The implications of the RESTRICT act, the law banning use of numerous foreign technologies, are ones that vaguely but steadily shift the country closer towards a thorough crackdown on anti-imperialist sentiments. The act doesn’t outright ban speech that challenges Atlanticist, anti-China, pro-NATO narratives, it only provides the legal framework for a scenario where the state starts banning such ideas in practice. This cultivation of the conditions for an anti-democratic purge has a deeper motive, a motive which comes from fear.
I don't like this "the state is cracking down harder, that means we must be doing something right" analysis. The state is not omniscient, it doesn't always act on rational calculation. State action alone isn't sufficient proof for the efficacy of a political movement
I don't like this "the state is cracking down harder, that means we must be doing something right" analysis. The state is not omniscient, it doesn't always act on rational calculation. State action alone isn't sufficient proof for the efficacy of a political movement