Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you surprised that on HN, of all places, we find a date format pedant? :-D
And a wrong one, at that.
My opinions are always wrong but sometimes less wrong than others.
The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
401–410 of 520 posts
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#402Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These people seem incapable of understanding the existential threat to free society and democracy posed by limiting everyone's ability to communicate private thoughts. The existential threat this bill poses to free society and democracy is exactly why they're supporting it. It's not some accidental side effect. They're opposed to the existence of free society and democracy because it limits government power, which…
Free society means limited government, and the only way for the government to be in favor of that is for the government to vote against its own interests. I would argue that a free society protects people’s rights, and this is impossible without a strong government. As for voting against its own interests, the government in a true democracy is quite literally the will of the people. We get what we vote for. So if peo…
A government can be both limited and strong!
Those are independent properties. If you don't see the distinction you will be hopelessly lost in these discussions.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#403Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free society means limited government, and the only way for the government to be in favor of that is for the government to vote against its own interests. I would argue that a free society protects people’s rights, and this is impossible without a strong government. As for voting against its own interests, the government in a true democracy is quite literally the will of the people. We get what we vote for. So if peo…
Depends on definition of „people’s rights“. If you want to ensure very basic rights, small government is fine. If you want affirmative action and all that jazz, then you’ll need big government. That will likely abuse tools meant for good to make society not free anymore.
[deleted]
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#404No post body was provided.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#405While this bill is strongly opposed by the Internet Society, ACLU, CDT, and EFF, the critiques I've read don't get much into the real "why" behind this legislation continuing to be pushed so forcefully. The pretext is, of course, "protect the children" and more generally law-and-order with a bonus side-helping of "stop those awful social media giants." While these justifications are (hopefully) obvious misdirection t…
[deleted]
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#406Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second amendment, like abortion, is a political wedge issue used by politicians to wield against their opponents. You’re not going to replicate that with issues requiring more nuance and that cannot be used as emotional cudgels.
I think the lack of nuance employed by both 1A and 2A communities has been a strength. Nuance allows compromise, and compromise allows incrementalism. It's a classic fascist play. It's also a classic politician play to get people lost in the details so that no one truly understands their intent, i.e. "never let a good crisis go to waste". I'm willing to be proven wrong, however.
"Encryption is my absolute right protected by the 1st and 2nd amendment" - there is no nuance and you are correct, nuance diminishes your rights over time. Plus, nuance is bad for campaign slogans or beating politicians about the head.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#407Earlier quoted context omitted.
What one can make, another can break. Skeleton keys are impossible to secure.
By that logic so is the two parties' decryption keys. Can we make a third party whose decryption key is more secure than the others? I suspect it is possible.
It’s a fool’s errand chasing after a fool’s reward.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#408Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just interesting, how does Telegram specifically harm society? By letting right wing freaks have their echo chambers there, or do you mean something else?
I meant that. Telegram was symbolic for how the freedom of some can impair the freedom of others. I have nothing against e2e encryption or privacy but as I said my liberterian worldview starts to crumble … toward what? I dont know
If you deny them Telegram, Facebook, Parler or any other online platform, people would gather offline and have their echo chambers there. Just as they did before Internet. So you're basically saying 1st amendment harms society, not online platforms.
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#409Earlier quoted context omitted.
My government has just spent 2 years - a pretty significant percentage of a lifetime - working to keep me from travelling more than 5km from my home and made it illegal for me to see my friends. And I'm not even going to have a sympathetic audience if I try to claim this is against my wishes or wellbeing. Run me through, in simple terms, how much worse it could get? I suppose they aren't trying to kill me, which is a…
My government has restricted travel in order to stop a pandemic virus spreading to the point where hospitals are overwhelmed and we start seeing 10% of the population dying instead of 0.5%. Thankfully they have also implemented a nationwide vaccination scheme and a vaccination pass which is accepted pretty much anywhere worldwide.
[deleted]
Re: The EARN IT act is back, and it’s more dangerous than ever
#410Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But we all know Excepting the approval of end to end encryption and residential zoning, pretty much every problem thread on HN is littered with comments about how we need more regulation and laws to solve X or Y or Z. Wanting the "good guys" to have more power is pretty much the default response on here nowadays. I remember earlier- including before I had signed up for an account- when HN was much more libertarian,…
disclaimer: I am not American, and know nothing about American politics. I think all these start around Trump's administration. Trump start calling some media/social media as fake news, and some media/social media start censoring his supporter. After seeing the worse effects of misleading information, many free-speech-supporter back off alot.
Nah, there was a noticable shift already in the later Obama years, if not earlier.
It is ironic that we should trust government to be an arbiter of truth, given that our government has been a source of "misinformation" for years (a.k.a. blatantly lying to support an agenda).