News of News - The Fifth Power
The U.S. imposed new sanctions on senior leaders of Myanmar’s military junta on Monday—the eve of the one-year anniversary of their overthrow of the country’s democratically elected government and imprisonment of its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.
The U.S., joined by the U.K., and Canada, announced sanctions on officials who helped prosecute Aung San Suu Kyi, the head of the National League for Democracy. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate was arrested in the Feb. 1, 2021 coup. Myanmar courts have sentenced her to a total of six years in prison as of Jan. 10—but she faces additional charges.
“Movies!” Gerwig says, almost in the manner of an old-timey studio executive, recalling the moment. “Love ’em!” We’re having lunch in Soho; she’s in London while her husband, the writer-director Noah Baumbach, preps production on his next film, and while she works on a new adaptation of the first book in C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia series. It’s one of the biggest pieces of intellectual property of all time, but that’s a fitting thing to tackle after what’s been, for Gerwig, a remarkable year. Her dazzling, subversive Barbie, which she co-wrote and directed, grossed more than $1.4 billion at the box office, making it the biggest movie of the year, and the highest-grossing film ever directed by a woman. Barbie has since become a pop-culture phenomenon, from I Am Kenough hoodies to discourse over a third-act monologue delivered by America Ferrera about the impossible pressures women face. Alongside Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer, Barbie was credited with keeping the theatrical model afloat last year; in January, the film received eight Oscar nominations, including Best Picture as well as Best Supporting Actress for Ferrera.
“I remember thinking, If this works, everyone is going to think later that it was inevitable,” Gerwig says. “They’ll say, ‘Well, but it was Barbie.’ But this was not guaranteed.”
Recently, a gesture made by Elon Musk during a rally has sparked widespread social debate about whether it resembled a Nazi salute. Many left-wing commentators speculated that Musk deliberately used this gesture to show support for Nazism, and CNN analyzed the incident on its program. Meanwhile, right-wing commentators refuted the suspicions and accusations made by the left.
In this article, we acknowledge the right of all individuals and media to express their views on this matter. However, we aim to provide an analysis of this incident to offer readers a different perspective on the issue. Our focus is: Using Behavioral Analysis to Identify “Bad Actors” and Its Parallels with Stasi Practices.
1. Behavioral Analysis and Freedom of Expression
It’s entirely within the rights of individuals or media to analyze or question the actions of public figures, especially when these actions are connected to sensitive historical contexts. However, such analyses should be grounded in facts and rationality, rather than preconceived biases or political agendas.
2. The Risk of Behavioral Surveillance: A Stasi Parallel
Behavioral analysis, if taken too far, can resemble the practices of the Stasi (East German secret police), who scrutinized every action and word of citizens to identify “potential threats.” Modern society faces similar risks when social media behavior and gestures are overanalyzed:
- Over-interpretation: Innocuous gestures or words may be exaggerated into intentional signals.
- Intent Assumption: Inferring someone’s intent based solely on behavior can lead to unfair accusations.
- Public Pressure: Individuals subjected to such scrutiny often find it difficult to defend themselves fairly.
3. Complexity of Symbols and History
The Nazi salute is a historically sensitive symbol tied to immense societal trauma. It’s understandable that any gesture resembling it would spark concern or outrage. However, it’s important to distinguish between deliberate mimicry and unintentional resemblance:
- Public figures like Elon Musk do bear greater responsibility to avoid ambiguous gestures.
- Without concrete evidence of intent, there’s a danger of turning scrutiny into baseless accusations.
4. Media’s Role
Media outlets like CNN have the right to analyze such controversies but also bear a responsibility to present balanced perspectives rather than inflaming division or amplifying speculation.
5. Conclusion
Using behavioral analysis to identify “bad actors” can sometimes verge on modern-day Stasi-like practices, fostering unnecessary societal tensions. Regarding Elon Musk’s gesture, the following points are crucial:
- Encourage rational, fact-based discussions over emotional or politically charged reactions.
- Avoid jumping to conclusions about intent without evidence.
- Balance the public’s right to critique with a fair and measured approach to interpretation.
In a modern society sensitive to historical trauma and symbolism, caution and fairness are essential to prevent the escalation of misunderstanding into social division.
In this article, we do not aim to support or oppose any side. Our purpose is to caution everyone: using behavioral analysis to identify “bad actors” is a Stasi-style method of social control. While every individual has the full right to evaluate and analyze, citizens’ behavior should not be subject to such scrutiny and examination. When a society begins to rely on behavioral analysis to find “bad actors,” it has already started down the path of a Stasi model. This model, commonly employed in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and other socialist states to prevent subversion, represents a form of societal governance that must be avoided at all costs.
Many people often refer to dictatorship and totalitarianism, but do they truly understand the differences between these two concepts? Let’s explain.
In both dictatorship and totalitarianism, the people don’t get to choose their leaders, and power is taken by force or control. In a dictatorship, one person or a small group holds all the power and makes decisions without letting the people have a say. Although they control the government, people might still have some freedom in their personal lives, as long as they don’t speak out against the leader.
Totalitarianism, on the other hand, takes control much further. The government doesn’t just run the country; it controls almost every part of people’s lives—where they work, what they believe, and even what they say or think. In both systems, freedom is taken away, but totalitarianism is much more extreme, trying to control everything. Neither system is good for the people because they’re forced to live under these rules without any choice.
An important difference between the two is whether the system tolerates “wrong” ideas. In a dictatorship, as long as people don’t challenge the leader, their thoughts don’t matter much. But in totalitarianism, people are forced to believe the “correct” ideas in every part of life. If you hold an incorrect idea, you are cancelled. Totalitarianism often starts with good intentions—the belief that if everyone thinks the right way, society will become perfect. But politics is not like science, where there’s always a clear right or wrong answer. It’s more like negotiation, where people’s needs differ, and the goal is to find a balance, like buyers and sellers agreeing on a price.
Another important thing to understand is that just because a leader is tough or even a bad person doesn’t mean they are—or want to be—a dictator. Similarly, just because a leader is gentle or seems like a good person doesn’t mean they will promote freedom and democracy. Throughout history, we’ve seen many leaders with good ideas and intentions accidentally lead to totalitarianism. In fact, good people with good intentions are sometimes more likely to pursue totalitarianism. They get upset when bad things happen in society and want a complete solution to stop all of it. But in trying to create a “perfect” world, they can end up taking away people’s freedoms, forcing them to think and act in certain ways to avoid bad things.
Freedom of speech depends on freedom of thought. If people aren’t allowed to think freely—even if their ideas are “wrong”—how can they speak freely? And without that, how can they be part of a democracy? Free thinking is even more important than free speech, and holding ideas that others might consider “incorrect” is a fundamental human right. These ideas should be debated, not canceled. People have the right to share their thoughts, even if others disagree, and just like in a marketplace, the value of these ideas will be decided over time.
