171–180 of 425 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny that you are so confident this is a popular opinion and yet still feel the need to create a throwaway account to voice that opinion.
That I'm commenting on a new account doesn't invalidate anything I've said. This is a weak and irrelevant criticism.
This is especially important in the age of LLM's. Large scale surveillance while abusive and harmful has historically been limited in scale by the ability of those in control to trawl through data. Automated "moderation" of dragnet communications collection with modern AI holds the potential for a scale of abusive privacy invasion at unprecedented scales.
Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…
Suggested alternative: The "End Political Corruption Proposal" "Given that political corruption is rife in European countries, with great detriments to the healthy function of government, all politicians in positions where they may be engaging in corrupt behavior must submit to 24-7 audio and video surveillance, which will be piped over public platforms for crowdsourcing of corruption detection. All personal communic…
This is whataboutism and derails the conversation. These two things are unrelated.
2. The corruption of EU politicians is a major concern. If they think so little of privacy that they are willing to vote for laws like this, then they should certainly have to defend why they get any privacy at all. Corruption in government is one of the most damaging things happening in our society, and total surveillance would make it easier to detect & prove when they are lying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
…? No? It indicates that the anti-discrimination law permits you to discriminate, so long as you have a good reason for it. I'll add: the current fuss about "protecting women's spaces" is pointless, because the right they're arguing for already exists , and the people running shelters by-and-large aren't invoking it . If they want domestic violence shelters to refuse service to trans people (who are, btw, more often…
> I'll add: the current fuss about "protecting women's spaces" is pointless > rather than just appealing to hypothetical situations These aren't hypothetical situations. In some jurisdictions, prisoners are housed based on their self-declared "gender identity". So men who declare themselves as women are being incarcerated in the female prison estate. Women inmates have been raped, sexually assaulted, and even impregn…
It would be very interesting to see the actual official statistics on this, alongside the data on the number of women prisoners raped and impregnated by male guards.
My suspicion is that the former numbers are over exagerated in importance and the later numbers are sharply underr reported .. but I'd still be interested in your best link to back up your claim and put it in context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really dumb thing to say and it really undermines the power of every day people to have a say in how our world is run. The Government is our voice and our strength, and we are going to need that voice heard and our will exercised in the coming years. We need to stop undermining our governments, we need to get money out of politics, and we need to sort out our democracies.
How can you possibly be this naive? In reality it's always Michel's Iron law of Oligarchy. It doesn't matter what political system you think you have. In the end what you have is always an oligarchy.
There are bad actors and corruption in every political system. But different systems and different implementations of them have different levels of these.
I would say most governments do an OK job (compared to say 1000 years ago, or compared to what any bloody revolution could do within 10 years), given how difficult the task is of governing a lot of people with vastly different interests and opinions. There is also still a lot of room for improvement. If you don't like the way your government works, try to improve it. Be part of it. Saying everything is corrupt no matter what is completely useless. I also doubt it makes you feel better overall, at least any longer than the moment you take to write such a comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public position = gate to corruption, license and regulation = gate to corruption. Do not expect the ones who make the laws to make them against themselves. That is idealist thinking. If history teqches something is that the more of those, the more corruption and handing of favors and "legal corruption" pops up. It is not by chance. It is just bc of how incentives are aligned. Those incentives, IMHO, can only be dest…
problem is deregulation and privatisation doesn't work either, because then instead of corrupt politicians who make decisions based on greed despite being told not to, you get CEOs and big corporations who make decisions based on profit (essentially greed) because that is their entire purpose
Corporations are greedy, but they operate in a world where it is hard for them to enrich themselves without enriching others too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm totally fine with raising their paychecks by a factor of 10 for their loss of privacy if we implement this... the amount of money we'd save elswhere dur to less corruption would be a few orders of magnitude higher.
We've already had some experiments about "what if we select politicians based on their love for being on TV and their lack of concern about concealing their corruption" and the results aren't good...