Live data from Hacker News

Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

axios.com

201–210 of 215 posts

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war. > No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever. Why not rethink it, then? I u…

> I understand that there was a civil war before, but doesn't secession make way more sense now? No, it doesn't. The idea that basic human rights are of subordinate priority to sovereignty and something that we will just agree to disagree on has less currency now than in the 1860s; secession as a means of handling this kind of disagreement made much more sense then than now, and it didn't make a lot then, either.

So what's the strategy then? To be blunt, it doesn't seem to me like the US and human rights are going to have the best possible relationship in the next 10-20 years. Wouldn't it be better then to cut away from it?

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war. > No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever. Why not rethink it, then? I u…

I basically agree with everything dragonwriter said, but I'd like to add. > How are you going to keep your country together with the way things are currently going? I can't dismiss the possibility that this may come to another civil war, but it would be catastrophic. It's not just that war is bad. The world's largest superpower and nuclear power going to war with itself will end poorly for the entire world. If a civi…

Why would it need a civil war? It could be done peacefully.

Grant that people wouldn't want to abandon their friends (on both sides!), but surely nobody would feel it worthwhile to fight a war over people in other states having the right to vote?

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#203
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That did not emphasize your point. It refuted it. Or do you believe that pregnant women should be allowed to take any toxic substance they want regardless of the harm to their child? I've met some people who believe that, but it's very much a minority view, Even among pro-choice supporters.

The original comment said that prosecuting a mother for the death of a fetus was not a thing. I shared an article with multiple examples of that showing he was misinformed. That was my whole point. I don’t know what point you think I was making that was refuted, and I really don’t want to derail the conversation and get into the weeds of whether this particular case of stillbirth was a miscarriage or an abortion or m…

If you are going to pick example cases to prove your argument, I would not pick a case where a meth addict murdered her child.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#204
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The most law that affects the most people day to day has always been State law. So, I'd actually disagree. This argument isn't well thought out yet, but... until you're actually breaking local laws, most of the laws you interact with are actually interstate and international laws. Most of the businesses you interact with are either engaging in interstate or international commerce. For example, all of your interacti…

I appreciate you trying but no, the laws that affect your direct surroundings are State, because the State is the direct sovereign power over the land you live on whether you rent or own or squat. The streets around you are governed by State laws; the parks around you may have park hours and if not set directly by the State are governed by a State-empowered entity like your City (national parks are the obvious except…

I live in a high-tax state and pay vastly more to the Federal government than I do to all state and local agencies. Budget isn't a perfect proxy for state power, but it's a pretty damned good one. (And those taxes have a huge effect on my life every single day.)

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I basically agree with everything dragonwriter said, but I'd like to add. > How are you going to keep your country together with the way things are currently going? I can't dismiss the possibility that this may come to another civil war, but it would be catastrophic. It's not just that war is bad. The world's largest superpower and nuclear power going to war with itself will end poorly for the entire world. If a civi…

Why would it need a civil war? It could be done peacefully. Grant that people wouldn't want to abandon their friends (on both sides!), but surely nobody would feel it worthwhile to fight a war over people in other states having the right to vote?

It could not be done peacefully. Any secession in the US will result in civil war. The two possible exceptions to this are Hawaii and Texas, since both have somewhat legitimate, but still legally controversial, justifications for secession.

But depending on circumstances, it could be a quick, unbalanced war. The US has the largest, most powerful military in the world, and that's only possible because of the union of all 50 states. The military has a huge interest in keeping the union together, and no group of states can hope to stand up to its might.

Active-duty service members from seceding states will not be universally for secession, but you can guarantee nearly every service member from other states will be against it. Even among those who support it, a good number will follow orders to suppress it.

In such a scenario, the only defense seceding states have is the threat of nuclear warfare. The case for Scottish independence would be similarly dangerous if Scotland were not willing to abandon their nuclear weapons. US states seceding cannot do the same because they would be immediately conquered by the nuclear states.

