Should the Chinese government have the power to shield their citizens from information and monitor them electronically?
Should a group of people in democratic, Western countries be able to subvert the will of a world superpower with impunity?
Of the two scary worlds, I guess I'd rather choose the latter. But I don't even like having to choose.
(I doubt Amazon like being asked to choose even less, and I would be surprised if they cut you any slack. Sedition is not looked upon favorably, and abetting those perpetrating it is not either.)
I'd suggest that the ability to perform a subversion of the will of a foreign state is a necessary adaptation, preventing a nominally democratic state from sliding towards aristocratic, oligarchic, or plutocratic governance.
The ability to increase freedom in a foreign state is related to the ability to prevent a decrease of freedom in your own.
Inconvenient websites help uphold the duties of the fourth estate when mainstream media outlets have seemingly abandoned--or at least heavily de-prioritized--those duties. It is important for all governments, not just those with sketchy human rights records, to know that even the mightiest machine can be taken offline by a single wooden sandal.
Should a group of people in democratic, Western countries be able to subvert the will of a world superpower with impunity?
Of the two scary worlds, I guess I'd rather choose the latter. But I don't even like having to choose.
(I doubt Amazon like being asked to choose even less, and I would be surprised if they cut you any slack. Sedition is not looked upon favorably, and abetting those perpetrating it is not either.)