Only the most extreme authoritarians will attempt to silence all dissonance. Most will have a controlled opposition as the illusion of choice and a release valve for anger.

Russia, for example, runs elections and up until recently allowed the opposing party on the ballot. Same with Belarus. China and Iran also have elections, but the candidates are vetted through the state party. I know now Americans from each of these countries (except Iran). One who still votes in the Belarus elections even though they know it won't change anything.

NK is about the only modern regime I know where all opposition is punished. And even then, there's been reports of a loosening of enforcement.

Trying posting online about what you really think should happen to, say, the head of state, and you'll get a visit from the Secret Service, which will just be the start of your problems.

Compare this to enemies of the state, where we're allowed to wantonly express, depict and act out, sometimes literally, desires and calls for even lethal harm against them.

>> But the distinction is that in-group requires blind obedience in authoritarian countries

That's not true. It requires wilful ignorance in some cases, but sometimes not even that.

Take, for example, russian troll farms. They initially were made to shift in-group opinion, because in-group started to a. get mad at Putin, b. reaching the conclusion that most of the in-group was dissatisfied and something had to be done.

Small forums in Russia (and HN is a small forum) aren't even monitored, but you can find abusive and violent language towards politicians in big social russian networks pretty easily.

So you can be in-group for authority and think yourself a free-thinker who isn't afraid to say the truth and cyberbully the president.