Doubt it. Reporting will be thru the roof but they do not need to go after every case, they will make an example out of some poor guys who thinks illegal immigration is bad or that putting a dress on a guy does not make him a girl. They will get expelled or fired. That will make everyone fall in line using fear, as all good emphatic™ governments do.
The rest of the process will be to go after public individuals and any enemy of the "good party", after all anyone against the "good party" is against goodness itself and must be removed from society.
Yeah, it'll be the Ayn Rand thing where if everybody is a criminal, the government retains discretion about whom to prosecute, allowing it to pick favourites.
I am sort of seeing a situation when we had the early P2P programs like Kazaa. There will be people who are punished severely and made a public sacrifice, but ultimately the people in charge can't control it and find themselves unable to combat. The public face will hit hard, while the boardroom will be terrified.
There will be a battle between the two, and ultimately, the powerful will have to concede because they can't actually find and capture their enemy in the manner they say they can. Meanwhile, those who oppose can do exactly what they say they can, and use it to their advantage.
I wonder if it can be overwhelmed, hypothetically speaking, dealing with the stuff just floating around the internet.
Doubt it. Reporting will be thru the roof but they do not need to go after every case, they will make an example out of some poor guys who thinks illegal immigration is bad or that putting a dress on a guy does not make him a girl. They will get expelled or fired. That will make everyone fall in line using fear, as all good emphatic™ governments do. The rest of the process will be to go after public individuals and any enemy of the "good party", after all anyone against the "good party" is against goodness itself and must be removed from society.
Yeah, it'll be the Ayn Rand thing where if everybody is a criminal, the government retains discretion about whom to prosecute, allowing it to pick favourites.
I am sort of seeing a situation when we had the early P2P programs like Kazaa. There will be people who are punished severely and made a public sacrifice, but ultimately the people in charge can't control it and find themselves unable to combat. The public face will hit hard, while the boardroom will be terrified.
There will be a battle between the two, and ultimately, the powerful will have to concede because they can't actually find and capture their enemy in the manner they say they can. Meanwhile, those who oppose can do exactly what they say they can, and use it to their advantage.