461–470 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users flagged your comment. I didn't touch it.
Perhaps I've misunderstood what "flagged" means, then. I've always understood that as an indicator for a comment that you or another moderator found objectional, especially since flagged posts usually get hidden from further viewing. Learn something new everyday, as they say.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's not a meme, it's an actual social cycle
It's a meme. It comes from 9GAG. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hard-times-create-strong-men Those Who Remain: A Postapocalyptic Novel is not an academic work of sociology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminder that the same applies to use of crypto. Just because it's use for some illegal activity (it's actually less % than fiat), doesn't mean it should be made illegal as I've seen some comments here advocating for in the past.
If you mean cryptocurrency, then that's wrong, because its primary purpose is to facilitate illegal activity, or grifting. It isn't even good as money, and I still can't buy groceries with Bitcoin, which is like... one of the things money needs to do (buy food).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I cannot imagine a more patriotic group of people - genuinely people who dedicate their whole lives to the betterment of the nation. The actual history of the FBI (whether the near universal perjury in fiber “analysis” cases, the repeated use of provocateurs to discredit protest, especially civil rights, movements — up through the last few years — etc.) tells of a very different culture.
Still makes sense in a way. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as it goes. Though it certainly seems some influential people had (and have) more selfish intentions with their influence. It would be truly epic incompetence otherwise.
A reminder that "you have nothing to hide" argument is a fallacy because people abuse their power: Some first hits as reminders of places where their powers are abused [1]: "NSA staff used spy tools on spouses, ex-lovers: watchdog" https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-surveillance-watchdog... [2]: https://reason.com/2022/07/26/police-can-access-your-ring-ca... [3]: https://reason.com/2021/04/26/warrantless-border-s…
Also because we have a lot to hide that we should be able to. Our intimate pictures with our partners, our chats with friends (and gossip), our business plans, our in-progress work and ideas, yet to be filled patents, password and account credentials, and lots more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also think a decent strategy is to start asking for all sorts of specific private information, like their social security number, bank account numbers, and passwords. Ask them to make a copy of their keys so you can enter their house any time you want and watch what they're doing, go through their things, etc. Tell them that you want to put up cameras in their bedroom and bathroom that stream to the internet 24/7.…
If you are asking what a reasonable person of the public thinks about digital privacy, that ship has already sailed. We have people installing and handing out their data to third parties in the form of: * Cameras on their front doors (Ring doorbells, etc.) * Mics all around their house (Alexa's and other digital assistants) * 3D accurate maps out the entirety of your house's floor plan (Roomba's etc.) * Digital door…
Those who are burnt by this trust, tend to change their mind quickly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"IT PROTECTS THE CHILDREN!" they'll scream, while using it to take more power away from society and concentrate it into their own hands. Surveillance isn't some harmless thing, because you can tell a million lies with a drop of the truth in them for any reason you want. Imagine you get established in life and decide to run for local politics only to have the fact that you've gone to Vegas 4 times in your life somehow…
> "IT PROTECTS THE CHILDREN!" they'll scream, while using it to take more power away from society and concentrate it into their own hands. I don't think you're wrong in predicting this, and I actually think you're proven correct by precedent already. The answer to this is many and varied, but one core concept that should always be kept in mind is, much like "with great power comes great responsibility": With great cl…
Regular people (aka "voters") don't have the power to demand anything. They're driven around like cattle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that definition I would say secrecy is also necessary for an open society. For example my bank password is something I don’t want anyone to know.
In practice your bank password is indeed a secret, and that's a bad thing, because that above definition is wrong, which is why I prefer to think about the U2 lyric (from "The Fly"): "They say a Secret is something you tell one other person, so I'm telling you, child". The bank knows your password. Which means they (or more precisely their agents, employees, etc.) can lose it yet they'll probably try to blame you. It…
Normally banks can't and shouldn't know the password in most jurisdictions. It does pass to their server, but they're supposed to only store a hash of it, so not be able to know what it is.
But if anybody makes this BS argument, just ask them for the credit card number and the 3 digits on the back of the card, telling them you will post it online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best analogy for this I've seen is this: it's no secret that everybody poops. But that doesn't mean everyone likes having other people watch while they do it (privacy).
I've tried using this in an argument and gotten a response along the lines of "I don't mind if people watch me poop."