to us.

Education why?

Today in different parts of world educated people are unemployed, they’re wondering from one place to another in search of job, good opportunity, better life.

  1. One month ago when I went to one village of Nepal in Maedsh , where I found many children were not going to any school but they were going to work with senior person. I asked father one boy who was working as labour in construction work ,in 38 degree temperatures of mid sunny day, why don’t you send your children to o school? He replied my first son is educated,he had completed his bachelor degree, but he is earning only 8000/ monthly payment, with that amount of money he is not able to save any amount, some time he ask me to send money. So, I decided to not send my junior son to school, because that is only money lost and does my elder son got, you see here by working here my son is earning 30,000 per month. which is three times more then my educated son earned. So, tell me why to educate my children,to make them poor. No never.
  2. Really this is practically applied to any personal life but now it’s time to stop , those people who are not interested in sending their children to school. Government and international society have challenge to address this problem.
  3. Solution to this problem is . First educated people must be employed, they should not be poor with education.