31–40 of 600 posts
The people on the "right side of history" are usually fighting for freedom and liberty, not censorship and re-education camps
This all sounds very nice, but there's a bit of sleight of hand here since the article goes out of its way to avoid details. That way everyone reads into exactly what they want, and it's totally non-obvious whether this is actually a workable proposal or not. But what's the concrete proposal here? How would things actually work? Will the services be forced to accept whatever unmoderated feed of filth the linked to se…
I was kinda wondering that. If a user gets banned, and moves off-platform to continue the behaviour there, but is somehow magically still linked to everyone they were linked with before... has anything really changed? Will facebook be forced to show its users the same nastiness it just booted off, because of the interop necessities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I will not sacrifice free speech for added protection from terrorists.
Not that context ever matters to extremist: “It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.” https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
Are you calling me an extremist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes the false assumption that authoritarians won't abuse the system simply because non-authoritarians didn't. Authoritarians gonna make up their own authority regardless.
> Authoritarians gonna make up their own authority regardless. I think they’ll try to, but not always succeed. They will definitely use and abuse any existing powers. So I think it’s logically unsound, and quite sad to me, to argue that it’s pointless to resist allowing powers that can be exploited because authoritarians will do it anyway.
They'll also abuse new powers, particularly known-but-unused powers.
My point is that it's better to make the best rules you can for now, rather than limit yourself simply because a bad guy will someday make it worse. They'll make it worse regardless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I will not sacrifice free speech for added protection from terrorists.
This quote is taken out of context - see https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
Let me fix it:
Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security will eventually lose both and deserve neither.
- me, 2021
Doesn't quite carry the same weight with my name behind it, but I stand by it nonetheless.
This all sounds very nice, but there's a bit of sleight of hand here since the article goes out of its way to avoid details. That way everyone reads into exactly what they want, and it's totally non-obvious whether this is actually a workable proposal or not. But what's the concrete proposal here? How would things actually work? Will the services be forced to accept whatever unmoderated feed of filth the linked to se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I will not sacrifice free speech for added protection from terrorists.
This quote is taken out of context - see https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
What do the words “liberty”, “purchase”, and “security” mean in this quotation?
As best as I can tell:
- liberty: the right to be sovereign and able to defend oneself
- security: safety from having taxes levied
- purchase: the guys being taxed said instead “look, we’ll give you money this one time instead but we don’t want you to have the right to levy taxes”
Okay, I guess that makes sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Authoritarians gonna make up their own authority regardless. I think they’ll try to, but not always succeed. They will definitely use and abuse any existing powers. So I think it’s logically unsound, and quite sad to me, to argue that it’s pointless to resist allowing powers that can be exploited because authoritarians will do it anyway.
> They will definitely use and abuse any existing powers. They'll also abuse new powers, particularly known-but-unused powers. My point is that it's better to make the best rules you can for now, rather than limit yourself simply because a bad guy will someday make it worse. They'll make it worse regardless.
The best system is one that continually generates a numbered and capable enough cohort unified in a common enough purpose to shepherd it long enough to create yet another generation of shepherds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This quote is taken out of context - see https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
Interesting. So he wasn't saying what people today think he was saying. Let me fix it: Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security will eventually lose both and deserve neither. - me, 2021 Doesn't quite carry the same weight with my name behind it, but I stand by it nonetheless.