There is a diferenece between an orcestrated event, and one that occurs.
But that difference must be
proved first, and I haven't seen it done.
All attempts to control information will be oppressive. This si not anecdotal, this is the only way it can be.
Knowledge is power. Power is a dangerous thing, and must be controlled by some means, because power left unchecked goes to bad places. This has been proved time and time again in the course of human history. I can point you to any emperor, to Genghis Khan, to Hitler. The human race has the knowledge to destroy itself in under a day, and you would see that information spread to the masses? A nuclear bomb in every driveway?
Your assertions are laughable. No, there are times when control
is necessary, is the only sane choice.
And populations will only tolerate so much oppression (sure it is a lot, but finite) before they revolt. This too, is fact.
Cite. No, seriously, cite. The populations of the Soviet Russia, of Mao's China, of Hitler's Germany, they suffered oppression on a vast, systematic, incredible scale. They did not revolt. There was resistance, of course, there always is. But revolt? No. It took the collapse of the Soviet military due to economic forces to bring change to Russia, the military destruction of Hitler's government by outside forces to bring change there. China is still going and still improving on its abilities to oppress the people.
I challenge your assertion. You say it is fact, but the raw statement does not make it so.
So, I see there as being two paths before us (with limitless variations of course).
Internal contradiction detected.
Either we actually become free, globally, with thought, speech and information. Or we face increasing oppression as those with power seek to control something that is by nature uncontrollable, the internet.
If you honestly believe the internet is uncontrollable, you're quite dense. The reason the internet cannot currently be controlled is that no agreement can be reached on how to do so. If the threat you posit actually existed, that would not be the case.
And if people revolt all around the world it will be global war, with no one at the helm.
No one is suggesting putting together a world war, please at least read what was typed before calling the author stupid.
But I did. These two statements are contradictory. If you intend these revolts to go anywhere, accomplish anything, they must either involve or beat the standing armies of the world. And this will not be a Vietnam, where withdrawal is an option. The governments will fight to the death, and they hold all the cards.