181–190 of 240 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Manifacturing Consent" is a book written by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. They discuss the propaganda model of communication in much broader sense.
The Century of Self is a BBC documentary about Bernays and his propaganda models. It's quite good and available on yt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. Someone called it "Manufacturing consent". I think this name describes it pretty good. What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.
> What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time. Those laws are incredibly unlikely to be turned against elites and former elites, and if a situation[1] ever arose where they would be, a lack of these laws on the books would not save them. Populist uprisings are about the only things that elites are scared of, and these kinds of laws help prevent th…
I’ve also noticed that anti-gun politicians tend to have armed security teams with them.
I’m not giving up my guns until they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could be wrong but I don't remember Apple claiming it was literally impossible for them to open an iPhone. If that were true then Apple wouldn't have had to fight them at all. The government can't force you to do impossible things. Apple objected to being compelled to create the tooling to bypass an iPhone's security. That implies they can do it whenever they want, they just choose not to.
They could create a build with unlock attempts removed, making it possible to brute-force weaker unlock schemes. That's what they didn't want to do because if they created something like that they would lose a lot of customers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time. Those laws are incredibly unlikely to be turned against elites and former elites, and if a situation[1] ever arose where they would be, a lack of these laws on the books would not save them. Populist uprisings are about the only things that elites are scared of, and these kinds of laws help prevent th…
> Ever notice how, say, pro-gun politicians tend to want guns to be everywhere except near them? As a class, they aren't interested in dealing with the consequences of their policies. I’ve also noticed that anti-gun politicians tend to have armed security teams with them. I’m not giving up my guns until they do.
Unlike their counterparts, they are actually trying to solve the problem, instead of hypocritically exacerbating it.
If you're going to hold someone accountable, why not make your support of the pro-gun ones conditional on them providing you with a security team?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your point of view falls apart when crime enters the picture. Criminal law is just another form of regulation. Somehow we decided that taking cocaine is a crime. And that pedophiles are criminals. And then government tries to ensure compliance with criminal law. People generally agree that it is fit and proper for government to act, through education and other means, to ensure most people aren't criminals. You might…
I think the difference is criminal law seeks compliance with the laws as they are, but this manufacturing of consent seeks compliance on bills when the elecorate may well note vote in their favour otherwise. Does that make sense? In one case they do what the public has told them and in the other they're telling the public what to do. As public servants the first should be acceptable but the latter now.
If someone wants to punch you in the face just how "optimized" do you want their freedom to do so, without legal consequences, be? Aka how many "nudges" should be in place to make that harder to get away with? If you don't want to get punched, you want people to think there'd be consequences, that bystanders would tell on them, etc. All those "nudges" need to be stronger than the "snitches get stitches" and similar nudges from the other side.
Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…
Yet if you don't have any trashcans or other ways of disposing waste around, and you don't have much social pressure against it, many people will eventually leave their waste behind somewhere.
Much better to nudge them towards complying in specific with the laws that they want in general
>As we have stated in the past, there is no effective way to weaken encryption for some use cases such as law enforcement while keeping it strong for others. I've never been fully satisfied by this assertion. Apple has the ability to push whatever code it wants to whatever device it wants. They can make a version of iOS that bypasses encryption and restrict it to only run on devices identified by a warrant. They coul…
its necessary security, so you agree with this correct?
Interesting how our leaders see their role not as representing our interests, but in shaping our interests. There exists an entire subject in political science dealing with how to increase compliance with the schemes of regulators (see Nudge Theory). The mistake they make is a classic short-run vs. long-run miscalculation. In the short-run, you can get away with these kinds of tactics to increase compliance. For exam…
Most people don't like littering and pollution. So we've passed laws against it. Yet if you don't have any trashcans or other ways of disposing waste around, and you don't have much social pressure against it, many people will eventually leave their waste behind somewhere. Much better to nudge them towards complying in specific with the laws that they want in general
Here is the plan of our elected representatives: - Erode what resistance to total surveillance remains. - Practice total surveillance. Here is my plan to oppose that plan: - Rekindle Orwell's 1984 as a full literary/movie/video-game genre, where awful things happen to people when the government or an associated non-knocking variant of the Spanish Inquisition shows up because somebody committed wrong-think. I'm a litt…
Culture eats strategy for breakfast, and mass culture of movies and video games is really the most effective way to teach the broader audience about these issues. Black mirror did a great job with some episoses, and also handmaid's tale has had a big impact in thinking about women's rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people don't like littering and pollution. So we've passed laws against it. Yet if you don't have any trashcans or other ways of disposing waste around, and you don't have much social pressure against it, many people will eventually leave their waste behind somewhere. Much better to nudge them towards complying in specific with the laws that they want in general
That's not even nudging, that's just providing a necessary option. There is no coercion between "I want to throw something away" and "There's a trash can on the curb".
but here's a much more explicit nudge example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Mess_with_Texas