Speaking of, if secession did succeed, we'd be left with 2 nuclear states antagonistic to each other sharing borders. It would be India-Pakistan, but with many, many more nukes. A bad situation all around.

But again, I don't think there's a popular case for secession. It's not like e.g. the people of California hate the people of Tennessee and no longer want to be in a political union with them. There is a lot of hated between political groups, but the borders of that hatred are not state borders. Liberal voters in California hate those running and supporting the government in Tennessee (and vice-versa), but they don't hate the liberal voters in Nashville, Tennessee's capital. The split is mostly urban-rural, not state vs. state.

It creates a situation where we may hate those living only a few km away, but sympathize with the plight of our fellow American thousands of km away. And again, a lot of those people are our friends and family. We don't want to just abandon them.

> surely nobody would feel it worthwhile to fight a war over people in other states having the right to vote?

The US civil war was fought in part by those who felt those being enslaved in other states was an injustice. Modern war is much more catastrophic, but starting civil wars for the rights of our fellow citizens in other states is an American tradition. For all the reasons I hope there won't be war, this is the one thing that makes me fearful another war might start.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women have been prosecuted for miscarriages before, it's not baseless. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/03/1109015302/abortion-prosecuti...

NPR is funded by the federal government. They rely on the same fact checking services (the IFCC, PolitiFact / Poynter) that are funded by Soros, the Gates, the Clintons, the Koch foundation, etc... They're probably the most anti-American media outlet in existence and I wouldn't trust the words they print further than I can ball them up and throw them.

What are some examples of them being anti-American or passing misinformation?

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NPR is funded by the federal government. They rely on the same fact checking services (the IFCC, PolitiFact / Poynter) that are funded by Soros, the Gates, the Clintons, the Koch foundation, etc... They're probably the most anti-American media outlet in existence and I wouldn't trust the words they print further than I can ball them up and throw them.

What are some examples of them being anti-American or passing misinformation?

They're constantly promoting the topics of critical race theory and BLM which one can easily lump in with other Marxist mass movements. Whatever the Biden administration feels is important tends to be what they cover - so right now it's all about race, how shitty America is, gun violence, LGBTQ+, etc... They never talk bad about the federal government, and they only give one side in any debate a platform - those who agree with their sentiments. No one else gets airtime.

I guess if you believe everything the federal government tells you, and you believe the federal government is a benign hegemon, then you'd have a tough time classifying NPR's content as misinformation / un-American. I don't fall into that camp so many of NPR's claims are debatable and the fact that the only give one side a voice and push for a neoliberal agenda, makes them anti-American in my humble opinion.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, that's not the case. I'd dare say >50% of the population wants to cut Wyoming down to 0.2 senators. But how do they accomplish that? The only viable route is a constitutional amendment. For that to pass, you need 2/3s of the senate to agree AND you need 3/4s of the states to ratify. By saying "oh, well the majority can just insist on the change" ignores the fact that the current system gives the minority power…

Grant this, but at some point, there's still a lack of majority support somewhere. >50% might support cutting Wyoming down to size, but <50% support removing the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendment.

What does that matter?

Even if I granted that, the only way to change the supermajority requirement IS a constitutional amendment, requiring a supermajority.

There is no state where you can blame the government not working based on the simple majority not trying hard enough (Barring a revolution).

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#209

Is this anything more than just fear-mongering? I don't see how this is related to the Roe reversal at all. Not a single state has given any inkling of ruling/law aimed at prosecuting the receiver of the abortion, only doctors/person who performs them. Privacy is good and these issues should be evaluated, but to talk about them in the context of the recent Supreme Court decision is dishonest.

Quoted post unavailable.

Comments like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

Re: Roe's overturn is tech's privacy apocalypse

#210
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Comments like this will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

It's unfortunate that mean words can get you banned but not outright lies and misinformation.
Post reply on HN